Weston White banned at losthorizons; he responds to PEH

[Weston White]

Wow it appears that I do have some supporters at LH after all, perhaps even more than PH himself... perhaps... muhahahaauahahahaa, huuahahahahaaa, huahahahaahahaaa... sorry I watched Austin Powers last week... yes it is one of my favorite Move-ease. Groovy baby!

[Weston White]

BTW, this is what "Jerry" now ponders each night prior to beddy-by:


Jerry: How do I know you're not CONTROL?

Weston White: If I were CONTROL, you'd already be dead.

Jerry: If you were CONTROL, you'd already be dead.

Weston White: Neither of us is dead, so I'm obviously not from CONTROL.

Pete Hendrickson: That actually makes sense.

OK, that made me laugh so hard, that I now have to go change.

[Famspear]

Weston, more people at losthorizons are finally posting their own theories about the ban by Hendrickson. User Kensei writes:

I don't think he's a troll either. He doesn't even have crazy wild red hair and walk around barefooted under bridges yelling at goats (I don't think...) He obviously is a researcher and in this thing in pursuit of his property and spreading the truth about things hidden.

He has done a ton of work setting up the document manager:
http://defendindependence.org/dm/

as well as the resource center here:
http://defendindependence.org/RC/RC.html

This is an ongoing effort to give a 'play by play' and some scans of documents, links to Lost Horizons pages, etc. to make it a handy 'resource center' to find odds and ends that you can't remember where they were.

This is too much time, effort, and research to someone who doesn't believe in what he's doing. He mentioned his login stopped working, a few hours following a posting where he was joking about the frivolous positions list? And when he was trying to log back in it didn't allow it.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1595

Richardf614 responded as follows:

He has been banned from this forum and the state group. Only one person has that power. This is all I know. Weston's attempt at humor went over like a lead balloon.

Kyle Huwer (PeacefulKancer) writes:

I could be totally wrong, but I think he was being a bit nasty on the daily show forum thingy with lawman (aka Famspear on Quatloos) and someone didn't want that kind of language representing CtC.

I could be totally off, though.

At least they're discussing the situation openly now.

[Joey Smith]

Pete's only real concern is to sell his junk. Those on his forum have already purchased all of his junk that they are going to purchase, so they are easily expendable if their comments might hurt sales. Better to have newer people who are enthusiastic and will encourage others to buy everything as they just did, and have not thought about it long enough to ask tough questions, haven't heard about Pete losing the civil suit or his indictment yet, etc., that might cause a drag on sales.

It's all about the money; it always has been. Pete is just another in a long line of paytriots who were just in it for the FRNs, see also Lynne Meredith, Irwin Schiff, Eddie Kahn, etc.

[Famspear]

Now, user "JHV" at losthorizons writes:

I guess the lesson to be learned from all this is if you are going to put forth the CtC position to the unsuspecting public you need to behave yourself. All the research and knowledge in the world is useless if you appear to be a nutjob.

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 4959#14959

Well, Weston, I guess "JHV" didn't think much of your presentation style.

I like the comment about the "unsuspecting public." That can be taken more than one way.

EDIT: Dear Weston -- You should be gratified to see that it does appear from the comments over there at losthorizons that you do have supporters over there. They are being a bit circumspect in their commentary, perhaps to avoid upsetting The Big Cheese.

[mutter]

By JHV:

Weston has been ranting and raving on the California forum about how he has been banned from the national forum. Apparently he now thinks Pete is all wrong and he ought to just give up the fight. He sounds like a troll to me. Rolling Eyes

This must be that Jerry moron that was replying to me in that long post I made in the locked thread. That is not (exactly) what I was trying to say was it? Gee, no wonder he is so adamantly focused upon IRC "terms" such as "income" and "taxable income". What a trooper he is though, you go Jerry, you go!

I guess that is what you would call pretzel-post twisting, right?

You still have to donate that nickel everytime you post. any charity will do. And no its not deductable

[Gregg]

In his own way, 'Richard614' is showing his own doubts about 'Cracking the Code!'

He's pointing the readers to "other" reasons why Pete might fail and not because he's wrong. 'Richard614' posted on Quatloos for a short time but fled when he couldn't answer.

I worry about Richard, he seems like he WANTS a total breakdown in society, I often wonder whether he diddles himself while watching Red Dawn, ya know?


He's on my short list for this years "Timothy McVeigh Misguided Militia Mental Midget" award

[LPC]

I worry about Richard, he seems like he WANTS a total breakdown in society,

Most tax deniers/sovereign citizens/anarchists do. A societal collapse would validate their world view. Even if their wives were raped to death by marauders and their children were eaten by wild dogs, they would still have the satisfaction of knowing that they were right and the rest of us were wrong.

