Hendrickson's sentence

[Doktor Avalanche]

I can sum up your post thusly, Harvester:



Does it register in that brain of yours that, oh, I dunno....maybe, just maybe...Pete was wrong the entire time?

Nah, that'd be too simple wouldn't it?

[notorial dissent]

Harvester, you truly are delusional, you continue to prove it, and there is no point of going further.

You and the rest of Prattlin' Pete's deludoids can scream conspiracy all you want, but the plain reality of it is ever so much simpler, Pete lost, and lost for the very simple reason that he was wrong, and wrong on all counts. Pete, or you for that matter, is free to believe any silly thing he wants to, but just because he believes it doesn't alter the fact that it is fantasy.

[wserra]

Yes, the bankers/DOJ/IRS finally got their wish today sentencing our great American hero Pete Hendrickson.

"The bankers" could care less what happens to Hendrickson. They are far too busy looking over their shoulders at the SEC. (BTW, if the bankers run the country, what's all this I hear about the SEC going after the baddest bank of all? Didn't they get the double secret memo?) But yes, you're right, DOJ did care. After all, it's their job to lock up criminals.

1) buy off a federal judge (what do they go for these days?)

Proof of that? I claim that all posters with login "Harvester" molest six-year-olds. No, I have no proof of that, but if you don't need it neither do I.

Poor kids. Shame on you.

2) dismiss any juror (mere "lay people") who wants to see the relevant statute

Were you able to read, I'm sure that F.R.Cr.P. 24(b)(2) would interest you. Here, I'll summarize for you: in a felony jury trial, the govt gets six peremptory challenges and the defense gets ten. The defense thus gets to "dismiss" more people than the govt. What a travesty.

3) make sure the jurors are as deceived as the rest of the sheeple; that the key custom terms are not revealed.

If the judge made an error in instructing the jury, that's what appellate courts are for. Do you care to place a wager on whether Pete's conviction is reversed? In your case, if yes, I insist on an escrow holder.

You say the appellate courts are corrupt too? Everyone is either crazy, a sheep or corrupt except for you guys, right?

Oh, and Hendrickson testified, didn't he? I guess he didn't explain "Cracking the Code" right. Had he done so, he surely would have prevailed.

4) ensure that the Judge, required by law to instruct

See above about appellate courts. And wagers.

5) enticing the defendant to hire a CIA asset as lead attorney

Shocking. Who was that who hired him?

Several of us (including me) made our opinions of Mark Lane plain. Hendrickson should have listened to us, dontcha think?

[The Operative]

Yes, the bankers/DOJ/IRS finally got their wish today sentencing our great American hero Pete Hendrickson.

Bankers don't care if a person pays or evades income taxes since all income taxes go to the general fund at the U.S. Treasury. The DOJ does care about sentencing of Pete Hendrickson since it is their business to bring CRIMINALS to justice. Similarly, the IRS also wanted Hendrickson to be sentenced because they want people to pay the income taxes that the law says they owe. Regardless of what you may think, Hendrickson was violating the income tax laws.

But what's to be made of it, what's to explain it? This was a very important case for the bankers; much was at stake. And what we have is further proof of the banker's boast:

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws. ~Mayer Amschel Rothschild

When it comes to the rule of law in a banker-controlled country, all bets are off. Face it, if you've got a trillion dollar river flowing into your coffers, you'll happily spend a little of it to keep up the lie & keep it coming. The bankers pulled out all the stops to ensure a victory here, including:

1) buy off a federal judge (what do they go for these days?)

Nonsense.

2) dismiss any juror (mere "lay people") who wants to see the relevant statute

Further proof that you do not understand how the court system works.

3) make sure the jurors are as deceived as the rest of the sheeple; that the key custom terms are not revealed.

The problem is that Hendrickson's view of "custom terms" is not correct. The courts have explained it to other morons that do not understand the use of the word "includes"

4) ensure that the Judge, required by law to instruct on the true meaning of the law, followed the DOJ instructions. To wit "As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term "employee" means any individual who performs services and who has a legal employer-employee relationship with the person for whom he performs these services." An obfuscatory definition at best, circular in that it uses the term itself inside the definition, and, serving to hide the real meaning & statutory definition of "employee."

Nonsense. The term employee refers to every individual who performs services at the direction or control of another. It is not limited to employees of the Federal government.

5) enticing the defendant to hire a CIA asset as lead attorney

Note also, the plaintiff never proved Hendrickson had a taxable liability, and govt claimed they didn't have to.
http://www.losthorizons.com/LastShotFor ... efiers.htm

While I have not read the transcripts or many of the submitted documents to the court, I am fairly certain that the DOJ showed copies of W-2s submitted to the IRS by Hendrickson's employer. Contrary to what you believe, the court does not have to accept Hendrickson's word that the W-2 is wrong. Besides, Hendrickson is wrong about private sector earnings not being taxable.

[Famspear]

Famspire, send me your address and I'll send you the promised silver coin.

You and I never had a formal bet; therefore, you don't owe me anything. You predicted that Hendrickson would never be sentenced. As usual, you were wrong.

