Pete Hendrickson, unwitting agent provocateur?

[Quixote]

In a recent post on Codebusters, TDL, aka TranscriptsDontLie, speculates that the feds are leaving the LostHeads site up because it serves to lure the unwary into filing frivolous returns. It isn't clear why he believes Codebusters is not also a "monkey trap".

UPSHOT: auntie's "pay first -- sue later" doctrine is clearly at work here; since they know full well that 99% of us don't have the guts/funds/know-how to run THAT gauntlet, these penalty-assessments are purely a shake-down racket, a pure money-grab (fyi -- the funds go STRAIGHT into the UST's general funds). So it comes as no surprise that [controversial] venues like CtC are left standing (along with many silver-bullet, "paytriot"-type sites) to serve as lucrative monkey-traps/honey-pots for un-educated, non-liable, non-responsible-person folks. Obviously, it is much more profitable for uncle to lead unwary people into the 6702-trap than to shut down any of those so-called "promoters".

[Famspear]

Pete Hendrickson, unwitting?

Or...... how about...... Pete Hendrickson, "witless......"



wit (noun):

powers of thinking and reasoning; intellectual and perceptive powers .... mental faculties with respect to their state of balance, esp. in their normal condition of sanity..... alert, practical intelligence; good sense ....

--Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1633, World Publishing Co., Second College Ed. (1978).

[The Observer]

Or...... how about...... Pete Hendrickson, "witless......"

Might be a good opportunity for Pete to write a new book: "I Was A Witless Witness For The IRS."

[grixit]

In a recent post on Codebusters, TDL, aka TranscriptsDontLie, speculates that the feds are leaving the LostHeads site up because it serves to lure the unwary into filing frivolous returns. It isn't clear why he believes Codebusters is not also a "monkey trap".

UPSHOT: auntie's "pay first -- sue later" doctrine is clearly at work here; since they know full well that 99% of us don't have the guts/funds/know-how to run THAT gauntlet, these penalty-assessments are purely a shake-down racket, a pure money-grab (fyi -- the funds go STRAIGHT into the UST's general funds). So it comes as no surprise that [controversial] venues like CtC are left standing (along with many silver-bullet, "paytriot"-type sites) to serve as lucrative monkey-traps/honey-pots for un-educated, non-liable, non-responsible-person folks. Obviously, it is much more profitable for uncle to lead unwary people into the 6702-trap than to shut down any of those so-called "promoters".

I hope that "monkey trap" refers to the claim that you can trap a monkey by putting bait into a small hole. The monkey reaches in, grabs, then can't remove their closed hand and are too greedy to let go.

[grixit]

Or...... how about...... Pete Hendrickson, "witless......"

Might be a good opportunity for Pete to write a new book: "I Was A Witless Witness For The IRS."

Too bad he couldn't be a Protected Federal Witless.

[notorial dissent]

Or...... how about...... Pete Hendrickson, "witless......"

Might be a good opportunity for Pete to write a new book: "I Was A Witless Witness For The IRS."

I don't know about the witless witness bit, I do think he is witless, but that's a whole other discussion, but he certainly has been a big help to the enforcement group in providing a verifiable and easily collected set of law breakers, and dead bang sure source for collections and convictions, if necessary.

I almost think he should get a commendation for helping the IRS with enforcement issues except that the irony would be totally wasted on his collection of the dim and bewildered.

[Famspear]

Long-time Hendrickson follower "oldhawaiiscot" has been rebuked by the Haughty Hendrickson. Preposterous Prevaricatin' Pete, also known as "Chairman Stalin" and the "Witless Wonder", writes:

oldhawaiiscot, the purpose of this thread is for posting the replies gotten from inquiries to the IRS about the forms to use, not pointless speculations about possible alternatives to perfectly effective rebuttal instruments already used tens of thousands of times with a long and deep ongoing history of proven correctness.

Perhaps you missed the point of the article and the initiative it announced

[ . . . ]

Please confine your contributions to this thread to the announcement that you have sent the letters as indicated and then, when the time comes, the response you receive from the IRS.

Getting a little testy, are we Pete? Life is still not workin' out the way you want it to?



