Hendrickson questioned

[Nikki]

Lay your bets, gentlepeople. How long will this post remain up on LoserHeads?

I believe in Pete's books and the undertaking of following the rule of law by any of us who will seek the truth, but when I actually read this judgment I was shaken some.

Why did he lose? Why was everything denied and how are we supposed to beat these charges ourselves if it comes to it? Is there more to this case than I have found? Did an appeal occur?

Filed 06/12/2008

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/hendrickson_app37.pdf Thanks Demosthenes.

It ends with "For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion for sanctions is granted in the amount of $4,000.00, and the district court’s judgment is affirmed. See Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit."

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

I believe in Pete's books and the undertaking of following the rule of law by any of us who will seek the truth, but when I actually read this judgment I was shaken some.

Why did he lose? Why was everything denied and how are we supposed to beat these charges ourselves if it comes to it?

Obviously, all of the courts are just plain wrong. Judges are corrupted by influence from the IRS and the DOJ and Pete is, of course, still infallible no matter what some court rulings say. Maybe after a few thousand people show up in court and continue to cite Pete's wisdom the Judges will finally come to their senses. What's a few thousand dollars in sanctions on top of the back taxes and penalties when you're trying to make a point, eh?

[webhick]

Poor zeropoint wasn't around when the shit hit the fan, and I was going to say something about how he was too lazy to search the forum...but I don't recall the Pete Lost the Appeal thread being more than just damage control.

Let me, as a layman, try to answer the questions. zeropoint may not listen at all, since I'm not a self-proclaimed legal expert with no legal training:

1. Why did he lose?
Because Pete's silver bullet is defective. His "income," "includes," and other such arguments have been tried before and shot down in a court of law. His followers like to claim that Pete's arguments are different, but the truth of the matter is whether you say "I killed the deer with my car" or "The deer had a fatal collision with my car while I was at the wheel", the deer is still dead and you're still stuck hosing blood off fiberglass.

2. Why was everything denied and how are we supposed to beat these charges ourselves if it comes to it?
a. Everything was denied because Pete's silver bullet is defective.
b. You really can't defeat the charges on their merits because Pete is wrong. Just plain wrong. Get out now. Stop with this Tax Protesting, ahem "Truth Movement" (dead deer) nonsense. Then, if the hammer comes down on you they might be persuaded to take your recent good behavior into consideration.

3. Is there more to this case than I have found? Did an appeal occur?
I may be wrong, but I don't think there is. Pete was trying to get everyone to put in work writing up amicus briefs. I looked it up when he mentioned it. I think he was really meaning a amicus curiæ brief, which according to wiki is a brief written up on a point of law to help a court decide a case. The brief is usually written up by someone who is not a party to a case. And while the folks at LH are not a party to the case, I'm not sure if there's a disqualification for solicited briefs from people who have a monetary incentive (retention of erroneous refunds, releases of liens, etc) or who have contributed to the legal offense/defense of the one who is a party to the case. Either which way, it doesn't matter now. This whole amicus thing is overshadowed by the indictment.

What you're seeing with Pete, zeropoint, is a preview of what may very well happen to you.

[webhick]

Hasn't been deleted yet, and there are no replies.

Perhaps Pete won't delete the post because Nikki caught it fast enough and drew attention to it.

[Famspear]

Hasn't been deleted yet, and there are no replies.

Perhaps Pete won't delete the post because Nikki caught it fast enough and drew attention to it.

Everyone over there has been studiously ignoring it, hoping that everyone else there will ignore it, or that someone else will come up with a PeterEricBlowhardMeisterEsque -- or a BultenEsque -- response.

The lost one wrote:

. . . . I was shaken some.

Why did he lose? Why was everything denied and how are we supposed to beat these charges ourselves if it comes to it? . . . .

Oh, silly one, don't you know that when Pete loses, it should only confirm that Pete is right? Don't you remember that this is what follower Patrick Michael Mooney said when Mooney lost his case? Losing your case should simply reinforce your belief that Pete is right in all that he says and writes!!!

