Weston White at losthorizons takes a shot at Quatloos

[Famspear]

Weston White at losthorizons writes:

Finally, I found the law, after my two years of researching, I finally located it! Man don't I feel like a dounce, I mean it was right there in front of our faces all along, with the first 63-Sections to! Gee, well, thanks guys, well it has been fun, see ya!

OK, seriously, refute time! I came across this and thought well this is great, finally something somewhat original and quasi serious on this freak show of a site. Then I though we should put together a throughout dunking page for this to reference it to... not that is will be much of a challenge, I mean come on, now (I figured I would begin a few of em):

"Comment: Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the “Power To law and collect Taxes” without further restriction in this Section. Note that the uniformity requirement only applies to “Duties, Imposts and Excises” and not to taxes. This means that “Taxes” are treated differently than “Excises” under the Constitution, since Taxes are not required to be uniform. Those who would equate “Taxes” and “Excises” are simply wrong, and demonstrably so."

(HINT: This is because the use of the word "Taxes" is simply a generic reference two either other of the two (2) classes of established "Taxes", with those being Direct and Indirect. This Clause begins by first establishing the Congress the power to "Tax", being as this was a grave issue that existed with the originating Articles of Confederation, Shhhhh... it is a secret through, OK?

P.S. I think they meant to write 'lay taxes' not 'law taxes'... but hey since I am really ignorant, am unable to comprehend, and am exceptionally dumb and idiotic, it might just be my error.)

"Comment: Article I, Section 9, does not ban direct taxes, but merely says that such taxes must be “in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration”."

(HINT: Besides leaving out Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 and pointlessly making a strange reference pertaining to the cited Section "not banning" such taxes... this point proves positively nothing, serves no purposes, other then to further confuse the reader.)

"Comment: Whether or not Article I, Section 9 applies to income taxes, its requirement that such taxes be “in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration” is eliminated. Note that no new power of taxation is created (Congress already had all the power it needed for the income tax) but a potential restriction (if it existed at all) was abolished."

(HINT: Oh not again, you forget to mention: Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. However, to continue, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 does pertain to 'income taxes' and no Amendment XVI did not eliminate any other existing clause within the Constitution, nor could it if it wanted to, because to do so would destroy the established fundamentals of the Constitution, thereby rendering it a broken contract. What Amendment XVI did do was to legally clarify exactly how 'incomes' were to be treated as a tax.

They are semi-correct on one aspect Congress did have all the taxing power they needed, that is until the Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust SCOTUS ruling ended it, which is why Amendment XVI was Ratified (presumably, not that it is relative to ones remuneration for time or labor anyway); By the by, the Pollock case had nothing to do with taxes on ones time or labor, that was not the issue being addressed, the issue was pertaining to... excises and duties, specifically 'incomes' (i.e. gains and profits).

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "

meaning that 'incomes' are to exist within the class of Indirect Taxes, either while being in the form of a Duty or an Excise Tax, i.e. a tax on ones assessed activity or privilege. If Amendment XVI was in fact addressing ones remuneration for time or labor, then the obvious subject of this Amendment would have been 'Capitation Taxes' not some obscured word not prior referenced or accounted for within the Constitution, that being 'incomes' or now called 'Income Taxes'.

Also important to further note that the original name of the Federal Income Tax or Internal Revenue Code or Income Tax or IRC, et al, was The Tariff Act, also the Underwood Tariff; a Tariff is essentially a Duty Tax.

FUN FACT: The Congress did not tax the compensation for (personal) services of average working American citizens prior to the Ratification of the XVI Amendment. In fact prior to the Victory Tax in 1942 (which is 29-years after the Ratification of the XVI Amendment) not more then 8-percent of American filed Federal Income Tax returns in any given year, after-which in 1943 that figure dramatically rose to 38-percent and steadily upwards thereafter, this was attested by President Harry S. Truman himself in 1952.)


See here: http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm


Anybody else sort of see how these "Q" peoples logic is entirely flawed (I mean besides the persistent misuse of the word "tax protester" and over used of petty name calling)?

"As has been explained numerous times, a not guilty verdict in a criminal case only means that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were WILLFULLY violating the tax laws, and were not acting out of a good faith mistake. It does NOT mean that the tax laws are not valid, or do not apply, because the defendants will still end up paying the taxes owed, with interest and penalties.

You might as well claim that murder is legal because OJ Simpson was found not guilty." - LPC

I am really starting to like this Famspear person, cracks me up!

"Many of the people here at Quatloos are pretty "heavy hitters" in the world of exposing scams, including tax protester scams." - Famspear


LOL, I am sort of having a hard time believing they are actually even serious with this stuff, though. Though I was thinking it would be fun for a laugh, while we can keep it professional for reference.

Dear Weston: Let me break this down in terms that you and your associates may be able to understand.

First of all, Quatloos is a web site that exposes scams.

Peter Eric Hendrickson is a scammer. He is a convicted criminal, and he is in criminal trouble again.

All of you who actually use Hendrickson's Cracking the Code scam are criminals. You are the bad guys.

We here at Quatloos are the good guys.

