Crack-a-dooster "BrainySmurf76" -- legal beagle!

[Famspear]

I represented Pete on his appeal after he lost his trial. Pete's interpretation of the Code and its history is much more accurate than federal judges'

I don't think you necessarily have to be a federal tax expert to properly handle an appeal of a federal tax conviction in every case. And, I don't recall who represented Hendrickson on his appeal (I assume this is a reference to Pete's second set of criminal convictions, not the other stuff). However, a lawyer who claims to believe that Peter Hendrickson's interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code and its history is "much more accurate" than the interpretations of federal judges probably should not be trusting his/her own ability on anything to do with federal tax -- for the good of his clients and for his/her own good.

[Famspear]

I believe that the lawyer who handled Peter E. ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson's appeal of his second set of criminal tax convictions was one William Bernard Butler.

Butler was suspended from practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in connection with repeated frivolous filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

See Order on Attorney Discipline, Dec. 26, 2013, In re William Bernard Butler, no. 13-9013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Here's a taste:

Since March 29, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has sanctioned attorney William Bernard Butler numerous times for filing over 30 frivolous lawsuits, engaging in "brazen delay tactics and judge-shopping by voluntarily dismissing actions only to turn around and refile them again immediately afterwards," and "repeatedly cycl[ing] the same plaintiffs through different lawsuits, making sure to reshuffle the caption so that a different person appears to be the lead plaintiff." Welk v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 850 F. Supp. 2d 976, 999–1000 (D. Minn. 2012). To this date he has not paid the sanctions, nor made any arrangement to pay any part of what he owes in the district court. He has meanwhile filed appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in at least 24 cases involving the same or substantially similar claims and tactics as those for which he was originally sanctioned.

--excerpt from the Dec. 26, 2013 Order (footnote omitted).

[Judge Roy Bean]

With the notable exception of "... Pete's interpretation of the Code and its history is much more accurate than federal judges,'" the explanation is, in the main, quite rational with some rather astute observations in regard to the folly of the tax protesters in their position with the courts.

As my father used to say, you don't go to the country club in what you wear to the rodeo.

[Famspear]

With the notable exception of "... Pete's interpretation of the Code and its history is much more accurate than federal judges,'" the explanation is, in the main, quite rational with some rather astute observations in regard to the folly of the tax protesters in their position with the courts....

Yes, although because of the lack of quotation marks and indentations in the post, I find it a bit difficult to tell, at a glance, which part of the post is actually written by Gary North and which part is written by William Bernard Butler. The Gary North parts are the lucid parts, and the Butler part is the nutball part.

[Number Six]

I could not link the Gary North article as it is available to subscribers, so I apologize for the confusion due to a quick copy and paste job. It appears that Dr. North's position is evolving as in the past Kenneth Royce and others who followed his lead have gotten some of their tax non-compliance tactics from him. Maybe it is a successful marketing tactic to applaud some of those like Schiff as he has done, who have gone to jail while not yourself putting yourself in harms way. North's father, like Ann Coulter's, was an FBI agent, probably the son learned some street smarts from him and the kids of LEOs pick up some of their sharp views of life from them.

[Famspear]

Crack-a-dooster "BrainySmurf76" has found this thread, and he has these comments about the Gary North article mentioned earlier:

[....link not reproduced....]

That link is to a posting by Gary North. At the bottom you can email him with truths [.....]

Apparently he thinks corruption is God and [that] anyone who says otherwise is a witchdoctor[,] also called a guru. The man seems to mock Peter based on prison time served.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 353#p31353

Yeah, well Brainy my friend, Preposterous Pete pretends to know so much about the U.S. federal income tax; he pontificates mountains of erroneous, hilariously frivolous cr*p on the subject. He spent federal prison time for using that cr*p on his own tax returns. He deserves the mockery he's getting; he brings it on himself.

