Erik Stephen Clark amends with 4852, no sanctions

[rogfulton]

We have a new winner in the "my employer erroneously called my remuneration wages for fear of IRS retaliation" sweepstakes.

in a Tax Court Memorandum Opinion issued today, Mr "I am not employed in a “trade or business”, nor am I an “officer of a corporation”." was not hit with sanctions. Apparently, he had previously filed what most people consider correctly and had entered into a payment arrangement with the IRS.

Bonus appearance by charge of witness tampering by the Commissioner for, well, I'll let the opinion explain it:

According to petitioner, these bad-faith measures included
“Committing what amounts to witness tampering by attempting to ‘persuade’
petitioner to change * * * [his] sworn testimony” as such “testimony” appeared on
his 2006 amended return and 2008 return.

[Gregg]

It looks to me like no additional sanctions by the court, but he still gets the two $5,000 friv pens.

[Famspear]

The Court listed Erik Stephen Clark's residence as being in Maryland.

At lost horizons, a user named "BEEKLO" - who indicates he is from Baltimore, Maryland -- posted this today:

Just received word from "Tax Court". As expected, they pushed the "frivilous [sic] position" B.S.. Of course it was NOT based on any fact or law. It's frivilous [sic] because the "Secretary" says so? They totally ignored my argument/fact that I did not engage in any revenue taxable activity. Didn't even mention it in their decision. This really has me disillusioned. I did not expect to win because I know what it would mean...but damn. If you can't rely on the law, then what? What country is this again?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 8566#28566

Dear BEEKLO/Eric Stephen Clark: What country is this? This is the country with a court system that follows the rule of law -- not the "rule of Pete Hendrickson."

[JamesVincent]

I wonder. I ran into a guy recently at the church where I drop my donations off. Me and my oldest were waiting for the doors to open for the pantry so I could take a couple of bags of clothes in. We overheard some guy telling a woman about how evil the government is, how the Rothchilds own the crown jewels, how the court of law was corrupt, etc etc. Just about anything you could think of for a TP/ Sov'run he was spouting. We werent all that far from Baltimore and, of course, he was waiting in line for the soup kitchen.

[Famspear]

Mr. Clark (i.e., "BEEKLO") is back at the losthorizons forum, and he is still not happy. He has created a thread entitled, "Now What?"

He writes:

As much as I appreciate the knowledge I have gained in protecting my rights and filing "educated returns". There is a gap in CTC with regard to dealing with the IRS when they continually deny the truth. Pete was on the radio giving the presumption that once you file your educated return, everything would be fine. For some yes, for most, unfortunately no. Where is the information on how to get your money back once the illegal a Lien/Levy has been completed, or when the IRS keeps hanging-up on you? Do I call the police?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... f=2&t=3133

Erik, my boy, the answer is obvious. You just need to declare victory for Prevaricatin' Pete's Liberating Truth! You've Cracked the Code!

Repeat after me, Erik -- over and over:

It's all about Pete.... It's all about Pete....
.......Oh, need I repeat??..... The Truth is so neat......
..............................It's all about Pete.......

They took all yer money?
Oh, that's just so funny!
They levied your stuff?
Well, that's kinda tough!
But, stop yer complainin'!
Yer vict'ry's obtainin'!


Yes, Erik, you've found the Liberating Truth. Preposterous Pete has all the answers. Peter's Cracking Code book is, in Pete's own words:

.......the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted.....

The accuracy of that research and analysis is then incontrovertibly confirmed by an unending series of real-world, actual events, starting with my series of historic accomplishments.....

.....thousands of Americans who have gone to the trouble of putting aside their pre –conceptions and their skepticism and carefully read CtC have duplicated the first of my historic accomplishments . . . .

THIS RIVER OF VICTORIES, THIS EVER-GROWING MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE, IS NOT THE RESULT OF SOME KIND OF SUSTAINED COMPUTER GLITCH, OR ADMINISTRATIVE LOOPHOLE......

ANYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT WILL BE FOUND ACCURATELY AND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THIS WEBSITE [losthorizons.com]. ANYTHING NOT FOUND ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THE WEBSITE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT, AND WILL INTERFERE WITH YOUR ACCURATE COMPREHENSION OF THE SUBJECT.....

CtC has the tax pegged...The only ongoing development needed...is the...accumulation of...authority...and the refinement of our understanding of...the ploys...by the entrenched beneficiaries of the crumbling status-quo...

At the risk of vulgarity, I will say as plainly as possible what I have by necessity said many times before, but usually with more circumspection (and can't seem to say often enough): Any and all notions concerning the nature of the "income" tax-- how it is applied, why it can be thus applied, how it interfaces with the legal system and so forth-- which are not taught in CtC or on this site [losthorizons.com] ... are just inherently wrong or are entirely irrelevant to the tax......

Such notions should not be debated or discussed-- doing either is a waste of valuable time and energy......

Feel better now, Erik?

Why not send Pete some money? Believe me, he needs it.