Hendrickson's Cracking the Code theory has absolutely no legal merit. It has been shot down in court every single time. It didn't even work for Hendrickson. The details on the many court case losses by Hendrickson and his followers are found elsewhere here in Quatloos, and in at least one other place on the internet.

Regarding name calling, I just want to repeat for emphasis: You people who actually use Cracking the Code are criminals. Hendrickson is a scammer, and you who follow him are criminals.

More to come.......

[ASITStands]

And, since none of the Quatloos regulars are allowed to post on Lost Horizons ...

Wonder how he expects any of us to reply to his challenge? Hmm.

[webhick]

And, since none of the Quatloos regulars are allowed to post on Lost Horizons ...

Wonder how he expects any of us to reply to his challenge? Hmm.

Well, we'd have to put on our pyramid hats (which will concentrate our psychic power) and beam our rebuttals straight into his brain. That is of course, unless he's wearing his tin foil beanie in which case our psychic powers will accidentally revert to the second brain in charge and unless he's wearing lead underwear, his tightie troopers will explode like lemmings on self-destruct.

[Famspear]

Weston White wrote:

FUN FACT: The Congress did not tax the compensation for (personal) services of average working American citizens prior to the Ratification of the XVI Amendment. In fact prior to the Victory Tax in 1942 (which is 29-years after the Ratification of the XVI Amendment) not more then 8-percent of American filed Federal Income Tax returns in any given year, after-which in 1943 that figure dramatically rose to 38-percent and steadily upwards thereafter, this was attested by President Harry S. Truman himself in 1952.)

Baloney.

The first federal income tax was imposed during the Civil War. At the expense of doing something as pedestrian as citing a tax form (rather than the statute itself), I would point out, for example, that for the tax year 1863, the income tax was imposed on the income of a resident in the United States from profits on any trade or business, OR VOCATION, wherever carried on.

The tax was imposed not only on "salary as an officer or employee of the United States" but also on "salary other than as an officer or employee of the United States." (Again, see the 1863 federal income tax form.)

And nothing in the the federal income tax laws of the United States -- during the Civil War or at any other time -- has ever limited the imposition of the income tax to activities in connection with the exercise of a privilege (federal or otherwise).

Anybody else sort of see how these "Q" peoples logic is entirely flawed (I mean besides the persistent misuse of the word "tax protester" and over used of petty name calling)?

No, Weston our logic here at Quatloos is not "flawed." And, indeed, it's not really "our logic." We are telling you what the law is. We are laying down the law - literally.

Weston, the term "tax protester" is a legal term. It's the term used by the courts, in court decisions. The term has been formally used in reported federal court cases since at least the mid-1970s. The term "tax protester" properly applies to Peter Hendrickson, and to all those who use his scam. Nothing you can do about that.

Petty name calling? Yes, you people at losthorizons who actually use Hendrickson's scam are criminals. And Hendrickson is indeed a BLOWHARD. Look up the word in a dictionary.

LOL, I am sort of having a hard time believing they are actually even serious with this stuff, though. Though I was thinking it would be fun for a laugh, while we can keep it professional for reference.

Yeah, and I guess Pete's latest indictment and his upcoming trial indicates the same lack of "seriousness" about this matter. Just like Pete's court losses indicate the same lack of "seriousness". "LOL" - a million laughs.

Let's review the information from legal commentator Daniel B. Evans:

Hendrickson pleaded guilty to one count of willfully failing to file an income tax return and one count of conspiracy to place an incendiary device in the United States mail. United States v. Peter Hendrickson, No. 2:1991cr80930 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich.). Hendrickson was sentenced to 21 months in prison, and was released on 8/25/1993.

The conspiracy charge was based on a firebomb put into the mail at the United States Post Office in Royal Oak, Michigan, on April 16, 1990, the last day for filing federal income tax returns that year. The bomb went off in the post office, injuring a postal worker and a bystander. Hendrickson was apparently able to get a favorable sentencing recommendation for himself (and get charges dropped against his then girlfriend, later wife) by secretly tape-recording one of his co-conspirators and testifying against him. The courts ruled that the tape-recording was Hendrickson's own idea, and not part of any agreement with the United States government, so the secret, warrantless taping did not violate the 4th Amendment. United States v. Scarborough, 43 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 1994).

The IRS also served summonses on a number of different banks seeking financial records of Hendrickson's accounts at those banks. Hendrickson filed petitions in federal court to quash the summonses, but every one of his petitions have been denied. Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 3:2006mc00008 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Va. 5/8/2006) (petition denied; Capital One Bank ordered to comply with summons); Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 8:2006cv00345 (U.S.D.C. Neb. 10/4/2006) (petition denied); Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 2:2006x 50394 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 6/2/2006) (petition denied), affirmed, No. 06-1870 (6th Cir. 4/10/2007), rehearing denied, 8/8/2007, cert. denied, No. 07-624 (1/7/2008), rehearing den. (2/25/2008); Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 2:2006x 50396 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 6/29/2006) (petition denied), affirmed, No. 07-1144 (10/2/2007 6th Cir.), rehearing denied (11/30/2007); Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 5:2006mc80094 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. 7/18/2006) (petition to quash summons directed at EBAY/PayPal denied), affirmed, No. 06-56129 (9th Cir. 8/13/2007).

