Practical advice for Newbies (Stowaways)

[Nikki]

Please don't hold your breath waiting.

Blue is SO not your color.

[Harvester]

Brandy, calm down. I accept your wager as stipulated. The Hendrickson 'never' references a separate wager I have with Fampspear.

Rejoice! We are leaving Egypt at Sunrise!

[LPC]

If you [Harvester] can point to anything in my FAQ that is incorrect or deceptive, then say what it is and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

Harvester has posted several times since I posted the above, so it's clear that the crickets will be working overtime on this one.

The answer is that you've got no evidence of any misinformation, deception, or fraud. You're just spouting crap out of your butt.

Amen.

[Demosthenes]

the day draws nigh, your fraud is about to be exposed.

Do I really need to quote Daniel Shays again?

Jerkoffs like you - especially anonymous jerkoffs like you - have been predicting the fall of the "fraud" for over two centuries. Don't you have any new material?

Not all *that* anonymous.

[Harvester]

HAppY EASTER Quatlosers!
Quoting yourself Mr. Evans, careful now or you'll be labelled with the same diagnosis as Fampear, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I can see you will not rest without an answer from me. Unfortunately, I'm headed out the door, but shall return with your answer forthwith.

I LOVE YOU ALL!

[Famspear]

HAppY EASTER Quatlosers!
Quoting yourself Mr. Evans, careful now or you'll be labelled with the same diagnosis as Fampear, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I can see you will not rest without an answer from me. Unfortunately, I'm headed out the door, but shall return with your answer forthwith.

I LOVE YOU ALL!

First, it's "Famspear," not "Fampear." Second, you're in no position to be making any diagnosis. Third, I do not suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (characterized by an infantile, delusional belief that one's self is omnipotent). Fourth, LOTS of tax protesters DO suffer from that Disorder (Peter Hendrickson probably being one of them, maybe you yourself).

If you want to be taken seriously, then write something serious.

[Famspear]

Here's the kind of silly stuff I always see from Harvester ("johnthetaxist"):

4/3/10 REJOICE! WE LEAVE EGYPT AT SUNRISE!
shadow, RestoreAmericaPlan is in play, moving forward as planned. It's a peaceful plan backed up by Grand Juries, SC Justices, and the military. FBI has no problem with it.

Larry, we listen to Pete Hendrickson because he's figured out the scam you so vigorously defend. But really Larry, I'm concerned for your well-being. You should start preparing so you won't crash land. How will you cope when our country returns to THE RULE OF LAW? And brought about by "wackadoos" no less! Really ... I think you've drunk too much of the Quatloos Koolaid.

from:

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages ... endrickson

As I said before:

If you want to be taken seriously, then write something serious.

EDIT. Harvester (or "Nationwide" or "johnthetaxist") has a problem with reality-based thinking. He's the kind of guy who thinks that last year's Disney/Pixar animation film, "Up," was a documentary.

[LPC]

Quoting yourself Mr. Evans, careful now or you'll be labelled with the same diagnosis as Fampear, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I can see you will not rest without an answer from me. Unfortunately, I'm headed out the door, but shall return with your answer forthwith.

And still more useless trash-talk.

You also seem to labor under the delusion that what you think about me is significant to me. Which is a delusion symptomic of a personality disorder. (Guess which.)

[Doktor Avalanche]

EDIT. Harvester (or "Nationwide" or "johnthetaxist") has a problem with reality-based thinking. He's the kind of guy who thinks that last year's Disney/Pixar animation film, "Up," was a documentary.

Really? I would have thought it was "Deliverance".

[Imalawman]

Thank you all for your kind words. I've edited the perceived threat into parenthesis
To the extent that Quatloos.com investigates & exposes scams I have no problem with; in fact I applaud that. But c'mon, the biggest scam in the world is run by the IRS.

'smatter Famspear? I've only provoked a double post and and those are very 'toned-down.' So unusual. Are you feeling OK? Depressed? Cheer up bunkie, there's a great day a comin!!!

For the record, I'm a law-abiding NON-TAXPAYER. Have been for years, with no legal issues.
The truth is out there. And it's comin' home to roost baby. Y'all enjoy your weekend.

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

You know something... (obviously you don't). If you had just stayed deep in the weeds and just didn't file or pay your income taxes, you might just have escaped notice. But by posting your stupidity on at least 3 sites monitored regularly by law enforcement and freely admitting you are a criminal, you have probably brought the excrement storm down on yourself. It may take them some time to get around to you but they now know who you are and where you are.... good luck with that.

