Knucklehead MBA/engineer sucked in by CtC

[Imalawman]

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.

Its post like these that make me realize why I love this forum.

[ASITStands]

Oops! Someone with the screen name 'jg6' (hmm ...) has finally done it. Now, we'll see if Pete will come out of hiding to ban the poster. Where's JJB when you need him?

It had begun to get rather boring over there.

[Famspear]

At this point, someone should insert, in the thread at losthorizons, a reprint of The Scream by Edvard Munch.

And I love the responses by the wackos over there. This one from "FEDUP":

Yes JG6...... isn't it a wonderful country this has become. The irs has free reign to rectally fornicate whomever it wishes, more and more NON-production is rewarded by lower tax rates, while Production is penalized by ...... well we all know that answer. Gee gosh , i guess we could have the laws changed by getting an Honest person elected...... Ya right . Everyone...and especially you JG6 and all your suppressive buddies, get on your knees, kiss the feet of the irs, wear your heavy chains of slavery & shut your mouth. I'm quite sure men like Thomas jefferson and Patrick Henry are soooo proud of what the men of this Once great country have become.

And this one from "mutter":

I second that motion. it seems to me you missed the mischaractorization [sic]of the court case then just go thats the way it is going to be enforced now and forever so let me roll over and lube up for the next tax season. Unless you have a better idea for combating this corruption I second that you SHUT UP and go troll somewhere else

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =2991#2991

In other words, "No, no, nooooooooo, we don't want to heeeaaaaarrrrrrr this! Cover our ears!!!!"

I'm trying to think of words that apply here. One word might be the one we used to use on the playground as kids, as applied to "FEDUP" and "mutter":

"cry babies"

[Dezcad]

And this one from "mutter":

it seems to me you missed the mischaractorization [sic]of the court case

(Ignoring for the time being the incorrectness of the phrase - "missing a mischaractorization")

This is classic. Denial based upon an incorrect understanding of a very clear case that ruled directly against all Pete's arguments. If it wasn't Pete, they probably would state that the "wage argument" and "employer/employee argument" wasn't made correctly (or something similar). But they can't say that about Petey, now can they?

I can't wait to see what happens.

[ASITStands]

I predict 'jg' (oops! 'jg6') gets the proverbial boot.

[Famspear]

The intellectual dishonesty of tax protesters is both astonishing and a repetitive source of hilarity. On the one hand, Pete and his minions have tried over many weeks and months to leave the false impression at losthorizons.com that Pete's crackpot tax ideas are correct, and that Cracking the Code supposedly works.

Well, when push came to shove -- when it really mattered the most -- Peter E. (Blowhard) Hendrickson had his bluff called. The government sued him in connection with the erroneous refunds, and Hendrickson used his own theories, from Cracking the Code, his own book, in a federal court. Blowhard and his theories were blown out of the water in open court. Hendrickson is now under a court order prohibiting him from using the Cracking the Code garbage on his own tax returns, and he is under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service.

Now, when the truth is thrown in their faces, Pete's minions retreat, metaphorically red-faced and teary-eyed, and they angrily spew anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric and a whining, mealy-mouthed, "it's not faaaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrrr" sort of response. Well, for "Pete's" sake, that's no kind of a f***in' answer.

If Peter E. (Blowhard) Hendrickson had been correct about the tax law, he would have won his case.

He lost.

Winners talk; losers walk.

Get over it. And grow up, kids.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Famspear, you forget the old adage, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." It's even worse when dealing with jack-asses.

For kicks and grins, try pointing out to these clowns how people with last names like Gates, Jobs, Lucas, Speilberg, Cuban, when they were young up-and-comers never used any of the usual horsesh*t tax denier arguments and they are now doing far, far, far better than any 6 average tax protestors combined.

That's because they were too busy working their asses off to meddle around in paranoid delusional nonsense. :tunes:

[Quixote]

I was banned from LH long ago and never bothered to create a new persona, so I'll address Richard614's challenge here.

While your at it, why not explain my situation and success to the forum, I guess the IRS and SSA are both mistaken, I just happened to slip through for 5 years. Go ahead, take a stab at it. Lets hear your excuse.

He answered his own question in a post earlier in that thread.

I have filed exactly as Pete did originally, same wording,etc. I have not added or subtracted anything. I only deal with one 1099-MISC every year, No W-2's.

It is child's play to lie about the contents of a Form 1099-MISC, a form that is not included with form 1040, and for which no analogue of Form 4852, the substitute W-2, exists. The easiest method is not to file a return at all.