After he published Cracking the Code, Hendrickson began bragging on his web site, "Lost Horizons," about the refunds that his followers were able to obtain, even publishing copies of refund checks, some of which still had names or addresses still visible. The government finally filed a civil action against Hendrickson and his wife, requesting a judgment against them for the erroneous refunds issued to them and an injunction requiring them to file correct tax returns. The government's motion for summary judgment was granted, the court holding that there was no dispute as to any material fact, and the government was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. United States v. Peter Eric Hendrickson, No. 06-11753 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 2/26/2007), affirmed, No. 07-1510 (6th Cir. 6/11/2008) (sanctions of $4,000 imposed for frivolous appeal).

On November 12, 2008, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan announced that Hendrickson had been arraigned on an indictment charging him with 10 counts of filing false documents with the Internal Revenue Service. According to the indictment, Hendrickson filed false income tax returns (Forms 1040) and false substitutes for wage statements (Forms 4852) for the years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 reporting that he had received no wages in those years even though he had in fact received wages in those years.

Students/Disciples/Associates

When the government filed the civil action against Hendrickson and his wife for the erroneous refunds paid to them, the government also filed six similar suits against some of his followers. "United States Sues Nine in Nationwide Crackdown on Tax-Refund Scam," U.S. Dept. of Justice Press Release (4/13/2006). The other suits were against Sharon K. Artman of Largo, Fla.; Michael J. Dowling of San Diego; Joy M. Ferguson of Henderson, Nev.; Melvin L. Gerstenkorn of Topeka, Kan.; Larry B. Golson and Debra G. Golson of Montgomery, Ala.; and James A. Spitzer of Winter Park, Fla., and all were successful. See, e.g., United States v. Ferguson, 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) par. 50,461 (D. Nev. 2007).

The judgment against James A. Spitzer was affirmed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and sanctions were imposed for bringing a frivolous appeal. United States v. James A. Spitzer, 2007 TNT 163-5, No. 07-11073 (11th Cir. 8/21/2007), aff'ng No. 06-00479-CV-ORL-22JGG (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fla. 2/13/2007) (erroneous refund of $16,614 ordered repaid). In a later order, the District Court also ordered Spitzer to pay double attorneys' fees to the United States, in the amount of $16,285.35, "as a sanction for his frivolous and bad faith defense of the entire case." Id., at Docket #49 (7/25/2007).

At least two different return preparers who expressly relied on Cracking the Code have been enjoined from preparing tax returns, the courts holding that the returns were false and frivolous. United States v. Donald A. Gray, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19833; 99 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1695, 2007 TNT 56-10, No. 1:07-CV-42 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 3/19/2007); United States et al. v. Beverly J. Hill et vir. et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38086; 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 548, 2006 TNT 27-13, No. CV-05-877-PHX (U.S.D.C. Ariz. 12/22/2005).

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

Yeah, everybody here at Quatloos, and everybody at the Internal Revenue Service, and everybody at the Department of Justice, is just totally lacking any "seriousness" about the Hendrickson scam.

I wonder if Sharon K. Artman is laughing now.

I wonder if Michael J. Dowling is laughing now.

I wonder if Joy M. Ferguson is laughing now.

I wonder if Melvin L. Gerstenkorn is laughing now.

I wonder if Larry B. Golson is laughing now.

I wonder if Debra G. Golson is laughing now.

I wonder if James A. Spitzer is laughing now.

I wonder if Donald A. Gray is laughing now.

I wonder if Roger Menner (recently convicted) is laughing now.

I wonder if Pete Hendrickson is laughing now.

I wonder if the families of all these people are laughing now. I have been personally contacted by at least one family member of one individual who got involved with Hendrickson's scam (who will remain unidentified), and I can tell you that family members are not laughing.

EDIT: I should clarify that my reference to Weston White's baloney above was a reference to this:

The Congress did not tax the compensation for (personal) services of average working American citizens prior to the Ratification of the XVI Amendment.

Weston's verbiage about the Victory Tax and the statistics, etc., may or may not be valid. Even if that verbiage is correct, however, that does not change the fact that the income tax laws enacted by Congress in the Civil War did indeed tax the compensation of "average working American citizens" prior to the Sixteenth Amendment.

It may well be that during the Civil War (or even during the Great Depression and World War II, which were after the ratification of the Amendment) relatively few Americans actually had enough income to have a tax liability in various years, etc., but that is a separate issue. Yes, over the years the scope of the income tax was expanded -- but the federal income tax has always applied to compensation for personal services generally -- not limited to taxing only compensation in connection with the federal government, not limited to compensation only in connection with a "privilege," and not limited merely to income only in connection with a "federal privilege,", etc., in whatever language Pete Hendrickson or his followers or any other tax protesters want to use.

[Cpt Banjo]

Since Mr. White visits here (although he is apparently not courageous enough to debate his views by posting), maybe he'll learn something from the following.

