Prevaricatin' Pete Pushes for Political Pressure on Judges

[Famspear]

Preposterous Prevaricatin' Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson is trying to garner new Fools into his Fold of Hapless Heroes, with the hope that they will place political pressure on judges (and others):

O, my dear and good friends! Am I missing something?

I post material like [links redacted] that will make unmistakably clear to any reader that AS WRITTEN, the law doesn't apply the income tax to his or her non-federally-connected earnings (which for most folks is all of their earnings). All that is necessary for those posts to win this long war for us all (or at least to get us a long way down the road to winning) is for you to send them to others, who will then be impelled by the most powerful and reliable motivator of all-- their own self-interest-- to become partisans on our side. (Hopefully they will also be motivated by their regard for the rule of law, but you know what? That isn't necessary.)

These newly-educated folks will become invested in the truth and in upholding the law. All will become a political pressure on every judge, every DOJ attorney, every "tax professional" and so on to get it right going forward. Each of them will become more attuned to truth and lies, and be less tolerant of the latter and more inclined to help promote and support understanding of the former in others.

YOU need do nothing more than send the files to others in your address book.

And yet, I get no indication from you that you have sent these oh-so-important posted files out.

Is it possible that it somehow isn't clear to you that ALL that is necessary for the law to prevail-- that is, for us to win-- is for enough Americans to learn that UNDER THE LAW AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN they do not owe the tax?

Is it somehow not clear to you that ALL that is necessary for the law to prevail-- that is, for us to win-- is for enough Americans to learn that UNDER THE LAW AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN the tax doesn't apply to their earnings in the first place; and they've been getting scammed their whole lives (and even scammed into being the critical participant in the misapplication of the tax to themselves)?

The document at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/BriefAndBright.pdf is only nine pages long with lots of spaces and margin. ANYONE older than 14 will readily understand everything in it. ANYONE reading it will know the truth beyond any doubt and all you will have to do is help answer their questions about how they could have not learned this long ago.

But you've got to act to make this happen, by the simple touch of a few buttons on your computer. What is stopping you??

-Pete

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 84e#p29174

[LaVidaRoja]

"BriefandBright" hmmmm...."only" 9 pages. May we assume that it is as 'bright' as it is 'brief'?

[Pottapaug1938]

"But you've got to act to make this happen, by the simple touch of a few buttons on your computer. What is stopping you??" -Pete

Ohhhhhhhhh... perhaps, the fact that you went to prison for pushing your fantasies on taxation and have helped to get other people there as well; plus the fact that every conviction was upheld on appeal, and the fact that your fantasies have never resulted in final victory for anyone.

[notorial dissent]

That, and that I think ole Prattlin' Pete has pretty well scraped the bottom of the bottom of the barrel at this point for followers. The ones he has left are truly a sad, sorry and ever diminishing lot, and I'm not sure there are any more of them out there.

Some of them may actually have wised up after having been repeatedly hit about the head and shoulders with the clue by four, several of them are now in jail for following Pete's prattle, and several have just wandered off after some new shiny they have seen, but doesn't bode well for his membership numbers.

[wserra]

The document at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/BriefAndBright.pdf is only nine pages long with lots of spaces and margin.

I can show that Hendrickson is full of it in a whole lot less than nine pages. With even more spaces and even bigger margins.

[Famspear]

....These newly-educated folks will become invested in the truth and in upholding the law. All will become a political pressure on every judge, every DOJ attorney, every "tax professional" and so on to get it right going forward....

So, let me get this straight, bozo. You yourself, after about ten years of pushing your "Cracking the Code" tax scam, have been unable to get even one federal judge, even one Department of Justice attorney, to agree with you that your stupid ideas are somehow the law of the land. But you're trying to sell the few remaining members of your Harem of Hapless Heroes on the idea that if THEY -- not you, but THEY -- get off their butts and bring in enough new idiots to help promote your scam, this will bring victory? Is that about it?

[fortinbras]

While Hendrickson berates his audience for not springing into action to raise an army that he can throw against the IRS, I wonder if Hendrickson still has an audience. He's lost every court case, spent time in prison, and generally demonstrated that his ideas only buy serious trouble.

It seems to me that he has no following that's following him. Perhaps only a dozen or two die-hards, kids, mental cases, and perhaps teasers.