And that would be worth it.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So many of these types have utterly absurd fantasies about what would happen if there was a significant breakdown and how long it would last. Apocryphal tales of holing up in compounds and heroically fighting off the hordes of the ignorant, starving sheeple and the jack-booted thugs of the ebil gubment are somehow as popular as romance novels are to women.

Maybe these crackpots saw Red Dawn and The Postman too many times.

[Weston White]

You all are a crack up that is for sure!


I do have to admit that when I first found out about Hendrickson's "bombing" incident I felt a bit suckered or betrayed. I wish that he openly disclosed that information, rather than having to find out about it on my own. Though on the other hand I have to also recognize that had known that up front I most likely would have never bothered looking much further into his work. So I suppose it is a somewhat delicate line as far as that is concerned. People can and do learn from past mistakes and better themselves for the future and in many instances turn onto the more righteous path, thereafter believing in themselves and becoming ever better, evolving themselves to a much higher plain of thought or capability. It seems that Hendrickson has done that to a degree, in that he has taken up actually learning and studying the laws, rather than merely plotting and laying claims of whatever nature.

Though that was a really stupid thing to do, the "bombing" and moreover what really pisses me off about it that such an act has no other effect than to inconvenience the lives of all the senders of each piece of mail in that was inside that mailbox. Did he (and his conspirators) actually think at any given time, that burning up the mail would pass a thought of concern to the IRS, like the IRS could really care one way or the other, like that is going to somehow stop them from doing their normal daily activities? Short of IRS employees posting a photo of him on their 'Dumbass of the Millennium' board in briefing rooms across the state, he was probably not much more than exclamation of "My God, what an absolute jackass!" in any of their minds.

It now appears to me that Hendrickson is still pulling that same sort of sissy-mother-boy crap with those that study his ideals (myself included). ...No mummie it was not me, mummie. No mummie I didn't do it, mummie. No mummie, please don't tell daddy. Nooo, nooo I didn't mean it mummie, really I didn't! OK, little Petey you be good from now on than, promise? OK, I promise mummie.

I always thought something was a tad-bit suspect, regarding him not posting specific information regarding his trials, or in that he does not have a designated "press secretary" of sorts to do it for him using their owns words, that way it keeps Hendrickson himself out of the picture and prevents culpability. No instead besides the PDF's he makes and posts around that maze of a website, we are left to personal speculation... except for when he brags his truths in complete mess of a newsletter.

[Weston White]

Mutter if you could just forward the bills directly to Hendrickson that would be great. I am sure you already have his address. heh

[Famspear]

I worry about Richard, he seems like he WANTS a total breakdown in society,

Most tax deniers/sovereign citizens/anarchists do. A societal collapse would validate their world view. Even if their wives were raped to death by marauders and their children were eaten by wild dogs, they would still have the satisfaction of knowing that they were right and the rest of us were wrong.

And that would be worth it.

Yes, the approach that these people use is fundamentally flawed.

Many of these people start from the premise that the status quo is "bad." The Federal government is "bad." The Federal Reserve System is "bad." Federal income taxation is "bad." This is affect, or emotion. This is feeling, not logic.

They then search for the rationale that will seemingly "validate" that feeling. We see this all the time in the words of protesters on various web sites who will say things like, "Yeah, I used to use believe (Irwin Schiff/Larken Rose etc.), and follow his method, but now I know his analysis was flawed -- and Pete Hendrickson has it right, so now I'm with Pete", etc. We also see it in the repetitive, pervasive error of quoting from the same "tax protester summaries" of cases like Brushaber and the same accurate quotes taken out of context, without any regard for the rules of legal analysis (which apply to all legal analysis, not just specifically to analysis of tax law) of which the tax deniers are clearly and virtually uniformly unaware. I have been studying these people for about ten years and, more intensely for the past three years, and I have never yet found a tax protester who had any concept of how to distill a holding, or any awareness that the vast majority of verbiage in the text of a court opinion does not have the status of stare decisis. Indeed, I am confident that the vast majority of those people have no concept of what a holding is, or how it differs from obiter dicta.

In short, the tax denier's approach to his "analysis" illustrates his intellectual dishonesty. As other commentators have said, a tax denier -- in search of a theory to "validate" the "belief" that federal income tax is unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, or "doesn't apply to me" or "is being misapplied by the IRS" -- reveals his improper motive by admitting that he is looking for a detailed rationale to support a pre-conceived notion.

Ironically, many of these people accuse the lawyers and CPAs and professors and other experts of having been brainwashed into thinking according to and accepting the status quo. It is actually the tax deniers who are in a sense brainwashed; they have brainwashed themselves --in part by putting the cart before the horse, intellectually speaking.