"Beating the charges," indeed! You silly goose! Don't you remember that PeterEricBlowhardMeister himself has called his own work:

the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted.

Don't you know that The Blowhard has written that He Himself is:

. . . . the first to have forced the tax system into the choice of either watching its gravy-train be derailed by the truth I have revealed or abandoning all pretenses of legitimacy and law and trying to coerce me into undoing the bonds I have placed upon it.

Ah, the BONDS HE HAS PLACE UPON THE TAX SYSTEM! He has them right where he wants them! OK, so he lost his own tax refund case. OK, so he is under indictment, and is facing the possibility of another tax conviction. OK, so he might end up with an even longer prison term this time. Sooooo?

I think you just need to buy several additional copies of Pete's book. Then everything will be all right......

[LPC]

Is there more to this case than I have found? Did an appeal occur?

Actually, there is something new. On 12/16/2008, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals entered the following order:

The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and no judge of this court having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original panel.

The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

(Emphasis added.)

That's right, not one of the 16 judges of the 6th Circuit thought the case was even worth talking about.

But on the plus side, there were no additional sanctions imposed.

So, on to the Supreme Court?

(And it's strange that Hendrickson hasn't yet shared this latest triumph of the rule of law with his marks.)

[Doktor Avalanche]

Well, that didn't take long.

I thought it was going to start unravelling after Uncle Petey got his guilty verdict.

[Famspear]

Losthorizons User MN Stix responds:

They [the government] are seeking relief because Pete and his wife refuse to change their testimony.

This is one reason I suggest filing for a return without providing your private documents. You provide them nothing to base bogus BS like this on. The more I read, the more I have come to realize that once you place "material" into the hands of the government, the more likely you are to be penalized to death.

Government has so many rules to cherry pick from, law becomes baseless argument. We need to start looking into those facts. I say you are guilty of USC 26 *.*** and provide that as record to court. You may not use USC 18 *.** as an arguement [sic]. You need to answer directly to the challenge posed, or do not answer to them at all. Simply refuse to change you [sic] testimony and pay whatever fine they are granted.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1243
(bolding added).

Now, that's a real solution!

Its [sic] a bitter pill to swallow... arguement [sic] beating out law[,] that is. Don't allow them to cherry pick law on you. Provide nothing, say nothing, and maintain your lawful superior status. Provide infromation [sic] to the scumbags and watch them cherry pick your pocketbook until you are broke.

Yeah, this Cracking the Code thing really works.

Seems to be a sad thing, America the beautiful being flushed down the toilet to cherry picked rule of lawlessness. Just my two cent opinion.

Then, Propeller Head (Weston White) puts in his two cents:

I believe he is in process of appealing that decision.

He did appeal, Weston. He lost. Maybe he'll go to the Supreme Court now.

Maybe the Supreme Court will straighten it all out for him. Maybe I will arrive at the Planet Neptune later today.

Though he also has to deal with that other case with those 10-bogus charges.

Yes, that criminal trial coming up in February would seem to be more than just a minor footnote in Pete's life right now.

PH can't really discuss his plans of course, for obvious reasons; though it would be nice if he or somebody would post the progress as it occurs concerning both cases after the fact. To keep us all in the loop.

That said[,] how many lower court decisions go on[,] only to be reversed in the higher courts? Many of them, right?

Now Weston zooms off to Planet Weston:

Also it is a known fact that the IRS is legally permitted to pay judges lots of money for assisting in prosecuting tax evaders, criminals, et al. The IRS has some payment award program that authorizes them to issue cold cash in large amounts, i.e. $5,000 to such persons that aid them with their mission. Who knows if that was actually the case, though it is very likely to have impacted the judges motivation.

So, the IRS is paying off federal judges so the judges will rule in favor of the IRS, eh? That's it? That's your answer? This is an old tax protester story we have heard before. Sounds like Cracking the Code is working out really well for you, Weston. We're in the Twinkie Zone, now, aren't we?

