He uses the time between conviction and sentencing to promote his scam even more? [irony]That's smart. [/irony]Harvester wrote:Pete put up a new page responding to some of your lies.
http://losthorizons.com/Lies.htm
That gets my vote for the "Black Knight" posting of the year. (Cue Monty Python sketch.)Harvester wrote:Pete put up a new page responding to some of your lies.
http://losthorizons.com/Lies.htm
[Emphasis in original.]Though it really goes without saying, I'll nonetheless take a moment to point this out, since after reading through the volume above, even the obvious might get lost in the shuffle: The reason for all this lying is that the enemies of CtC have nothing true that serves their purpose.
If they did have something true that served their anti-CtC purpose, they'd be putting it up on billboards across the nation, just as the DoJ, if it could come up with a single court case holding that all earnings are "income" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) or a single case holding that all earnings of every worker are "wages" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) would tattoo the case citations across its attorney's foreheads.
Convicted federal felons certainly do make some ridiculous arguments.Jail-bird 4 days hence wrote:they'd be putting it up on billboards across the nation
[Emphasis in original.]Though it really goes without saying, I'll nonetheless take a moment to point this out, since after reading through the volume above, even the obvious might get lost in the shuffle: The reason for all this lying is that the enemies of CtC have nothing true that serves their purpose.
If they did have something true that served their anti-CtC purpose, they'd be putting it up on billboards across the nation, just as the DoJ, if it could come up with a single court case holding that all earnings are "income" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) or a single case holding that all earnings of every worker are "wages" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) would tattoo the case citations across its attorney's foreheads.
Now that is a temper tantrum if I've ever seen one. To channel CKB, "break 'em hard". This little tirade should add a several months to his sentencing. When the judge sees that PH is 100% unrepentant and STILL trying to run his scam, its not going to be pretty.Harvester wrote:Pete put up a new page responding to some of your lies.
http://losthorizons.com/Lies.htm
What I am seeing here is the beginning of Pete preparing to fall back on excuses to explain why he should not be in prison. This is a variation of "if they had only explained the law to me, I wouldn't be in this mess." I would not be surprised to see an appeal where Pete will basically claim that the government did not do enough to explain the tax laws to its citizens, that the code is too byzantine for the ordinary common man to understand, and that the IRS never really got around to giving Pete the answers to the questions that he has been asking.If they did have something true that served their anti-CtC purpose, they'd be putting it up on billboards across the nation, just as the DoJ, if it could come up with a single court case holding that all earnings are "income" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) or a single case holding that all earnings of every worker are "wages" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) would tattoo the case citations across its attorney's foreheads.
I disagree. I don't think that will ever be the case. Your scenario requires that Pete first accept that he's wrong. I think what he'll do is continue to state that since they have never shown him "the law" he is correct and shouldn't be imprisoned. Pete seems very much entrenched in his theories. I think his ego is far too exaggerated to ever conclude he was incorrect.The Observer wrote:What I am seeing here is the beginning of Pete preparing to fall back on excuses to explain why he should not be in prison. This is a variation of "if they had only explained the law to me, I wouldn't be in this mess." I would not be surprised to see an appeal where Pete will basically claim that the government did not do enough to explain the tax laws to its citizens, that the code is too byzantine for the ordinary common man to understand, and that the IRS never really got around to giving Pete the answers to the questions that he has been asking.If they did have something true that served their anti-CtC purpose, they'd be putting it up on billboards across the nation, just as the DoJ, if it could come up with a single court case holding that all earnings are "income" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) or a single case holding that all earnings of every worker are "wages" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) would tattoo the case citations across its attorney's foreheads.
Not only does the government have to show Petey the law making him liable to pay income taxes, it has to read the way that Petey wants it to read. It must contain words like "every citizen of the United States, whether or not he or she lives in a Federal zone or territory, is liable to pay tax on his or her income, which is defined as...."Imalawman wrote:I disagree. I don't think that will ever be the case. Your scenario requires that Pete first accept that he's wrong. I think what he'll do is continue to state that since they have never shown him "the law" he is correct and shouldn't be imprisoned. Pete seems very much entrenched in his theories. I think his ego is far too exaggerated to ever conclude he was incorrect.The Observer wrote:What I am seeing here is the beginning of Pete preparing to fall back on excuses to explain why he should not be in prison. This is a variation of "if they had only explained the law to me, I wouldn't be in this mess." I would not be surprised to see an appeal where Pete will basically claim that the government did not do enough to explain the tax laws to its citizens, that the code is too byzantine for the ordinary common man to understand, and that the IRS never really got around to giving Pete the answers to the questions that he has been asking.If they did have something true that served their anti-CtC purpose, they'd be putting it up on billboards across the nation, just as the DoJ, if it could come up with a single court case holding that all earnings are "income" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) or a single case holding that all earnings of every worker are "wages" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) would tattoo the case citations across its attorney's foreheads.
Which Reminds me...Demosthenes wrote:This is Pete Rat-out-your-friends Hendrickson we're talking about here.
He's probably compiling a list of followers as we speak to try to trade in for a lesser sentence... Last time he met with his co-conspirators just prior to sentencing, he wore a wire in order to gather evidence for the DOJ to use against them. I can only imagine what he'll do with the data he picks up at his pre-sentence Barbeque...
