Practical advice for Hendrickson's Heroes

[Famspear]

Yet another disgruntled poster at losthorizons, "AnthonyM", dares to oppose the PontificatingPrisonBoundPeterMeister, with this reaction to the postings of blather on that forum:

Really, Are You Kidding? I remember a time when this forum was referred to as "Liberty Hall", now it's just an alter [sic] to another guru. Over the past (I don't know how many, 6 maybe) years, honest hard working people have posted their experiences and the fruits of their research - growing ever nearer an answer - an answer which made the remedy forwarded by the forum owner unnecessary. Imagine no more "requests for refund" no more rebuttal of info returns - cool! Each time this evolution occurred, those forwarding the enlightenment were "banned". Shortly thereafter, the forum would be closed and all evidence of the enlightenment purged from history. Soon after the "purge" the forum reappears and begins anew - at the alter [sic] of the guru, and as the "plebes" gain knowledge and confidence -the guru becomes threatened, and more are banned and free speech is again arrested until, ultimately, there is no forum from which to speak. Without a congregation the preacher loses faith, and again, the hopeful are invited in before the alter [sic] of the guru to refresh his faith, refill his dish, and proselytize the unknowing. Soon the sheep have have done their work, and see the truth - and again they are banished as heathens, etc, etc. Same * different day. Give me freakin' break! Sheep - Baaaaa!

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 4054#24054

Watch out, Anthony! Patrick Michael Mooney gonna getcha!

[Famspear]

Whoaaa.... And it didn't take long for the MoonMeister to respond! Check out Mooney's post:

Anthony M,

My goodness, somebody must have opened the door to Middle Earth recently, for we have just sighted another TROLL.

Your presence here is not signalling the fight of free speech to be recognized, but instead represents the shrill voices that will raise their cackle as more and more people realize the truth of Peter's work.

You are correct that people WILL BE FREE of the "duty" of having to rebut third party information returns by filing forms with the Service, but this will happen WHEN knowledge of what Pete has discovered has been widespread.

I don't know what you are arguing, or what you have actually done in the fight to press forward this great truth. If you have done nothing but criticize and distract, like your last post, then perhaps it is time for you to lug your heavy troll head over to some other forum where the nonsense you profess is drunk like Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.

There's no need to hate Pete or trash his work because he feels your posts, or those like it, are off topic.

You are also wrong about the right of free speech. You are free to say as you will, and act as you will, but others do not have to like what you say, listen to it, or keep your posts up.

Pete is a fair man, and gives others on this forum an awful lot of leeway. But after almost a decade of this work going forward, you should see by now that HE HAS PROVED THE CASE.

(bolding added)

By that, Patrick means that Pete and his followers have lost every single court case, without exception.

Mooney continues:

If you and the other trolls that have been trying to poison and distract the good members of this forum believe you are correct, than scratch each other's ass in some other forum, where your victories can be on display and your success can be measured with reportable numbers and testimonies.

Otherwise, you and your ilk are outed...and like the sun's first rays ascending with the dawn, you and your troll arguments will be TURNED TO STONE, where free birds will happily poop on you and improve your beauty.

Wowwwww!

[Shadowkat09]

I'm just curious to know how many people here have actually read Mr. Hendrickson's book(s)?

[bmielke]

I'm just curious to know how many people here have actually read Mr. Hendrickson's book(s)?

I have not, I will give two very good reasons for not reading it...

1. It is obviously wrong. (I offer four facts to support this assertion.)
A. Everyone here who would know agrees uniformly that it is wrong.
B. The Author is on his way to jail.
C. Hundreds of people have been sued or at least gotten friv. pens. for using it.
D. The concept is on the "Dirty Dozen" of IRS Frivious Arguments.

2. If I am going to read something for fun I will not read a book about taxes.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm just curious to know how many people here have actually read Mr. Hendrickson's book(s)?

I don't need to read "Mein Kampf" to know that the book is one of the most evil pieces of writing in the history of the world. I don't need to read "Cracking the Code" to realize that it isn't worth the paper it;'s printed on. As for reading books on taxation, if I do so I won't bother with books such as Henrickson's magnum doofus, which are based on premises which have been uniformy rejected by the courts and which have put their author, and many of the gullible, credulous fools who read the book, on the road to prison and poverty.

[Gregg]

I'm just curious to know how many people here have actually read Mr. Hendrickson's book(s)?

I haven't, but then I went to a very good university to learn accounting instead of the now preferred method of 'I read it on the internet".

