Some CTC highlights

[Quixote]

I just acquired the use, for a few weeks, of the McAllen Memorial Library's copy of Cracking the Code. Don't expect a review. I have no intention of reading it cover to cover. Life is too short. But I will share a few tidbits.

It will come as no surprise to most of you to learn that PH starts the book with a fabricated quote from a Supreme Court case. This is from the first paragraph of the foreword. The ellipsis is a nice touch.

"...'income', as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in". United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

(emphasis in CTC)

The reason for the fabricated quote is not clear to me. Justice Pitney made the following actual statement in his opinion:

We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., ante, 179, and Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., ante, 189) the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term "gross income," and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.

247 US 330, 335.

Why did PH fake a quote when he could have used the Court's own words? Is intelectual dishonesty so ingrained in his nature that he instinctively fakes a quote when a real one would work just as well?

[Quixote]

One reason for Pete's failure to grasp reality is his apparent belief that neither the IRC nor the courts mean what they say.

It was not until the late 1990's, when the Internal Revenue Code was digitized (and thus made searchable) that it became possible to decipher its deliberately confusing and misleading construction.

CTC, page ii

Since 1992 when ordered by a rogue and ignorant judge to "comply with all internal revenue laws" (by which was not meant, "Comply with the law", but rather, "Comply with the IRS"; ...

CTC, page viii

[Gregg]

I just acquired the use, for a few weeks, of the McAllen Memorial Library's copy of Cracking the Code. Don't expect a review. I have no intention of reading it cover to cover. Life is too short. But I will share a few tidbits.

It will come as no surprise to most of you to learn that PH starts the book with a fabricated quote from a Supreme Court case. This is from the first paragraph of the foreword. The ellipsis is a nice touch.

"...'income', as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in". United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

(emphasis in CTC)

The reason for the fabricated quote is not clear to me. Justice Pitney made the following actual statement in his opinion:

We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., ante, 179, and Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., ante, 189) the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term "gross income," and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.

247 US 330, 335.

Why did PH fake a quote when he could have used the Court's own words? Is intelectual dishonesty so ingrained in his nature that he instinctively fakes a quote when a real one would work just as well?

He was GoldandSilverEagles (Emperor Liar I) Mentor you know...

[Quixote]

On page 3 of CTC we learn that "[Adam] Smith deplores capitations as inequitable, inflationary, counterproductive, and destructive of liberty." Alas, PH does not cite a reference for that information. Perhaps the present tense is an indication that PH got that from a private conversation with Smith, who visits him when the drugs wear off. We also learn that Smith "makes it clear that any tax levied upon and/or measured by the exercise of a basic right -- such as the right to life, liberty, the ownership of property, working, or engaging in a trade -- is a capitation." Who knew that excise taxes, imposed on the basic right to purchase goods and services, were capitations. That sure does muddy that direct/indirect distinction.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

He was GoldandSilverEagles (Emperor Liar I) Mentor you know...

I've never read any of Peter Hendrickson's (spelling?) (Cracking the code), books.

So whose the liar?

I find it interesting that you attempt to smear upon me these offenses when in reality it is YOU who is the guilty party.

You are the one who is telling/promoting lies sport, not me.

[Pottapaug1938]

On page 3 of CTC we learn that "[Adam] Smith deplores capitations as inequitable, inflationary, counterproductive, and destructive of liberty." Alas, PH does not cite a reference for that information. Perhaps the present tense is an indication that PH got that from a private conversation with Smith, who visits him when the drugs wear off. We also learn that Smith "makes it clear that any tax levied upon and/or measured by the exercise of a basic right -- such as the right to life, liberty, the ownership of property, working, or engaging in a trade -- is a capitation." Who knew that excise taxes, imposed on the basic right to purchase goods and services, were capitations. That sure does muddy that direct/indirect distinction.

For the purposes of income tax law, I don't give the south end of a northbound rat WHAT Adam Smith said about capitations. His words have no legal effect in the United States; and the 16th Amendment made all this blather about direct v. indirect, or whatever, irrelevant to anyone who doesn't play TP word games and who doesn't (to recall the old joke about Richard Nixon) peruse the Constitution looking for loopholes.

[Nikki]

He was GoldandSilverEagles (Emperor Liar I) Mentor you know...

I've never read any of Peter Hendrickson's (spelling?) (Cracking the code), books.

So whose the liar?

I find it interesting that you attempt to smear upon me these offenses when in reality it is YOU who is the guilty party.

You are the one who is telling/promoting lies sport, not me.

WOOOOOOSH

[Gregg]

He was GoldandSilverEagles (Emperor Liar I) Mentor you know...

I've never read any of Peter Hendrickson's (spelling?) (Cracking the code), books.

So whose the liar?

I find it interesting that you attempt to smear upon me these offenses when in reality it is YOU who is the guilty party.

You are the one who is telling/promoting lies sport, not me.