Also it is worthy to note that judges do not favor pro se litigants to say the least, so right out of the box you have a mark placed against you.

Oh, boo-hoo.

[webhick]

Simply refuse to change you [sic] testimony and pay whatever fine they are granted.

Translation: Stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA" while authorizing checks to the government until you've paid out multiples of your erroneous refund.

That's some sound legal advice. No, really. I'm serious. If you do enough of that, they might have you declared insane which would totally get you off on the criminal charges. Granted you may also end up in a straight-jacket, but at least you'll be surrounded by people who understand you. Or at least folks who pretend to listen...while they eat their belly button lint and tongue their meds. You could even really luck out and snag that spot by the window and the catatonic dude. At least he can't run away.

[LPC]

Simply refuse to change you [sic] testimony and pay whatever fine they are granted.

And serve whatever time might be imposed.

[notorial dissent]

To expand a bit on what webhick wrote:
1) Pete’s silver bullet is more likely tin of the old and corroded and crumbly kind, since it certainly has crumbled every time it has come in contact with reality;

2) Pete’s dictionary is likewise defective based on his faulty definition of “includes”, which has failed at every attempt’

3) On the “amicus briefs”, I think you actually have to be a lawyer or someone respected in the field to be eligible to file one, and it is quite obvious that none of Pete’s followers fall in to that catagory, and there is also the requirement for non involvement/uninterested party, again since they are practitioners of the dumb arts of CTC, that should also disqualify them from entering any further nonsense into the matter.

The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and no judge of this court having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original panel.

The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

(Emphasis added.)

Pretty cold when you can’t even get one judge to vote for a rehearing, but then they’re all just prejudiced or bought off according to Pete.

Yep, sounds like old Pete has really got it all figured out........... I just keep wondering if any of the rest of his brood ever will.

[Famspear]

I recall that when Pete lost the appeal at the Sixth Circuit back in June, he stated:

. . . this "ruling" is an exercise in dodge-and-weave, with what deliberately goes unaddressed, or is carefully presented with a reliance on the reader's adoption of convenient assumptions, being the real story here. That real story amounts to a complete affirmation of what CtC teaches about the law. As has been noted in my previous discussions of this "lawsuit":

"The fact is, as obnoxious as it has been to deal with (and apparently will continue to be, for a while yet), this "lawsuit" serves as a wonderful demonstration of the truth about the "income" tax which is revealed in CtC.

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=625

Ah, yes, this is the old "the fact that I lost yet again shows that I'm right" argument. Oh, Blowhard, we Sing Your Praises!

The Blowhard goes on (and on, and on....):

"If ever there was a time to just say plain out that "Hendrickson says not everyone working for someone else is an "employee" within the meaning of that term in chapter 24 of the IRC, but that is wrong-- everyone working for someone else is an "employee" within the meaning of that term in chapter 24 of the IRC", this would be the time. And yet, throughout several hundred pages of elaborate filings-- and in a venue where it is obliged to make its best case, and has no credible reason for anything but simple frankness-- the government which aches to have you and everyone else BELIEVE that this is so, and ACT as though this is so, just CAN'T and WON'T make that plain and frank declaration.

This is the Blowhard Hendrickson "the court did not say exactly what I argue the court should have said, therefore my loss is really a victory" argument. Hendrickson goes on, referring to his group of Propeller-Headed Followers:

There's a lot of highly-tuned brainpower in this group . . . .

and then:

. . . . and this is a nice opportunity to exercise it [Propeller-Headed Brainpower] productively in a demonstration of the fact that while three political appointees [the panel of judges of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals] may have offered their own preferred and self-serving take on all this, thousands of their superiors [also known as Propeller-Headed Losthorizoners], who have closely studied the law, know better.

Hendrickson asked his Propeller Heads (oops, I mean, his followers) to file amicus briefs to help him try for a rehearing en banc, and he concluded with:

There is nothing that will be of greater impact on the court's subsequent behavior than a clear indicator that it's being watched by a large number of Americans who are not taken in by its pretenses.