'incomes' are to exist within the class of Indirect Taxes, either while being in the form of a Duty or an Excise Tax, i.e. a tax on ones assessed activity or privilege.

Mr. White, the law has never required a "privilege" in order to impose an excise tax. Never. And if you truly believe that it does, then please explain how it is that the law taxes illegally-obtained income, where by definition no privilege exists. Or how it can tax gifts. This question has been posed to the Lost Horizons community many times, and to date no one -- I repeat, no one -- has even attempted to answer. Will you be the first to try?

Also important to further note that the original name of the Federal Income Tax or Internal Revenue Code or Income Tax or IRC, et al, was The Tariff Act, also the Underwood Tariff; a Tariff is essentially a Duty Tax.

No, Mr. White, the first federal income tax was enacted in 1861, not 1913, and it wasn't a tariff act.

Amendment XVI did not eliminate any other existing clause within the Constitution, nor could it if it wanted to, because to do so would destroy the established fundamentals of the Constitution

Wrong again, Mr. White. The Constitution specifies one and only one thing that an amendment can't do -- deny a State equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. Anything else is permitted. Moreover, you're apparently not aware that Congress had the power to tax personal earnings without apprtionment even before the 16th Amendment, and exercised it by passing the first income tax in 1861. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the tax and held that it was in the nature of an excise or duty. It also didn't require that there be any kind of "privilege".

By the by, the Pollock case had nothing to do with taxes on ones time or labor, that was not the issue being addressed, the issue was pertaining to... excises and duties, specifically 'incomes' (i.e. gains and profits).

Partially right, Mr. White. Pollock dealt with whether a tax on investment income was a direct tax on the underlying property. But in the course of its opinion, the Court did not overrule its previous decision upholding a tax on personal earnings, and it noted in passing that such a tax is valid.

Mr. White, you are invited to post your thoughts over here. Unlike Mr. Hendrickson, who bans us from posting on LH, the Quatloos folks aren't afraid of views that contradict their own.

[Famspear]

Mr. White, you are invited to post your thoughts over here. Unlike Mr. Hendrickson, who bans us from posting on LH, the Quatloos folks aren't afraid of views that contradict their own.

Yes, please give us your input, Mr. Weston White.

Maybe Mr. White will come over here and engage with us. And hopefully if he does show up, he will not wimp out, as losthorizons user "SubmarineVeteran" has done twice this year.

[ASITStands]

Interestingly enough, if Weston White is paying attention, various items can be found online:

U.S. IRS Tax Assessment Lists, 1862-1918 (fee based)

Civil War Era Tax Records

Read the information about Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie and Mark Twain.

Earlier this week, and just in time for Tax Day, we launched a collection of IRS Tax Assessment Lists, 1862 - 1918. Income tax was established in 1862 to help fund the Civil War, and most of the records cover the mid-1860s. Beyond stated income values, these assessments on Ancestry.com document personal property - pianofortes, gold watches, silver, billiard tables, carriages, live stock, even cotton - are listed by value and tax owed.

Individuals whose income was below $600 a year (roughly $12,700 today) were exempt from taxes. Even then, our ancestors may have fared better with the tax collector than we do today. In 1862 the tax topped out at 5%; 10% in 1864.

Because these were annual lists, many individuals appear in more than one tax assessment, which can be helpful in learning more about ancestors between the 1860 and 8170 censuses. But they also offer some intriguing insights into the financials of the nation’s historical icons as well as the ancestors of today’s.

In December 1864 (four months before his assassination), Abraham Lincoln declared an annual income of $25,000. That’s equivalent to $350,000 today, surprisingly in line with the president’s current salary of $400,000. What is not in line is Lincoln was taxed only $1,296 (roughly $17,000 today) instead of the $140,000 he would’ve been taxed today.

In 1865, Andrew Carnegie owned a carriage (for which he was taxed $1), a gold watch ($2) and a pianoforte ($4). Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens), who lived in San Francisco in 1864, apparently owed a penalty on his taxes.

Senator John McCain’s great-great-grandfather William Kidwell was taxed $.10 for cotton in his possession. Hillary Clinton’s great-great-grandfather John Monk was a cigar maker assessed 10% on his $2,800 income in 1865. And Barack Obama’s great-great-great-great-grandfather George Overall was taxed on a Stallion and a Jack - in other words, a donkey.

Finally, it’s not just individuals. Businesses were taxed as well. So if your ancestors were business owners in the mid-1800s, it might be worth looking for their business as well.

Check out the IRS Tax Assessment Lists here.

Also, John McCain's and Hillary Clinton's great-great-grandfathers.

In the world of Weston White, all these worked for the U.S. Government.

Income Tax Records of the Civil War Years

More interesting stories of real people being taxed on income.

And, last but not least, the 1862 Federal Income Tax Return

Page 1 very clearly shows who was liable.

1st. Every person residing in the United States; and every citizen residing abroad who is in the employment of the Government of the United States.

2nd. Every citizen of the United States residing abroad, and not in the employment of the Government of the United States.