I was making a commentary...

you, on the other hand posted this

Escrow account: special bank account into which escrow monies are deposited and from which they are disbursed. Lawyers, politicians, and real estate brokers maintain escrow accounts to hold money in trust.

which is a quote lifted from anther site,, but you altered it, adding the word I have bolded, because you were trying to defend an earlier statement you made about how politicians use escrow accounts, in a way that implied they were doing something nefarious. More than a few people who know what an escrow account is called you on it, and instead of saying that you had made a mistake, you came up with the doctored quote, a story of a friend who told you that we didn't know what we were talking about and she worked in high level finance positions in political campaigns, so she would know. Then this supposed friend (who I still believe was fictional) comes on, on your login, and explains that she didn't kknow, that was what the higher ups called it, etc.... and she *(granted that she actually existed) was just repeating what she heard. Oh, and maybe the term didn't mean what it used to (the term Excrow Account has meant the same thing for, well, a few hundred years anyhow)

In short, there is proof to a moral certainty that you lied once, doctored a quote to cover up that lie, and a preponderence of evidence at least suggests that you fabricated a whole string of further lies to attempt a little damage control.

You lied, you're a liar.
Nothing you ever say or write is anything I can take seriously. Ever.

Now, in the interest of fairness, I did say that Pete was your mentor. I will clarify that by saying I intended it as a sugestion, or a jest, and I have no way of knowing where you in fact learned to lie. But I know that you do practice the art, as it were.

Good enough for you, Your Highness?

[Gregg]

He was GoldandSilverEagles (Emperor Liar I) Mentor you know...

I've never read any of Peter Hendrickson's (spelling?) (Cracking the code), books.

So whose the liar?

I find it interesting that you attempt to smear upon me these offenses when in reality it is YOU who is the guilty party.

You are the one who is telling/promoting lies sport, not me.

WOOOOOOSH

[Judge Roy Bean]

I just acquired the use, for a few weeks, of the McAllen Memorial Library's copy of Cracking the Code. ...

You are brave, Grasshopper. You have reached beyond the protection of the Illuminati and it will be noted in your master file that you have read same and should be subject to scrutiny.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You touched the dreaded CTC book and didn't burst into flames?

Dude...you rock!

[GoldandSilverEagles]

He was GoldandSilverEagles (Emperor Liar I) Mentor you know...

I've never read any of Peter Hendrickson's (spelling?) (Cracking the code), books.

So whose the liar?

I find it interesting that you attempt to smear upon me these offenses when in reality it is YOU who is the guilty party.

You are the one who is telling/promoting lies sport, not me.

I was making a commentary...

you, on the other hand posted this

Escrow account: special bank account into which escrow monies are deposited and from which they are disbursed. Lawyers, politicians, and real estate brokers maintain escrow accounts to hold money in trust.

which is a quote lifted from anther site,, but you altered it, adding the word I have bolded, because you were trying to defend an earlier statement you made about how politicians use escrow accounts, in a way that implied they were doing something nefarious. More than a few people who know what an escrow account is called you on it, and instead of saying that you had made a mistake, you came up with the doctored quote, a story of a friend who told you that we didn't know what we were talking about and she worked in high level finance positions in political campaigns, so she would know. Then this supposed friend (who I still believe was fictional) comes on, on your login, and explains that she didn't kknow, that was what the higher ups called it, etc.... and she *(granted that she actually existed) was just repeating what she heard. Oh, and maybe the term didn't mean what it used to (the term Excrow Account has meant the same thing for, well, a few hundred years anyhow)

In short, there is proof to a moral certainty that you lied once, doctored a quote to cover up that lie, and a preponderence of evidence at least suggests that you fabricated a whole string of further lies to attempt a little damage control.

You lied, you're a liar.
Nothing you ever say or write is anything I can take seriously. Ever.

Now, in the interest of fairness, I did say that Pete was your mentor. I will clarify that by saying I intended it as a sugestion, or a jest, and I have no way of knowing where you in fact learned to lie. But I know that you do practice the art, as it were.

Good enough for you, Your Highness?

blah, blah, blah, blah, ad nuseum....

Feel better now?

I see you have a very selective memory. Back in the day when that happened, I also pointed out that it was not me, but my friend ooppsssee...my "imaginary" friend who put that line in here and she'd received it from a friend of her.

My friend did also apologize if it was a misprint. I see you conveniently forgot that part too.

Ya wanna continue playing your kiddy ass bullsh!t "liar liar pants on fire" eh...

Your "commentary" or whatever bull sh!t you wish to manufacturer, I can just as easily inform everyone how you are manufacturing misinformation about me being mentored by someone i don't even know.

I can be just as anal as many of you are in here.

Regardless of your seriousness, or lack there of, you want to be anal about it, I can be just as anal... you manufactured misinformation, which is what you accused me of doing...period.

and I caught you...

....liar liar pants on fire...

I suggest you drop your little charade.