I have similar suspicions about the NESARA scam.

[LPC]

O, my dear and good friends!

Pete has friends? And not just a handful of online sycophants? Who knew?

I post material like [links redacted] that will make unmistakably clear to any reader that AS WRITTEN, the law doesn't apply the income tax to his or her non-federally-connected earnings (which for most folks is all of their earnings).

Well, that's wrong. The law AS WRITTEN applies to "all income, from whatever source derived," and says nothing whatsoever about "non-federally-connected" earnings. NOTHING.

Even Pete's favorite part of the Internal Revenue Code, section 3401(c), (i) only applies for purposes of income tax withholding, (ii) does not exclude anyone from the definition of "employee,' and (iii) specifically includes the officers of corporations, with no mention of whether or not the corporation is "federally-connected."

Epic fail.

All that is necessary for those posts to win this long war for us all (or at least to get us a long way down the road to winning) is for you to send them to others, who will then be impelled by the most powerful and reliable motivator of all-- their own self-interest-- to become partisans on our side. (Hopefully they will also be motivated by their regard for the rule of law, but you know what? That isn't necessary.)

Yes, some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide their own self-interest. (Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).)

These newly-educated folks will become invested in the truth and in upholding the law. All will become a political pressure on every judge, every DOJ attorney, every "tax professional" and so on to get it right going forward.

His "logic" here is even fuzzier than his interpretation of the law.

If the law AS WRITTEN is so clear, then you should be able to convince ONE judge in a legal proceeding, without any "political pressure."

And under our Constitution, aren't judges supposed to be insulated from political pressure? Funny how this self-proclaimed "legal scholar" doesn't know that.

And if "political pressure" is going to be used, why not use it against the politicians who actually have the power to change what the judges and DOJ attorneys are doing? Until Congress says or does something, the judges and DOJ attorneys are entitled to believe that the way the federal income tax has been interpreted and applied since 1913 is actually what Congress intended.

Is it possible that it somehow isn't clear to you that ALL that is necessary for the law to prevail-- that is, for us to win-- is for enough Americans to learn that UNDER THE LAW AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN they do not owe the tax?

Larken Rose wrote some stupid emails (which were introduced as evidence in his criminal trial) in which he pretty much admitted that it didn't actually make any difference whether or not his section 861 argument was right, because if he could get enough people to believe in it and stop paying income tax, it would cause enough problems for the federal government to achieve his political goals.

Hendrickson comes close to admitting the same thing here.

The document at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/BriefAndBright.pdf is only nine pages long with lots of spaces and margin. ANYONE older than 14 will readily understand everything in it.

It's actually fairly complicated and obscure. How can "ANYONE older than 14" readily understand something that *starts* with "exclusion unius est exclusio alterius"?

By contrast, *this* is "brief and bright":

"Defendants’ contention that withholding applies only to government workers is frivolous and false. [Citations omitted.] Defendant Peter Hendrickson was an employee of Personnel Management, Inc. in 2002 and 2003 within the meaning of IRC § 3401(c)."

United States v. Peter Eric Hendrickson, 2007 WL 2385071, at *3, No. 06-11753, Docket #34, pages 5-6 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 5/2/2007), affirmed, No. 07-1510 (6th Cir. 6/11/2008) (sanctions of $4,000 imposed for frivolous appeal), cert. den., No. 08-1399 (6/15/2009), reh. Den. (8/17/2009).

[The Observer]

Larken Rose wrote some stupid emails (which were introduced as evidence in his criminal trial) in which he pretty much admitted that it didn't actually make any difference whether or not his section 861 argument was right, because if he could get enough people to believe in it and stop paying income tax, it would cause enough problems for the federal government to achieve his political goals.

Hendrickson comes close to admitting the same thing here.

But this has always been the game plan of any of the gurus out there, past or present. They encourage their followers, disciples, sycophants to join them in their whacky crusade in the hopes that if they get enough people to follow, it will cause the system to be overwhelmed and eventually fail. But what they are encouraging the masses to do is to break the law and face the consequences. And this is exactly where their method fails - because most people, folllowers or not, are not going to want to spend time in prison for Pete's, Larken's or any other idiot's mad crusade. And this is why these gonzo gurus are never successful in attracting significant numbers to their cause.