Here's an example of one of the tax assessment lists from Delaware County, Iowa for 1863.

By the way, on the old forum, there was an example of an assessment list discussed.

Another example of how Pete Hendrickson's theory of "trade or business" was debunked.

[jg]

Wrong again, Mr. White. The Constitution specifies one and only one thing that an amendment can't do -- deny a State equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. Anything else is permitted. Moreover, you're apparently not aware that Congress had the power to tax personal earnings without apportionment even before the 16th Amendment, and exercised it by passing the first income tax in 1861. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the tax and held that it was in the nature of an excise or duty. It also didn't require that there be any kind of "privilege".

Lest we leave Mr. White to his own devices to find the cite, please see SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) which is available online at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=586

A few snippets from that case:

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax.
...
Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs, and among them one entitled 'Carriage tax.' See vol. vii. p. 848, of his works. This paper was evidently prepared with a view to the Hylton case, in which he appeared as one of the counsel for the United States. In it he says: 'What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms. There is none. We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.' There being many carriages in some of the States, and very few in others, he points out the preposterous consequences if such a tax be laid and collected on the principle of apportionment instead of the rule of uniformity. He insists that if the tax there in question was a direct tax, so would be a tax on ships, according to their tonnage. He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by 'a species of arbitration,' and that direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'
...
Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty. Pomeroy, Const. Law, 177; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, and Scholey v. Rew, supra.

Please help us to understand how your statements are not directly contrary to the Supreme Court ruling in 1880 that the tax assessed against the plaintiff having been levied upon his income, gains, and profits, is NOT a direct tax.
Clearly the court admitted a capitation tax must be a direct tax as that term is used in the Constitution; but that income taxes are not direct taxes (and so can not be capitation taxes).

According to the Constitution it is the courts that have the judicial power to decide what the term direct tax means when used in the Constitution. Sorry Mr. White, but neither you nor I nor Hendrickson can use our own analysis of the nature of the income tax as a substitute for the holding of the Supreme Court. When our analysis has a contrary result from the SCOTUS we must admit that our argument has no legal basis.

You and Hendrickson choose to ignore the proper operation and application of the Constitution in order to reach your self serving conclusion that your testimony decides what is included in taxable income or that the income tax is somehow imagined to be a capitation.

Hendrickson is disingenuous or deluded, at best, and is a danger to those that are deceived by his avoidance of the legal basis for the constitutionality of the income tax. He has sold a few books and dishonorably gained some minor notoriety within those that grasp at a way to resist the government collection of taxes at the expense of those that put his theories into practice.

[Gregg]

I'm kind of wondering whether PH wins or loses, at best he is going to get some kind of finding that is similar to or derives from a Cheek Defense, in that he may be found by a jury to have believed his own garbage, but it's still garbage, you don't go to jail but you do still owe the tax and of course, you cannot have any defense to using your hairbrained beliefs again.

Now, given the above thesis, would not all of the active participants on the Lost Horizons site, by the vary nature of their comments all through the case and obvious knowledge of the law, be in the position of whether Pete wins or loses, they most certainly will lose, because putting all of their postings and such into evidence will destroy any possible defense they can make?

It's late, was that coherent to anyone else?

[Gregg]

or more succinctly, is the "I'm both deluded and ignorant" defense only good one time per any group of like minded "deluded and ignorant"?

[Famspear]

I'm kind of wondering whether PH wins or loses, at best he is going to get some kind of finding that is similar to or derives from a Cheek Defense, in that he may be found by a jury to have believed his own garbage, but it's still garbage, you don't go to jail but you do still owe the tax and of course, you cannot have any defense to using your hairbrained beliefs again.

Now, given the above thesis, would not all of the active participants on the Lost Horizons site, by the vary nature of their comments all through the case and obvious knowledge of the law, be in the position of whether Pete wins or loses, they most certainly will lose, because putting all of their postings and such into evidence will destroy any possible defense they can make?

It's late, was that coherent to anyone else?

My guess is that it would be very difficult for the loserheads to be successful with a Cheek defense, but not impossible. A jury's gonna do what a jury's gonna do.

[Famspear]

More gems from the crooks at losthorizons, this from "mutter":

this case should be dismissed for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction as NO EVIDENCE COULD POSSIBLE [sic] BE PLACE [sic] ON THE RECORD.
Especially since the man wrote a book and published it.
Pete[,] even if you do a motion to dismiss[,] file a copy of CtC on the court record as well. Just to say here is what I believe and no constructive fraud by the gov and its agents will change my belief!

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =9822#9822

Dear "mutter": First, the evidence presented (or not presented) in a criminal case does not determine the issue of whether the prosecution has standing to bring the charges. It also does not determine subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Second, the government itself may well introduce a copy of Pete's book as evidence. As evidence, Pete's book might work either for or against him.

