Had by CtC

[MisterM]

Okay, call me a sucker or other names, I deserve it.

Believing the crap on his site about reducing taxes, I ordered Hendrickson's book a couple weeks ago, which I will now refer to as Choke the Chicken, because that's about how much good it does.

Reading the book, it only took me a couple of hours (including research) to figure out it was incorrect and unsupportable crap. His whole premise is based on his theory that the word "include" means "limited to," despite the fact that the Internal Revenue Code specifically says that it doesn't! A quick net search reveals the multitude of cases where this has been tried and lost, and none where it ever won. Not only that, but the IRS is onto this and will now hit you with a $5000 frivolity penalty for trying it.

The book is now going back with a demand for a refund (not that I expect to actually get it), unless one of you wants it to debunk/make fun of/use for target practice. I'll give you a good discount, seriously.

[Famspear]

Okay, call me a sucker or other names, I deserve it.

Believing the crap on his site about reducing taxes, I ordered Hendrickson's book a couple weeks ago, which I will now refer to as Choke the Chicken, because that's about how much good it does.

Reading the book, it only took me a couple of hours (including research) to figure out it was incorrect and unsupportable crap. His whole premise is based on his theory that the word "include" means "limited to," despite the fact that the Internal Revenue Code specifically says that it doesn't! A quick net search reveals the multitude of cases where this has been tried and lost, and none where it ever won. Not only that, but the IRS is onto this and will now hit you with a $5000 frivolity penalty for trying it.

The book is now going back with a demand for a refund (not that I expect to actually get it), unless one of you wants it to debunk/make fun of/use for target practice. I'll give you a good discount, seriously.

Well, welcome to Quatloos!

[LPC]

I've never been willing to buy one of Hendrickson's books because I didn't want to give him any money, but I'd like to have one for debunking purposes and I'm willing to buy one second hand.

So if you don't get a refund, let me know and I'll buy it from you.

[Lambkin]

Congratulations on not jumping into the abyss. It's too bad you got scammed by PH but you could have done a lot worse (see LH forum for examples). So I won't call you a dummy.

Have you bought any other detax products or was this your first? Just curious!

[Thule]

So if you don't get a refund, let me know and I'll buy it from you.

Scan it, and I'll split the cost:)

[MisterM]

Congratulations on not jumping into the abyss. It's too bad you got scammed by PH but you could have done a lot worse (see LH forum for examples). So I won't call you a dummy.

Have you bought any other detax products or was this your first? Just curious!

Yes, I'm not so stupid as to try scamming the IRS on some net schlub's say-so.

I bought Irwin Schiff's book several years ago. It was of course equally useless but more entertaining. I'll sell that one too if anyone wants it.

[.]

I bought Irwin Schiff's book several years ago. It was of course equally useless

You'll soon be two for two, both authors will be in federal prison for sizable chunks of time.

Fortunately, you haven't put yourself in a position to follow them.

[Nikki]

So if you don't get a refund, let me know and I'll buy it from you.

Scan it, and I'll split the cost:)

I'm in -- our library's copy has become too use-worn to read. (and happy to contribute to violating Pete's copyright).

[jkeeb]

I'm in -- our library's copy has become too use-worn to read. (and happy to contribute to violating Pete's copyright).

That's scary.

[Nikki]

I'm in -- our library's copy has become too use-worn to read. (and happy to contribute to violating Pete's copyright).

That's scary.

So many attorneys reading it to get specific citations for answers, motions, and briefs...

[Pottapaug1938]

I just tried to find one on Amazon, and the minimum price is upwards of $40 -- about 10 times what I'd be willing to pay -- tops.

[Number Six]

I never read PH's tripe, I had no interest in reading his brand of TP propaganda after buying Skinner's book, Lynne Meredith's books, Boston T. Party's books, as well as books from the other "reality-based" side. It's not hard for postal authorities to track buyer's of PH's book, but since the 1st Amendment protects non-threatening literature, I doubt the information could be used in an investigation. PH's followers may make the argument not to "knock" it if you haven't tried it. I remember the same argument about cigarettes, pot, and other consciousness-altering substances. PH's arguments don't work, BTP's t.p. arguments don't work, etc.. Using their materials is like a really bad drug trip into the legal arena.

P.T. Barnum was right. The half dollar silver 1936 "Bridgeport" commemorative has his likeness on the obverse and an art-deco eagle on the reverse, which looks like a shark when turned upside down. Enough said.

[Famspear]

I never read PH's tripe, I had no interest in reading his brand of TP propaganda ....

For some reason, in the past few weeks I have had a few of Hendrickson's Heroes complain that I haven't read the entire book, Cracking the Code. It's as though these wack jobs really believe that citing the court cases where the courts expressly reject the scam (in some cases, by actually mentioning Hendrickson, or the book, or both) just "doesn't count," because I myself haven't read Hendrickson's book. That would be like arguing that I cannot validly report on what historians like William L. Shirer or John Toland have concluded about Adolf Hitler -- on the ground that I haven't read Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.

