Hendrickson follower James Back indicted

[Famspear]

Another follower of Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson has been indicted. This is in a case in U.S. District Court in Alaska. At the lost horizons web site, Blowhard Hendrickson admits that James R. Back of Alaska filed "educated" tax returns (i.e., returns using Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax evasion scam) for three tax years. Hendrickson tries to explain everything away in the usual Hendricksonian manner.

See:

http://www.losthorizons.com/Documents/R ... leries.htm

Here are some news media reports on this case:

http://m.peninsulaclarion.com/news/2014 ... ax-charges

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ax-counts/

James Back is charged with three counts of willfully filing false returns under 26 USC section 7206(1) (for years 2006, 2007 and 2008) and four counts of willful failure to file under 26 USC section 7203 (for years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012).

From the March 18, 2014 indictment:

1. At all times relevant to this Indictment, Defendant JAMES R. BACK was a resident of Soldotna, Alaska, in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and was employed by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska) as a pipeline technician.

2. During 2006, Defendant JAMES R. BACK earned $127,910 in wages from Alyeska.

3. During 2007, Defendant JAMES R. BACK earned $123,973 in wages from Alyeska.

4. During 2008, Defendant JAMES R. BACK earned $129,795 in wages from Alyeska.

5. During 2009, Defendant JAMES R. BACK earned $125,031 in wages from Alyeska.

6. During 2010, Defendant JAMES R. BACK earned $125,672 in wages from Alyeska.

7. During 2011, Defendant JAMES R. BACK earned $138,837 in wages from Alyeska.

8. During 2012, Defendant JAMES R. BACK earned $132,466 in wages from Alyeska.

9. On or about April 15, 2007, Defendant JAMES R. BACK signed under penalties of perjury a false Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, Form 4852, which was later filed with the IRS, claiming that his wages from Alyeska were not income.

10. On or about January 22, 2008, Defendant JAMES R. BACK provided a fictitious document titled a “Form W-0” to Alyeska, asserting that his wages from the company were not “federally privileged.”

11. On or about September 14, 2011, Defendant JAMES R. BACK provided a document purporting to “revoke” his Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, Form W-4, with Alyeska.....

--from the March 18, 2014 indictment (entered on March 19, 2014), in James R. Back v. United States, case no. 3:14-cr-00020-RRB, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (Anchorage Div.).

Back has been filing the usual kinds of Wack-a-dooster (or, perhaps I should say "Crack-a-dooster") nonsense motions with the Court, to no avail.

The trial is scheduled to begin on September 29, 2014.

[Famspear]

Here's part of Blowhard Hendrickson's explanation:

....There is also the recent indictment of James Back. Back is charged with not really believing what he said on three educated returns, and also with not filing at all for the next three [sic; actually, four] years.

Back had secured complete refunds for his three years of educated filings. Unfortunately, he then got spooked-- probably from listening to trolls-- and stopped filing, despite withholdings and W-2 allegations identical to those of the earlier years continuing to be made. This latter behavior-- agreeing by silence to allegations about payments of exactly the same character as those he had deemed false on his educated returns-- contradicted those earlier filings. This made a perfect case that Back really hadn't believed what he said on those filed returns. After five years of these damning contradicting indicators, Back was indicted. The government also makes a point of noting in the indictment that in 2008 Back had filed some fake form described as a "Form W-0".

Like Menner's and Warner's, Boyd's and Back's are distinguished by key elements which make them NOT cases in which anyone was simply charged with a crime for filing CtC-educated returns. As in their presentation of Menner's and Warner's cases, the trolls won't share those elements with you and will try to make these cases out to be what they are not in order to frighten Americans away from CtC.)

Oh, I get it. It's not that Back wasn't "charged with a crime for filing CtC-educated returns". He was charged with that. It's just that he was not "simply" charged with that.

[Famspear]

Here's the Justice Department news release, on April 7, 2014:

Soldotna Resident Indicted On Tax Charges

[ . . .]

Anchorage, Alaska - U.S. Attorney Karen L. Loeffler announced today that James R. Back, 59, of Soldotna, Alaska, was indicted for filing false tax returns for 2006, 2007 and 2008, and willfully failing to file tax returns from 2009 through 2012. Back was arrested at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport on Monday, April 7, 2014. On Tuesday, April 8, Back was arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge John D. Roberts. Chief United States District Court Judge Ralph R. Beistline has been assigned to the case for trial.