When I began studying tax in my accounting classes in college, I certainly had no preconceived notions about it. I wasn't out to "preserve my source of income" by "blindly following" the "official IRS line" about the nature of the tax law. Later, in law school, I studied the texts of literally thousands of court decisions and other primary sources -- the vast majority of which materials had nothing specifically to do with taxation. Again, no preconceived notions here.

Many tax protesters have this misconception that in law school, students are simply "spoon fed" some sort of "government line" about how the legal system works. That is false. As anyone who has been through a good American law school knows, law school is essentially "self teaching." Unlike the situation in most college classes, you are reading (outside class) verbatim re-prints of the actual primary source documents, not a "textbook" written by some "expert." And law school classes (at least at my law school) consist not of "lecture" by an "expert" as you would find in many college classes, but instead an exercise known as the Socratic method, where the law professor -- far from "spoon feeding" you what he contends are the "answers" -- is engaging you to discuss the primary sources you have already read. There is a structure here, but the structure -- compared to college -- is really "self-teaching."

I suspect that about ninety percent of tax deniers have no concept of this.

Another aspect of this is the recurrent tax denier argument that the experts are simply "toeing the IRS line" -- not understanding that my knowledge of the tax law does not come from "the IRS." Tax lawyers and CPAs do not study "IRS" materials or "IRS" position papers or "IRS" this or "IRS" that. In college and law school, I don't remember even looking at an IRS form, much less reading "the IRS line" on any particular issue. Instead, we study the actual texts of the laws themselves (except in my college tax course, where we studied a CCH textbook).

A person who has studied law and accounting -- without the imaginary pre-conceived "notions" that tax deniers love to pretend somehow exist -- can quickly see the fallacies and idiocy that is this phenomenon of tax protestation. Why?

Because of the non-tax related errors that these people consistently make.

Like Pete Hendrickson, 99.9% of these people are approaching the subject of taxation without anything near the level of non-tax knowledge that would be required to be able to develop the understanding they claim to want to attain. When Pete Hendrickson writes, he begins with a disadvantage -- in part because he has not taken the time to really understand the non-tax legal terms that he finds in tax-related materials. Had he studied in the way a "normal" person studies, he would not have made at least some of the mistakes he has made. And this failure flows from the flaw in his approach; he has reached his conclusion before doing his "analysis (such as it was)," and he has performed his "analysis" using a flawed method designed to "validate" (in his own mind) the result he wanted to reach.

[Weston White]

Well you also have to take into consideration some of the people are impressive at first. I.e. Schiff, he was a presidential candidate, and IIRC he is an attorney, I think it was? He also I think was in politics prior to running, IIRC?

Than you have that whole Freedom LawSchool group, most all are attorneys, they also have the a handful of ex-IRS investigators, Jackson, Turner, and Banister.

Also there is a handful of Congressman that have stated publicly that the IRC is being misapplied and that the IRS should be shutdown along with the Federal Reserve, of those most predominate is Ron Paul.

Then you have movies stars and other famous individuals, such as the late Mr. Russo.

Also you have ex-law enforcement such as Champion and McLamb (sp?).

There is also ex-IRS Commissioners and other high personnel making strange statements about the IRS' authority and such.

Then you just have crazy insane people like Rose and what is his name Gary Franchi-something (that took over Russo's site) that attract other crazy insane people.


But for many the idea of learning the law for themselves is new and you have to keep in mind as with anything else new, it takes time before you are actually able to comprehend things for yourself, until that point you are essentially taking the word of another, and in most all cases paying them lots of money in the process, so that leaves you thinking they must know what they are doing, especially when they sure sound like it. It is only later on as you progress that you realize there are many differentiating arguments, many are bad arguments and others appear to be good, etc..

Sadly, for most they come across entirely bad arguments first, while remaining unaware of the many other arguments. And sadly, most only study to a point and then stop. For if there were to keep going they would only gain a better understanding of the facts. Also sadly, is that for many they deal with people like Hendrickson that tell them to forget everything else you read, only believe what it that I myself right, because if I did not write than it is either incorrect, moot, or inapplicable. That type of mentality is very dangerous. As you have said before, it creates cult-like followers, virtual zombies. As if Hendrickson could possibly study ever to a degree all of the intricacies that makes up the national tax laws. As if!

Though as one progresses they begin to see and understand the whole picture and are able to start placing all the bits and pieces together. This will enable them to start tracking the correct path to wherever it shall lead them, which hopefully will be in the right direction, towards the truth. Due diligence tends to pay off in such respects.

[Weston White]

I guess the lesson to be learned from all this is if you are going to put forth the CtC position to the unsuspecting public you need to behave yourself. All the research and knowledge in the world is useless if you appear to be a nutjob.