Duke - you forgot that might in fact be a legal non-filer. It is very likely that he does not make enough money to be subject to filing requirements. If he does make enough, its likely that he would get refundable credits, so law enforcement probably isn't terribly concerned. We're probably making money off of his failure to file. Its not as if Harvester gives the impression that he's a great contributor to society.

[Harvester]

Duke - you forgot that might in fact be a legal non-filer. It is very likely that he does not make enough money to be subject to filing requirements. If he does make enough, its likely that he would get refundable credits, so law enforcement probably isn't terribly concerned.

You're correct that I'm a legal non-filer. While I make plenty money kemosabe, I have very little "INCOME" as defined in the Revenue Acts of Congress; certainly below the exemption amount.

We're probably making money off of his failure to file.

WHOA Nelly! What do you mean by that? If you're suggesting that FICA & SS taxes are withheld from my pay, and then kept by IRS/Treasury/banksters because I'm a non-filer, I can assure you you're mistaken. And should you really admit, in a public space, to be on the receiving end of the world's largest scam?

[bmielke]

And should you really admit, in a public space, to be on the receiving end of the world's largest scam?

Take your own advice.

[Famspear]

While I make plenty money kemosabe, I have very little "INCOME" as defined in the Revenue Acts of Congress; certainly below the exemption amount.

Your problem is (in part) that you are wrong --as a matter of law -- about the legal definition of "gross income" under the Internal Revenue Code. You probably have gross income far in excess of the exemption amount -- you just disagree with the courts' interpretation of terms like "gross income", etc. And the courts have indicated that disagreement with the courts' interpretation is evidence of disagreement with the law for purposes of the Cheek defense. The problem for you here is that the courts have stated that disagreement with the law is not a valid defense. In the parlance of the United States Supreme Court in the Cheek case, a disagreement with the tax law is not an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law."

So, a jury in a federal criminal tax case could validly conclude that your conduct is willful -- involving the "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty." So, from a criminal law standpoint, your main hope is that you are never prosecuted. (Fortunately for you, the odds are in your favor, since so few known federal tax law violators are actually prosecuted.)

Harvester, the only people who agree with you are Peter Hendrickson, your fellow Crackheads, and others of their ilk. And their beliefs don't count.

The Internal Revenue Service will not buy your argument. The IRS and the Department of Justice interpretations would be the ones that count in determining whether to prosecute you. Again, your main hope here is that you will simply never be prosecuted. If you are prosecuted, no federal judge will ever buy your argument. If you are prosecuted, your main hope would be that you can confuse the jury.

Harvester (as "johnthetaxist") wrote:

HE IS RISEN!
He is risen indeed!
And behold, AMERICA RISES AGAIN FROM THE BANKERS' TYRANNY!
WE'RE BACK!
We, the sovereign people of America have returned to reclaim our birthright.

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forum ... endrickson

Your delusion about "America rising from the bankers' tyranny" and "sovereign people" returning to "reclaim a birthright" is just as goofy as your delusion about the meaning of the federal income tax law.

[Imalawman]

Duke - you forgot that might in fact be a legal non-filer. It is very likely that he does not make enough money to be subject to filing requirements. If he does make enough, its likely that he would get refundable credits, so law enforcement probably isn't terribly concerned.

You're correct that I'm a legal non-filer. While I make plenty money kemosabe, I have very little "INCOME" as defined in the Revenue Acts of Congress; certainly below the exemption amount.

Uh huh. Sure you do. Just like you had that gold coin?

We're probably making money off of his failure to file.

WHOA Nelly! What do you mean by that? If you're suggesting that FICA & SS taxes are withheld from my pay, and then kept by IRS/Treasury/banksters because I'm a non-filer, I can assure you you're mistaken. And should you really admit, in a public space, to be on the receiving end of the world's largest scam?

Woooooosh! If someone is owed a refundable credit (meaning that your refund from the government exceeds the taxes you paid in - a common occurrence these days) and you don't file, the government is better off, and then so am I as less of my tax dollars go to support you. Can you understand that?

[Harvester]

Yes, I understand that, AND MORE. You see, thanks to Pete Hendrickson and his http://losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm book, in 2008 I realized I was a victim of the world's largest scam. My subsequent 2008 tax return reflected my true INCOME and I received a full refund of everything paid in - SS, Medicare, Withholding - every penny. For TY 2009 nothing was withheld, no damaging info returns were created (W2, 1099s, etc), and my taxable INCOME did not rise above the exemption amount. Therefore I have no requirement to file. No need to 'pay-in,' no need to support banksters, no need to be a further victim, no need to support you (if you were truly on the receiving end of this fraud). And no legal problems.

What you need to understand Lawman, is, the chance is over ninety percent that you have little to no "taxable income" as defined by law (or at least, none the equity contract relationship of which the IRS/DOJ would ever admit exists). You are free to live your life as a victim, in ignorance.

