Hendrickson's Hero: financial & health status not good

[Burnaby49]

"I transact in bitcoin, gold, lawful money, and silver (BrandyBuck can vouch for that)."

Is this the same BrandyBuck who used to post here until he left in a snit over a religious affront (criticism of the Godhead Ron Paul)? If so what is he doing at Lost Horizon? I thought he was just a run of the mill libertarian, not a Hendricksion-Libertarian.

[The Observer]

No, that is not BrandyBuck. The author is Harvester aka Harvey.

Harvester once paid BrandyBuck in a silver or gold coin based on a bet, I think, related to Pete's conviction.

[Gregg]

I'm positive that the Credit River Decision is about as valid as Sov'run license plates. Am I wrong in remembering it as a decision rendered by a Justice of the Peace and it's blatant idiocy in fact resulted in a state doing away with JPs?

I don't for a minute believe him, but on the outside chance he's not lying, we'll soon be able to find out village idiots real identity by scanning the McHenry papers for legal filings of foreclosures.

[Thule]

I'm positive that the Credit River Decision is about as valid as Sov'run license plates.

Spelling error, he meant the Credit River Delusion.

[The Observer]

I'm positive that the Credit River Decision is about as valid as Sov'run license plates. Am I wrong in remembering it as a decision rendered by a Justice of the Peace and it's blatant idiocy in fact resulted in a state doing away with JPs?

TPs will try to end run the court system if they get half a chance. Here's Irwin Schiff's story about how he almost destroyed the IRS single-handedly over a levy that he convinced a mark to file in small claims court. I think the "judge" in this case was an administrative judge and one not too well trained in understanding the law. He never even bothered to check that the IRC sections that Irwin had provided were out of date.

[Famspear]

I'm positive that the Credit River Decision is about as valid as Sov'run license plates. Am I wrong in remembering it as a decision rendered by a Justice of the Peace and it's blatant idiocy in fact resulted in a state doing away with JPs?

I don't for a minute believe him, but on the outside chance he's not lying, we'll soon be able to find out village idiots real identity by scanning the McHenry papers for legal filings of foreclosures.

Yeah, the Credit River case was a case (First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly) where a justice of the peace in Minnesota, in collusion with a tax protesting attorney by the name of Jerome Daly, issued a "ruling" over a matter about which the justice of the peace had no subject matter jurisdiction.

See the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nati ... erome_Daly

See also:

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/creditriver.html

and

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/Credi ... River.html

The doofus justice of the peace even tried to prevent the bank from appealing his decision.

Typical "Hendrickson's Heroes" mentality: cite, as your authority, a case in which your "legal" proposition was ultimately defeated.

[notorial dissent]

Credit River, actually one of the few cases in the Sovrun pantheon of magic words where the incantation of "jurisdiction" actually has some validity, just not in the way they want.

The JP in question did NOT have the jurisdiction or authority to make the ruling he did, and as that state's Supreme Court pointed out rather loudly and pointedly later, was void from start to finish. Mahoney was on the road to being tossed out on his drunken ass when he had the good sense to just die, saving the state further expense and embarrassment on the matter.

[Famspear]

I have beaten it - 5 years running. thanks to Pete and David Merrill..... I'm bringing it all down. My loans (of FR credit) are all non-performing, stopped paying the mortgage because it's fraudulent (see the Credit River decision).....

As I recall, the crux of the argument proposed by many of these scammers regarding bank loans is that they somehow don't have to pay their bank loans, because the loans don't involve "real" money -- just as these same scammers argue that Federal Reserve notes aren't "real" money.

Part of me just can't wait to see the bank foreclose on this 'Dooster's home (assuming he isn't lying about the whole thing, and that he really has the wherewithal to even own a home or owe the bank on a home loan). At that time, the bank could say: "Hey, Wackadooster, since the money we loaned you wasn't 'real' money, the bank debt you owe us must not be 'real', and your home must not be a 'real' home, either. So, you won't mind if we just take that 'unreal' home away from you for failure to pay your 'unreal' bank debt."



Another part of me, however, wishes that this doofus (and others like him) would wise up and get some psychiatric help or something but, unfortunately, it's unlikely that will ever happen.

[Burnaby49]

As I recall, the crux of the argument proposed by many of these scammers regarding bank loans is that they somehow don't have to pay their bank loans, because the loans don't involve "real" money -- just as these same scammers argue that Federal Reserve notes aren't "real" money.

