How Do I Unconvince Myself?

[LPC]

I got an email recently from someone who had bought into Hendrickson's CtC nonsense, and was still trying to find his way out. I'm not going to republish his letter, but you can see his problems described on his blog.

However, I want to share one question he raised with me, and my answer.

His question:

here's the problem I'm asking you to help me solve: how do I convince myself that Hendrickson is mistaken in his analysis of the law, and put this misadventure behind me?

And my answer:

As to the question about how to convince yourself that Hendrickson is wrong, I have no answer, because I can't figure out how you ever convinced yourself that he is right. I mean, look at the words of the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress the power to impose taxes on incomes "from whatever source derived." How do you get from there to believing that Congress can only tax income from the exercise of "privileges"?

[Famspear]

here's the problem I'm asking you to help me solve: how do I convince myself that Hendrickson is mistaken in his analysis of the law, and put this misadventure behind me?

One way for him to begin his de-programming is to recognize that he is approaching the problem from the wrong angle. What probably happened is that he at some point convinced himself that Hendrickson was correct. He strained and pushed and shoved himself into a very tight rabbit hole, and now he is trying to figure out how to back himself out of that hole.

The "data" that he presumably used to persuade himself that Hendrickson was correct probably consisted of:

1. Hendrickson's "book", Cracking the Code;

2. Hendrickson's postings on the losthorizons web site;

3. Perhaps the discussions of other followers of Hendrickson's scam at the losthorizons web site;

4. Perhaps private emails between himself and other followers of Hendrickson;

5. Any other materials he could find on other web pages where supporters of Hendrickson espoused the scam;

6. Perhaps his own reading of primary source legal materials (statutes, court opinions, etc.).

Items one through five would generally consist almost entirely of materials that would tend to persuade him that Hendrickson was correct -- if he was already straining to reach that conclusion.

Item six would consist of materials that would tend to persuade him that Hendrickson was incorrect -- except that I suspect that he, like almost anyone else who gravitates to someone like Hendrickson, was really looking for data that would support his pre-conceived notion that somehow, some sort of way, there must be a pony in there somewhere (to use the words of another Quatloos regular) -- a pony in the form a legal excuse or legal rationale for not owing federal income tax. It is highly likely that he approached his "analysis" of Hendrickson with the motivation for accepting only those bits of data that he felt would support his search for the pony, and for rejecting all those bits of data that he felt would block him from getting the pony. We're talking about a serious problem with what is called confirmation bias.

His approach to solving his problem should involve something that is very difficult for each of us to do -- really seriously questioning the very basic assumptions that we have made about things.

When Hendrickson's followers "study" the federal income tax law, they aren't really studying it in the way a psychologically normal person would study law (or any other subject). People who become deeply involved with a "tax guru" like Hendrickson, or Irwin Schiff, or Bill Benson, have already made up their minds about where they want to be. They have created a mental target, and they are searching for a road that will (in their minds) help them to reach that target.

[Harvester]

Hendrickson is correct. My experience provides evidence of that as I haven't paid income taxes since 2007 with no ill effects. I should perhaps restate that, Hendrickson is correct as far as he goes. The income tax is an excise on federal privilege. And the tax code (never enacted as positive law) is largely smoke & mirrors. The final piece of the scam, the piece that escapes most everyone, is the dual nature of our currency - public money (lawful money) vs. private credit (Federal Reserve). Fed Reserve credit/notes carry the liability and USTreasury carries first lien on everything purchased with them.

Should I put all my experience & evidence into a big file?

PS. Thank you dual deceivers LPC & Famspear for validating the truth. Your obsessions with Hendrickson & David Merrill has led me to the true freedom they reveal!

[Famspear]

Hendrickson is correct.

No.

My experience provides evidence of that as I haven't paid income taxes since 2007 with no ill effects.

No.

I should perhaps restate that, Hendrickson is correct as far as he goes. The income tax is an excise on federal privilege.

No.

And the tax code (never enacted as positive law is largely smoke & mirrors.

Wrong. The tax Code, the Internal Revenue Code, was enacted as positive law. We've already been through this a million times.

And it's not smoke and mirrors. It's just that you have to be smart to understand it. I am smart. You are not.

The final piece of the scam, the piece that escapes most everyone, is the dual nature of our currency - public money (lawful money) vs. private credit (Federal Reserve).

No. You are the scammer.

Fed Reserve credit/notes carry the liability and USTreasury carries first lien on everything purchased with them.

No. That is blatant nonsense.



The nice thing about responding to an idiotic scammer is that since he doesn't even attempt to prove his right, you have no obligation to provide much of a response beyond "no."

Should I put all my experience & evidence into a big file?

All your "evidence" would fit nicely into one of your brain cells -- which, by the way, are very small.

PS. Thank you dual deceivers LPC & Famspear for validating the truth. Your obsessions with Hendrickson & David Merrill has led me to the true freedom they reveal!

Uh, huh. Yeah. Right.

