Hendrickson Contempt Motion, thread #2

[Pottapaug1938]

I think perhaps rather y'all can't stand that I lawfully pay no 'income' tax and have no legal problems. You're obviously compelled to respond to whatever I post.

No -- what we can't stand is that you keep rehashing the same bull-effluent, over and over again, and continuously proclaim your delusions that you lawfully pay no income tax and have no legal problems, and are too much of a sniveling coward to offer the proof, for your assertions, which we have asked for. We could come up with a "Harvester Page-a-Day Excuse Calendar", based on the many ingenious excuses you come up with for ducking these requests. We're helpless to do anything about the first (unlike on LostHorizons, we don't ban contrarians whenever they exhibit an "incorrect" opinion). As to the second, much better and much more expert minds than yours have explained the correct law to you; but like the Village Idiot you keep on inflicting your self-comforting fantasies on us. As to the third, I would imagine that either you are too "small potatoes" to be worth the government's time spent prosecuting you, or else they just haven't caught up with you yet -- as you can see on Quatloos, over and over again, this process often takes time; and reality is such a bitch when the Feds finally catch up with you.

And, as to being compelled to respond to whatever you post, those of us that still do that are motivated, as one Quatlooser put it, in the hope that newcomers to these pages will know how full of hot air (and more scatological substances). Well, suit yourself. You are either an incorrigible smart*ss, or else too stupid to be capable of understanding that none of your assertions on the income tax, or any other point of law, have any basis in law or fact; and I will have more success trying to get the tree outside my window to song the Star-Spangled Banner than it will be to get through your thick skull. I have better things to do.

[Famspear]

Hey, Harvester! Why don't you make yourself useful for once?

Go over to losthorizons and, as "Nationwide," start a new thread entitled "Pete Proceeds to the Pokey."

Inform your fellow losthorizontals that Pete has been found in contempt of court.

Tell them that if Pete doesn't file amended tax returns the way the Quatloos regulars say he must file them -- by June 24th -- the civil contempt monetary penalties start piling up.

Tell them that by Pete's own admission (apparently), he has to report to federal prison around June 29 (i.e., eleven days from June 18th), if my reckoning is correct.

Start a poll over there and see how many people think he will (A) report to prison as instructed, versus (B) hop a plane to Argentina.

Come on, Harvester! You can do it! Give us some entertainment on this Sunday Father's Day! I'll even supply the popcorn!

[Nikki]

Despite the blathering wrapped around the few [VERY few] factual items in Harvester's posts, it is entirely possible that he is "lawfully paying no income tax."

Note -- I don't recall that he has ever stated that he is not filing tax returns. In that case, given the personal exemption and standard deduction, he really might not be PAYING any income tax. In fact, he might actually be getting money back under the Earned Income Credit and / or support for children programs.

However, he is a total turd and not even as entertaining or creative as David Merrill.

[Harvester]

Heh, and a Happy Fathers Day to you too, taxpayers. Yes Nikki, I was once a taxpaying sheeple, unaware of the massive fraud, deceit & lies all around me. After gaining some insight, much of it from Hendrickson, I filed a correct tax return and received everything back. I now no longer file. I redeem 'lawful money' & contract only with those who issue no 'info returns' (as you know, without an info return the IRS has jack squat).

As for proof, it's all there in Cracking the Code which, I might add, Famspire has never read. And your "no court has ever ruled" argument holds little water with me. Y'all seem to be clueless as to the depth of deception & fraud we're living under. Judge: "I will give you the law, and you will decide the facts of the case." WRONG. That's not how it works in a restored Republic.

And Famspire, don't feel bad for the kids; they'll be fine. They are to be proud of their brilliant and courageous father. He not only deciphered and explained the tax code, but bravely stood up against the criminal element within our government. A good parent teaches his kids the truth, he doesn't run from it. Or worse yet, deceive his fellow countrymen into enslavement.

http://www.parenting-healthy-children.com/Parenting.xml

[LOBO]

Hey, Harvester! Why don't you make yourself useful for once?

Go over to losthorizons and, as "Nationwide," start a new thread entitled "Pete Proceeds to the Pokey."