Wasn't the argument that when the bank lends you money, an asset to you, they get your note back which they record as an asset on their balance sheet so there is a completed transaction because assets of equal value had been swapped? The idea was the actual issuance of a note or contract to the bank was, in itself, payment for the loan so there was no need to repay the cash.

Or maybe I'm confusing a different don't-have-to-pay-the-bank-back argument with the one in this thread.

[Famspear]

Wasn't the argument that when the bank lends you money, an asset to you, they get your note back which they record as an asset on their balance sheet so there is a completed transaction because assets of equal value had been swapped? The idea was the actual issuance of a note or contract to the bank was, in itself, payment for the loan so there was no need to repay the cash.

Or maybe I'm confusing a different don't-have-to-pay-the-bank-back argument with the one in this thread.

I don't recall for sure -- with these wackos, there could have been multiple versions of the argument.

I have the sense that some of it comes from the shock that these paranoid people experience when they discover the "secret" behind the concept of fractional reserve banking. It's not a "secret" in the sense that someone with nefarious intentions "knows" something and is trying to "hide" the "truth" of that something from everyone -- but the wackos take it that way, anyway.

When a bank makes a $100,000 loan to me, there are several ways the bank can make the loan. The bank could literally count out $100,000 in Federal Reserve notes from its vault, and physically give them to me. In such case, the bank would debit an asset on its books (called "loans receivable" or something similar to that) and credit an asset on its books (called "currency on hand" or something like that). Note to our non-accountant readers: A debit to an asset account is an increase in that asset; a credit to an asset account is a decrease in that asset.

Or, what is more likely to happen: Instead of giving me Federal Reserve notes, the bank could credit my checking account. In this case, the bank would debit the asset on its books (called "loans receivable") and credit a demand deposit liability on its books (called "Famspear's checking account" or something like that). My checking account is an asset for me, but for the bank it's a liability that the bank owes to me. In this situation, the bank has increased its assets by $100,000 and has increased its liabilities by $100,000 -- all without doling out any Federal Reserve notes or coins at all. THIS IS WHAT DRIVES THE WACKOS NUTS. They cannot seem to get their teeny, diseased, paranoia-wracked brains around the concept that the money supply (in the American economy as a whole) has actually increased by $100,000 through the magic of the stroke of a pen (or, rather, the magic of a computer entry on the books of the bank),without any "gold" or "silver" -- or, for that matter, currency -- having been transferred to anyone.

There's nothing really "secret" about this process; any accredited college or university with a degree program in economics will have a course (called "Money and Banking" or something like that) where the fundamentals of banking are (or should be) taught.

In the minds of the wackos, the only "real" money is gold or silver. Some of them maayyyyy concede that Federal Reserve notes and coins are "real" money. But they just can't handle the concept that a checking account is money.

A checking account does NOT represent your share of the physical currency and coin in the vault of the bank. The physical currency and coin the vault belongs to the bank, not to you. A checking account represents a liability that the bank owes to you. That's the legal form of the account, that's the economic substance of the account, and that's how it is shown on the bank's books and on the tax returns and audited financial statements of the bank.

[Famspear]

Adapted from something I wrote recently, at another web site:

.....the term "deposit" as used in fractional reserve banking can be confusing, because it has more than one meaning.

A bank customer may make a "deposit" of, say $100 in U.S. currency with respect to the customer's checking account at a U.S. bank. The customer may think of the actual, physical currency, the paper money, as the "deposit."

However, once that deposit is made, that $100 in currency no longer belongs to the customer. In property law, we would say that the deposit is not a bailment. Instead, the bank owns the $100 in currency, and the customer owns an asset called a demand deposit account. On the books of the bank, the demand deposit account balance at any given moment is a liability, not an asset of the bank. In double entry accounting terms, the bank makes a debit to an asset account (called "currency on hand" or some such thing) and the bank makes a credit to a liability account (called "deposits", or something like that).

On the right side of the bank's balance sheet (also known as the statement of financial position, etc., etc.), the total of "deposits" as of a given date is the total ''liability'' that the bank owes to its depositors, not the money the depositors "deposited."

By contrast, the money the depositors deposited -- that is, the money held by the bank as of that date -- is shown on the left side of the balance sheet, as an asset of the bank. The bank, not the customer, owns the money.

The terms "deposit" (as a noun and a verb) and "withdrawal" (as a noun) and "to withdraw" (as a verb) as used in banking can be somewhat misleading. The verb "to deposit" (in the sense of "to put money in the bank") really means to make a loan to the bank. The bank is borrowing from the customer. In this particular kind of borrowing, the ownership of the money itself is actually transferred from the customer to the bank. The verb "to withdraw" means to have the bank satisfy (pay off) that loan. Part of the key to understanding all this is understanding that these terms have multiple meanings.