Richard614's assertion that he filed "exactly as Pete did" is nonsense. Pete had a W-2, and lying about his wages while claiming his withholding required lying on a Form 4852. Pete claimed a refund of income tax withheld. Richard614 had no withholding and no other credits to be refunded. Why would Richard614 file at all? He thinks he had no income. He certainly had no credits to be refunded.

[Famspear]

Here's another posting at losthorizons in response to "jg's" realty checks regarding Hendrickson's tax problems -- this one from the user called "mutter":

I have to admit this is the most excitment [sic] on the forum since the trolls were panned [sic] awhile back.
If you want to get smarter play a smarter oponent [sic]. Now if the IRSS [sic; typical "clever" tax protester linkage of the IRS and the Nazi "SS"] would just send a smarter opponent we might get somewhere.
when I first logged onto the old forum someone was attempting to do an experiment for a court case. One party was to present evidence while another was going to play defense.
I think this would be a good exercise.
So let Jg stay and lets [sic] play. when its all said and done it boils down to liability as the IRSs would be the plantiff [sic] they would have the burden of proof.
So JG present your evidence of a tax liability on me. I work for a priviate company. they submit W-2's. Any other info you want ask [sic]. However, there will be no federally paid judge to disallow anything including the law. the jury will be shown everything that is relevant and not hearsay. the federal rules of evidence will apply. If it doesnot [sic] constitute evidence according to those rules you may not admit it as such.
If you dont [sic] want to take that challenge then show me where in Pete and Doreens case there is evidence of a tax liability.

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =3060#3060

Yawwwwnnn.

Ah yes, mutter, wouldn't it be nice if the world actually worked this way? You want to "play" with "jg"? I can't speak for jg, but I doubt that jg really wants or needs your help to get any "smarter." Mutter, you wouldn't know "smarter" if it bit you on your doofus, delusional derrière.

Unfortunately for you, mutter, the law is what the judge ruled to the law to be in Peter Hendrickson's case. Peter E. (Blowhard) Hendrickson and Cracking the Code went down in flames in the case that meant the most. The law is not what you, mutter, believe the law is, and the law is not what you, mutter, argue the law is, and the law is not what you, mutter, wish the law to be. Oh, boo-hoo.

And the evidence the court considered in Hendrickson's case is covered in the decision. Tough luck for Pete; tough luck for you, mutter. Read it and weep. The court ruled against Pete and Doreen. Oh, boo-hoo.

Clue to mutter, and to Pete Hendrickson, and to all those of Hendrickson's ilk: The rest of the world is not here to convince you that the law is what we say the law is. We are not here to persuade you about what the law is, or play games with you. We are here to lay down the law - literally. The law is what we say it is. You can scream and cry and hold your breath 'til you turn blue; go right ahead. Boo-hoo, boo-hoo. Waaahhhhh waahhhhh waaaaaaahhhhhhh.

So, you want some more excitement, mutter? Keep watching the case of Peter Hendrickson. You ain't gonna like it -- and neither is Pete.

"I am Famspear, and I approved this message."

[pause.............]

Oh, what the heck......

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, codified at title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, subtitle A, Part 10, relating to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (A) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (B) promoting, marketing or recommending, to another party, any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Batteries not included.

Side effects may include drowsiness and difficulty operating heavy machinery.

Void where prohibited by law.

Mileage may vary.

[LPC]

when its all said and done it boils down to liability as the IRSs would be the plantiff [sic] they would have the burden of proof.

Of course, that's exactly what happened in Hendrickson's case. By suing to recover an erroneous refund, the IRS created the rare situation in which it had the burden of proof.

The result? Hendrickson couldn't even establish that there was any dispute as to any material fact, and lost a motion for summary judgment.

And the losers at Loser Horizon are still in denial.

[jg]

Alas, reliable sources have informed me that jg6 has received the following message:

Sorry, but your password cannot be retrieved because your account is currently inactive. Please contact the forum administrator for more information.

Nonetheless, the following jg6 post was edited to include red items.

The Supreme Court has said the income tax is not a direct tax; but rather it is in it's nature in the class of excise taxes. The wikipedia article does a pretty good job of outlining that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_ ... c_Railroad Quote:
In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to "taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."

Although the court stated that income taxes inherently belong in the category of excise tax (indirect tax), Brushaber is sometimes misunderstood by persons who argue that the case stands for the opposite meaning. Since 1913, however, the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled that any Federal income tax is anything but an excise tax, not required to be apportioned as a direct tax, but requiring geographic uniformity.