[notorial dissent]

His question:

here's the problem I'm asking you to help me solve: how do I convince myself that Hendrickson is mistaken in his analysis of the law, and put this misadventure behind me?

My question would be to ask him what it was of Hendrickson's BS that convinced him that Hendrickson knew what he was talking about, and then for him to go back and look at that from the knowledge that it was and is BS, and see if that helps. I'd personally like to know what it was that convinced him and why, just to try and get a handle on the psychopathology of it.

[nikki2]

I got an email recently from someone who had bought into Hendrickson's CtC nonsense, and was still trying to find his way out.

However, I want to share one question he raised with me, and my answer.

His question:

here's the problem I'm asking you to help me solve: how do I convince myself that Hendrickson is mistaken in his analysis of the law, and put this misadventure behind me?

Perhaps you could suggest that he consider that, despite his incisive analyis of the tax law, Pete is in federal prison specifically because he acted on his inane theories?

[Pottapaug1938]

Hendrickson is correct. My experience provides evidence of that as I haven't paid income taxes since 2007 with no ill effects. I should perhaps restate that, Hendrickson is correct as far as he goes. The income tax is an excise on federal privilege. And the tax code (never enacted as positive law) is largely smoke & mirrors. The final piece of the scam, the piece that escapes most everyone, is the dual nature of our currency - public money (lawful money) vs. private credit (Federal Reserve). Fed Reserve credit/notes carry the liability and USTreasury carries first lien on everything purchased with them.

Should I put all my experience & evidence into a big file?

Yeah -- a big round one, the contents of which men in trucks collect every week if you're lucky, or have to take someplace every week if you're not. You could also "go green" and recycle everything. At any rate, these two options are the only way to get anything worthwhile accomplished with your "experience and evidence."

[JamesVincent]

His question:

here's the problem I'm asking you to help me solve: how do I convince myself that Hendrickson is mistaken in his analysis of the law, and put this misadventure behind me?

My question would be to ask him what it was of Hendrickson's BS that convinced him that Hendrickson knew what he was talking about, and then for him to go back and look at that from the knowledge that it was and is BS, and see if that helps. I'd personally like to know what it was that convinced him and why, just to try and get a handle on the psychopathology of it.

Not only that, go through and figure out the exact sections that seemed to make sense to him and call the IRS helpline and ask them to explain it. Or come on here and post, either way Im sure hed get a definitive answer to his questions.

[JamesVincent]

Hendrickson is correct. My experience provides evidence of that as I haven't paid income taxes since 2007 with no ill effects. I should perhaps restate that, Hendrickson is correct as far as he goes. The income tax is an excise on federal privilege. And the tax code (never enacted as positive law) is largely smoke & mirrors. The final piece of the scam, the piece that escapes most everyone, is the dual nature of our currency - public money (lawful money) vs. private credit (Federal Reserve). Fed Reserve credit/notes carry the liability and USTreasury carries first lien on everything purchased with them.

Should I put all my experience & evidence into a big file?

PS. Thank you dual deceivers LPC & Famspear for validating the truth. Your obsessions with Hendrickson & David Merrill has led me to the true freedom they reveal!

Since 2007 huh. I misfiled one year and it took them about 5 years or so to see the mistake so keep on waiting and believing. It wasnt even an intentional fault, I miscalculated the self employed tax liabilty and it was only about a $300 mistake but they found it.

[nikki2]

<inane idiocy snipped>

Ignore the Hamster. He has yet to provide a single verifiable fact to support his drivel.

Pay attention to the people who can produce ahrd facts, laws, and court decisions to back up their statements.

Let the Hamster keep running in his wheel where he's not a danger to himself or others.

[Harvester]

Wrong. The tax Code, the Internal Revenue Code, was enacted as positive law.

I see you're being a stickler. Very well then, and with the evidence doubled this time, Title 26 has never been enacted as positive law.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html

OK Pottie, so you'd like to see the file. There's the question of what to label it, but I guess we can deal with that later.

[Kestrel]

Forget it. This guy is only looking at IRS issues in the daylight because he's under duress.

Support (in my battle with the IRS) from my family? My friends? My wife? No, No, and No. (She still loves me, but she can't take the physical and mental stress any more.)

So, I must choose between supporting the physical and mental health of my wife, and standing firm on my principles.

I must choose, as my father's son and namesake, as the only brother to three wonderful sisters, and as a loving and loyal husband, to choose my wife's welfare over what I still believe to be (in all other respects) the right choice.

Unless some kind of miracle happens, this is how this story ends.

Pete Hendrickson is still in federal prison, and I can't help my wife if I join him there.

This next bit tells us what we need to know: He's still got one foot firmly planted in the rabbit hole. If his wife leaves him or dies he's going to dive right back down that hole. Just hope that his wife recognizes it in time.