[LPC]

As much as I appreciate the knowledge I have gained in protecting my rights and filing "educated returns".

Of course, you didn't actually protect any rights. You just got to pay frivolous return penalties.

I'm sure you appreciate that, just like you appreciate being hit in the head by a 2x4.

There is a gap in CTC with regard to dealing with the IRS when they continually deny the truth. [...] Where is the information on how to get your money back once the illegal a Lien/Levy has been completed, or when the IRS keeps hanging-up on you?

Pete doesn't know the answer to that question, but Helen Waite does. So if you ask Pete, he'll tell you to go to Helen Waite.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... There is a gap in CTC with regard to dealing with the IRS when they continually deny the truth. ... Where is the information on how to get your money back once the illegal a Lien/Levy has been completed, or when the IRS keeps hanging-up on you? Do I call the police?

Actually, that alleged "gap" is a vastly-deep chasm known as "the law," but keep the faith! The CTC bridge is really there! You just have to find some magic dust and scatter it out in front of you then walk across it.*

Yes, start with calling the police and reporting the problem with the IRS hanging up on you. Be persistent.


*(With apologies to Indiana Jones!)

[Famspear]

As much as I appreciate the knowledge I have gained in protecting my rights and filing "educated returns".

Of course, you didn't actually protect any rights. You just got to pay frivolous return penalties.

I'm sure you appreciate that, just like you appreciate being hit in the head by a 2x4.

There is a gap in CTC with regard to dealing with the IRS when they continually deny the truth. [...] Where is the information on how to get your money back once the illegal a Lien/Levy has been completed, or when the IRS keeps hanging-up on you?

Pete doesn't know the answer to that question, but Helen Waite does. So if you ask Pete, he'll tell you to go to Helen Waite.

Oh, that put me in a good mood.....

Time for a review!

Cases where individuals have been convicted and served time in Federal prison for using Peter Eric Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax evasion scam:

Gregory P. Boyd [scheduled for release on August 20, 2016]

Carmen D'Agostino [scheduled for release on September 28, 2015]

Peter Eric Hendrickson himself [served nearly 2 years in Federal prison for using the scheme on his own tax returns; released on June 13, 2012]

Roger Charles Menner [released on May 17, 2013]

Michael O'Daniel [released on March 1, 2012]

Eugene George Warner [not confirmed whether he used the scam, but Hendrickson touted Warner on Hendrickson's web site as being a follower; released on October 7, 2011]

Individuals who have lost federal civil tax cases over the use of the Cracking the Code scam:

Sharon K. Artman
James M. Blaga
Erik Stephen Clark
Michael Dowling
Louie Elias
Joseph Alan Fennell
Joy Ferguson
Melvin L. Gerstenkorn
Larry Golson
William R. Granger
Donald A. Gray
Robert Herriman
Beverly J. Hill
Scott Ray Holmes
Justin Carl Laue
Kenneth R. Lindberg
David Mills
Adolfo Sandor Montero
Patrick Michael Mooney [two cases]
James Robert Morse
David Nelson
T. Russell Ragan
Andrew D. Scott
James A. Spitzer
Steven T. Waltner and Sarah V. Waltner

Individuals who have won in court using the Cracking the Code scam:

none

[Famspear]

.....Pete was on the radio giving the presumption that once you file your educated return, everything would be fine......

Ah, now Erik, you see, you just haven't read Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code book carefully.

If you had been paying attention, you would remember that Peter contends that words like "income" and "employer" and "employee" and "wages" have special meanings -- that these words don't mean what the courts have ruled them to mean, but that instead they mean what Peter says they mean.

Well, Erik, you see "fine" is another word like that. YOU, in your naive and innocent way, assume that "fine" means "quite well" or "OK" or "good".

But here, "fine" has a SPECIAL "Cracking the Code" meaning. It means that Peter sold you his book and you read his book and you fell for it and you used his scam and the IRS saw right through it and you lost your case in the U.S. Tax Court and the IRS seized your assets.

So, everything is fine.

[Famspear]

User "BrainySmurf76" has responded to Clark's question with the same old nonsense garbage.

Clark (BEEKLO) responds:

Thanks Brainy! I filed 1040EZ with Form 4852 rebutting the erroneous "wages" allegation. Also proclaiming non-participation in any revenue taxable activity. The IRS totally ignored this and stole 10k from my pay check. The CDPH [Collection Due Process Hearing procedure at the IRS] is a joke. They disallow any discussion on the so-called "frivolous argument". So why have the hearing? Taxpayer "advocate" [IRS Taxpayer Advocate office] is also a joke.

In other words, Clark followed Hendrickson's Cracking the Code scam and it didn't work.

[Famspear]

..........The CDPH [Collection Due Process Hearing procedure at the IRS] is a joke. They disallow any discussion on the so-called "frivolous argument"....

YOU MEAN that the mean 'ol, bad 'ol Internal Revenue Service wouldn't even give your Cracking the Code argument serious attention????

Um, could it be that the argument was....