Back did not enter a plea, and did not decide whether or not to represent himself or retain legal counsel. Back was released pending trial under the supervision of the United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office on a $10,000 unsecured bond, and ordered to return to court on Friday, April 11, for the entry of pleas and the decision on representation.

According to the indictment, Back was employed as a pipeline technician for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. However, in 2007 Back sent the IRS a false “Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, Form 4852,” claiming that his wages were not income. The indictment alleges that Back filed tax returns for 2006, 2007, and 2008 that falsely reported to the IRS that he earned no income during those years, when in fact he had earnings that totaled nearly $400,000. Moreover, Back claimed on these false returns that he was owed refunds totaling $110,111.

The indictment further alleges that in 2008 Back provided a fictitious document entitled “Form W-0” to his employer, asserting that his wages from the company were not “federally privileged.” In 2011, Back sent his employer a document purporting to “revoke” his Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate. Back willfully did not file tax returns for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, even though his total earnings during these years exceeded $500,000.

“Our tax system is predicated on the truthfulness of the individual taxpayer but some use fraud and trickery to cheat all of us,” said Kenneth Hines, Seattle Field Office Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation. “IRS special agents are doing their job to ensure the honest taxpayers do not have to pick up the tab for those who chose not to comply with our laws by filing false or frivolous tax returns.”

Back faces up to three years in federal prison and a maximum $250,000 fine on each of the three false return charges, and up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine for each of the four failure-to-file charges. In addition, costs of prosecution are mandated by law in criminal tax cases.

The case is being investigated by special agents with IRS Criminal Investigation. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Bradley of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Anchorage, Alaska.

The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ak/news/201 ... 0Back.html

[Famspear]

The indictment alleges that Back filed false federal income tax refund claims as follows:

$38,482 for 2006;

$34,968 for 2007;

$36,661 for 2008.

Total: $110,111.

[.]

The indictment alleges that Back filed false federal income tax refund claims as follows:

$38,482 for 2006; $34,968 for 2007; $36,661 for 2008. Total: $110,111.

Tax loss = 110K. Plus an estimate on the 500K unfiled @ 28% = 100K+ = >200K = offense level 18. Next break-point is at 400K, he won't get anywhere near that.

27 to 33 months, assuming no federal convictions since 1999 or other reductions or enhancements or reasons to depart from the guidelines. He can probably plead and get less than 27. Or, go pro se, aggravate the judge and get 33.

The sentencing guidelines are pretty cool -- the average dumbass crackhead can just add up the tax loss he's going to be credited with after conviction, adjust for criminal history and have a pretty good idea of how much time he's going to get.

This guy was in a guideline sweet spot -- the next 300K or so or misreported/unreported/unfiled income still would have left him at offense level 18 -- too bad for him they charged him now and stopped the clock.

[LPC]

Oh, I get it. It's not that Back wasn't "charged with a crime for filing CtC-educated returns". He was charged with that. It's just that he was not "simply" charged with that.

As I understand it, Back's "crime" was not that he filed "CtC educated" returns for 2006-2008, but that he did NOT file "CtC educated" returns for 2009-2012.

It was the returns he didn't file that made the returns he did file into crimes.

(You know, if Hendrickson wasn't mentally disturbed before he wrote that, he should have been afterwards, because writing something that crazy would make me crazy even if I wasn't before.)

[JamesVincent]

Oh, I get it. It's not that Back wasn't "charged with a crime for filing CtC-educated returns". He was charged with that. It's just that he was not "simply" charged with that.

As I understand it, Back's "crime" was not that he filed "CtC educated" returns for 2006-2008, but that he did NOT file "CtC educated" returns for 2009-2012.

It was the returns he didn't file that made the returns he did file into crimes.

(You know, if Hendrickson wasn't mentally disturbed before he wrote that, he should have been afterwards, because writing something that crazy would make me crazy even if I wasn't before.)

There could be a smidgen, just a smidgen, of truth in that attitude. It may very well be that the lack of returns is what flagged him and caused someone to take a second closer look at him.

[Famspear]

....As I understand it, Back's "crime" was not that he filed "CtC educated" returns for 2006-2008, but that he did NOT file "CtC educated" returns for 2009-2012.....

Yeah, in Blowhard Hendrickson's eyes, any deviation from Blowhard's Cracking the Code method (pardon me, Blowhard Pete has said it's not a "method") by a Crack-a-dooster follower allows Prevaricatin' Pete to argue that the Crack-a-dooster brought his troubles on himself -- and that the Cracking the Code scam somehow hasn't "really" been discredited for the umpteenth time.