Another part of the key is understanding some of the basics of double entry accounting -- the same double entry accounting used by businesses and other organizations and individuals all over the world. Every time a bank customer makes a "deposit," there are at least two accounts on the bank's books that are affected -- an asset account (on the left side of the balance sheet) and a liability account (on the right side).

This basic stuff ought to be taught in high school.

[Famspear]

Simpler explanation - they are just greedy little piggies that want something for nothing and are throwing a temper tantrum right to jail and/or homelessness.

Speaking of temper tantrums, Prevaricatin' Pete Hendrickson is upset about the deterioration among his followers. In recent posts by Pete at his losthorizons/Cracking the Code tax scam web site, he spouts more nonsense about a "victory" -- and then he addresses his followers directly:

So, what did you do after being told about this particularly remarkable victory, the likes of which no one has never seen before? What did you do after being told about this particularly remarkable evidence of a liberating transformation that is struggling to take hold in America, needing only your attention to shower its benefits on you and your children?

As near as I can tell, most of you did... nothing! You didn't even go LOOK at this.

I don't have an exact number of page views on that episode because the stats provided by my domain host aren't very reliable. But the numbers I do get plus indications from the volume of comments after posting make clear that visits to take in this remarkable posting were scant. This means few of you bothered to look, and fewer still directed anyone else's attention to this major teaching opportunity.

What's going on?! I hate to speak like this, but, ARE YOU CRAZY??

[ ... ]

Now, now, Pete. You need to re-establish your grip. Pete continues:

We all have to re-establish our grip [ . . . ]

If you DON'T pay attention; if you let yourself be distracted [ . . . ] or let yourself be discouraged or frightened by extraordinary efforts to turn your eyes away from these revelations, such as the assault on me, it will be a real tragedy.

[ . . . ]

I am sad, therefore, to have to say that unless you all resume sending me those victories I will be obliged to stop posting them for the world to see-- simply for lack of material to work with! I hope that this will not happen. I hope that you will not allow the law-defiers to succeed in their corrupt effort to make this beacon "go dark" by having made me unavailable for a couple of years, or by frightening you into silence with what has been done to me.

The fact is, since I have returned to this desk, only a sparse handful of victories have been shared. So few, I'm afraid, that it will only be a matter of a few weeks-- if that-- before all those in the queue are posted. When that happens, this oh-so important offering of this site that I know has meant a great deal to each of you over all these years grinds to a halt. What a shame that would be!

[ . . . ]

Oh, boo-hoo!

[notorial dissent]

I think grip, as in losing, or the loss thereof is pretty much the watch word for Prattlin' Pete at the moment. Just what great victory was it that the pitiful minions didn't take proper notice of? I wasn't aware of anything happening at all recently, other than the usual collection of them falling to IRS audits and the like?

[Thule]

Just what great victory was it that the pitiful minions didn't take proper notice of?

He managed to create a Facebook page.

[Famspear]

Just what great victory was it that the pitiful minions didn't take proper notice of?

He managed to create a Facebook page.

Pete The Preposterous Prevaricator provided another pathetic presentation to explain another "victory" by one of his followers -- yet another example where one of his fellow scammers fraudulently induced the Internal Revenue Service to issue erroneous tax refunds, using the fraudulent "private-sector payment" argument.

An excerpt from Pete's preposterous post:

The business owners explained to the IRS in black and white, on forms provided for correcting prior incorrect "withholding" deposit forms, that: "Amounts entered as "Wages" were not "Wages" as defined in 26 USC. These compensations were PRIVATE-sector payments to hired workers. The hired unprivileged workers were not "Employees" as defined in 26 USC. H&M is a PRIVATE-sector company, incorporated in the union State of New Jersey and has no connection with federally-privileged activities. Therefore, it is not liable for payments of any Federal Income Tax, nor is it competent for H&M Analytical Services, Inc. to withhold from its workers any Social Security, Medicare, or Federal Withholding taxes."

Real smart, Pete! You mention the name of the employer and the "union State" in which the employer is located. With those details, you might well be helping the IRS in an effort to identify the recipient of the fraudulent tax refund.

This is yet another example of Pete's diseased mind at work:

Every time one of my minions obtains a fraudulent refund, it proves I'm right about what the tax law says. But the fact that my scheme always loses in court doesn't worry me. The judges are corrupt. And every time I (or one of my minions) is sent to prison or is hit with civil penalties, it just proves that the government is corruptly trying to suppress the Liberating, Fascinating Truth that I bring. Oh, why or why can't everyone recognize My Historic, Haughty Greatness?