I remember a story from the early 70's in which a man snuck into a railyard, apparently intending to play hobo. He fell in front of a moving car and ended up losing an arm. He then tried to sue the railroad for 1) not trying hard enough to keep him out and 2) not clearly explaining how dangerous it was.The Observer wrote:What I am seeing here is the beginning of Pete preparing to fall back on excuses to explain why he should not be in prison. This is a variation of "if they had only explained the law to me, I wouldn't be in this mess." I would not be surprised to see an appeal where Pete will basically claim that the government did not do enough to explain the tax laws to its citizens, that the code is too byzantine for the ordinary common man to understand, and that the IRS never really got around to giving Pete the answers to the questions that he has been asking.If they did have something true that served their anti-CtC purpose, they'd be putting it up on billboards across the nation, just as the DoJ, if it could come up with a single court case holding that all earnings are "income" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) or a single case holding that all earnings of every worker are "wages" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) would tattoo the case citations across its attorney's foreheads.
And, of course, this recalls the many products liability lawsuits (thus prompting the seemingly idiotic warning labels on things) for situations where someone stands on the topmost step of a stepladder, falls, and then sues everyone within reach for not providing warnings that one can fall from said top step....grixit wrote:I remember a story from the early 70's in which a man snuck into a railyard, apparently intending to play hobo. He fell in front of a moving car and ended up losing an arm. He then tried to sue the railroad for 1) not trying hard enough to keep him out and 2) not clearly explaining how dangerous it was.The Observer wrote:What I am seeing here is the beginning of Pete preparing to fall back on excuses to explain why he should not be in prison. This is a variation of "if they had only explained the law to me, I wouldn't be in this mess." I would not be surprised to see an appeal where Pete will basically claim that the government did not do enough to explain the tax laws to its citizens, that the code is too byzantine for the ordinary common man to understand, and that the IRS never really got around to giving Pete the answers to the questions that he has been asking.If they did have something true that served their anti-CtC purpose, they'd be putting it up on billboards across the nation, just as the DoJ, if it could come up with a single court case holding that all earnings are "income" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) or a single case holding that all earnings of every worker are "wages" (within the meaning of the income tax laws) would tattoo the case citations across its attorney's foreheads.
oh come on, everyone knows that only freed slaves, people born in American Samoa and The District of Columbia are "citizens of the United States" and I'm sure that whether it's spelled in all lower case, all upper case or some combination thereof makes what difference, although I'm sure it is a factor....Not only does the government have to show Petey the law making him liable to pay income taxes, it has to read the way that Petey wants it to read. It must contain words like "every citizen of the United States, whether or not he or she lives in a Federal zone or territory, is liable to pay tax on his or her income, which is defined as...."
If Hendrickson were to rat on one or more of his "CtC Warriors" in an attempt to get some benefit for himself or his family, I can almost bet that at least some of his other followers would still follow him. Some of these people are totally committed to the BlowhardMeister. We see this pattern every time Pete bans one of Hendrickson's Heroes from the losthorizons web site. One day, the poster is just one of the guys. But the next day he is banned, and there are certain posters who essentially say "yeah, Pete was right to ban him" etc. Some of these Wackos would follow Pete Hendrickson off a cliff -- even if they saw that Pete was actually pushing people off the cliff ahead of him. Such is the sickness.Demosthenes wrote:This is Pete Rat-out-your-friends Hendrickson we're talking about here.
He's probably compiling a list of followers as we speak to try to trade in for a lesser sentence... Last time he met with his co-conspirators just prior to sentencing, he wore a wire in order to gather evidence for the DOJ to use against them. I can only imagine what he'll do with the data he picks up at his pre-sentence Barbeque...
Oh -- I forgot to mention that you have to have been born in a month with an "R" in it to be liable for taxes....Gregg wrote:oh come on, everyone knows that only freed slaves, people born in American Samoa and The District of Columbia are "citizens of the United States" and I'm sure that whether it's spelled in all lower case, all upper case or some combination thereof makes what difference, although I'm sure it is a factor....Not only does the government have to show Petey the law making him liable to pay income taxes, it has to read the way that Petey wants it to read. It must contain words like "every citizen of the United States, whether or not he or she lives in a Federal zone or territory, is liable to pay tax on his or her income, which is defined as...."
And as much as that's just some hyperbole, with these wingnuts it's actually true.
Thankfully I was born in Febuay.Pottapaug1938 wrote:Oh -- I forgot to mention that you have to have been born in a month with an "R" in it to be liable for taxes....Gregg wrote:oh come on, everyone knows that only freed slaves, people born in American Samoa and The District of Columbia are "citizens of the United States" and I'm sure that whether it's spelled in all lower case, all upper case or some combination thereof makes what difference, although I'm sure it is a factor....Not only does the government have to show Petey the law making him liable to pay income taxes, it has to read the way that Petey wants it to read. It must contain words like "every citizen of the United States, whether or not he or she lives in a Federal zone or territory, is liable to pay tax on his or her income, which is defined as...."
And as much as that's just some hyperbole, with these wingnuts it's actually true.
I had the misfortune of being born in Mray.bmielke wrote:Thankfully I was born in Febuay.