Knucklehead MBA/engineer sucked in by CtC

[Famspear]

Here's a post on 5 April 2008 at losthorizons.com, from a user called "rrdrrd," in the thread entitled "First time filer - Long time learner":

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... c910a99d3b

Being an engineer with an MBA, I am thorough by nature. I have studied and followed CtC for 2 years and am filing CtC for the first time this year (have always filed the IRS way in previous years so I am not a non-filer). In a nutshell, as I see it, the government considers anybody it gives money to as an "employee" to whom it pays "wages". This includes not only direct employees but welfare recipients, social security recipients, interest and dividends from federal financial instruments (like federal stocks and bonds) and institutions (like federal banks and credit unions), etc... I work for a government contractor who pays me from the proceeds they receive from the government. I do not consider this taxable as the money I receive comes from the company (a private-sector, for profit corporation) for engineering services I provide in an effort to help the company attain its contractual obligations. I do not work for nor receive money directly from the government. Comments on this paragraph would be appreciated.

I am filing a 4852 (to rebut/correct the company's W-2) along with my 1040 (that reports interest from a state bank and federal credit union as income). I am also filing 4 corrected 1099's (INT, DIV, B, and Details) from Scottrade (claiming the Scottrade is not engaged in a trade or business, as defined). Suggestions on this paragraph would be appreciated.

I am filing separately this year as my wife is convinced that I am going to jail! Also, there are several friends at work who are interested in what I've told them but are "waiting to see what happens to me". Will file soon (with signed return receipt) and prepare for the attack. Any words of encouragement?

(bolding added)

No, you half-wit; no words of encouragement! Since you consider yourself "thorough by nature," my response would be: "Well, what the h*ll happened to you?" I would suggest that you contact the school that granted you the MBA and ask for your money back. I hope your engineering skills and reasoning are better than your business skills and reasoning.

By the way, your wife is apparently more lucid than you are, fella.

[Dezcad]

It's clear to me that he is merely a plant on LH to show support for CTC.

[Cobalt Shiva]

It's clear to me that he is merely a plant on LH to show support for CTC.

What kind? Ficus? Petunia?

[The Observer]

It's clear to me that he is merely a plant on LH to show support for CTC.

What kind? Ficus? Petunia?

Please don't insult the intelligence of flora by trying to equate them to somebody farther down the evolutionary ladder.

[gottago]

I am filing separately this year as my wife is convinced that I am going to jail

!

YAY for the wife!!!! Hopefully she will be able to figure out some way to slap some sense into this doofus before he makes a huge mistake.

[Famspear]

gottago, it's good to see you! Haven't seen you for a while around here!

[notorial dissent]

All I want to know is what type of engineer and where practicing so that I can avoid the area of sector he is so “thorough” in. That kind of “thoroughness” brings down buildings and bridges and tries to make water go up hill.

[LPC]

Being an engineer with an MBA, I am thorough by nature. I have studied and followed CtC for 2 years and am filing CtC for the first time this year

If he has thoroughly studied CtC and has decided to follow it, then he has:

1. Thoroughly suspended any application of any logic;
2. Thoroughly suppressed any common sense;
3. Thoroughly ignored any evidence to the contrary;
4. Thoroughly allowed his greed and self-interest free reign.

Seriously, how could anyone capable of any critical thought whatsoever read crap like CtC and not think "This has got to be crap."

[Nikki]

I am filing separately this year as my wife is convinced that I am going to jail

!

YAY for the wife!!!! Hopefully she will be able to figure out some way to slap some sense into this doofus before he makes a huge mistake.

Wife needs to start separating assets and maintain documentation for an Innocent Spouse defense.

Even if she files 100% correctly as married, separate, the liabilities, penalties, and interest which HE generates can still come back to bite her.

Her best move would be to turn him in and get the 20% reward.

[Famspear]

Here's another comment by this Knucklehead further down in the thread:

[ . . . ] I can't for the life of me get her [the wife] to understand what the law actually says. I guess the only way she'll come around is when that refund check comes in the mail!! [ . . .]

This is tantamount to saying, "I can't get my wife to believe that theft by false pretense is legal. I guess the only way she'll believe it's legal is when I actually steal some some money through my own fraudulent statements. If I actually obtain money by my own fraud, then it must be legal, right?"

[Judge Roy Bean]

I am filing separately this year as my wife is convinced that I am going to jail

!

YAY for the wife!!!! Hopefully she will be able to figure out some way to slap some sense into this doofus before he makes a huge mistake.

She's not going to be able to do that - his ego has tripped him up already and he's told people at work; he'll never change course now. But he'd better start looking for another line of work. Chances are government contractors won't touch him after he pulls this goofy stunt. Security clearance interviews are a biatch.

[Famspear]

Here's what this MBA is really saying, in effect:

Duh, I am a big smart MBA/engineer, and so I have decided that I can do my own analysis of the stunning complex body of federal income tax law - by relying on the apparently self-published ravings of an ex-con named Peter Hendrickson. An ex-con with no legal or accounting training or expertise. An ex-con who has already served time for a federal tax conviction, and who is currently under a court order prohibiting him from even using his own arguments from his own book, Cracking the Code, on his own tax returns. Duh, Hendrickson's crap didn't even work for Hendrickson, but I'm a big smart MBA/engineer, and I'm gonna dive right into Hendrickson's mess and I'm gonna try to take my wife with me. Duh, I'm so smart ....