Inform your fellow losthorizontals that Pete has been found in contempt of court.

Tell them that if Pete doesn't file amended tax returns the way the Quatloos regulars say he must file them -- by June 24th -- the civil contempt monetary penalties start piling up.

Tell them that by Pete's own admission (apparently), he has to report to federal prison around June 29 (i.e., eleven days from June 18th), if my reckoning is correct.

Start a poll over there and see how many people think he will (A) report to prison as instructed, versus (B) hop a plane to Argentina.

Come on, Harvester! You can do it! Give us some entertainment on this Sunday Father's Day! I'll even supply the popcorn!

Heck, he doesn't even have the guts to explain that the "Harvey method" of not filing and just waiting for the SFR assessments (although he probably isn't aware of the last part yet) is better that filing zero wage returns with bogus substitute W-2's and 1099's and getting dinged with $5,000 penalties right away. Yes, I know he already said that Pete doesn't say there is a specific way to file. So, he shouldn't have any problem telling them why he doesn't file the way the other LostHeads file.

[Arthur Rubin]

I think perhaps rather y'all can't stand that I lawfully pay no 'income' tax and have no legal problems. You're obviously compelled to respond to whatever I post.

As have other posters, my best guess as to why you you might have no legal problems are that (1) "you" don't exist, or (2) your income is small enough (whether or not below the legal threshold for filing), that no one has bothered to track you down.

By point (1), I mean that the person (or persons) who post as "Harvester" actually do pay income tax.

If you are a real person, and send a PM with your SSN to one one of the people who has actual contact with IRS enforcement, perhaps we'll find out which.

[LPC]

Hey, Harvester! Why don't you make yourself useful for once?

Go over to losthorizons and, as "Nationwide," start a new thread entitled "Pete Proceeds to the Pokey."

Inform your fellow losthorizontals that Pete has been found in contempt of court.

Tell them that if Pete doesn't file amended tax returns the way the Quatloos regulars say he must file them -- by June 24th -- the civil contempt monetary penalties start piling up.

My understanding of the contempt order is that the monetary sanctions started accruing on June 11, the day after the contempt order was entered. The 14 days is when incarceration is supposed to be imposed for the continuing contempt.

So if Pete and Doreen haven't filed correct returns by June 24, then on June 25 the government could (I believe) file for a bench warrant for their arrest and imprisonment.

And, as Wes has pointed out, the jail sentence for Pete's criminal conviction won't start to run until he has filed a correct tax return and is released imprisonment for civil contempt.

So this week could be an interesting one for Pete and Doreen.

[Famspear]

My understanding of the contempt order is that the monetary sanctions started accruing on June 11, the day after the contempt order was entered. The 14 days is when incarceration is supposed to be imposed for the continuing contempt.

So if Pete and Doreen haven't filed correct returns by June 24, then on June 25 the government could (I believe) file for a bench warrant for their arrest and imprisonment.

I stand corrected.

[Famspear]

Heh, and a Happy Fathers Day to you too, taxpayers. Yes Nikki, I was once a taxpaying sheeple, unaware of the massive fraud, deceit & lies all around me. After gaining some insight, much of it from Hendrickson, I filed a correct tax return and received everything back. I now no longer file. I redeem 'lawful money' & contract only with those who issue no 'info returns' (as you know, without an info return the IRS has jack squat).

Baloney.

As for proof, it's all there in Cracking the Code which, I might add, Famspire has never read.

Baloney; there is no "proof" in the text of Cracking the Code. Not one of the sources cited by Hendrickson has ruled in Hendrickson's favor, and every court has ruled against him. So, your only "authority" is Hendrickson himself, who is about to go to prison for using his own Cracking the Code scam on his own tax returns. And as I have said numerous times, it doesn't matter whether I have read (or anyone else has read) Cracking the Code or not. Cracking the Code is not an authority on what the law is. What is important is that I have read the court decisions on Cracking the Code -- and all of them have rejected it.

And your "no court has ever ruled" argument holds little water with me.

That doesn't matter, Harvester. What you know, what you think, what you believe, or how you feel is unimportant. The law is what we say the law is; the courts have ruled the way we say the courts have ruled.