What he [Gary North] leaves out is the jury being prevented from reading the law, the terms defined, which the jury requested.[link to yet more Hendricksonian nonsense redacted]

Ah, here is BrainySmurf76, the legal beagle, with the usual tax protester nonsense. Brainy believes that the judge in Hendrickson's second criminal tax case should have allowed Peter Eric ("Video Arcade Manager Man") to submit "the law" (as Preposterous Pete pretends to parse the law, of course) to the jury, including of course the "terms defined" (as Hendrickson interprets the definitions in his own incompetent way, of course). And Brainy cites, as his "authority", none other than the marvelous writings of -- hold on - wait for it -- you guess it! -- Blowhard Hendrickson Himself!

Brainy continues to rant about Gary North:

Being on a site that states it is "anti-state•anti-war•pro-market " (LewRockwell) and writing An Economic Commentary on the Bible, you'd think Gary would know better[,] as the guru (some refer to as) Jesus was imprisoned erroneously as well as other good men in the book.
In his article he states he replies to those who direct him to Cracking the Code with "I send an inquiry back to the individual asking him how long he has not filed. I know the answer. The people who send these letters have never actually followed the instructions of the guru."

Huh? What kind of question is that "how long he has not filed"? I doubt Gary has actually read CtC ["Cracking the Code") or Losthorizons[,] given his statements.

Again, Brainy seems to think that somehow Pete Hendrickson's "CtC" book and Pete Hendrickson's "losthorizons" web site should be required reading in order for others to be qualified to determine that it's all a load of cr*p.

Earth calling BrainySmurf76: I don't need to examine every cow patty in your barn yard to know the difference between your cow patties and a bowl of sugar. Neither does Gary North.

[Gary North] Probably thinks CtC is just another typical tax protestor book and he know it all, has heard them all and so he gives his expert take on it on LewRockwell. Anyone know how credible he is deemed? Those readers of LewRockwell can easily see CtC's accuracy. Heck, he may have gotten more to discover the fascinating truth about taxation with his pathetic article.

Oh, waaaaahhhhh! Did Gary North's article hurt somebody's iddy biddy feelin's???

Yes, Hendrickson is another typical tax protester. Except that he's of the few who has actually spent not one but two terms in federal prison as a result of having engaged in criminal conduct based on his nonsense cr*pola theories.

No, Hendrickson's Cracking the Code isn't just another typical tax protester book, is it, Brainy? No, it's the tax protester book that YOU have latched on to.

And, with Hendrickson and all you people, the courts who have always ruled against you dimwits are just "corrupt" in your eyes. Everyone -- the IRS employees, the Department of Justice, the Quatloos regulars, 99% of all tax lawyers, 99% of all the CPAs, all the law professors, and all the federal judges -- are just corrupt, is that it? But you, Brainy -- you and Blowhard Hendrickson and his Few Remaining Foolish Followers -- hold The Truth, right?

Well, I call bullsh*t, Einstein.

Now, a doofus at losthorizons called "Stein51" responds to Brainy's remarks:

Thanks for that BS76. I needed another confirmation that Gary North is just another corrupt and lazy coward, hiding behind the Christian libertarian label. Instead of taking on the intellectual challenge of actually learning the glaringly obvious truth about the income tax, which Pete has painstakingly laid out for all to see who want to see, he smears Pete because going through that paradigm changing exercise would create a serious conflict with the erroneous tax advice he has been giving for years.

Um, Stein, if you believe that someone should study Peter E. ("Apartment Complex Maintenance Man") Hendrickson's turgescent tripe ("Cracking the Code") for the purpose of understanding "the glaringly obvious truth" about U.S. federal income tax law, you are just as seriously cracked as the Crack-a-dooster in Chief, Preposterous Prevaricatin' Pete, His Haughty Haplessness.

An "intellectual challenge"? That's pretty funny.

Stein continues:

He'd have to eat crow. That moral challenge he's not up for. Denigrating Pete, without any investigation at all, like maybe even looking at the ongoing, thoroughly documented results, is far easier for the pompous North.
This coward also has an autoresponder so writing him is an exercise in futility, but I'm so pissed off I'll write the horse's ass anyways, just to let off steam.

Denigrating Pete without any investigation at all? Sounds like you, Stein, are the one who needs to do a little studying, not Mr. North.