But what's to be made of it [Peter Hendrickson being sentenced to another prison term], what's to explain it? This was a very important case for the bankers; much was at stake. And what we have is further proof of the banker's boast:

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws. ~Mayer Amschel Rothschild

A famous, old quote from a Rothschild? Peter Hendrickson's case was a "very important case for the bankers"??????? That's it? Yet another example of the kind of "logic" that emanates from your muddled mind, Harvester.

At long last, you have nothing. Nothing. Nothing but pseudo-religious blather and parrot-like repetition of Hendrickson's lies, and similar nonsense.

[LPC]

Note also, the plaintiff never proved Hendrickson had a taxable liability, and govt claimed they didn't have to.
http://www.losthorizons.com/LastShotFor ... efiers.htm

While I have not read the transcripts or many of the submitted documents to the court, I am fairly certain that the DOJ showed copies of W-2s submitted to the IRS by Hendrickson's employer.

Hendrickson was not charged with tax evasion, which would require proof that tax was owed and was being avoided. Rather, Hendrickson was charged with filing false documents, which is slightly different, because the government did not need to show that any tax was avoided, but only that the documents that were filed were false (and knowingly false).

In the civil action to recover the erroneous refunds, the government produced not just the W-2s from Personnel Management, Hendrickson's employer, but also an affidavit of Kim Holbrook, who worked in the human resources department of Personnel Management, attesting to the accuracy of the W-2s. That was enough to get the government a summary judgment on the civil litigation.

Given the higher standard of proof in a criminal case, as well as the 6th Amendment, I would have assumed that the government would have to produce a live witness to testify as to the accuracy of the financial records of Personnel Management if the government wished to introduce them into evidence. However, Hendrickson reported that the sole witness for the government was an IRS disclosure officer.

[The Observer]

Oh, and Hendrickson testified, didn't he? I guess he didn't explain "Cracking the Code" right. Had he done so, he surely would have prevailed.

5) enticing the defendant to hire a CIA asset as lead attorney

Another moment of TP irony. Here we have Harvester practically saying that the great Peter Hendrickson, the only man in the world who was able to "decode" the income tax laws and expose the "fraud", went into court as an imbecile and got hosed. He couldn't explain CtC to save his neck and then like an idiot, hired a "CIA operative" as an attorney.

Obviously, Harvester, you don't have any respect for Hendrickson and you certainly don't have a sense of tact by coming here and broadcasting your disdain for how Pete conducted his defense. If I was Hendrickson, I would ban you off Lost Horizons before the government made me shut down the site.

[Dezcad]

Given the higher standard of proof in a criminal case, as well as the 6th Amendment, I would have assumed that the government would have to produce a live witness to testify as to the accuracy of the financial records of Personnel Management if the government wished to introduce them into evidence. However, Hendrickson reported that the sole witness for the government was an IRS disclosure officer.

As usual, Hendrickson is completely wrong. At trial, two employees of Personnel Management testified, the comptroller and Vice President:

Larry Bodoh and Warren Rose discussed the defendant’s tenure at the company, touched on his responsibilities, and referred to him as an “employee.”

(See, Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for New Trial).

In fact, Larry Bodoh is the comptroller for the company and excerpts of his testimony were attached as Exhibit 2 to that Memorandum.

Mr. Bodoh described his duties as:

Q Now you said your job was comptroller.
13 Is that correct?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q What does that mean?
16 A That includes cash management and it includes
17 general ledger work.
18 In our case, it includes payroll,
19 Human Resources. That's primarily --

(Transcript p.371)

[Famspear]

Ace legal expert "SkankBeat" claims to know why Pete Hendrickson is in the predicament he's in now:

I was involved in a california case where the judge and other court officers were committing fraud on the court. When i caught on to this and started raising issue of fraud on the court it became very difficult for these folks to play the thinly veiled justice game.

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 4472#24472

So, what happened, eh SkankBeat? What happened as a result of your astute legal perceptions and actions?

They were forced to commit gross acts of rights violations to cover up and it is documented on the record.

Wow! I'm in awe of the way you handled it! Ah, so you nailed 'em on appeal, eh? What's that you say?

This continued on to the appeals court, i had opened up a can of worms.

But you understood - you knew what they were doing, right?

At the time, i did not fully understand what was going on but sensed something wrong. I did not understand back then that fraud on the court is a type of due process violation.

Well, uh, so whatcha gonna do now, mister expert?

Now i am going to sue these folks in their individual capacity in federal court for conspiracy of violating my rights.

Ooohhhhh, scary! I bet they're quaking in their boots!

Police officers and judges get sued all the time and sometimes they lose, and sometimes they get off the hook because of corruption. Take the rodney king beating for example. Those folks impersonating peace officers got off the hook.

Oh, you are so smart! Now, explain Hendrickson's specific problem to us. What did he do wrong?

You have to keep in mind that in Hendrickson's case, for the most part Henrickson has been reluctant to raise rights violation issue, such as fraud on the court, and so the issues before the court stayed focused on income tax law.

Kinda like Hendrickson got lost in the forest, eh, SkankBeat? Boy, I'm so glad your fellow Heroes have you to explain all this.

