http://guests.dailyshownews.com/akira/dtd/17025-2313Yea, personally I think he [Peter Hendrickson] believes I was actually serious. So he pulled a "Mutter" on me [referring to Hendrickson's ban of user Mutter when Mutter began asking questions]. haha
I send out a mass email to everybody I had an address for advising them of what happended and I just sent a fairwell letter to Hendrickson, titled "You are now on notice."
-- "Obviously, being that you do not have the "berries" to advise others of your actions (such as banning them and as to why exactly) and being that you consistently keep us CtCers in the dark about matters that ultimately effect us all, such as the fact that CtC is now just one small step away from being listed as an official 6702(c) argument and that you have changed attorneys and that you had banned Mutter for asking you to provide the reasons as to why you have "lied" to us all in more then one instance. Goodness, I truly have to wonder how many other CtCers have you secretly banned that we all thought had just stopped posting?
I will say it is poorly performed on your part to ban somebody that practices you method for really no real reason at all. Thereafter leaving them on their own, that is just a real classy move on your part. Quatloos is certainly correct in their profiling of you; there is no doubt about that, no doubt at all.
That all being said, here is a bit of a reality check for you Pete... This is what many other CtCers think about your selfish self. So I hope you enjoy apples, (this is regarding your silly “Liberty Hall” opening stating and website rules):
“I remember the first time I read that, when I joined the national forum. My thought was, "So Pete thinks he is the exclusive expert on the tax system? That's pretty pompous and proud of him." That's just the way his statement struck me. It has now been about 2 years since I started using his "method" and we have not seen it work for us. And no, we had not had prior negative issues with the IRS or FTB. We were not part of the "tax honesty" group or any such group. We were just "sheeple". In fact I was part of the system, in a small way, as a tax preparer. It would seem that Pete does not know everything about the tax system and it's regs. But he still comes off as "I know it all, no one else is right. Don't listen to anyone else, because they are all wrong." That sounds like a cult leaders mentality, not someone who is trying to find the truth and help others on the way.
Pete may think he knows it all, but I have a feeling a lot of the things he is against he hasn't really studied. How could he? He has spent so much time researching what he needed to know for his book, and his own battles with the IRS, including this new one, that he couldn't possibly take the time to truly find out what others are teaching. I think much of what Pete is declaring"just inherently wrong" comes from hearsay, bits and pieces others have told him.
There are those who say that what Pete teaches is "inherently wrong". It is up to each of us to learn what we can, do as much research as we can, then sift through it all and decide what is true and isn't true.
Has Pete actually gone to a seminar or studied the materials offered by some of these other people he just writes off as "inherently wrong"? I sincerely doubt it. He just doesn't have the time, or inclination, to do so. Does that mean that what Pete is teaching is wrong? No, but it also may not be the whole story. There are many pieces to the puzzle, and no one person has all of them.
Pete is not the be all and know all regarding everything that has to do with taxes. We have all been created with a brain, and are expected to use it. To just follow what Pete says, which includes throwing out any other teachings by equally learned men who have also spent a great deal of time researching the issues, is like going back to the "sheeple" mentality our government has taught us, the very thing Pete teaches against. I will not be a "sheeple" to anyone, ever again. Are there other teachings that are totally wacko? Sure, that's part of the society we live in. There are those who are just out to make a fast buck. It's our responsibility to learn the truth, apply it to our lives and then share what we find, good or bad, with others who are also seeking truth. Then it's up to them to do the same. Once we start doing that, we can make a difference.
...”
Peace out, all knowing, intellectual, and bright one."
Hendrickson's ban of Weston White apparently occurred because of this (bolding added by Famspear to highlight the part that Hendrickson may have misinterpreted):
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1579…Otherwise called classic tax-professionalisk! (In reference to the many posts about this on ‘Quacked n’ Lost’.)
Whelp it looks like it high time for us all to venture out and find a new “tax protester” scam, for it appears that Mr. Hendrickson has finally made the IRS’ big time list. As for myself I am really liking the sound of that tax-scheme to declare myself a NRA, renounce my U.S. citizenship status, and live out the remainder of my life moving from hobo camp to hobo camp. Just think of all the new and exciting people I am going to get to meet! It will be wonderful! So in closing it has been fun everybody, see you all on the flip-flop! I gotta run, I have lots of packing to do and such a short time to do it in. If I hurry I can board the 11p.m. train hobo style at the eight miles crossing! lolol
What is even more funny is that if this is what Hendrickson really does say and what the IRS says is also true, then that means the IRS had no legal justification (and still has none) to declare any of our CtC filed returns frivolous because the IRS had yet to have listed such a position within their 6702(c) NOTICE!
[ . . . . ]
Of course keeping in mind that: Notice 2008-14
Positions that are the same as or similar to the positions listed in this Notice are identified as frivolous for purposes of the penalty for a "frivolous tax return" under section 6702(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and the penalty for a "specified frivolous submission" under section 6702(b).
But it will probably be updated to reflect the IRS’ new findings by next tax season.
Here it one of the pending additions, (now of course anybody that is even vaguely familiar with Mr. Hendrickson’s work or with the material we post publicly on this website, they would know that Mr. Hendrickson nor ourselves state such a thing as described within this following point. Simply more conniving on the part of the IRS.):
[ . . . .]
A full reading of this and the rest of the material leaves me to believe (and Weston White essentially confirms this) that Weston was not trying to be critical of Hendrickson, but that Hendrickson misinterpreted the material, resulting in the ban.