[Gregg]

What he [Gary North] leaves out is the jury being prevented from reading the law, the terms defined, which the jury requested.

For the love of Bob, would someone please explain to dimwits that a jury is a trier of FACTS (did he pay the tax) and the Judge is the one who determines the LAW (if he didn't pay the tax, he broke the law).

That one little tidbit on how the courts work could clear up most sane people's doubts about why the Judge didn't allow Pete to do his job, because the Judge knows what the law is, and Pete thinks the law is what he wants it to be.

[notorial dissent]

Why should that make any difference when they don't have clue one about how the courts work to begin with? Particularly when that is the how and why most of them are in the holes they are to begin with.

[.]

For years on end many people have explained many such tidbits.

While that has no effect on the delusional, no one really knows how many other people that might have discouraged from tilting at tax windmills.

I suspect that there are a lot of people who thought that the idea that you don't have to pay income taxes is the best thing since sliced bread. But, after reading sites like Q they quietly decided that it's a waste of time, won't work, and is a risk to their assets, freedom and family.

We rarely hear from them -- they're just happy they didn't get whacked with a 5K friv-pen. Or worse. They're not likely to publicly debate anyone, they're not experts, they're probably mostly embarrassed that they ever thought the whole ridiculous idea was the least bit realistic. So they stay quiet and move on.

Such is the lot of a TP board.

[Gregg]

For what its worth, let's face it, Lost Horizons is dead as a forum. For the last several months its been falling into Harvester/JohntheTaxist/Libre/Patriot/a cast of thousands posting just to pull the chain of Tallygator and Brainysmurf and the very few other posters.
A few guys are pointing out that 24 odd different users are all some incarnation of Harvey and Harvey is claiming all of them are some incarnation of Jay......which would make interesting discussion among some psychiatrists perhaps but isn't much to hang a tax protester movement on.

Its too pathetic to even make fun of them anymore.

[Famspear]

Oh, wait! Not quite completely dead.

BrainySmurf76 posts this:

From Famspear: Brainy believes that the judge in Hendrickson's second criminal tax case should have allowed Peter Eric ("Video Arcade Manager Man") to submit "the law" (as Preposterous Pete pretends to parse the law, of course) to the jury, including of course the "terms defined" (as Hendrickson interprets the definitions in his own incompetent way, of course)

That is from the Q site. That site where all the tax scheme profiteers go to protest alleged tax protesters. It appears to be full of what one can say are Satan worshipers. Not the true definition of occult but the version of mind controlled "spiritualists" who believe they're enlightened because of all their Masters decisions. They twist words or make it up as they go to justify their position. You can say the sky is blue then QL will say "the courts ruled the sky is not sad". At the top, that is manipulation. The jury requested "the law" but were given the prosecutors version of the law.

No, Brainy, what you are describing is your own work -- and that of Blowhard Hendrickson.

Those same alleged Satan worshipers, Famspear and others on Q-loos, are the same as those who would penalize you for saying the Earth is round. They're the same who would burn you alive for a science experiment they'd call witchcraft. Although today they love that witchcraft. Sad the zombies on that site can't disprove Peter and do the work for their master Lou C. Fer. Peter is the only one I see getting this much heat. Hey Q-loos, have your mole post on the LH forum what law makes all earnings by anyone liable for the Federal Income tax. It's not a tax on using money so what is it? Come on Wizards and Warlocks, let's see what you know. If all y'all know are court decisions then there's a lot on here to disprove your tyranny. Just in case Homie [Harvester-Nationwide-Libre-johnthetaxist-etc] replied next, ignore troll alert.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 455#p31455

I don't know who the supposed "mole post" on the LH forum would be.

Anyway, the issue, of course, is not whether "all earnings by anyone" are "liable for the Federal income tax".

The issue is whether, to use Blowhard Hendrickson's words, the ".....unprivileged, outside-of-federal-geographical-jurisdiction work cannot be taxed indirectly by the federal government." ---From p. 10, Peter E. Hendrickson, ''Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America'' (12th Printing, Jan. 2010).