Two years of study?

I wonder what this genius would think about a lawyer or CPA with no engineering training deciding to build a bridge over a river by ignoring all the engineering experts on bridge-building, and instead relying on a book written by someone with no engineering expertise - indeed, by someone who has already built a bridge that has already fallen down on top of him.

And if our MBA-engineer isn't even aware of Pete's legal predicament, his income tax situation, and his soon-to-be-rejected appeal, that says something about this MBA's "thoroughness."

[Nikki]

For some strange reason, there doesn't seem to be a single mention of Pete's legal status (current or prior) or the status of any of the recovery cases that were filed against, and conceded by, several CtC adherants.

Not in the forums, not in the CtC web site, not in a box, not with a fox, not in a plane, not on a train

[Famspear]

Nikki wrote:

For some strange reason, there doesn't seem to be a single mention of Pete's legal status (current or prior) or the status of any of the recovery cases that were filed against, and conceded by, several CtC adherants.

Not in the forums, not in the CtC web site, not in a box, not with a fox, not in a plane, not on a train

Pete does not like to see the law; he does not like to see his flaws. He would not like law on a plane; he would not like law on a train. He does not like the real tax law; he does not like it much at all.

[Famspear]

Also, regarding Nikki's comments, I agree; it is a bit surreal to read the posts over there at losthorizons, week after week, without seeing any mention of Pete's legal conundrum. Either the posters there are unaware that he has gone down in flames, or they are avoiding any mention of it for fear of being banned, or they are aware of the problem but (in typical tax protester fashion) are simply pretending that it's not there).

At this point, what do you do if you're Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson? His own federal income tax refunds for prior years have been ruled to have been issued erroneously.

And he is under a court order not to use his own "Cracking the Code" arguments on his own tax returns in the future. The 2007 return is due April 15th, absent an extension. Will he violate the court order, subjecting himself to a potential conviction for criminal contempt?

What will he do? What will he do?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[agent86x]

[quote]Here's a post on 5 April 2008 at losthorizons.com, from a user called "rrdrrd," in the thread entitled "First time filer - Long time learner":[/quote]

Here's another of his posts:

rrdrrd
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 22
Location: Tennessee
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Seeking learned opinions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been a student of Pete's teachings for some time: reading, studying, learning, researching, etc... I submit the following for consideration:

I work for a publicly-held, for-profit company that contracts with the government. I'm paid by the company but work on a government "reservation". My job requires that I have a government granted clearance that must be renewed regularly and could be pulled for cause (at the government's discretion) which would put an end to my working there.

*****end quote

My bet would be that he's working in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. It's a "government reservation" and it requires a security clearance.

[Gregg]

I can't for the life of me get her [the wife] to understand what the law actually says. I guess the only way she'll come around is when that refund check comes in the mail!!

How getting your wife to get YOU to understand what the law actually says. I guess the only way you'll come around is when they take your house and send you to prison

[Famspear]

Some of the detail of Pete Hendrickson's personal income tax predicament is leaking into losthorizons.com in a thread entitled "Prosecutions?"

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 536ee3ff5d

At least one poster is being warned not to say that "Pete's work" is incorrect. User "Patrick Mooney" writes to a user called "tgrills":

Be careful what you say, tgrills.

That statement sounds like there is something "wrong" with Pete's work and the government has finally figured out what that is.

Pete's work is no loophole that can be shut down [ . . .]

But later in the thread, a user called "jg6" writes:

In the case against hendrickson (which is still waiting for action on the appeal) the court did say that his refund claim was erroneous. If I remember the decision correctly they even said he had wages. (I always have a hard time finding the decision against him here on this site)
That seems to be a good indicator that no one will succeed in court, no? [ . . .]

I can see Pete gritting his teeth right now - debating with himself over what to do about this post.

[Nikki]

You left out the best part

People may indeed lose a few cases against the IRS, but that will most likely be due to an incorrect telling of the truth by a private sector citizen. Remember, it is hard to get most lawyers to listen to CTC educators, and they may not be representing their clients correctly.

The burden is even more amplified when one decides to go it alone. It is very easy to be steered into legal deadends by lawyers and courts.

Let this not be seen as a condemnation of Pete's work, but a call to increase our efforts to spread the truth. As Pete has remarked once or twice, "courts are political animals". As such, it often takes them awhile to gather the cajones necessary to act on the people's behalf in important political issues like these.

Typical. The theory is 100% correct, The problem is that no one, to date, has managed to argue it properly in court.

[LPC]

The theory is 100% correct, The problem is that no one, to date, has managed to argue it properly in court.

Actually, the problem is that the theory is 100% correct, and it has been argued properly in court, but that the courts have ruled against it.

Which means that the courts will rule against it 100% of the time in the future.