User "Tparty76" wrote:

I was one of the first here to read about this indictment. As no one was commenting about it yet, I was truly dismayed and worried that Pete might actually be in real trouble. In fact, immediately after finding out, I lost internet contact with every Lost Horizons page. I thought they had shut him down. I see now that I was overreacting and see this now for what it is:

A sensational attempt to scare, intimidate, and therefore control the spread of the truth and to discredit Pete, or at least make it seem that he has been put in his place. Most won't look past a simple headline and those that actually ever find out about this at all will only recall that "He got in trouble for doing that". Making it really hard for someone like myself to convince a doubting Thomas to get onboard and that what we're doing is the real deal.

THAT is what they are doing.

Ah, those mean ol', bad ol' federal prosecutors! They're just engaging in a "sensational attempt to scare, intimidate, and therefore control the spread of the truth and to discredit Pete"! So thaaaaattt's what this is all about! Ohh, the humanity!

Interesting use of the phrase "doubting Thomas" as well. The verbiage almost conjures the idea that Peter Hendrickson is the all-knowing Savior, and that any potential marks who are unsure of whether to believe in Peter's scam are, in effect, "doubting Thomases."

User "Morgan_Edwards" wrote:

My first thought when hearing this would be a jury trial was this:
Pete needs to work on diluting his pithy language down for the jury of his peers.

OK, I didn't say it to myself like that verbatum [sic], but let's be real here, it's taken most of us here more than one read through CTC to "get it". The jurors aren't going to have that luxury. The fact that our society has declined intellectually and morally is one more hurdle for Pete to overcome.

The way they select jurors is incredible as well - they'll be sure to weed out any possible threats to their prosecution.

Please keep the three syllable words to a minimum and use simple sentences.

(bolding added).

Yes, we all need to be concerned about the society as a whole, but the "moral and intellectual decline" is concentrated in the group consisting of the crooks who participate in Pete Hendrickson's scam.

User "Richardf614" writes:

This case will be interesting from both Pete's defense and the DOJ's prosecution.

The CTC stance has been under the IRS's microscope from the first day of Pete's book and website. With the amount of attention focused on this by the IRS and DOJ for over four years, the IRS is still issuing refunds, releasing liens and stopping levies every week. I believe a jury would find this very interesting and puzzling, if in fact the returns were false and fraudulent the jury would have a hard time buying the government's position seeing that not only Pete, but thousands of filers have been lead [sic] to believe their positions are valid. The IRS validates the belief's [sic] every week, when in fact they could have stopped this on a dime, if the government's claims had merit.

(bolding added).

As discussed here before, it appears that some of Pete's Crackheads may "believe" this nonsense about the Internal Revenue Service "validating" the refund claims of the Crackheads. I have seen references in losthorizons to the delusional belief that the IRS somehow carefully examines the millions and millions of federal income tax refund claims with a fine tooth comb before "validating" them and issuing them -- a laughable idea for any experienced tax practitioner who deals with the IRS on a regular, first hand basis. The vast majority of Crackheads want desperately to "believe" that the Internal Revenue Service is much more efficient and precise than the agency actually is. Few of these people have any real experience with the IRS outside of their own tax filings. Yes, a jury could be misled as well.

Richardf614 writes:

If I were on that jury, after hearing all the facts I would tend to believe that some sort of sting operation was involved. I would think that the IRS encouraged the belief under some ulterior motive or just maybe the belief was valid. I would be hard pressed to convict, after hearing this information. If I was told that the IRS had programs in place to catch this
type of return and yet they keep pumping out the refunds, releasing liens /levies and closing accounts after microscopic reviews, I would be shaking my head in disbelief. Conviction would not even be on the table!

Again, I agree that members of a jury could well be confused.

More from Richardf614:

The prosecutor is not only faced with the task of convicting Pete, he has the current crisis that is weighing heavy on each and every person in the jury box to overcome. The masses already mistrust government due to the lies and deceit being exposed. They are worried about their jobs, investments, college for their kids, foreclosure, etc. On top of all of these they are watching their taxes being doled out to wealthy mismanaged corporations and nothing coming back to help them. This crisis will only get worse and only the heavens know what the situation will be, when this case comes to trial.

I would hate to be the government attorney facing this jury! He in essence will be saying to the jury "This man does not want to give his hard earned money to us so we can pass it on to millionaires!" Do not think that every juror will not be thinking this. I hear it everyday. Remember that this case will be heard in Michigan. How is the auto industry doing? You get my point.

This could backfire big time on the government. People are feed [sic] up!
The DOJ has a heavy load to carry on this one. . . .

Interesting points.

User "gringobonk" writes:

Here's the deal with sites like Quataloo<gibberish>. They are in all likelihood state run. Many of the people, especially the most vocal, are paid disinfo agents.

Ah, but even if some Quatloos regulars were "paid disinfo agents," what are the Loserheads gonna do about all the Quatloos regulars who are not "paid disinfo agents"?

"Gringobonk" continues:

The fact of the matter is, this country has been under psychological war for decades. Peter happened to touch one of the many areas of this psychological war. The twisting of words, smoke and mirrors. This country has been gradually sovietized. I understand that for some it may seem as if I am making bold statements but for others who have dug deep into many various areas what I am saying makes sense. Peter will remain under constant attack in order to present to the common, ignorant masses the deception that every one must pay taxes. . . .