User oldhawaiiscot responds:

I'm sorry, I was trying to pass on information, in our continuing battle with the IRS, that has helped and is helping others. Hopefully, giving some hope on how to combat the constant barrage of frivolous penalty nonsense that is incurred when the 4852 and zeroed 1040's are submitted. So, I guess my input is upsetting. Not my intent, so looks like I shall just be a lurker and transfer my energies to other forums where positive steps are being encountered...

Bye.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 6fe#p28771

[Famspear]

This may be the earlier post by "oldhawaiiscot" that generated the rebuke:

taxpayer, in this case, is the one who filed the W-2's, 1099'2.. Not you. On the taxresponseteam forum [web site for "pablo", a former follower of Hendrickson who was banned from the losthorizons forum a while back] we have members who are filing it and the IRS is stopping actions to investigate how they are going to get around it.. Research it.. You wan to list the person who filed the W-2, their data. No need to put down how much money.. Just list the years they wrote the forms and filed to the social security admin and through them the IRS. When you fill in the bottom, put down "other" then enclose a letter saying it is fraudulently filed information. they have NO congressional authority(if they aren't the government or other entity that is not listed(alcohol, firearms, tobacco, etc) and dig up your paperwork on the fraudulently filed info returns and submit that. One for each company that filed, including all the years they did so.. Get your signature notarized that way the form becomes a legal entity(affidavit), get proof of mailing...

[Famspear]

Over at the "codebusters" web site (a sort of "refuge" for followers of Hendrickson where they can post without fear of Hendrickson's ban hammer), user "TDL" ("transcriptsdontlie") writes:

Well, from the looks of the following rebuke (directed @ oldhawaiiscot), Pete is "back in the saddle" of what appears to be a VERY high horse ...

TDL continues:

Having personally participated in a number of ill-fated "write-in" campaigns (and as the result thereof having collected my very own stash of Letters 3172 & 3175 & 3176, and blown my chances at a -- possibly successful -- exam-reconsideration/-appeal), I'm inclined to side with oldhawaiiscot and would caution PH to give folks the benefit of the doubt ... Yes, PH did (undeservedly!) spend quite some time @ ClubFed, but that's no excuse for the foregoing rebuke ... So then, oldhawaiiscot, when will we hear from you? "The water's just fine ...

But "Morgan_Edwards" is cutting Pete some slack:

Given the new forum software, I would think PH could just create another thread and move olhawaiiscot's comments, so as to keep that particular thread on topic.
At the same time, PH has all the right in the world to be crotchety and adamant since it is his forum.

http://www.codebusters.org/post1276.html#p1276

[LPC]

Please confine your contributions to this thread to the announcement that you have sent the letters as indicated and then, when the time comes, the response you receive from the IRS.

Unless the response is devastatingly adverse, in which case you should stifle yourself.

[Famspear]

Prevaricating Peter, the Fabulous Felon describes his Cracking the Code tax scam as involving the use of:

......perfectly effective rebuttal instruments already used tens of thousands of times with a long and deep ongoing history of proven correctness.

For Pete's "rebuttal instruments" to be "perfectly effective," their use would have to be effective every time -- no exceptions. If the process doesn't work every time, it's not "perfect."

On the one hand, Pete has previously admitted on his web site that his "non-method" Cracking the Code method (which of course includes the use of what he calls the "rebuttal instruments") does not work every time. That is, he has previously acknowledged that some of his followers receive tax refunds and others do not. He attributes these failures to corruption at the IRS. On the other hand, he's now saying that those same rebuttal instruments are "perfectly effective."

This is Orwellian.

[Famspear]

What is Pete doing for money? Are he and Doreen living in his son's basement? Or are he and Doreen living in a van down by the river?

I'm thinking that even under the more severe, post-BAPCPA Bankruptcy Code regime, Pete and his wife may well qualify for yet another Chapter 7 filing, further on down the road.

[Famspear]

So.................

EEEyayuh!

And livin' on a steady diet of government cheese!

[Lambkin]

This falls into the category of not "perfectly effective"

General Error
SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]

Table './phpBB3/phpbb_sessions' is marked as crashed and should be repaired [145]

An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists.

Please notify the board administrator or webmaster: phendrickson@losthorizons.com

[webhick]

For'm Crash, baby!

You know, I don't think I've ever seen a website that's had the amount of technical problems that theirs has had.

[LPC]

For'm Crash, baby!

You know, I don't think I've ever seen a website that's had the amount of technical problems that theirs has had.