All that comes in is not income.
An income tax is not a direct tax in the constitutional sense.

My new approach to dealing with Trolls like JG here is to highlight and add comments in a color to show the reader the Parseltongue being used to fool you. I do not control the membership but have suggested that JG be removed yet again for its trolling. In the interim, I will use the troll comments for education purposes.

Interestingly, the red portion but rather it is in it's nature in the class of excise taxes. was a reference to the language of the Supreme Court which said:

Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent. As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them. Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. red added

Unfortunately jg6 is not able to inform the editor that the languge was not his own; but rather is the language of the Supreme Court.

[webhick]

The LH forum should post this at the top of every page:

THE TRUTH WILL BE OPPRESSED.
POSTING FACTS ARE GROUNDS FOR BANNING.
FREE SNO-CAPS ON TUESDAYS.

[Famspear]

THE TRUTH WILL BE OPPRESSED.
POSTING FACTS ARE GROUNDS FOR BANNING.
FREE SNO-CAPS ON TUESDAYS.

Yes, and in the event that Pete is indicted and is ever in need of a Cheek defense, I would love to see this kind of behavior put in front of a jury.

Let's see, now, Mr. Hendrickson, you claim that you had an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code? Really?That's why you suppressed the truth?

[Quixote]

The LH forum should post this at the top of every page:

THE TRUTH WILL BE OPPRESSED.
POSTING FACTS ARE GROUNDS FOR BANNING.
FREE SNO-CAPS ON TUESDAYS.

All but the bit about free Sno-Caps is posted somewhere on LH, I believe in the post about "trolls", which are defined on LH as anyone who tells the truth about CTC. I think Pete is keeping all the Sno-Caps for himself.

[webhick]

All but the bit about free Sno-Caps is posted somewhere on LH, I believe in the post about "trolls", which are defined on LH as anyone who tells the truth about CTC.

Are you talking about the "Trolls" thread? It looks like that went away with their old forum.

[Nikki]

All but the bit about free Sno-Caps is posted somewhere on LH, I believe in the post about "trolls", which are defined on LH as anyone who tells the truth about CTC.

Are you talking about the "Trolls" thread? It looks like that went away with their old forum.

Went away? Did you ever consider that there are people who care about things like that and preserve them just in case they might possibly be needed to support a legal action?

Is it at all possible that one or two of the three-letter-agencies have little departments of computer geeks who spend the bulk of their working hours making copies of Internet posts?

[webhick]

All but the bit about free Sno-Caps is posted somewhere on LH, I believe in the post about "trolls", which are defined on LH as anyone who tells the truth about CTC.

Are you talking about the "Trolls" thread? It looks like that went away with their old forum.

Went away? Did you ever consider that there are people who care about things like that and preserve them just in case they might possibly be needed to support a legal action?

But it's not publicly available to the average nitwit anymore.

Is it at all possible that one or two of the three-letter-agencies have little departments of computer geeks who spend the bulk of their working hours making copies of Internet posts?

I was told that they were looking for evidence of transvestite hamsters and extraterrestrial reductions. I'm greatly disappointed. Now we'll never know if Squeaky's feeling of being a little girl hamster trapped in a little boy hamster's body is correctable or not. We've already tried whacking off her niblets, but she's still depressed.

[ASITStands]

Alas, reliable sources have informed me that jg6 has received the following message:

Sorry, but your password cannot be retrieved because your account is currently inactive. Please contact the forum administrator for more information.

Accurately predicted here. It's happened before, so it should not have been unexpected.

It's one thing to disagree with someone who opposes your view but to ban them altogether shows the underlying doubt you hold about your position. Cannot withstand detractors.

I think it will play a significant role in any criminal charges that may be brought.

"Mr. Hendrickson: On such-and-such a date at such-and-such a time, a poster by the screen name of 'jg' posted the following ... and two days later, you banned him from posting altogether. How does this show your willingness to investigate the truth when you allow no disagreement? How does it support your good-faith misunderstanding defense?"

The question probably wouldn't be asked that way, but you get the picture.

[jg]

"Mr. Hendrickson: On such-and-such a date at such-and-such a time, a poster by the screen name of 'jg' posted the following ... and two days later, you banned him from posting altogether. How does this show your willingness to investigate the truth when you allow no disagreement? How does it support your good-faith misunderstanding defense?"

Please get the facts correct. It appears you are referring to a poster by the name of 'jg6'.

Any implied or intended connection with any poster on any board is purely...

ummm....



intentional.