Hendrickson indicted

[Judge Roy Bean]

.....
The tendency among tax protesters is to focus on the word "belief" and to ignore the rest of the formula ("good faith" and "misunderstanding cause by the complexity of the law"). I wonder if whether some jury members might be confused enough to make this mistake.

(Bolding added.)

At some point in the plethora of cases against the "tax defier movement" someone is going to have to go before the Ways and Means Committee and repeatedly kick them in the you-know-whats for inviting ever more clever ways of misinterpreting the gibberish propounded by the authors and their congressional staff member overseers.

We're way beyond getting what we're paying for here. We're getting congressional motives barely concealed as legalistic dogma without regard to the law of unintended consequences. It's at a level that transcends simple understanding. It plays perfectly into the hands of the defier promoters as well as the myriad of tax dodge schemes.

Fortunately, that portion of the economy that relies on representing one side or the other will continue to thrive.

Anybody else see this as a really stupid condition?

[jg]

Anybody else see this as a really stupid condition?

Yes, I most certainly do see that.

But what I do not know is if it is a precondition or if it only occurs after one becomes a member of Congress.

[Famspear]

Remember Bob Hurt? Even Bob thinks Pete Hendrickson is a loser. From Bob's "lawmen" group, in a new thread entitled "Cracking-the-Code's Peter Hendrickson Indicted" (bolding added by me):

I get more and more reports of people getting harassed by the IRS (including multiple $5000 frivolous argument penalties) for using Pete Hendrickson's Cracking-the-Code method of submitting amended returns showing zero income, and therefore zero tax.

Unless and until somebody manages to fight the IRS and win in a US Circuit Court of Appeals using the method Hendrickson explains in his Cracking the Code book, you should think carefully before resorting to that method.

Pete might pull a rabbit out of the hat, but I expect him to suffer a conviction. No knowledge of the law can escape the liberty-killing intent of a US Attorney with a suborned judge and jury in his pocket.

Maybe Pete should call in America's one-man Tribal Lawyer Hit Squad: Luis Ewing <http://luisewing.com>,

Through a clever strategy in Ewing's one and only criminal income tax case the client got convicted on multiple counts and walked FREE with no jail time because Luis knows how to dig for the law the law and develop a strategy and pleadings that will help his clients WIN, even though they lose.

Yes, he charges money, a lot of money, but 20% less than a typical attorney would charge. And yes, he gets paid, up front. But No, he does not go to court with his clients. And yes, he has a long string, though not a perfect record, of wins in all kinds of cases.

And no, I'm not joking. Pete could contact Luis at
rcwcodebus...@comcast.net.

Or maybe Pete would fare better with a consultation from that ineffable baritone and master legal strategist Richard Cornforth<http://richardcornforth.com>
. Richard claims a hefty string of strategy wins in income tax cases.

Or maybe Pete should retain an honest-to-God income tax criminal attorney like Cryer <http://truthattack.org> , Becraft <http://hiwaay.net/~Becraft> , Dickstein <http://jeffdickstein.com> , or Minns <http://www.minnslaw.com/> .

I hope Pete has read Minns' and Cornforth's books, even though he has some litigation experience and knows the tax laws. He just might need some help to stay out of prison on this one.

Bob Hurt

(Here, Bob Hurt inserts the news release from the Department on Justice on Hendrickson's indictment.)

Bob then follows with this from someone named "Mac" regarding the "Cracking the Code process":

It corrects the presumption of the w-3/w-2 forms using a 4956 form. Remember there are 3 different defintiion of wages found in the IRC. We are claiming that we did not receive wages under chapter 24, as we are private sector workers. The IRs uses the w-3 that reports SS wages and converts it to a chapter 24 liablity because it presumes a wage is a wage is a wage, and that just is not true.. there is no title definition of wages.

Bob goes on to quote from someone named "Reginald":

. . . .We are still left with the fact that the Government indicted Pete.

And that does not portend well for others who used his technique.

Oh, no. This is getting bad. Peter Eric "Blowhard" Hendrickson is now receiving unsolicited advice from Bob Hurt. Am I to the point of actually feeling sorry for the Blowhard?