But I am in favor of making convicts read it, out loud, as punishment for certain crimes. (as long as we make it clear to them that the guy in the corner recovering from his nightly beat down is the guy who wrote it, and let them judge themselves how good an idea it is)

[LPC]

I'm just curious to know how many people here have actually read Mr. Hendrickson's book(s)?

I read the "introduction" he has on his website, and that was enough.

I don't need to eat the entire apple to know that it's rotten.

[Famspear]

I have received that question -- "Have you even read Hendrickson's book"? -- many times from followers of Hendrickson.

I have repeatedly used a form of the Mein Kampf analogy (see above) in response to that question.

The false assumption that seems to be implied by the question is that we must read the book to be able to accurately state whether the book is a correct statement of the law.

We do not need to know what is written in Hitler's Mein Kampf and we do not need to know what is written in Hendrickson's Cracking the Code. The issue for Mein Kampf is not WHAT WE believe about the book, but rather what historians have concluded about the book. And the issue for Cracking the Code is not what WE believe about the book, but rather what the courts have ruled about the book. Under the U.S. legal system, by definition, the law is what the courts rule the law to be.

Every single federal court that has been presented with a frivolous theory propounded in Hendrickson's book has rejected that theory - in at least one case by mentioning Hendrickson or the book itself by name.

In other words, the issue is: Is Hendrickson (or his book) correct as a matter of law. And the authoritative answer to that question cannot be determined by reading the book. The authoritative answer can be found by analysis of what the courts have actually ruled. The courts have ruled Hendrickson's arguments to be invalid -- every single time.

This fundamental concept of American law is something that continues to escape Hendrickson and his fellow scammers (and many other tax protester-tax denier types). Over and over, we see these dimwits making statements like "Yes, the court ruled against Hendrickson, but the court was corrupt" or "the court was wrong". This kind of rhetoric betrays a refusal to accept or understand how American law works and what law is.

[Demosthenes]

I read it and found nothing particularly new or interesting in it.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I read it and found nothing particularly new or interesting in it.

And you didn't immediately burst into flames when you placed your hands on the book?

[Gregg]

And you didn't immediately burst into flames when you placed your hands on the book?

it's the melon helmet, it has special powers

[Demosthenes]

The helmet's lined with aluminum foil...

[Shadowkat09]

bmielke – I am currently enrolled in a college Logic course, and we are actually about to be tested on logical fallacies. I am sorry to inform you that three out of four of your “facts” are identifiable fallacies.
“A” and “D” are what is known as the False Authority fallacy. You are saying that, since certain people who should know a lot about this subject have said certain things about it, they must be right. However, WHO says something makes no difference whatsoever. It is the FACTS that must speak with the most weight.
“B” makes use of Ad Hominem circumstantial, which implies that what the arguer says can be discounted, merely based on his/her current situation, rather than what he/she is saying.
“C”, although not technically a fallacy, still seems somewhat…exaggerated to me. I highly doubt that “hundreds” of people have been sued over it, since I know only of six cases of that nature. If you know of more, though, please direct me to that information.

LPC – I myself have read incredibly boring introductions to countless fascinating books, so I should think that not only can one not judge a book by its cover, but can also not judge it by its introduction.

Famspear – My good sir, I’m afraid you’re making an unwarranted assumption as to my persona. I never said that I was a “follower of Hendrickson”, as you put it. This subject merely interests me, and I am curious; hence, my association of myself with a cat.
Regardless, I do find something very intriguing about your post here. Am I to understand that you believe that the only thing that matters in the case of law is NOT the literal meaning of what’s written in the law books themselves, but rather what those who interpret them say that they mean?? I personally find that to be a very disturbing concept. For if that is so, why do we have the written law at all? What, then, is the difference between the legal system we have and that of the kings/dictators/tyrants of old?
I also happen to know that Mr. Hendrickson cites law and court cases in his book to support his argument. Please explain to me, then, how these can be completely tossed out the window, so to speak.

Demosthenes – I am glad to know that you’ve read it. You are undoubtedly, then, able to discuss it rather knowledgably. =)


I would also like to note that the charge upon which Mr. Hendrickson WAS indicted had more to do with whether he believed what he said on his tax forms, rather than what was actually on them. At least, as far as my research tells me.