It seems to be consistent with the "technical problems" that their tax returns have had.

There's (supposedly) an Amish aphorism, that a woman who isn't any good in the kitchen probably isn't any good in any other room in the house. Similarly, if you're incompetent in one area, you're probably incompetent in other areas as well, which is why the Hendrickson web pages are a model of grammar, layout, editing, legal content, and web technology.</sarcasm>

[Lambkin]

SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]

Speaking of incompetence, I only just noticed he is running MySQL 4.x, which reached end of life around 3 years ago and is completely unsupported. I hope we are doing better over here.

[Famspear]

Speaking of incompetence.....

Speaking of even more incompetence, Blowhard Hendrickson has filed a motion with the trial court to vacate his criminal conviction and have the charges dismissed.

I haven't read the entire motion, but Pete contends that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the trial jury never rendered a verdict on "one of the elements" of the crime (he was charged under 26 USC section 7206(1)) .



Earth calling Pete: Dude, I hate to be the one to break it to you but, in federal criminal tax cases, verdicts are rendered on the charge as a whole. You don't get a separately stated verdict for each element of the charge.

And -- get this -- what is the "element" that Pete is talking about? Remember what he argued at trial? Yes, Pete is still trying to argue that his being a "person" as defined in the statute is an "element" of the crime.



I'm too sleepy right now to look up the pattern jury charges up there where Pete is located, but I believe these are the elements for section 7206(1) in the Fifth Circuit down here in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi:

First: That the defendant signed an income tax return that contained a written declaration that it was made under penalties of perjury;

Second: That in this return the defendant falsely stated that _______ [state material matters asserted, e.g., the defendant received gross income of $_______ during 19__];

Third: That the defendant knew the statement was false;

Fourth: That the false statement was material; and

Fifth: That the defendant made the statement willfully, that is, with intent to violate a known legal duty.

There is nothing in there about having to prove that the person being charged is indeed a "person."

Earth calling Pete: Dude, come up with something fresh. This is boring.

Anyway, if you have absolutely nothing better to do, see his motion at docket entry 140, Dec. 26, 2012, United States v. Peter Hendrickson, case no. 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit Division).

In the motion, Preposterous Pete also contends that the IRS was required by law to prepare "contrary returns of its own" -- that is, that the government failed to produce its own versions of his federal income tax returns under section 6020(b) -- essentially another argument that has been raised by tax protesters in the past, and uniformly rejected by the courts. (Section 6020 does include the word "shall", which normally is interpreted as "must", but the courts have declined to read the word that way in section 6020.)

EDIT: Pete might be confusing the rules for what are sometimes called "special verdicts" in certain civil matters with the rules for what essentially are "general verdicts" in a federal criminal tax case. For example, in Texas civil cases, a "general verdict" is one where the jury pronounces generally in favor of one of the parties. In Texas civil cases, a "special verdict" is one where the jury finds the facts only on specific issues submitted to the jury.

In a federal criminal tax case, it's either "guilty" or "not guilty" on each charge. As far as I know, the jury doesn't render a separate verdict on each element of each charge.

[Famspear]

The last time Pete raised the "person" issue, this was the Court's response:

....Moreover, to the extent that Defendant suggests that the Government failed to meet its evidentiary burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant is a "person" within the meaning of § 7206(1), this challenge to the jury's guilty verdict rests upon the premise that the term "person" as used in the statute has a specialized meaning. The Court, however, expressly held in its October 7 ruling that the term "person" in § 7206(1) encompasses ordinary individuals. See Hendrickson, 664 F. Supp.2d at 816. As the Government points out, the jury could reasonably have inferred from the testimony at trial that this statutory element was satisfied, where Defendant himself took the stand and appeared to be an ordinary individual....

--from the District Court's OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL, April 26, 2010.

So, essentially, this motion on December 26, 2012 is now the THIRD TIME (or at least the third time) that Hendrickson has tried to raise this idiotic "person" argument with the trial court judge.

[grixit]

Def: Your Honor, before i can be convicted, the government must prove i am a "person"!

Pros: Your Honor, this is ridiculous!

Bailiff: Judge, some nameless people in dark suits just showed up. They're setting up some weird looking surgical equipment in the conference room. They've got an order from the Attorney General to take custody of this "non person".

Judge: We will adjourn until further notice.