[Famspear]

In the same thread, from Bob Hurt:

"I asked Mac why the Government indicted Pete. He said:"

From: Macwildstar
Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Lawmen: 2675] Cracking-the-Code's Peter Hendrickson indicted

I dunno bob. If you read his case, you will see that they admitted that he owed nothing for the year in question, issued a refund of the amounts paid, then took him to court to get it back, but still cannot show the court why he was not entitled to the refund.. Go figure?!

Gee, Macwildstar, I think you might be a little confused here.

Macwildstar continues:

I finally filed CTC method, after not filing since 1994. Filed 2000 to 2007 and got 1 refund, another is on hold, and they rejected the rest as frivolus [sic], even though all 8 were exactly the same! Go figure that one..

basicaly [sic] what they are doing is suborn'ing [sic] perjury. Trying to get us to change our sworn testimony because they cannot overcome the fact that the avarage [sic] citizen reading chapter 24, would come to the conclusion that they are not an employee under that chapter.

Pete exposed the fraud of the w-3 form, (which is what the company sends to the Sec of Social Security) and how its [sic] coverted to create a chapter 24, aka 1040 tax.

They are forcing people to file in court, hoping again the courts will protect the IRS.

But in Petes case, the judge ORDERED him to commit perjury! And he is fighting that order.
We will see what happens.

As for me, I'm doing a notice and demand to the Sec of the treasury to get him/her to identify who made the determination that my claim for refund (I did not file a return, even though it was on a 1040 form) was frivolous, (it does not meet the requirements/definitions of same as found in the IRC) and who authorized the 5k penalty. I will then file a civil/criminal complaint against them for suborning perjury, which is a felony, and for trying to compell [sic] a citizen to violate IRC 7206, which may turn the case into a 7214 case.

Wow, let us know how that goes, Macwildstar!

[cynicalflyer]

Jsut wondering if Famspear is going to be able to resist the temptation of showing up at Hendrickson's trial. After all, it ain't often that Famspear would get to see a whole lot of narcissism located at one point in the universe - if he is willing to risk the critical mass of Hendrickson's arrogance in the courtroom.

The potential for a black hole of narcissism is so great, I would be very worried about getting anywhere near.

[Imalawman]

Depending on where in Michigan the trial is, I might run over there for a little bit and watch the spectacle unfold. It would be fun to see I'm sure. Think Mr. Becraft makes another appearance or Petey tries to do the trial himself with only a nutjob paralegal?

[ASITStands]

That kind of management requires some specialized skills, though, and getting them will cost money. I hope all of you will participate. Donations for that purpose can be made here, or by mail to Pete Hendrickson, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382

The true test of the utter stupidity of the Lost Horizons rubes will be how many of them actually send PH money.

"Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump." W. C. Fields

I read this as a hint that he will seek an attorney to represent him.

That kind of management requires some specialized skills ...

We can speculate about "who" he might ask to represent him.

My guess would be Tommy Cryer for the simple reason he's about the only attorney who actually believes the tax is illegally applied though his theory is different than Hendrickson's.

The other attorneys in the tax movement do not take those kind of positions.

I also agree with 'Famspear' that "willfulness" is going to be the problem.

In light of Hendrickson's forum, and the many who've tried to convince him he's wrong, I believe he's destroyed any Cheek defense he might have had, ala John J Bulten.

By the way, Bulten was directed to the press release but has yet to say anything.

[ASITStands]

Question:

Are there copies of the previous forum wherein Hendrickson was challenged?

There were some things previously posted that destroy his Cheek defense.

[ASITStands]

Oh, I imagine the Cat-in-the-Melon-hat is all over it.

Oh, I am too!

The two things that seem to matter to him ("wages" and "sworn testimony") were addressed and debunked quite thoroughly on the previous forum. Without excuse, "He's been told!"

[LPC]

The docket is upon on PACER now, and there's as yet no counsel entered for H.

He pled not guilty and was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond.