Things may be getting very heavy in this country in the next several months. There may be another false flag to allow the central government to tighten its grip on the population. When you encounter individuals who resort to name calling or other tactics rather than facts then you need to step back and assess: if they are honestly ignorant and they have problems with debating OR if they are paid disinfo agents.

Times are tight so we should all do what we can to help Pete. Don't waste precious life on disinfo agents. Spread the word about CtC and Pete's predicament.

Ah, Pete is the Savior. Now, we have to save Pete, for Pete's sake. No, wait, for the good of the country.

Now, "Weston White" writes:

You know what really exposes that Quack site, is the fact that they claim to expose tax scams and post on people that promote tax fraud and the like. Well, I could be wrong though I have yet to come across any pages referencing, discussing, investigating corporations whom do not pay their taxes, no instead the remain pleasantly infatuated stalking people who's supposed taxable incomes absolutely pails in comparison. We are talking billions and billions in fair share compared to a few dozen million at best.

Nothing about do not a black list, a do not conduct business with these companies, calling them, writing them letters, yelling pay your fair share in the lobby of their corporate buildings. Nothing total silence... but again it could be that I have just not come across such a thread yet.

Ah, now there's some "logic": Quatloos goes after individuals who promote big dollar scams, but doesn't do enough (in the eyes of Weston White) to expose corporations that cheat in even larger amounts; therefore, Quatloos is somehow "exposed."

Sorry, Weston, but nothing you have said or written changes the fact that Peter Hendrickson is promoting an illegal income tax scam, and that anyone who uses Peter's method is participating in criminal activity.

The regulars here at Quatloos are not charged with any crimes. Peter Hendrickson, already a convicted felon, is again charged with felonies. It is Peter Hendrickson who will be scheduled to be tried in a federal court, not the Quatloos regulars, be they government employees or (like myself) private individuals.

[Nikki]

Not surprisingly, Weston is unable to discern the difference between a large corporation (or any other real or artificial person) which legally AVOIDS paying income taxes and a LoserHead who illegally EVADES paying taxes.

Since his extensive study of 26USC, the relevant implementing regulations, assorted IRS Rulings, and apposite court decisions have been narrowly directed toward a predetermined conclusion, he can not differentiate between the legal application of the various exemptions and loopholes in the tax law and the interpretations of his feet-of-clay guru.

Unfortunately, he doesn't realize that his income tax related studies are not yet finished. He still has to take the remaining classes in petition-writing, CDP hearing processes, and judicial sales.

[Famspear]

Weston White has responded by quoting my last comments above regarding Hendrickson's prosecution, prefacing his remarks with the following:

Wow those guys [the Quatloos regulars] are quick, they have already replied to my question (they have much to say about you all as well, lolol). Notice he [Famspear] gives no actual answer, just silly reasoning and then goes off on an even sillier tangent.

Um, well, let's see now. The title of the thead over there is "Hendrickson indicted?" A reasonable person would agree that pointing out the fact that Hendrickson is indeed being prosecuted is not particularly "tangential".

Weston claims that he believes my "reasoning" is "silly," and that he considers the reminder about Hendrickson's latest criminal prosecution to be a "sillier" tangent.

No, Weston, you do not really believe my "reasoning" is "silly." You are very concerned about what is going to happen to Pete Hendrickson and to individuals who have been using Pete's "method." I don't need to be a psychic to realize that you are kidding yourself here.

And, no Weston, you do not really believe that my mentioning Hendrickson's prosecution is a "siller tangent." You are whistling past the grave yard. You are not being honest with your fellow users at losthorizons. You and the losthorizons regulars are posting in the thread entitled "Hendrickson indicted?" because you are concerned about this turn of events -- and rightfully so.

We, the regulars at Quatloos, are also posting on the same subject. Big difference: We, the Quatloos regulars, have nothing to fear about this turn of events. You at losthorizons do have good reason to be fearful. And that is why you are afraid. Your bluster over there is ineffective. You have not been able to hide your fear.

You say you notice that I give no "actual answer"? Ah, but an actual answer to which question? You asked several questions, mainly in the earlier pages in the thread. None of those questions appear to have been directed to me.

Clue to Weston White and all other losthorizons regulars: The Quatloos regulars are not here to "answer your questions." If, however, we choose to answer a question you ask, we may do so.

Pete Hendrickson may take some heart, though. The prosecution must prove its case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And in these matters, proof means persuasion. Perhaps Hendrickson will mount a Cheek defense, and perhaps it will be successful. It doesn't happen often, but occasionally a tax protester (and that's what Hendrickson is, whether you like it or not) is successful with a Cheek defense. Hendrickson has wisely retained a real lawyer with lots of experience. Let's hope for Pete's sake that Pete listens to her.

[ASITStands]

Observations on corporations not paying taxes:

News Flash! No corporation ever truly pays a tax even when they file a tax form and submit a payment, because the cost of that tax is factored back into the price of goods or services.

Does that not register with the folks at Lost Horizons or anywhere else?