As to the other battle I have joined (the one against Bank of America et al), there may still be hope. More Americans every day are waking up to the global crimes of the Banksters, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve, the corrupt and kept duopoly that passes for our political system, and the global corporate media monopoly. Only if the people are willing to open their eyes to the truth (and not pretend that the corporate lies they wade through daily are not an open sewer) will our nation, and our planet, survive.

[Pottapaug1938]

Wrong. The tax Code, the Internal Revenue Code, was enacted as positive law.

I see you're being a stickler. Very well then, and with the evidence doubled this time, Title 26 has never been enacted as positive law.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html

OK Pottie, so you'd like to see the file. There's the question of what to label it, but I guess we can deal with that later.

No thank you -- I don't care to see your file. If it's the same collection of bovine effluent that you and your hero, the guy from Colorado, have been using to clog up space on these threads, I've seen all I want to see of it. Seeing it once again won't make any of it any more true, or any less worthless, than it's already proven to be.

As for the bit about Title 26 not being enacted into positive law -- if you check back through the last few days' posts, you'll see the explanation. I don't recall the details; but the bottom line is that what's in Title 26 is the law. Whether it was enacted into positive law in its own right or is based on something else that was so enacted, I don't particularly care. It correctly states what the law is; and that's all I need to know.

Have you ever read the story of the Sword of Damocles? You ought to check it out sometime. Check it out carefully, because eventually that hair will snap, and all of your "hard and shiny" will be seized by the govermnent from which you so proudly leech services. Good luck, Harv -- you'll need it.

With that, I think I'll put you on my "no comment" list. You're no more susceptible to the facts than is that clown out in Colorado; and your posts need refutation from no one to fall of their own weight. Anyone who believes what you say deserves what they get.

[Harvester]

Not gonna happen <insult referring to the last poster removed>, my "hard & shiny" was purchased with lawful money. Not to mention that govt can't seize what it can't find.

[Arthur Rubin]

Not gonna happen <insult referring to the last poster removed>, my "hard & shiny" was purchased with lawful money. Not to mention that govt can't seize what it can't find.

That last sentence is true, in a sense. But the government is good at finding things. webhick and demo are also good at finding things....

[Prof]

Not gonna happen <insult referring to the last poster removed>, my "hard & shiny" was purchased with lawful money. Not to mention that govt can't seize what it can't find.

That last sentence is true, in a sense. But the government is good at finding things. webhick and demo are also good at finding things....

And, if the IRS determines to go after H, its lien has already attached under the positivie law of the IRC. Therefore, when H pulls out his gold, and he has to at some point in order to use it, the IRS may just be there to seize it, subject to the statutory lien created by the IRC.

Of course, H may just wish to visit his gold, and hold it, and stroke it. Worked out pretty well for King Midas.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Not gonna happen <insult referring to the last poster removed>, my "hard & shiny" was purchased with lawful money. Not to mention that govt can't seize what it can't find.

How many years extra in Fed prison v giving it up, will be what you will be negotiating about when it comes to plea bargaining.

What if someone else finds it? Not easy to insure that sort of thing.

I wrote this nearly a year ago, it sums up you and many other "sovereign" "tax protester" idiots:

This seems akin to sailing up to a destroyer in a dingy, firing a BB gun at the hull then claiming victory in the naval battle. (You can see where the Baghdad Bob approach comes in now, can’t you?)

Let us know if you are still winning in, say 5 years, time because "it isn't over 'til the fat lady sings".

[Judge Roy Bean]

My advice to the original questioner:

The truth is rarely pure and never simple. (Oscar Wilde.)

Learn when to admit you're wrong and move on.

[LPC]

Perhaps you could suggest that he consider that, despite his incisive analyis of the tax law, Pete is in federal prison specifically because he acted on his inane theories?

He is aware that Hendrickson is in prison, but misunderstands why. He thinks that Hendrickson is in prison for failing to file the corrected tax returns he was ordered to file.

I've explained to him that Hendrickson is in prison because 12 jurors unanimously agreed that the government had proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Hendrickson had filed false tax returns, and that Hendrickson KNEW that they were false when he filed them.

Incidentally, have any of Hendrickson's heroes ever realized, or reconciled, the inherent and irreconcilable conflict between (a) Hendrickson's claim that the returns he filed were truthful and correct, and (b) the jury's conclusion that the returns were false and Hendrickson knew they were false? It's all very well to say that the jury should have been able to see the law, blah, blah, blah, but how do the crackheads rationalize the fact that the jury concluded that Hendrickson himself *knew* that his returns were false?

[nikki2]

He is aware that Hendrickson is in prison, but misunderstands why. He thinks that Hendrickson is in prison for failing to file the corrected tax returns he was ordered to file.

Irrelevant.

The guru is in prison for some reason related to income tax filings.
The seeker wants to know if following the guru's advice is a good idea or not.
The seeker should reflect on the possibility that the same or similar circumstances might befall him, thereby generating a multi-year stay in a low-ameneties federal hotel.

Finally, the seeker should review his knowledge of the various laws and consider it he has sufficient expertise to structure things to his benefit.