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote="Shadowkat09"]

"Am I to understand that you believe that the only thing that matters in the case of law is NOT the literal meaning of what’s written in the law books themselves, but rather what those who interpret them say that they mean?? I personally find that to be a very disturbing concept. For if that is so, why do we have the written law at all? What, then, is the difference between the legal system we have and that of the kings/dictators/tyrants of old?
I also happen to know that Mr. Hendrickson cites law and court cases in his book to support his argument. Please explain to me, then, how these can be completely tossed out the window, so to speak."

Other Quatloosers will address your points more fully, but I will address this one for you. Trying to look at the "literal meaning" of the written law is no simple task, because different people have different interpretations of the law (thus, Hendrickson's philosophies are proclaimed as Revealed Truth throughout the land), which is why so many lawsuits arise. Case law is a compendium of what has been said, by judges and justices, to address the issue of what the law actually means; and it is for our courts to make the definitive determinations on these issues. In the famous Marbury v. Madison decision, Chief Justice John Marshall said:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."

Thus, Hendrickson can argue (and, probably will) until his dying breath that he has "cracked the Code"; but not one person has ever used the CtC principles to prevail in court. At best, they win a tactical victory here and there; but the fact remains that not one person has ever won an appellate court case by advocating the principles of CtC.

I might also add that the mere citation of cases does not mean that the premise for which those cases are cited is valid. Any Quatlooser who has ever practiced law can tell of situations where a court has held that a given citation just doesn't apply to the premise being argued -- either the facts are different, the case is misinterpreted, the case has been overruled or its effect modified to name but a few of the possibilities. Hendrickson is particularly fond of mining court cases, statutes and regulations for out-of-context quotes. In the rare instances where he happens to be correct, it is either on a very minor point, and he usually stumbles on the truth rather than perceiving it.

[cynicalflyer]

bmielke – I am currently enrolled in a college Logic course...

Go back to class. Every one of bmielke's points are valid.

The premise is that Hendrickson's legal theory and his reading of the law and constitution it is based on are both valid. That experts who actually DO know what the law & constitution say disagree is not an Appeal to Authority fallacy. "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. " Thus, A and D are not in fact fallacies.

That the proponent/Author is on his way to jail having attempted to use his theory in court (and thereby demonstrating he epically failed) demonstrates the inherent falseness of this theory. Put simply, if it really worked, it would have worked. The fact that it did not and he's off to jail provides ample (some would say dispositive) evidence it doesn't work. Ditto the Hundreds of people have been sued or at least gotten friv. pens. for using it. The burden then lies with you and other Pete followers to demonstrate it does when actually applied in a court of law.

You, on the other hand, have opted to engage in burden shifting, something Pete has done both in law (by saying the IRS has the burden in Tax Court, which it does not) and logic (that he has no burden to prove his theory works and that the failure of his theory to work is somehow proof-of-success).

One final point: it is inherently illogical to continue using something to achieve a conclusion (tax refund upheld in court) that has never previously worked. There's something else at play. In Pete's case, narcissism and greed.

Class dismissed.

[Demosthenes]

Demosthenes – I am glad to know that you’ve read it. You are undoubtedly, then, able to discuss it rather knowledgably. =)

I don't debate tax scam theories any more than I would debate the merits of a Ponzi scheme.

[Famspear]

Famspear – My good sir, I’m afraid you’re making an unwarranted assumption as to my persona. I never said that I was a “follower of Hendrickson”, as you put it. This subject merely interests me, and I am curious; hence, my association of myself with a cat.

No, I wasn't sure whether you were a follower of Hendrickson, so I didn't make that assumption.

Regardless, I do find something very intriguing about your post here. Am I to understand that you believe that the only thing that matters in the case of law is NOT the literal meaning of what’s written in the law books themselves, but rather what those who interpret them say that they mean??

Yes, that's what I am saying. That's how the U.S. legal system works.

I personally find that to be a very disturbing concept. For if that is so, why do we have the written law at all? What, then, is the difference between the legal system we have and that of the kings/dictators/tyrants of old?

You're missing the point. Your personal conclusion, or Peter Hendrickson's personal conclusion or my personal conclusion, about "what the law is" is not important. Someone has to decide. That someone is called a judge. That's how the U.S. legal system works. What the judge rules the law to be is authoritative on what the law is.