Y'all seem to be clueless as to the depth of deception & fraud we're living under. Judge: "I will give you the law, and you will decide the facts of the case." WRONG. That's not how it works in a restored Republic.

No, that's not how it works in a "restored Republic." And that's not how it works in the real world. In the real world -- especially in Texas -- jurors take an oath to apply the law as the judge gives it to them. In the real world of the United States of America, jurors are not allowed to study the texts of statutes and cases and decide for themselves on the meaning of the law. In short, juries render verdicts on facts, not judgments of law.

And Famspire, don't feel bad for the kids; they'll be fine. They are to be proud of their brilliant and courageous father. He not only deciphered and explained the tax code, but bravely stood up against the criminal element within our government.

Baloney. I have a feeling that the kids are in a world of hurt right now, based on information already in the public record. I certainly hope they will be fine.

[LPC]

I think perhaps rather y'all can't stand that I lawfully pay no 'income' tax and have no legal problems.

I don't know about "can't stand," but I am bothered by the fact that you are either (a) evading taxes and getting away with it or (b) lying about your income and tax returns.

So you're either a liar or a criminal (or both), as well as a coward who posts under pseudonyms, and arrogant in your self-righteousness. Add it all up, and you'll see why you're a very annoying little twit.

[Harvester]

Ah compelled once again I see. No it's not baloney. It's true, I lawfully pay no income tax, I'm not evading. It hinges on the true nature of 'income' under the Revenue Acts, of which I have precious little. And furthermore Famspire, you once again illustrate to us all, you not whereof you speak. You act like an expert on Hendrickson and his theories, yet have never read his book. You seem to think "baloney" "I say so" bluster & repetition will convince us all. While an abuser may get somewhere with those tactics, they don't work in an internet forum.

I know these facts stick in your craw like a piece of wood, but the truth stands on its own, it doesn't hide from the light. You're either holding back the truth, or, you have much to learn yet.

[Joey Smith]

The bottom line is that nobody who matters believes Pete's argument, or finds it to be correct. Like Irwin Schiff, Lynne Meredith and others before him, Pete has simple self-decided the law in his own selfish self-interest, and -- totally unsupported by any court cases or ruminations of legal academics -- has self-declared himself to be totally right without the possibility of being wrong.

Could not Pete have found a single tax attorney to validate his view? Not a single law professor or other legal academic? Nor have any of Pete's sheeple attempted to independently validate his or their views by going to a tax attorney or finding a law professor to give it a second look. Instead, they have all decided based on their self-research (without any training in legal matters and this probably being the first legal issue that they have ever attempted to research) come to a determination that they are right as to the position that they so desperately want to be right about, and everybody else is wrong.

But it doesn't work that way. In our society, it is ultimately the province of the courts to determine whether a particular legal position is right or wrong, and Pete's legal position has not only been determined to be wrong, but it is further been determined to be so wrong that it is not even in the ballpark. In fact, it is so wrong that it is criminally wrong.

It is not like Pete has the support of anybody with a bit of tax or legal research credibility supporting his position; instead, it is the same old window-wiping, firewood-chopping, pool-cleaning retards who before they started following Pete were usually following some other now-in-jail loser like Schiff or Meredith, and who have income so low that they probably wouldn't be paying much in taxes, if at all, anyway.

Dipshits redux.

[Harvester]

No, our role here is to expose scams.

I call BS on that. While some genuine scams are exposed here (I applaud that), the government scams are vigorously defended here at Quatloos. I find that particularly revealing.

Joey, I see plenty of attorneys who support Pete:
Mark C. Phillips, JD
Jerry Arnowitz, JD
William Butler, JD
Michael Carver, JD
John O'Neil Green, JD
Eric Smithers, JD
Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD

And if you want to talk websites beyond losthorizons.com that know our tax code is misapplied, I can go there too.

[Joey Smith]

Real attorneys; not idiots who purchased a law degree for a few bucks from an online law school. Take "Mark D. Phillips" for instance; he's about as much an actual attorney as my neighbor's poodle:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5596&start=0

That Pete has never been able to get anybody respectable to support his position speaks volumes. When did the pro wrasslin' crowd get the monopoly on knowledge of tax law anyhow?