Heh, you can type in any name you want to post, I do not actually think I ever said who I was, and that site has nothing to do with CtC.

So what is he saying get mad and using foul language is something only nutjobs do? Well than I guess I am nuttier than a bag of mixed nuts in a peanut farm.

[Thule]

No, he'd be more like the gung-ho idiot soldier in Mars Attacks p the complete wanna-be warrior that grabs a rifle aims at the enemy and the magazine drops out - and then he is incinerated. 5:05 to 5:30 specifically:

More likely; grabs his rifle, forgets about Mr. Safety Catch, and shots himself in the foot.

[Joey Smith]

Well you also have to take into consideration some of the people are impressive at first.

Most scam artists are, and they work to surround themselves with impressive people to gain credibility, just like Bernie Madoff, et al.

Pete is just another scam artist, somebody who is out to make a buck by defrauding other people. In his case, the scam is telling people that he single-handedly discovered the "silver bullet" for avoiding the payment of federal income tax liability. In truth, he discovered nothing, but that hasn't stopped him from using his story to lighten the wallets of those who want to believe that their *must* be some way to legally dodge taxes.

I doubt that there is anybody on this forum who doesn't absolutely hate one aspect or another of the tax system, and the government at large, and would make major changes to either if they had the power to do so (more than just voting). The difference with Pete is that he is using that very same sentiment -- mixed liberally with untruths, half-truths, and just outright frauds -- to generate a living, just like the scam artists who say that they have connections in Nigeria and that if you help them get the $30 million out they will give you 40% for your efforts.

At the end of the day, Pete is just a two-bit scam artist who has self-glorified himself and encouraged others to glorify him to generate additional sale. But he is still just a two-bit scam artist.

[Famspear]

Weston - Schiff was not an attorney, but you have interesting comments over all, whether I agree with them or not.

[Demosthenes]

Well you also have to take into consideration some of the people are impressive at first. I.e. Schiff, he was a presidential candidate, and IIRC he is an attorney, I think it was? He also I think was in politics prior to running, IIRC?

Schiff was only a presidential candidate because he called himself one. He was a speaker at the 1996 Libertarian Convention right before he headed off to federal prison for the second time for tax evasion (his current trip to the pokey is incarceration #3.) He was "nominated" at the Convention as a gesture of support but the real nomination went to Harry Browne.

Schiff was an insurance salesman, never an attorney.

He was not a political figure until years after he started peddling his scam; he later admitted only touted the presidential nomination because it sold more books.

Than you have that whole Freedom LawSchool group, most all are attorneys, they also have the a handful of ex-IRS investigators, Jackson, Turner, and Banister.

Who in the Freedom Law School group is an attorney? Certain not Peymon or the other main leaders. As for four ex-IRS employees drinking Koolaid, that's not very many, considering that there are roughly 100,000 current (and probably a couple of million of ex) IRS employees.

Also there is a handful of Congressman that have stated publicly that the IRC is being misapplied and that the IRS should be shutdown along with the Federal Reserve, of those most predominate is Ron Paul.

Who besides Ron Paul?

Then you have movies stars and other famous individuals, such as the late Mr. Russo.

The late Mr. Russo was a washed up director from the 70s who was only ever famous for beating the crap out of Bette Midler. If you weren't active in the tax protest world, you'd never have heard of him.

Wesley Snipes was never a leader in the tax protest movement. His participation was private until he got caught.

Also you have ex-law enforcement such as Champion and McLamb (sp?).

Champion was in law enforcement? I remember his claim that he was an Army Ranger...

As for Jack McLamb, do you really take a guy seriously who claims that he has knowledge of a secret plan for Al Gore to exterminate 90% of Americans.

There is also ex-IRS Commissioners and other high personnel making strange statements about the IRS' authority and such.

Except they didn't.

[Nikki]

Be gentle.

It takes quite a while for all the Koolaid to flush out of the system and even longer to unlearn all the 'facts' which have been burned in via constant repetition.

[LPC]

Well you also have to take into consideration some of the people are impressive at first. I.e. Schiff, he was a presidential candidate, and IIRC he is an attorney, I think it was?

No, Irwin Schiff is not a lawyer, and never was.

Than you have that whole Freedom LawSchool group, most all are attorneys, they also have the a handful of ex-IRS investigators, Jackson, Turner, and Banister.

"Freedom Law School" is run by Peymon Mottahedeh, who is not a lawyer, and never was.

Sherry Jackson was a CPA, not a lawyer.

Joseph Banister was a CPA, not a lawyer.

Not sure what "Turner" you're talking about.

But it's clear that you really don't know jackshit do you, you stupid a-hole?