Go on, go on......

This permitted the rights violations committed by court officers to go undetected by the court. Keep in mind that the court is a neutral body created by law. It can only "error". It is individuals acting under the color of law who are committing crimes. That is why it is wrongheaded to blame the government as "evil". The government is neutral. It is the people controlling the major parts of government who are doing "evil" acts under color of law. This includes congressmen who are violating their oath of office by creating blatently [sic] unconsitutional law. When you understand this, you know you must go after the criminal individual and not the government.

If Hendrickson decides to raise issue of fraud on the court and rights violations, this is going to upset the whole show for these folks.

Oh, so if he takes your advice, he'll finally have the where he wants 'em, eh? I mean, we know he's said this before, but this time it'll really, really happen, eh?

I can freely say this on this forum because there is no way these folks can "prepare" for such invocation of fundamental law.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Yes, Hendrickson can still address the income tax issues, and he should, but do it in the context of rights violations. Keep in mind that much of what Hendrickson has argued- and i have read his briefs- judges are already charged with knowing in order to reside over the case. Judges have to know the law of the case or they are acting without authority. This Rosen fellow, he put evidence on the record that he had no knowledge of the law with his false jury instructions. So Hendrickson spent considerable resources arguing law that judges are already suppose to know, and left unattended the due process violations that were occurring from the very beginning.

Wow, this is starting to sink in, oh wondrous legal expert SkankBeat!

I hope this is sinking in folks.

By the way, why weren't you able to tell Pete all this before? Aren't you a little late with your fabulous expertise?

[Brandybuck]

If Petey had stuck to plain old-fashioned conspiracy theories then this would be just another talking point with his followers. It would be "evidence" that the evil international joo bankers didn't want anyone shining a light of troof on their gold theft scheme. But that's NOT what Petey was arguing. He was arguing that NO ONE WOULD GO TO JAIL! That was the whole point of his book. That was the whole point of his website. Now he is in jail, and if his followers had a microgram of self-respect left they would leave.

It's like claiming the sun will not rise, and then babbling excuses as to why there is sunlight shining.

[Noah]

Why is Pete's site still up and business as usual while the sites of others convicted closed?

[Imalawman]

Why is Pete's site still and business as usual while the sites of others convicted closed?

Because its been a fertile ground for catching other potential felons. Why get rid of a well-working fly strip?

[LPC]

Why is Pete's site still up and business as usual while the sites of others convicted closed?

Hendrickson was charged and convicted of filing false returns for himself. He's never been charged with preparing false tax returns for others, or charged with promoting an abusive tax shelter, so the government doesn't have the leverage to shut down his site.

And my sense is that the CtC book doesn't have instructions in it for how to prepare and file a Form 4852, and that information also isn't on the LH web site. Hendrickson has been able to keep some distance between himself and specific instructions on how to prepare and file a "CtC-educated" return, so I suspect that the government never had a good case for a civil injunction.

Hendrickson is therefore more like Larken Rose, who was convicted of failing to file his own returns but was never convicted of anything involving third parties, and was never enjoined and whose web site was never shut down by the government, than like Schiff or Springer who were directly promoting or aiding in tax fraud.

I'm an outsider looking in, but that's my take.

[Dezcad]

Why is Pete's site still up and business as usual while the sites of others convicted closed?

Hendrickson was charged and convicted of filing false returns for himself. He's never been charged with preparing false tax returns for others, or charged with promoting an abusive tax shelter, so the government doesn't have the leverage to shut down his site.

And my sense is that the CtC book doesn't have instructions in it for how to prepare and file a Form 4852, and that information also isn't on the LH web site. Hendrickson has been able to keep some distance between himself and specific instructions on how to prepare and file a "CtC-educated" return, so I suspect that the government never had a good case for a civil injunction.

Hendrickson is therefore more like Larken Rose, who was convicted of failing to file his own returns but was never convicted of anything involving third parties, and was never enjoined and whose web site was never shut down by the government, than like Schiff or Springer who were directly promoting or aiding in tax fraud.

I'm an outsider looking in, but that's my take.(bolding added)

And as always, I think you're spot on.

[silversopp]

When it comes to the rule of law in a banker-controlled country, all bets are off.

Partially right and completely wrong.

You're partially right that the banks control our country. You've left out the manufacturing, energy, technology, and every other industry that contributes heavily to politicians' campaign funds. There are also major special interest groups that control significant voting blocks in Congress. Like it or not, our nation is more or less controlled by buying Congressmen in the form of campaign donations. On the positive side, there is a healthy mix of interests represented in Washington. The common man is not directly represented, but rather is represented through the various special interest and corporate groups. Let's be honest here, there's no system of government that is controlled by the average person. There is always a ruling class. Luckily our system looks out for the common man better than any other other system out there.

Your next statement, that all bets are off, is completely wrong. As you saw on this forum, those that are educated in law are able to bet correctly on the outcome of a court case 99% of the time. It may not be the outcome that you want, and it may not be the outcome that the lawyers want, but it speaks very highly of our system that we are able to have consistent and predictable outcomes. In regards to tax law, it's pretty cut and dry.