Wow, and in spite of all that, the Court of Appeals rejected Blowhard's request for a rehearing. Not one single judge thought that Hendrickson's request warranted a further consideration.

Well, I guess the Propeller Heads failed the BlowhardMeister again.

'Cause none of this could be the BlowhardMeister's fault.

So, let me get this straight:

1. PeterEricBlowhardMeister filed his federal income tax returns using his Cracking the Code scam.

2. The government sued him under the erroneous refund statute, and Pete lost at the District Court.

3. Pete appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and Pete lost again.

4. Pete asked for a rehearing from the Sixth Circuit, and Pete lost again.

Yeah, that proves he's right.

[notorial dissent]

Well, right on track for a long prison sentence anyway.

[LPC]

3) On the “amicus briefs”, I think you actually have to be a lawyer or someone respected in the field to be eligible to file one, and it is quite obvious that none of Pete’s followers fall in to that catagory, and there is also the requirement for non involvement/uninterested party, again since they are practitioners of the dumb arts of CTC, that should also disqualify them from entering any further nonsense into the matter.

I'm not really a litigator (and I don't play one on TV), but my understanding of amicus curiae" briefs (literally "friend of the cause" but usually translated as "friend of the court") is that it is up to the court itself to decide what might be helpful in deciding the case.

So, courts can accept briefs from persons who are not parties to the action, but who are (a) interested in the subject matter and (b) knowledgeable about the subject matter in order to get their views on the legal issues. For example, the Supreme Court will usually accept amicus curiae briefs from environmental groups on environmental issues, and will almost always accept amicus curiae briefs from the US government in cases in which the US is not a party but there are federal policy issues at stake.

In Hendrickson's case, the 6th Circuit actually accepted an amicus brief from some whack-job named "Charles K. Bassett," probably on the theory that it was easier to accept the brief and then ignore it than decide whether to accept it. But if the 6th Circuit had received a large number of amicus briefs from semi-literate tax protesters, they probably would have ignored them all.

Confession: I've thought about filing amicus briefs myself in cases like Hendrickson's, but haven't yet because it felt (a) unnecessary and (b) time-consuming and therefore (c) silly.

(Should we have a pool on what position I would take?)

[Lambkin]

Well, right on track for a long prison sentence anyway.

Has anyone formed a guess as to his possible penalty if convicted? With the prior conviction for a related crime I assume it won't be pretty.

[Famspear]

Lost Soul "zeropoint" isn't satisfied with the non-answers he or she is getting from the bozos over at losthorizons. His/her latest post:

All these replies are important points, but [they] still don't address why Pete lost this case. The court simply didn't listen to anything he had to say[,] and just charged him for frivolous or fraudulent returns.

Am I missing something here? Other than what Weston has written here, I don't see how anything else matters other than that the judge determined the outcome and charged Pete $4k. Why was he able to do that? I don't read that the court is still seeking relief because he [Pete Hendrickson] won't change the testimony; I read that the court found his returns frivolous or fraudulent and charged him. Isn't this what has happened?

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 1318#11318

Why zeropoint, you arrogant so-and-so! How dare you continue to try to inject reality into the proceedings!

Now, user Richardf614 tries to calm the waters.....

If the returns fit the criteria of being fraudulent, then the DOJ would have proceeded upon said charges. No other course of action would be needed or required. One can read thousands of fraud cases and come to the conclusion that a CTC return does not fit said charge.

If a thief cannot enter through the door, he must use deceit to to capture one's funds.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up, Richard.

EDIT: In fairness, we should point out that the District Court concluded that Hendrickson's returns were "false." The court also determined that Hendrickson's position that the withholding law applies only to government workers is "frivolous and false". The District Court did not actually use the term "fraudulent."

EDIT #2: From the Court's order:

ORDERED, that Defendants [Peter and Doreen Hendrickson] are prohibited from filing any tax return, amended return, form (including, but not limited to Form 4852 (“Substitute for Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement, etc.”)) or other writing or paper with the IRS that is based on the false and frivolous claims set forth in Cracking the Code that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal income, social security and Medicare taxes from their wages under the internal revenue laws [ . . . ]

--docket entry 34, May 2, 2007, AMENDED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION, United States v. Hendrickson, case no. 06-11753, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Div. (bolding added).