Essentially, these people do not want to accept that what we are doing is simply reporting on what the law is, and that "what the law is" is determined, under the U.S. legal system, by the rulings of courts of law, and not by the independent, idiosyncratic pseudo-analysis of tax protesters -- no matter how "logical" their pseudo-analysis may seem to them to be. I wish I had a nickel for every time one of these fools has attacked the rulings of the courts as being "just my (Famspear's) opinion." Of course, the holding or holdings in a court case are not "my opinion." These same people, these tax deniers, seem to feel no intellectual discomfort with the idea of coming up with their own interpretations and rejecting all court rulings that contradict those interpretations.

Tax protester-tax deniers: What a miserable group of people.

[Pottapaug1938]

Essentially, these people do not want to accept that what we are doing is simply reporting on what the law is, and that "what the law is" is determined, under the U.S. legal system, by the rulings of courts of law, and not by the independent, idiosyncratic pseudo-analysis of tax protesters -- no matter how "logical" their pseudo-analysis may seem to them to be. I wish I had a nickel for every time one of these fools has attacked the rulings of the courts as being "just my (Famspear's) opinion." Of course, the holding or holdings in a court case are not "my opinion." These same people, these tax deniers, seem to feel no intellectual discomfort with the idea of coming up with their own interpretations and rejecting all court rulings that contradict those interpretations.

Tax protester-tax deniers: What a miserable group of people.

The problem with the TPers is that CtC isn't just a tax-advice book to them; instead, it's secular Scripture. They just can't understand how ANYONE could not accept the Revealed Truth as vouchsafed by the Prophet Pete, so they come up with any excuse they can to explain away the skepticism of the rest of us. "If they would just read ALL of CtC", they think, "they would see the wisdom within it." Reading only part of CtC, to them, is like reading only part of The Bible.

Well, I don't need to open up a hand grenade to know that I'm likely to get blown away if I mess with the wrong thing. I don't need to stick my nose into what the cow leaves behind to know that it stinks. And, I don't need to hear any more about CtC to know that only a total idiot would ever put a CtC chip on his or her shoulder and dare the IRS to knock it off.

[LPC]

Well, I don't need to open up a hand grenade to know that I'm likely to get blown away if I mess with the wrong thing. I don't need to stick my nose into what the cow leaves behind to know that it stinks. And, I don't need to hear any more about CtC to know that only a total idiot would ever put a CtC chip on his or her shoulder and dare the IRS to knock it off.

I read a story years ago that was presented as true, but is undoubtedly apocryphal, and I think of it often when I interact with tax deniers.

An aspiring writer, who had been rejected many times, sent a manuscript to a publisher and took the precaution of gluing together several pages in the middle of the ms. After receiving back the ms with the typical rejection letter, the author discovered that the pages were still stuck together, and so wrote to the publisher with glee and high dudgeon, pointing out that the publisher could not possibly have read the entire ms. The publisher responded with the observation that "I don't need to eat the entire apple to know that it's rotten."

Similarly, my usual modus operandi with the illiterati of the tax denier cult is to proceed through the latest sure-fire, can't-lose drivel until I reach the first howler, and then point out the absurdity of what has been presented as truth on page 2 (or 3). To the cries that "You have to read the whole thing," I reply ... (you guessed it).

[Number Six]

I feel badly for the suckers who bought into the CtC fantasy, as I would have hoped that those who have fallen for other tax-defying fantasies could have used their mental energy more productively. With President Obama's "compassionate justice" initiative, the current wave of t.p. twaddle will probably be given the soft cushiony glove treatment instead of the iron fist of the past. Obama did say that no one making under $150K (or was it $250K?) would be paying more in taxes. So only those substantially well-off will be in peril of an audit or enforcement action if they challenge the legality of the tax system.

I had a remarkable book "How to Lose Friends and Antagonize People", edited by the now-forgotten Haldeman-Julius, that was meant as a counter to the famous Dale Carnegie book. The tax protestors have perfected that technique.

[buck09]

Okay, call me a sucker or other names, I deserve it.

You don't deserve it - though I don't know much about you, it doesn't sound like you've actually followed any of the advice given by Schiff or Hendrickson. (Nor any other tax-denier nonsense, I hope.)

I've been around here for a fairly long time, and haven't run into any poster who has gone as far as you (i.e. buying the books, reading them) and realized that what they're reading is rubbish. We have a few examples (a thread hijacker whose name should not be uttered) of people who believe this stuff, but don't file because they know they're going to lose, despite their "correct" views.

So, that being the case, I'm hoping you'll indulge me by sharing more (no personal details needed).

1. Do you know / associate with people who espouse these views or similar other points of view espoused by the patriot movement? (gold-fringed flag, missing 13th amendment, common-law juries, etc.) If so, in what context - work, church, family? Is there any one person you know who is regarded as an "expert" in these matters within that community?

2. What about Schiff's and Hendrickson's books appealed to you, enough to purchase them?

3. Were you primarily interested in reducing your tax liability within the system, or are you also motivated in not giving money to a government that's out of control and completely unrecognizable from the system the founders intended?

4. What was the first thing that set off your BS detector? You mentioned reading the case law, but I'm wondering if there was something before that...