Your approach doesn't make any logical or practical sense -- in addition to being incorrect as form of legal analysis. To argue that you yourself, or Hendrickson himself, can somehow come to a "correct" conclusion about the MEANING of the actual written law, and that the judge can somehow be "wrong" about that same law, is a legally meaningless idea. The study of law is not analogous to the study of physics or astronomy, where you have reality separate from what the scientist concludes. In the U.S. legal system, the law literally is what the courts rule the law to be. Notice that I said RULE the law to be. And if a judge makes an error in a ruling, the "erroneousness" of that ruling is determined ONLY by that judge's ruling being overruled, or reversed, or vacated, etc., by a higher court. If the Congress doesn't like how a particular line of case law has developed then, in some cases, the Congress can simply change the statute (as Congress does from time to time).

I also happen to know that Mr. Hendrickson cites law and court cases in his book to support his argument. Please explain to me, then, how these can be completely tossed out the window, so to speak.

The problem is that the court cases he cites do not support his argument. Why? Because he does not cite the holdings of courts - the actual rulings of the courts. He takes what the courts SAID -- out of context -- instead of what the courts RULED, and then he argues that what the court SAID supports his position about what the law is - when what the courts RULED actually is contrary to what Hendrickson says the law is.

When you study court cases, you cannot focus on what the court "said." You must focus on the DECISION -- what the court RULED. This is fundamental to the concept of PRECEDENT, to the rule of stare decisis.

It is Hendrickson's arguments -- not the court cases themselves -- that are being "thrown out." The court cases CONTRADICT Hendrickson, because a court case is important ONLY for what the COURT DECIDED, not for what the judge "said."

Hendrickson does not now how to analyze court cases, and neither, I suspect, do you. Further, even if Hendrickson were trained in legal analysis, he would not perform legal analysis correctly, because of another factor we can go into later.

I would also like to note that the charge upon which Mr. Hendrickson WAS indicted had more to do with whether he believed what he said on his tax forms, rather than what was actually on them. At least, as far as my research tells me.

Yes, and under the law, an "actual belief" is not necessarily a valid defense on the element of "willfulness," which is one of the elements that the prosecutor must prove in a federal tax crime case. One of Hendrickson's many errors is that he "believes" that his actual belief that he is right about the tax law is automatically a valid defense. Mr. Hendrickson, like many tax protesters, does not understand the Cheek doctrine.

[Dr. Caligari]

I would also like to note that the charge upon which Mr. Hendrickson WAS indicted had more to do with whether he believed what he said on his tax forms, rather than what was actually on them. At least, as far as my research tells me.

Hendrickson was convicted of filing false tax returns. To convict him, the jury had to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, both that his returns were false and that he knew them to be false (i.e., didn't believe them to be true).

[Famspear]

Regardless, I do find something very intriguing about your post here. Am I to understand that you believe that the only thing that matters in the case of law is NOT the literal meaning of what’s written in the law books themselves, but rather what those who interpret them say that they mean??

What I am saying here is that neither the "literal meaning" nor the "literal words themselves" are the "only thing that matters" in the study of law.

If the "literal words themselves" were the only thing that mattered, then there would be no need for anyone to provide a ruling on what the words MEAN.

The problem is much more complex than that, but let's consider just one point: If the "literal meaning" of the words were the only thing that mattered, then all the tax protester and tax denier scammers who scream about the original "intent" of the Founding Fathers about the Constitution would be out of luck. These dimwits are constantly citing Adam Smith or some other source for an "interpretation" of the Constitution. If the literal meaning could even be determined to a point where everyone would agree on what the literal meaning is, then there would be no room for looking at a supposed original "intent." Why? Because ONLY THE LITERAL MEANING would control -- even if the literal meaning contradicted the supposed "real intent" of the Founding Fathers.

Same problem for the supposed "intent" of the Congress with respect to a statute. If the Congress wrote the law to literally say one particular thing, but intended some other meaning, we would be stuck with some bizarre result that Congress never intended, and the courts (under that system) would simply apply only the "literal" meaning. I can think of some pretty crazy results that would flow from that.

[Famspear]

Dear Shadowkat09:

I notice that you indicated that you are taking a course in logic.

I'm not saying you're doing this now, but I would urge you not to try to apply too much of what you're learning in that class to the study of law. There are specialized courses on the logic of law. I took one in law school, called "The Logic of Legal Discourse." Legal logic is specialized, and I doubt that your logic course will prepare you for the study of legal logic.

In addition, there is a lot more to the study of law than a course in logic (even a course in legal logic).

Another point: You cannot learn federal tax law (or any other kind of American law) using the approach that Peter Hendrickson used. And, sadly, we can see the result of his misguided attempt -- in what has happened to him in his own life.