[webhick]

If the returns fit the criteria of being fraudulent, then the DOJ would have proceeded upon said charges. No other course of action would be needed or required. One can read thousands of fraud cases and come to the conclusion that a CTC return does not fit said charge.

::cough:: Indicted 11/13/08 ::cough::

[LPC]

I believe in Pete's books and the undertaking of following the rule of law by any of us who will seek the truth, but when I actually read this judgment I was shaken some.

Why did he lose?

Taking this question as sincere, I'd like to offer a wild, shot-in-the-dark kind of idea, which is that maybe Hendrickson lost because he is wrong.

Let's look at some of the highlights from the 6th Circuit opinion:

On appeal, the Hendricksons make numerous challenges to the district court’s jurisdiction and judgment which fairly can be characterized as plainly baseless tax protester arguments. [....]

First, the Hendricksons’ jurisdictional challenges lack merit. The United States plainly may sue for return of taxes erroneously refunded pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7405(b). [citation omitted] Moreover, 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) gives district courts the authority to grant injunctions “necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” [citation omitted] The Hendricksons’ initial assertion on appeal, that the district court
lacked jurisdiction in this case because another statutory provision, 26 U.S.C. § 6201, authorizes and requires the Secretary of the Treasury to determine and assess taxes, was properly rejected by the district court as irrelevant and patently meritless. [....] [The remaining jurisdictional] challenges are patently meritless. For example, the Hendricksons’ assertion that the government lacks standing under 26 U.S.C. § 7405(b) to seek return of taxes not already determined is wholly unsubstantiated as is their equally meritless contention that the district court lacks jurisdiction to determine tax liability. [....]

The Hendricksons’ remaining claims also plainly lack merit. First, the Hendricksons contend that the district court improperly weighted the evidence in favor of the government when it found that Peter E. Hendrickson was an “employee” who had been paid “wages,” and that Doreen M. Hendrickson had received “non-employee compensation.” However, this contention is tantamount to a typical tax protester argument that the income at issue is not taxable. [....] Accordingly, the Hendricksons’ remaining claims are meritless, and the district court properly granted summary judgment for the government in this case.

Given the patent baselessness of the Hendricksons’ assertions on appeal, the government’s motion for sanctions will be granted, but only in the amount of $4,000.00.

This is not subtle stuff. How much plainer can it be?

[wserra]

This is not subtle stuff. How much plainer can it be?

Schiller!

For those who have forgotten: Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. (Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.)

[webhick]

This is not subtle stuff. How much plainer can it be?

See Dick and Jane.
See Dick and Jane work in a non-federally connected capacity at a privately owned company.
See Dick and Jane's boss pay them for the work they did.
See Dick and Jane get shitfaced on New Year's Eve.
See Dick and Jane get W-2s from their boss.
See Dick and Jane visit IRS website.
See Dick and Jane download form 1040.
See Dick enter W-2 box 1 as WAGES.
See Jane enter zero as wages.
See Dick finish his tax return.
See Dick mail his tax return.
See Jane try to correct her W-2 to 0 and explain that she had money withheld from no wages and include a long-winded explanation.
See Jane finish her tax return.
See Jane drive to nearest IRS office to have her tax return personally received.
See Dick and Jane receive refunds in the mail.
See Jane laugh at Dick. Jane's refund is much larger than Dick's.
See Dick tell Jane that her time will come.
See Jane receive letter from IRS claiming that return doesn't match W-2.
See Jane write series of letters back to IRS.
See IRS ignore Jane's frivolous arguments.
See Jane whine on Lost Horizon's forum.
See Jane get sanctioned for $5000.
See Jane's bank accounts get levied.
See Jane whine to Dick about IRS.
See Dick laugh at Jane.

Okay, so I haven't read those books in forever.