[bmielke]

Yes, I understand that, AND MORE. You see, thanks to Pete Hendrickson and his REDACTED SCAM LINK, in 2008 I became the victim of a huge scam. My subsequent 2008 tax return reflected falling victim to the scam and I received a full refund of everything paid in - SS, Medicare, Withholding - every penny. Which will result in action by the IRS. For TY 2009 nothing was withheld, no damaging info returns were created (W2, 1099s, etc), and my taxable INCOME did not rise above the exemption amountThis might be true I have heard many CTCer's loose their jobs due to their stupidity. Therefore I have no requirement to file. No need to 'pay-in,' no need to support banksters, no need to be a further victim, no need to support you (if you were truly on the receiving end of this fraud). And no legal problems.Wait a while

I took the liberty of correcting some of the errors I saw.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Yes, I understand that, AND MORE. You see, thanks to Pete Hendrickson and his http://losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm book, in 2008 I realized I was a victim of the world's largest scam.

Credit and debit card fees?

My subsequent 2008 tax return reflected my true INCOME and I received a full refund of everything paid in - SS, Medicare, Withholding - every penny. For TY 2009 nothing was withheld, no damaging info returns were created (W2, 1099s, etc), and my taxable INCOME did not rise above the exemption amount.

Is INCOME different than income, or is my Illuminati code book old? I'm thinking by INCOME you mean "by your reading of the tax code" and not by the accepted definition by the IRS.

Therefore I have no requirement to file. No need to 'pay-in,' no need to support banksters, no need to be a further victim, no need to support you (if you were truly on the receiving end of this fraud). And no legal problems.

Yet. I suspect you may be hiding money from the IRS. Naughty, naughty. Oh by the way it has been over 3 days. No governor has resigned. Whacha gonna do to remove them? Sounds like fun...let me know what's up.

[Pottapaug1938]

Yes, I understand that, AND MORE. You see, thanks to Pete Hendrickson and his http://losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm book, in 2008 I realized I was a victim of the world's largest scam. My subsequent 2008 tax return reflected my true INCOME and I received a full refund of everything paid in - SS, Medicare, Withholding - every penny. For TY 2009 nothing was withheld, no damaging info returns were created (W2, 1099s, etc), and my taxable INCOME did not rise above the exemption amount. Therefore I have no requirement to file. No need to 'pay-in,' no need to support banksters, no need to be a further victim, no need to support you (if you were truly on the receiving end of this fraud). And no legal problems.

What you need to understand Lawman, is, the chance is over ninety percent that you have little to no "taxable income" as defined by law (or at least, none the equity contract relationship of which the IRS/DOJ would ever admit exists). You are free to live your life as a victim, in ignorance.

If you're a victim of a scam, you're a victim of Pete's scam. You obviously have an intense psychological need to believe in what Pete says, because it says what you want to hear. You accuse us of "ignorance"; yet you yourself are ignorant of the fact that NO court has ever sustained the CtC idiocy. You forget that Pete is going to the Graybar Hotel because his philosophy could not withstand the test of law; and you forget that, by playing CtC wordgames, are volunteering for criminal prosecutions, frivpens, and so much more. Your refunds are no more than temporary gains, which you will lose (and more) once the IRS catches up with you. Call your refunds "victories", if you must; yet in the final analysis they are no more significant than are the local, tactical victories of an army facing certain, inevitable and final defeat.

[bmielke]

You forget that Pete is going to the Graybar Hotel because his philosophy could not withstand the test of law; and you forget that, by playing CtC wordgames, are volunteering for criminal prosecutions, frivpens, and so much more.

SHHH! Don't tell him it will be so mcuh better when he's surprised...

I do so love a good surprise.

[Prof]

In an effort to bring this conversation around to a simple, factual analysis, I would point out the following facts:
Mr. Hendrickson analyzed the IRC and concluded that a federal employee was subjectto taxes along with certain other categories of wage earners but not ordinary workers in the private sector. He is neither a lawyer nor an accountant.

Unfortunately, the courts have not agreed, even though the IRS has apparently, from time to time, generated refunds to "CTC educated filers." Many of those refunds have been challenged and some have been recovered with the addition of frivilous filing penaties.

No court has agreed with the Hendrickson analysis.

Hendrickson's own civil tax case went against him; he lost; he has or will have a civil judgment entered on his taxes.

Hendrickson was convicted of a tax crime. He will or has already begun to serve time in a federal institution (I have lost track of the status of his appeal and sentencing).

These are the facts.

Don't you think you are swimming upstream when you insist that Hendrickson "is still the one?"