I often wonder what would happen if Pete actually focused on trying to eliminate the income tax legally, through a grass roots campaign to put genuine political pressure on Congress to end the tax. Not that I would think that there is a chance of that happening. But would Pete be any more satisfied with his efforts if they were within the bounds of legitimacy? Would he still attract enough people to satisfy his ego? Or is it more gratifying for Pete to be taking the position of being outside the law?

[Famspear]

......I often wonder what would happen if Pete actually focused on trying to eliminate the income tax legally, through a grass roots campaign to put genuine political pressure on Congress to end the tax. Not that I would think that there is a chance of that happening. But would Pete be any more satisfied with his efforts if they were within the bounds of legitimacy? Would he still attract enough people to satisfy his ego? Or is it more gratifying for Pete to be taking the position of being outside the law?

I think you're getting at Hendrickson's motivation having nothing to do with the federal income tax, or with changing the tax law. His real purpose is bound up in his narcississtic personality disorder, in his infantile delusion.......

I know I’m right; I’ll never be wrong….
My beautiful face in this world is always so strong….
It’s all about Me…. It’s all about Me…
Oh, why can’t they see: I’m Superman….

I want to live, and also connive.
And I won't give up this dream
Of life that keeps me alive….
It’s all about Me…. It’s all about Me…
Delusion, you see, makes Me what I am….

My far-away prize, My World of Success,
I have not attained, because of My fall.
I won't knuckle down, although I'm a mess,
For now I believe, yes I believe, I deserve it all….

I'll go it alone, that's how it must be;
Cannot think about somebody else --
It’s all about Me….
It’s all about Me…. It’s all about Me…..
I could just cry: I’m living a lie!
It’s all about Me….

---(based on the Walter Marks song, I've Gotta Be Me).

[Burnaby49]

Famspears meanderings reminds me of one of the most audacious conference presentations I ever saw. It was a presentation on your estate tax given by a senior IRS lawyer. At the time of the conference the estate tax was scheduled to be terminated (remember the articles advising the old and sick to die before Dec. 31?). His topic was the tax effects and technical issues around the termination. He had specialized in IRS litigation regarding the estate tax for years and faced having to make a change to some other area. He started his presentation by singing, acapella, a song he'd written about all the good times he and the estate tax had enjoyed together in the past. He did it to the tune and title line of "They can't take that away from me". He was great.

[Famspear]

Famspears meanderings reminds me of one of the most audacious conference presentations I ever saw. It was a presentation on your estate tax given by a senior IRS lawyer. At the time of the conference the estate tax was scheduled to be terminated (remember the articles advising the old and sick to die before Dec. 31?). His topic was the tax effects and technical issues around the termination. He had specialized in IRS litigation regarding the estate tax for years and faced having to make a change to some other area. He started his presentation by singing, acapella, a song he'd written about all the good times he and the estate tax had enjoyed together in the past. He did it to the tune and title line of "They can't take that away from me". He was great.

One of the most beloved law professors at the University of Houston (where I went) has been Sidney Buchanan. I had him (many, many years ago) for Constitutional Law, Trusts and Wills, and a separate course on First Amendment Rights. In class, every few weeks he would regale his students in a fashion similar to what Burnaby49 has described -- taking the tune of a popular song and using words he himself composed that covered a legal topic covered in the course.

http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/main.asp?PID=4

[Burnaby49]

Please, Famspear, no YouTube videos of you singing your own doggerel to Gershwin tunes.

[Famspear]

Please, Famspear, no YouTube videos of you singing your own doggerel to Gershwin tunes.

Yeah, that would be considered cruel and unusual......

[Paul]

My first year of law school, one prof performed his own version of "Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be lawyers" at the spring musical, which included such immortal lines as "Them that don't know him don't like him, and them that do probably don't like him, either."

[LPC]

The document at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/BriefAndBright.pdf is only nine pages long with lots of spaces and margin. ANYONE older than 14 will readily understand everything in it.

The first Supreme Court decision cited in that document is Rowan Cos. v. United States, 452 U.S. 247 (1981), which Hendrickson cites for the proposition that the definition of "wages" for withholding purposes is the same as the definition of "wages" for Social Security (FICA) purposes.

The point that Hendrickson wants to make is that the definition of "employee" (the reference to "includes" employees of the United States that Hendrickson likes to cite) applies also to FICA withholding.