Pete admits that his family is in "dire straits" financially, but nothin' is gonna stop the Feckless, Fabulous Felon from foisting his folderol on both Family and Foolish Followers.

[Gregg]

As I recall, the crux of the argument proposed by many of these scammers regarding bank loans is that they somehow don't have to pay their bank loans, because the loans don't involve "real" money -- just as these same scammers argue that Federal Reserve notes aren't "real" money.

Wasn't the argument that when the bank lends you money, an asset to you, they get your note back which they record as an asset on their balance sheet so there is a completed transaction because assets of equal value had been swapped? The idea was the actual issuance of a note or contract to the bank was, in itself, payment for the loan so there was no need to repay the cash.

Or maybe I'm confusing a different don't-have-to-pay-the-bank-back argument with the one in this thread.

The bank gets a credit assets for your note, and a debit to cash, for the payment they sent to the seller.

You get a credit to "house" and a debit to "cash" with some offsets to accounts payable (mortgage) stuff I'm not gonna explain here because most of you know it and the ones who don't I'm wasting my time. The gist of it is they don't understand that in accounting EVERY transaction ends up a zero balance.

[Gregg]

So the great victory is a company wenth full retard and stopped withholding....I kinda remember that companies get away for that for a bit sometimes, but when you get caught, they don't have a lot in the way of mercy. I only hope the employees are smart enough to set some aside, oh, and look for a new job.

[Burnaby49]

As I recall, the crux of the argument proposed by many of these scammers regarding bank loans is that they somehow don't have to pay their bank loans, because the loans don't involve "real" money -- just as these same scammers argue that Federal Reserve notes aren't "real" money.

Wasn't the argument that when the bank lends you money, an asset to you, they get your note back which they record as an asset on their balance sheet so there is a completed transaction because assets of equal value had been swapped? The idea was the actual issuance of a note or contract to the bank was, in itself, payment for the loan so there was no need to repay the cash.

Or maybe I'm confusing a different don't-have-to-pay-the-bank-back argument with the one in this thread.

The bank gets a credit assets for your note, and a debit to cash, for the payment they sent to the seller.

You get a credit to "house" and a debit to "cash" with some offsets to accounts payable (mortgage) stuff I'm not gonna explain here because most of you know it and the ones who don't I'm wasting my time. The gist of it is they don't understand that in accounting EVERY transaction ends up a zero balance.

Gregg please, you're thinking ploddingly linear, no doubt a byproduct of your bang on the head. If you're a sovereign you don't think in such mundane constipated terms as balanced closed transactions where every debit generates a credit. That's just The Man's double entry accounting scam to screw real Americans, the Men of the Land. The bank's credit to cash is irrelevant to the equation. The bank got a sovereign's note, better than unconstitutional cash any day, so the debt is paid off.

[ashlynne39]

This is yet another example of Pete's diseased mind at work:

Every time one of my minions obtains a fraudulent refund, it proves I'm right about what the tax law says. But the fact that my scheme always loses in court doesn't worry me. The judges are corrupt. And every time I (or one of my minions) is sent to prison or is hit with civil penalties, it just proves that the government is corruptly trying to suppress the Liberating, Fascinating Truth that I bring. Oh, why or why can't everyone recognize My Historic, Haughty Greatness?

Pete admits that his family is in "dire straits" financially, but nothin' is gonna stop the Feckless, Fabulous Felon from foisting his folderol on both Family and Foolish Followers.

Ok, so did Pete really write "My historic, haughty greatness"? Surely not. Tell me you made that up and that Pete isn't that big a moron.

[Famspear]

This is yet another example of Pete's diseased mind at work:

Every time one of my minions obtains a fraudulent refund, it proves I'm right about what the tax law says. But the fact that my scheme always loses in court doesn't worry me. The judges are corrupt. And every time I (or one of my minions) is sent to prison or is hit with civil penalties, it just proves that the government is corruptly trying to suppress the Liberating, Fascinating Truth that I bring. Oh, why or why can't everyone recognize My Historic, Haughty Greatness?

Pete admits that his family is in "dire straits" financially, but nothin' is gonna stop the Feckless, Fabulous Felon from foisting his folderol on both Family and Foolish Followers.

Ok, so did Pete really write "My historic, haughty greatness"? Surely not. Tell me you made that up and that Pete isn't that big a moron.

Yeah, all the material in italics is a parody (of sorts) that I composed. However, I would argue that Pete is a pretty heavy duty narcissist.