Let's say for a moment we own an independent trucking company, and let's say the State or federal government raises the fuel tax. While we might be the person who directly pays the tax at the pump, or our drivers, do we not pass the cost on to our customers?

Sure we do. And, let's say the State raises licensing fees, and maybe increases a few fines. Do we not pass the costs of doing business on to our customers? Certainly.

Now, let's say the federal government raises our income tax. And, let's say they raise the withholding taxes like Social Security and Medicare, and let's say the amount we pay for our W-2 employees [drivers, warehousemen, dispatcher] rises. Do we not pass on the cost?

Sure we do, and that's the problem when we think corporations don't pay their fair share.

Any small or medium sized business that does not pass on the costs of increased taxes to their customers winds up reorganizing, being bought out or declaring bankruptcy. They fail.

No business ever pays any tax directly. It's always passed on to the customers in the price.

Just a little lesson in economics for the readers from Lost Horizons.

[LPC]

More gems from the crooks at losthorizons, this from "mutter":

this case should be dismissed for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction as NO EVIDENCE COULD POSSIBLE [sic] BE PLACE [sic] ON THE RECORD.
Especially since the man wrote a book and published it.
Pete[,] even if you do a motion to dismiss[,] file a copy of CtC on the court record as well. Just to say here is what I believe and no constructive fraud by the gov and its agents will change my belief!

Yep, that's real authentic CrackHead gibberish, all right.

How could the government not have standing to enforce its own tax laws?

How could the federal courts not have subject matter jurisdiction of federal tax crimes?

Why couldn't any evidence be introduced?

Authors can't be prosecuted in federal court?

And what the hell is "constructive fraud"?

None of it makes any sense. Forget flunking high school civics, "mutter" sounds like he flunked the third grade.

[wserra]

And what the hell is "constructive fraud"?

Burying Jimmy Hoffa in the foundation.

[LPC]

Anybody else sort of see how these "Q" peoples logic is entirely flawed (I mean besides the persistent misuse of the word "tax protester" and over used of petty name calling)?

"As has been explained numerous times, a not guilty verdict in a criminal case only means that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were WILLFULLY violating the tax laws, and were not acting out of a good faith mistake. It does NOT mean that the tax laws are not valid, or do not apply, because the defendants will still end up paying the taxes owed, with interest and penalties.

You might as well claim that murder is legal because OJ Simpson was found not guilty." - LPC

I keep thinking I should take offense, or respond with a rebuttal, or something, but I really can't figure out what he thinks he's saying.

I guess the answer to his question is: No, I don't see how my logic is "entirely flawed." A jury verdict in one case is a judgment about the evidence in that case, and not a judgment about the meaning or validity of the law that can apply to any other case.

[Famspear]

Weston White wrote:

Anybody else sort of see how these "Q" peoples logic is entirely flawed (I mean besides the persistent misuse of the word "tax protester" and over used of petty name calling)?

The followers of Peter Hendrickson, to the extent that they actually do what Peter says, generally (and tax protesters generally) do not openly acknowledge that they are criminals. They also do not seem to realize -- or at least they act as though they are unaware -- that we over here in the "normal" world view them for what they are: criminals. Thus, the comment about "petty name calling." It's as though they believe that they hold the key to the supposedly hidden truth about the tax law -- they have "cracked the code" -- and that the 99.99999% of all lawyers, CPAs, judges, law professors, IRS employees, etc., being corrupted by economic interest or evil motive, etc., etc., somehow just don't get it. In their world, they are the "righteous" ones.

Another thing I have noticed about many tax protesters is that they hate to be called tax protesters. Pete's followers believe, or claim to believe, that Pete holds the key, that Pete has cracked the Code, and that while everyone else may be delusional, Pete has nailed it. They hate the use of the term "tax protester" because of the negative connotation that has come to be applied to the term since the 1970s. This was a term that originally may have had no negative connotation, but which came to have one because of the way the courts used it to describe people like Hendrickson who make hilarious, frivolous, nonsensical arguments about "what the law is."

And, like virtually every other protester I have ever encountered, the followers of Hendrickson by and large appear to be totally clueless as to how nonsensical Pete's theories are. The vast majority of these people are just like Pete -- they have no training or experience that would allow them to do what they want to do.

The difference between tax protesters and the public at large is that tax protesters are driven by one or more psychological problems to reject any information (especially information from what psychologically normal people would consider the most reliable sources) that does not comport with the protesters' world view, and to embrace the idiosyncratic, urban legends that fit the protester's pre-conceived view -- even where the urban legends are contrary to all the rational input they receive, and even when the urban legend comes from an ex-con loser who couldn't even prevail in his own tax cases.

EDIT: People like Weston White think nothing of committing felonies by cheating on their taxes (by "believing" that it's not really illegal), yet presumably are offended by the relatively minor problem of "name calling" over here at Quatloos. This is like a bank robber objecting to being called names by people who object to his bank robbing activities.

[Demosthenes]

The followers of Peter Hendrickson, to the extent that they actually do what Peter says, generally (and tax protesters generally) do not openly acknowledge that they are criminals.

Do bad apples ever know they are bad apples?