Of course, neither withholding for federal income tax purposes nor withholding for FICA purposes have anything to do with the definition of "gross income" for federal income tax purposes, but there's an even bigger problem to which Hendrickson is oblivious.

In Rowan Cos., the issue was whether the value of meals and lodging provided for the employees of offshore oil rigs were "wages" for the purpose of paying taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). But to defend "Cracking the Code," the issue is broader, because you have to ask why *anything* paid to employees on offshore oil rigs would be "wages" within any sense of the word if offshore oil rigs are not being operated by the federal government or any state government.

In other words, why is working on an offshore oil rig "federally-connected" within the meaning of the Hendrickson mythology?

I'm sure that Hendrickson can provide some lame rationale, but the fact that both Hendrickson and the Supreme Court are oblivious to the issue should speak volumes

[notorial dissent]

I will quibble with you on one point, being oblivious implies being unaware or not knowing. I do not think Pete can really make that claim, having all of this pointed out to him innumerable times, and after all, isn't he the world's foremost tax researcher, but rather he chooses to ignore the material as it is both inconvenient and contradictory to his cant.

[Famspear]

In response to Prevaricatin' Pete's post, a user who arrogantly and misleadingly calls himself "TruthBearer" writes:

Possibly the most frustrating aspect of "getting the word out" is that people listen with interest but quickly conclude that it's all to [sic] complicated or too dangerous (vis-a-vis the Big Bad IRS) to implement for themselves. There's also the sorry fact that merely reading a book--any book--in an educationally dumbed-down society is a huge hurdle, let alone understanding what's in it.

And you, "TruthBearer", are a prime example of the result of the "educationally dumbed-down society". You are a testament to the sorry reality that people like you can merely read a book--any book--and come to "believe" that its author -- and you -- have learned the "truth" about the federal income tax when, in fact, you and the author and the rest of Hendrickson's Hapless Heroes are engaged in a psychopathological self-deception. You're not searching for "Truth" and you're not bringing the Truth to others. You're just another two-bit deadbeat who, many years ago, looked for a way to rationalize your pre-conceived "beliefs" -- and who found a way, as people like you always do. Hendrickson himself has admitted that he failed to file federal income tax returns for sixteen years prior to his first tax conviction (in 1992). Both before and after that conviction, he thrashed around for some sort of substitute for an intellectual justification for his criminal behavior. He finally found it in the early 21st century, when he came up with his "Cracking the Code" nonsense. In "Cracking the Code," he cobbled together a theory based on frivolous nonsense that, at the time he presented it, had already been rejected by the federal courts over and over.

TruthBearer continues:

The fear factor alone is enough to prevent making practical use of the facts of CtC. [Hendrickson's book, "Cracking the Code"], even after they have read it. Fear of IRS, fear of losing one's job, fear of appearing foolish--are obstacles that prove difficult or even impossible to overcome. I've seen my own sister continue to pay taxes needlessly because of her fears that she will be hunted down by the IRS and sent to jail. She admires what I'm doing personally, but she has a lifetime of adherence to declaring every penny of income and paying tax on it. She has read CtC, believes it is all true, but taking the next step is too nerve-wracking for her. For many others in my personal experience, their overwhelming belief is that paying income tax is patriotic. "We must all support the government, after all, by paying our fair share." It's baseless malarky, but there it is.

Really? You feel that supporting the government by paying your fair share of tax is "baseless malarky"? Another deadbeat. What a surprise.

TruthBearer goes on:

Despite all of that, there is evidence that at least some of the CtC seeds sown by the CtC-educated community do actually reach fertile ground. One of these days the word will reach some 'big name' with a big microphone and audience, and then the momentum for our efforts will speed up mightily. In the meantime, it's imperative to journey on spreading the facts that we have learned and made use of for ourselves.

"TruthBearer": You are another arrogant blowhard. You claim, without justification, to have the "truth" about what the federal income tax law is. You are wrong.

[to] arrogate (verb):

to claim or seize without justification.... to make undue claims to having

---Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 63 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976).

[LPC]

There's also the sorry fact that merely reading a book--any book--in an educationally dumbed-down society is a huge hurdle, let alone understanding what's in it.

Irony meters all over the world are exploding.