[The Observer]

Wow. That's remarkably similar...

And I suppose you are going to tell us that you weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...

[Nikki]

Pete's shot at a Cheek defense is extremely weak.

He has cited and analyzed specific portions of 26USC and relies on his warped analysis to exempt himself from any obligation to pay income taxes on wages that are not from a federally-licensed employment.

In doing so, he has specifically analyzed 26USC1, ...60, ...61, etc in order to rebut their inherent logic and substitute his own.

There is a significant weight placed on his study and knowledge of the other relevant portions of the tax code which would undermine his Cheek defense.

Also, his prior actions as a violent tax protestor BEFORE all of this research further weakens his claims.

He can be very fairly compared to the boy who paints the bullseyes on the barn after shooting his arrows. He has decided where he wants to end up -- not liable for taxes -- and takes any possible convoluted route to get there.

If DoJ ignores detailed legal arguments and relies on a simple, down to earth discussion of Pete's life-long effort to evade taxes, the Cheek defense will die in the starting gate.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The docket is upon on PACER now, and there's as yet no counsel entered for H.

He pled not guilty and was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond.

I hate to say it, but allowing Hendrickson to get away without a real bond risk is more than just foolish. I fear this judge just doesn't get it, which does not bode well for the prosecution.

'Round here he'd be a guest until he put up about half a million.

[Famspear]

Hendrickson is now represented by counsel: M. Ellen Dennis of Saline, Michigan (per case docket).

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hendrickson is now represented by counsel: M. Ellen Dennis of Saline, Michigan (per case docket).

I'm assuming without looking that it's not a PD. Apparently Ms. Davis' firm understands the economics of the situation.

[webhick]

Hendrickson is now represented by counsel: M. Ellen Dennis of Saline, Michigan (per case docket).

I don't see tax law listed on her website (http://ellendennis.com/)...but I suppose it might be covered under another category that's listed.

Edit: I'm an idiot. Criminal law. Duh.

[Famspear]

Hendrickson is now represented by counsel: M. Ellen Dennis of Saline, Michigan (per case docket).

She's 61 years old, JD Univ of Michigan. Admitted to the bar in 1974. Former assistant US atty for 10 years.

I hope for Pete's sake he listens to her counsel.

[Imalawman]

Hendrickson is now represented by counsel: M. Ellen Dennis of Saline, Michigan (per case docket).

She's 61 years old, JD Univ of Michigan. Admitted to the bar in 1974. Former assistant US atty for 10 years.

I hope for Pete's sake he listens to her counsel.

Yeah, I'm a little surprised. I half expected him to get some TP paralegal. I'm all for him getting the best legal help he can get, now I wonder how long she'll be his lawyer. TP's have a tendency to go through lawyers at a fairly good clip until they get to a TP lawyer/paralegal.

[grixit]

Hendrickson is now represented by counsel: M. Ellen Dennis of Saline, Michigan (per case docket).

She's 61 years old, JD Univ of Michigan. Admitted to the bar in 1974. Former assistant US atty for 10 years.

No rookie, then. Knows the law, the procedures, the basic strategy used by federal prosecutors, and has probably familiar with paytriot rhetoric. Sounds like the best qualifications for helping someone who's dug himself this deep a hole. Question is, how does Pete spin it to his buddies that he accepted the help of a BAR member, Esquire, Lie-yer, etc?

[webhick]

[Question is, how does Pete spin it to his buddies that he accepted the help of a BAR member, Esquire, Lie-yer, etc?

That kind of management requires some specialized skills, though, and getting them will cost money. I hope all of you will participate. Donations for that purpose can be made here, or by mail to Pete Hendrickson

I guess when the rebels start attacking, Darth announces that he doesn't know what he's doing and proceeds to beg for money. Then some of his opaque tupperware soldiers start talking about fondling the big red button labeled "Money Bomb" while others debate terminology used in the operations manual for the shields. They won't even notice when the Death Star implodes.

When can I start calling Darth Hendrickson Jabba the Pete? Do I have to wait until he puts his cellmate in a tin bikini?