It's almost as though Pete is thinking: "Had James Back continued to use my scam on every tax return every year, the Feds would have figured that Back really 'believes' in my scam. Because Back filed tax returns using my scam for three years and then stopped filing returns at all, the Feds must have realized that they had an opening to prove that Back didn't really believe my goofy theory that income means only amounts received in connection with the exercise of a federal privilege."

Pete and his followers are still hung up on the phrase "actual belief." They still have not learned the lesson that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Cheek case teaches.

[notorial dissent]

i’m pretty sure that James is right, in that Back ceasing to file returns when he obviously had a large income coming in would have been a big flag, which makes a little of what Pratlin’ Pete said valid, it was just the whole rest of what he didn’t say that brought the avalanche down on Back.

As Famspear says, in the Blowhard’s mind set it was all Back’s fault for not continuing what he had been doing, filing the “educated” returns. Of course the only thing that would have done was added to the frivolous fraudulent filing charges and penalties he’s already racked up.

What Prevaricatin' Pete and his mental midget minions don't seem to get is that the IRS is finally really on to them, and has recalibrated the fraud filters to look for idiots who file using the 4082 or fake W forms and then specifically ask for a refund of the taxes paid from other than income. Basically they are looking for -0-$ returns but they are also looking for those characteristics. Somehow this just never seems to get past the I’m to dumb to walk and chew gum filter that they all seem to come equipped with.

Yet, according to the once and future felon, it was Back’s fault for not following the CTC not a method scam that he got caught.

[Cpt Banjo]

It's almost as though Pete is thinking: "Had James Back continued to use my scam on every tax return every year, the Feds would have figured that Back really 'believes' in my scam. Because Back filed tax returns using my scam for three years and then stopped filing returns at all, the Feds must have realized that they had an opening to prove that Back didn't really believe my goofy theory that income means only amounts received in connection with the exercise of a federal privilege."

Exactly. It suggests that Pete knows Back's only hope is to rely on a Cheek defense, instead of arguing the legal correctness of CtC.

[notorial dissent]

Rather more of a concrete life preserver in this instance, since I don't think he can begin to sustain a Cheek defense anymore than most people can, although he just might be able to convince a jury he was that stupid, but I doubt it.

[Jeffrey]

an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law

I'm going to assume they stop reading at the comma.

[notorial dissent]

I think you're being awfully generous.

[.]

An addendum, just for any crackheads who might be concerned about what the sentencing guidelines mean to them:

just add up the tax loss he's going to be credited with after conviction, adjust for criminal history and have a pretty good idea of how much time he's going to get.

To simplify, if you have filed one or more CtC "educated" return(s), the "tax loss" you are "going to be credited with after conviction" means:

1) Any CtC-based refund amount you received, plus
2) Any CtC-based refund amount you claimed but didn't receive.

Got a CtC refund, say, for instance, 10K that was 2K before you were CtC "educated"? That's 8K of tax loss. Filed a CtC return claiming, say, a 15k refund that should've been 1K but didn't get a 15K refund? That's 14K of tax loss. 22K if you did both.

Assuming no other convictions/adjustments, time varies according to tax loss:

0-5K: 0-6 months
5-13K: 6-12 months
13-30K: 10-16 months
30-80K: 15-21 months

And up from there. Peanuts can get you serious prison time. If you're lucky, you'll just get sued for the return of any bogus CtC refund. If not, well, you took the criminal risk and lost.

Now, tell us again how much your 24.95 CtC book is "worth."

[Famspear]

Yet another follower of Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson bites the dust.......

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, the jury found James R. Back guilty of:

---Three felony counts of making and subscribing false federal income tax returns under Internal Revenue Code section 7206(1);

---Four misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns, under section 7203.

EDIT: Sentencing set for Dec. 16, 2014.

See docket entry 89, Oct. 1, 2014, United States v. James R. Back, case no. 3:14-cr-00020-RRB, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.

[Famspear]

News report: "Soldotna Man Convicted on Seven Tax Crimes," Oct. 3, 2014, Alaska Native News, at:

http://alaska-native-news.com/13595-13595

From the report:

Back, an Alyeska Pipeline technician was found guilty by a eight-woman/four-man jury after a one hour deliberation that concluded a three-day trial..... Evidence in court would show that Back had contributed over $140,000 to a retirement fund during the years in question as well as made investments worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was also found that Back bought property on the Kenai Peninsula as well as $400,000 worth of silver and gold bullion during the time in question.....