[Gregg]

blah, blah, blah, blah, ad nuseum....

Feel better now?

I see you have a very selective memory. Back in the day when that happened, I also pointed out that it was not me, but my friend ooppsssee...my "imaginary" friend who put that line in here and she'd received it from a friend of her.

My friend did also apologize if it was a misprint. I see you conveniently forgot that part too.

Ya wanna continue playing your kiddy ass bullsh!t "liar liar pants on fire" eh...

Your "commentary" or whatever bull sh!t you wish to manufacturer, I can just as easily inform everyone how you are manufacturing misinformation about me being mentored by someone i don't even know.

I can be just as anal as many of you are in here.

Regardless of your seriousness, or lack there of, you want to be anal about it, I can be just as anal... you manufactured misinformation, which is what you accused me of doing...period.

and I caught you...

....liar liar pants on fire...

I suggest you drop your little charade.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

[Gregg]

Regardless of your seriousness, or lack there of, you want to be anal about it, I can be just as anal... you manufactured misinformation, which is what you accused me of doing...period.

actually, you're the one being anal about it, I told a joke that everyone but you and any 6 year olds reading got, you were the punchline, and being anal, you kind of forced me into pointing out to the people who were too thick to see it was a joke (you, the aforementioned 6 year olds) that it was a joke, not to be taken litterally.

manufactured misinformation = punchline

You, as I've pointed out, flat phucking made up information and presented it as true in support of an arguement you were trying to defend. I'm betting no one went to check my little joke to see if there were any posts to support it, the ones with half a brain either chuckled a bit or thought I told a stupid joke, either way, no one who ties their own shoes took it too seriously.Your little lie, within an hour of posting, was rebutted no less than three times.

If you wouldn't have tried to lie about something, you'd be a little less than a joke.

and I still think your friend was a figment of your imagination

[mutter]

I just acquired the use, for a few weeks, of the McAllen Memorial Library's copy of Cracking the Code. Don't expect a review. I have no intention of reading it cover to cover. Life is too short. But I will share a few tidbits.

It will come as no surprise to most of you to learn that PH starts the book with a fabricated quote from a Supreme Court case. This is from the first paragraph of the foreword. The ellipsis is a nice touch.

"...'income', as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in". United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

(emphasis in CTC)

The reason for the fabricated quote is not clear to me. Justice Pitney made the following actual statement in his opinion:

We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., ante, 179, and Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., ante, 189) the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term "gross income," and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.

247 US 330, 335.

Why did PH fake a quote when he could have used the Court's own words? Is intelectual dishonesty so ingrained in his nature that he instinctively fakes a quote when a real one would work just as well?

so if everything that comes in is not income as in gross income what is not income?

[Famspear]

.....so if everything that comes in is not income as in gross income what is not income?

Good question. Let's take an example. If you borrow money, the receipt of that money is not "income." It's not revenue. It's just loan proceeds. The receipt of the money is not an "income event."

Let's say that you borrow $100,000 from the bank, and the bank agrees to lend you the money by literally doling out 100,000 one dollar bills, which you promptly hide under your mattress. You sign a promissory note to the bank, and the bank holds the note.

Two things have happened here.

First, your ASSETS have increased by $100,000. You literally, legally OWN each and every one dollar bill in your mattress.

Second, your LIABILITIES have increased by $100,000. You have a legal obligation to pay the bank $100,000 under whatever the terms of the note happen to be (plus some interest over time, also per the note).

At the instant you borrow the money, what has happened to your net worth?

Answer: Nothing.

You have a transaction that has increased your assets and your liabilities by exactly the same amount. By definition, the transaction itself has not changed your net worth. Thus, no "revenue." No "income."

[jg]

...the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term "gross income," and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.

This quote says that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets is not treated as gross income. The portion that is the cost, or more technically the basis for tax purposes, that is not treated as gross income.

There are also other items not discussed in the quote that are also not treated as gross income. See TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART III—ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME. Hence, the first phrase of the language in section 61 of "Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived...".

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 0_III.html

[Dr. Caligari]

so if everything that comes in is not income as in gross income what is not income?

The Court said that not everything that comes in is income in the context of "the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets." If you buy an asset for $100 and sell it for $125, the entire $125 is not income, only the $25 profit is income. The $100 is return of capital.

[Duke2Earl]

so if everything that comes in is not income as in gross income what is not income?

You might try reading the actual Internal Revenue Code. Part III of Subchapter B is entitled "Items specifically excluded from Gross Income." That part of the Code encompasses sections 101-140. If your receipt is described in any of those sections it is not part of gross income. And that's not even all of it, There are also judicial doctrines that exclude other receipts from gross income and if that's wasn't enough there are above the line deductions such as cost of goods sold. But the key here is that none of these includes (there's that word again) wages which are indeed included in gross income.

[wserra]

so if everything that comes in is not income as in gross income what is not income?

Those things listed in 26 USC 101-129.