..........hold on...........

.............................wait for it.......

.........................................not worthy of serious attention?

Frivolous. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial [ . . .]

--American Heritage Dictionary, p. 535, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).

[ArthurWankspittle]

But here, "fine" has a SPECIAL "Cracking the Code" meaning. It means that Peter sold you his book and you read his book and you fell for it and you used his scam and the IRS saw right through it and you lost your case in the U.S. Tax Court and the IRS seized your assets.

So, everything is fine - Pete has your money.

Minor fix.

[webhick]

But here, "fine" has a SPECIAL "Cracking the Code" meaning. It means that Peter sold you his book and you read his book and you fell for it and you used his scam and the IRS saw right through it and you lost your case in the U.S. Tax Court and the IRS seized your assets.

So, everything is fine - Pete has your money.

Minor fix.

Unless of course Erik downloaded the book when Darth started offering for free.

[Arthur Rubin]

But here, "fine" has a SPECIAL "Cracking the Code" meaning. It means that Peter sold you his book and you read his book and you fell for it and you used his scam and the IRS saw right through it and you lost your case in the U.S. Tax Court and the IRS seized your assets.

So, everything is fine - Pete has your money.

Minor fix.

Can the IRS seize the money from Pete (if he still has some)?

[The Observer]

Can the IRS seize the money from Pete (if he still has some)?

If there is an assessment for federal taxes against Hendrickson, and if that assessment is still unpaid after the government has made demand for payment, and if the statutory lien has arisen, and if Hendrickson has received his notification of final demand and advisement that the government's next action is to start seizing assets and income, and if Pete has exhausted or failed to file his Collection Due Process appeals, and if the government knows where the money is located, then the IRS can "seize" the money. I am assuming you mean monies that are on deposit with a third party which can be reached by the IRS issuing a levy to the third party to turn the money over to the IRS. In the event that you are talking about a cash hoard that Pete is keeping on private property, the IRS would have go to before a federal judge and request a writ of entry so that they could enter the property to physically seize the cash.

[Arthur Rubin]

Can the IRS seize the money from Pete (if he still has some)?

...
I am assuming you mean monies that are on deposit with a third party which can be reached by the IRS issuing a levy to the third party to turn the money over to the IRS.

No, I was wondering whether a lien against one of Pete's "clients" might be able to reach money paid by that client to Pete, on a number of plausible grounds. It probably would cost the government more than it could get from Pete, but it would cost Pete even more, so it might serve "the interest of justice".

[LPC]

Can the IRS seize the money from Pete (if he still has some)?

If there is an assessment for federal taxes against Hendrickson,

I think that the question was whether the IRS could seize money held by Hendrickson that is owed to Clark. In other words, Clark is the taxpayer and not Hendrickson.

I think that it's theoretically possible, if Hendrickson can be shown to owe money to Clark (or others) due to fraud or misrepresentation, then the IRS could serve a notice of levy on Hendrickson directing him to turn over to the IRS the money he owes to Clark.

But it would be iffy, mainly because Hendrickson could deny that he owes Clark any money (and he probably doesn't, if all he did was sell Clark a book).

[notorial dissent]

My take on this is that Clark paid Hendrickson for his help/advice/book, so NO the IRS wouldn't be able to get it back any more than they can get money back from his grocery store for groceries purchased. Now they can go after Hendrickson for further income tax evasion, but that is a whole entire other matter.

In other words, Clark is SOL all the way 'round.

[The Observer]

No, I was wondering whether a lien against one of Pete's "clients" might be able to reach money paid by that client to Pete, on a number of plausible grounds.

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. The only plausible ground would be if the government could prove that the client still had a right to the money that Pete had gotten from him. That would entail proving that the book transaction was a sham in order to shield the client's money from the government's administrative efforts to collect the tax. I think this is what LPC's response was aiming at. The only other fraudulent target would be if the government held that Pete had defrauded the client (which one could make a theoretical argument for given the results of what has happened to a number of Crackheads) and that the client was owed damages/restitution by Hendrickson.

But this is a ludicrous scenario, in that you have the government going out of its way to initiate a suit against Pete in order to prove that he had harmed someone else and then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to collect the monies from Hendrickson. Given that this client is another tax denier, why should the government make life easy for them by going after someone else? ND points out the probable result of such attempts will be a determination that the book sale was probably a legal transaction.

And as you point out the costs would be prohibitive. While the aim of achieving justice is commendable, the practicality of achieving such a goal has to be part of the formula as well. I suspect that some federal judge at a point would rule that the government had turned their actions into a persecution rather than prosecution of Pete.

[Famspear]

Over at losthorizons, Crackadooster Erik Stephen Clark is considering more tax litigation:

Thanks for the advice everyone. I will do what I have to. I am currently with my attorney preparing to file a claim in District Court.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... f=2&t=3133

EDIT: I'm guessing that the $10K that the IRS levied on Clark's pay check(s) was for a couple of $5K frivolous penalties.