[wserra]

Hendrickson was not the only charlatan present by proxy (Back himself) in the courtroom; Marc Stevens was too.

Excerpts from various of Back's papers:

There are no facts pled proving my presence within the United States and the alleged District, nor are any facts presented that the codes of the United States are applicable to me. Such evidence is essential to prove jurisdiction, as the court only has jurisdiction over violations of the constitution and code. The applicability of the code is also an essential element of the alleged code violations.
...
the prosecution has no evidence proving the constitution and code apply to me in the first place. The prosecution wants mere arguments and allegations to suffice as evidence. The prosecution's entire position on jurisdiction rests on 'the court has jurisdiction because we've alleged a violation - the code says so,' though they have no facts to prove the constitution and code apply to me.
...
No evidence is presented that the constitution and code apply; that is an essential element, as there is no jurisdiction or code violation without it. The indictment only alleges the code was violated; there is no mention it applies in the first place. Bradley [the AUSA - WS] will insist the constitution and code apply, but cannot provide one single fact proving they do. He has no facts and witnesses with personal knowledge to support his argument the constitution and code apply to me and there is jurisdiction over me.

Judge Beistline refuses to take the bait. He cites the obvious - 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which provides that "The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States." He then moves on. The law, of course, is not sufficient for Stevensites. They refuse to say what would be, but God knows the law isn't.

Immediately following the verdict, the bottom line: "Defendant remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal." It's pretty simple: listen to these assholes, go to jail.

[Famspear]

James Back has been to U.S. Tax Court several times.

Petition filed November 24, 1986
case no. 045114-86

Petition filed November 21, 1988
case no. 030251-88

Petition filed Dec. 22, 2008
case no. 030786-08L

Petition filed Jan. 4, 2010
case no. 000178-10

Petition filed Oct. 31, 2012
case no. 026611-12L

I don't have much detail. Case no. 030786-08L was dismissed as moot, after the tax was paid.

In case no. 000178-10, a deficiency of $29,694 was found by the Court for tax year 2007, plus a section 6662(a) penalty of $7,567.

Case number 026611-12L was stayed after he was indicted.

[Famspear]

From the news report cited above:

Back had “ignored earlier warnings from his employer, his supervisor, the IRS, and a United States Tax Court judge that his arguments were frivolous,” the Justice Department said.

Oh, but why should James Back listen to his employer, his supervisor, the IRS, or a federal Tax Court judge, when he had the information provided by Peter E. ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson? Yes, Blowhard Hendrickson himself was James Back's "authority" -- the same Blowhard Hendrickson who has served time in federal prison for using the same tax evasion scam on his own tax returns.

[Famspear]

James Back has been denied bail, and is still awaiting sentencing:

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR BAIL RELEASE

Before the Court, at Docket 93, is Defendant with a Motion for Release on Bail. The motion is opposed by the Government at Docket 94.

Defendant asserts in his motion that he is "trustworthy and honors his commitments' despite having just been convicted of multiple counts of tax fraud and despite having spent months ignoring the advise of well-meaning friends and associates while expressing contempt for the laws of the United States of America. Defendant continued to express at trial the nonsense that his pre-trial pleadings contained with the hope of somehow evading his legal obligations under United States tax laws. Defendant still challenges the very jurisdiction of this Court ["not submitting to the court's purported yet unproven jurisdiction."]. There is no reason to believe that Defendant now recognizes this Court's jurisdiction or that he will now desist in his attempts to avoid the law or his legal responsibilities.

There is virtually no reason to believe that Defendant will succeed on appeal for every claim that he has made to date has long since been repudiated by the courts of the land. Moreover, Defendant has not submitted any evidence to believe that he is still employable or that he would be more able to make payments if out of custody. The evidence presented at trial suggests that Defendant has ample assets to pay his debt to the Government and that continued employment is not necessary for him to do so.

Defendant, who now faces a significant period of incarceration, appears to have the resources and the motivation to avoid the law and has little now holding him to Alaska. He does not recognize the authority of this Court and appears to believe that he is above the law. Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that Defendant does constitute a flight risk and should not be released on bail prior to sentencing.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2014.

--from docket entry 96, Oct. 31, 2014, United States v. James R. Back, case no. 3:14-cr-00020-RRB, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (bracketed material in the original).

Jeepers, the court does not trust me to hang around town and wait for the court to send me to Federal prison -- just because I refuse to accept that the court has jurisdiction over me? Just because a jury of my peers found me guilty of fraud, the judge doesn't trust me to keep my word?



Sentencing is still scheduled for December 16, 2014.