The issue is whether ".....private-sector proceeds of work (in particular) cannot be taxed under an 'income' tax." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from p. 25, ''Cracking the Code''.

The issue is whether ".....'income', 'wages', 'self-employment income', 'employee', 'employer' and 'trade or business' . . . have narrow legal meanings exclusively involving, and applying to, certain privileged activities, such as holding or administering a government office, or working in one." ---Peter E. Hendrickson, from introductory material, ''Cracking the Code''.

The issue is whether ".....the law doesn't apply the income tax to his or her [an individual's] non-federally-connected earnings....." -- Peter E. Hendrickson, from the lost horizons web site.

Come on, BrainySmurf, go look for a case where any federal court has ever ruled that any of these assertions are correct. No more Hendrickson-type evasions. No more taking quotes out of context. Go look for a court case where Video Arcade Manager Man's Crack-a-dooster Nonsense has been ruled to be valid.

Yes, we're sending you on a fool's errand.

We've already cited case after case where Hendrickson's scam has been rejected. They're listed here:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

In some cases, the courts actually mentioned Hendrickson and "Cracking the Code" by name.

[Pottapaug1938]

This Great Legal Expert seems not to understand that it is NOT the job of the jury to review the law, but only the facts ("[t]he jury requested 'the law'").

[Famspear]

Or, stated yet another way, the issue is whether the compensation received in exchange for non-federally privileged private sector labor is taxable. In Joseph Alan Fennell v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26285-07L, United States Tax Court, Order of Dismissal and Decision (June 17, 2008), the Tax Court ruled that such compensation is taxable. Joe Fennell was a former poster at the lost horizons web site.

The issue is whether non-federally privileged private sector labor is the subject of an excise (the U.S. federal income tax). Again, the Tax Court ruled that such labor is the subject of the U.S. federal income tax. Same case: Joseph Alan Fennell v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26285-07L, United States Tax Court, Order of Dismissal and Decision (June 17, 2008).

The issue is whether the term "employee" is limited to "someone performing the functions of a public office". The Court ruled that the answer is no, in Patrick Michael Mooney v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21647-06, United States Tax Court, Order of Dismissal and Decision (May 5, 2008), aff'd per curiam, No. 08-1899 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2009). Mooney of course is a well-known follower of Hendrickson, who has not only posted at Hendrickson's web site and not only has made videos supporting Hendrickson's scam, but has lost not one but two Tax Court cases using the Cracking the Code tax evasion scam.

Rusty Ragan, who used to post at losthorizons, tried to argue in the Tax Court that he was due a federal income tax refund because his compensation constituted "earnings for private-sector, non-federally-privileged work" that he had performed as an engineer for his employer. The Tax Court ruled that the argument was "frivolous and groundless," and imposed a separate penalty of $5,000 under section 6673 for engaging in frivolous litigation. Ragan v. Commissioner, Docket No. 11966-08L, United States Tax Court, Order and Decision (Feb. 19, 2009).

So-called "CtC warrior" David Nelson (a pilot for Northwest Airlines) argued in U.S. District Court that private sector employment income is not subject to federal taxation. The Court ruled against him, stating: "We have repeatedly rejected arguments, such as Nelson's, asserting that private sector employment income is not subject to federal taxation." Nelson v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-00508-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2009), aff'd, No. 10-10730 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2010) (unpublished).

---------->>>And no, BrainySmurf, it matters not whether you and Hendrickson believe the word "employment" has some special meaning. The law does not care what you believe, and the courts that interpret the law don't care what you believe. The law is what the courts rule the law to be. No, the courts are not corrupt. Peter E. ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson is an ex-con with a background in video arcade management and apartment complex maintenance management. He has no legal, tax or accounting training or expertise, and neither do you.

This is just too much fun......

Erik Stephen Clark has repeatedly posted at losthorizons as "BEEKLO." Here is his story, from the Hendrickson dossier (copyright by Daniel B. Evans, excerpted under the Fair Use Doctrine):

In Clark v. Commissioner, the U.S. Tax Court ruled that the Internal Revenue Service did not abuse its discretion by filing a notice of federal tax lien against Erik Stephen Clark for his unpaid federal income tax for 2007, and for statutory penalties that had been imposed for filing frivolous tax returns for 2006 and 2008. For the year 2006, Clark originally filed his federal income tax return reporting wages of over $59,000. However, in March 2009, he filed an amended return with a Form 4852, changing wage amount to zero (a tactic often used by individuals following the Cracking the Code scheme). He included a typical statement to the effect that "my company issued me an erroneous W-2 and listed my payments as 'wages' as defined in the IRC Sect. 3401(a) and 3121(a), for fear of retaliation from the IRS. I am a private-sector citizen (non-federal employee), employed by a private-sector company (non-federal entity) as defined in 3401(c)(d). I am not employed in a 'trade or business', nor am I an 'officer of a corporation'”. Clark filed a year 2008 return with a Form 4852, also reporting wages of zero, with a similar explanation. He filed a 2007 return in which he apparently did not use the Cracking the Code scheme. The IRS asserted $10,000 in penalties under section 6702 of the Internal Revenue Code for filing frivolous tax returns (i.e., $5,000 each, for the years 2006 and 2008). In September 2010, the IRS issued a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) Filing. An IRS settlement officer determined that the filing of the NFTL was appropriate, and Clark filed his Tax Court petition to contest that determination. The Tax Court found that the Cracking the Code arguments Clark raised with the IRS settlement officer were frivolous positions. The Court stated that Clark had "taken a multitude of frivolous and groundless positions characteristic of tax protesters." The Court upheld the issuance of the NFTL. Further, in his presentation to the IRS settlement officer in an attempt to get the IRS to remove the $10,000 in statutory penalties for filing frivolous returns, Clark had simply persisted in using the frivolous arguments. The IRS settlement officer understandably refused to accept those arguments or remove the penalties. The Court ruled that the IRS settlement officer was correct in refusing to consider Clark's frivolous arguments. See Memorandum Opinion, Erik Stephen Clark v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-182, docket # 6118-11L (07/02/2012). On the day of the decision, Clark complained in a post on Peter Hendrickson's web site that "They [the Tax Court] 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…."

This does not even get into the cases of those who have gone to prison for using Hendrickson's scheme, including Carmen D'Agostino (currently in prison), Gregory P. Boyd (currently in prison), and of course Hendrickson himself, who served nearly two years in federal prison for using his own scheme on his own federal income tax returns. In Boyd's case, Hendrickson actually testified at the trial. Boyd tried to get Hendrickson appointed as an expert. The Court's instruction to the jury included this:

Peter Eric Hendrickson appeared as a witness and authored the book, Cracking the Code. You are instructed Mr. Hendrickson is not an expert witness, and his views regarding the tax code and tax liability are invalid, as determined by the U.S. federal courts.

---Jury Instructions, p. 6, Nov. 21, 2013, docket entry 95, United States v. Gregory P. Boyd, case no. 1:13-cr-00133-SS, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin.

BrainySmurf's knowledge of tax law is on about the same level as Hendrickson's ability to stay out of prison.

[JamesVincent]

The only time I could see a jury even having the need to be read a law, or laws, would be if they needed it to be able to complete their duties. Maybe to be able to intelligently determine the difference between crime X and crime x, for example, different levels of charges. Like the differences between Murder and Manslaughter in a capital case. Not only would the defendant in such a situation never be the one to instruct the jury, I don't believe a pro se anything would have the authority to do so, even if it was a pro se plaintiff in a civil case. Then the laws would be included in the Judge's instructions. So the Legal Chihuahua is complaining because Hendrickson was not allowed to do what noone is allowed to do?

[Famspear]

The only time I could see a jury even having the need to be read a law, or laws, would be if they needed it to be able to complete their duties. Maybe to be able to intelligently determine the difference between crime X and crime x, for example, different levels of charges. Like the differences between Murder and Manslaughter in a capital case. Not only would the defendant in such a situation never be the one to instruct the jury, I don't believe a pro se anything would have the authority to do so, even if it was a pro se plaintiff in a civil case. Then the laws would be included in the Judge's instructions. So the Legal Chihuahua is complaining because Hendrickson was not allowed to do what noone is allowed to do?

Yes, he is complaining that Hendrickson was not allowed to do what the prosecution would not be allowed to do: To introduce, to the jury, one's own argument about what the law is. Under the U.S. legal system, neither side is allowed to introduce copies of statutes, court decisions, summaries, or anything else to the jury in an attempt to persuade the jury about what the law is. The only material for the jury stating the law is the jury instruction, which is provided to the jury by the judge.

That's not just the rule in federal tax cases. That's not just the rule in criminal cases. That's the rule in all federal and state cases, civil or criminal.

[Gregg]

David Nelson was the case that always amused me, in that, even by Hendrickson's then current propaganda, he was to my mind most definitely earning income from the practice of a federal privilege, namely his holding a Commercial Pilot's Certificate and making a living flying jets. Almost every aspect of being a commercial pilot is regulated by the FAA and is, if Pete was right (and he's not), what I would cite as the epitome of a private sector employee exercising a federal privilege. He has to have the certificate, he has to submit to a medical examination every 90 days, flys an aircraft using the vast infrastructure of the US aviation system and several times each day would be in direct contact with FAA air traffic control stations. Not to mention the relationship any major airline has with the US government, which is more interconnected than most industries.
When his case came up, Hendrickson's Heros came up with any manner of reasons and excuses why this man, whose daily job functions were almost completely controlled and dependent upon the FAA and which he did absolutely as a privilege (you do not have a right to fly an airplane, nor one with paying passengers, nor one that's operation requires massive government investments to maintain) and found a way to say "that's not a federal connection". It's amazing what the question can be twisted to when you already know the answer. Or so you think.

[Famspear]

David Nelson was the case that always amused me..... When his case came up, Hendrickson's Heros came up with any manner of reasons and excuses why this man, whose daily job functions were almost completely controlled and dependent upon the FAA and which he did absolutely as a privilege (you do not have a right to fly an airplane, nor one with paying passengers, nor one that's operation requires massive government investments to maintain) and found a way to say "that's not a federal connection"......

Yes, and whether flying a commercial jet with a U.S. pilot's license actually involves the exercise of a federal privilege as a matter of law almost isn't relevant to the motivation of many (but perhaps not all) of Hendrickson's Heroes. Since, presumably, most of them can honestly say that they don't work for the federal government or that that don't have any connection to the exercise of a federal privilege of some sort, the Cracking the Code scam is an "easy" way to rationalize their criminal behavior by working themselves up into the delusional belief that Peter E. ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson's description of the U.S. federal income tax law is "correct".

I get the impression that many of the Crack-a-doosters do feel some sort of psychological "need" (a better word in my view would be "desire") to view themselves not as the criminals and scammers that they are, but as "patriots," as "educated," or as "freedom loving Americans", etc., etc.

One can see the desperation in the pathological way that they attack the motives not only of IRS employees and federal judges, but also of the 99.99% of all legal, tax and accounting experts. This is classic projection. The Crack-a-dooster is saying, "I am not a crook; the 99.99% of all judges and lawyers and CPAs who disagree with me are the crooks."

[Jeffrey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline#Th ... ry_bailout

Wouldn't be an exaggeration to state that his job wouldn't even exist if not for the Federal Government.

[Duke2Earl]

Logic is not their strong suit. The best guess I can make about their "theory" is that each person can decide for themselves what the law is. Because once you reject the court's ability to interpret the law, that's basically what you are left with. And if you reject the courts I am sort of at a loss to understand why you would bother to have law at all.

[Famspear]

Logic is not their strong suit. The best guess I can make about their "theory" is that each person can decide for themselves what the law is. Because once you reject the court's ability to interpret the law, that's basically what you are left with. And if you reject the courts I am sort of at a loss to understand why you would bother to have law at all.

That reminds me of a post right here in Quatloos by "Steve Sy," who as you will recall posted here for many years:

Oh, and I could really couldn't care less what a [sic] some federal judge says who is appointed by and paid by the very people trying to usurp the constitution. [ . . . ] Do I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it's my right.