[Harvester]

HA, newsflash for Joey. The pro wrasslin crowd beat the King and his finest two hundred some years ago. And you know what? We just did it agin and you ain't hurd about it! Lordy this is gonna be fun to watch! Praise Almighty God!

http://thecomingchanges.freeforums.org/ ... t4442.html

[Famspear]

No, our role here is to expose scams.

I call BS on that. While some genuine scams are exposed here (I applaud that), the government scams are vigorously defended here at Quatloos. I find that particularly revealing.

Joey, I see plenty of attorneys who support Pete:
Mark C. Phillips, JD
Jerry Arnowitz, JD
William Butler, JD
Michael Carver, JD
John O'Neil Green, JD
Eric Smithers, JD
Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD

And if you want to talk websites beyond losthorizons.com that know our tax code is misapplied, I can go there too.

I call BS on that. That's no kind of an answer. You found seven people with law degrees who support Hendrickson? Do you have any idea how many people with law degrees who know he's full of baloney?

You can find other tax protester web sites? Wow, how impressive! And the authors of those web sites "know" that our tax code is "misapplied"? Baloney.

Earlier, Harvester wrote:

No it's not baloney. It's true, I lawfully pay no income tax, I'm not evading.

Prove it. Oh, I'm sorry, I realize that asking you to try to prove what you write is too much for you to handle.

It hinges on the true nature of 'income' under the Revenue Acts, of which I have precious little. And furthermore Famspire, you once again illustrate to us all, you not whereof you speak. You act like an expert on Hendrickson and his theories, yet have never read his book.

Still repeating that nonsense? OK, here we go again: The fact that you think I am "acting like an expert" on Hendrickson and his theories lends credence to the idea that you consciously or subconsciously fear that I am right. After all, I've never claimed to be an expert on Hendrickson or anything else here -- and you're the one who is using the term "expert" to describe me. What that tells me is that you are impressed with the way the Quatloos regulars have rebutted your nonsense, and that you are frustrated because you know of no way to counter what we say.

And once again, the fact that you are referencing Hendrickson in this way illustrates that you take Hendrickson himself as your authority. For one or more specious reasons, you refuse to accept the court rulings against Hendrickson, and you insist that you believe Hendrickson is correct and the courts are wrong.

You seem to think "baloney" "I say so" bluster & repetition will convince us all. While an abuser may get somewhere with those tactics, they don't work in an internet forum.

No, I don't "seem to think" that saying "baloney" will convince anyone, and you yourself don't really believe that I think that. You are just engaging in more useless rhetoric.

As far as repetition is concerned, as long as you continue to repeat your unproven platitudes and nonsense, I and others here feel free to repeat my rebuttals of your nonsense. This repetition serves the purpose of this forum -- to expose scammers like you.

Now, about your use of the term "bluster." You used the term as a noun. The word "bluster" as a noun means "loudly boastful or threatening speech." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 122 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976). No, I have not "boasted" about anything, and I have not threatened you. And despite your implication to the contrary, I am not an "abuser." That is just more empty rhetoric from you. Unlike you, I am not the one breaking the law, nor am I claiming -- as my authority for legal or accounting matters -- someone like Peter Hendrickson whose legal and accounting credential consists of experience in video arcade management and apartment complex maintenance, and whose "theories" about a legal and accounting topic, the income tax law, have been ruled -- in federal court -- to be frivolous and fraudulent. Yes, Harvester, your rhetoric is empty.

I know these facts stick in your craw like a piece of wood, but the truth stands on its own, it doesn't hide from the light. You're either holding back the truth, or, you have much to learn yet.

No, I'm not holding back anything. I back up what I write. By contrast, you do not.

No, the things you write are not "facts," and the only things that "stick in anyone's craw" are the things that we Quatloos regulars use to rebut your rhetoric. You're the one whose craw is infected. Since you refuse to try to back up what you write, it is understandable that you feel frustrated. It is also obvious that you are projecting your feelings of frustration onto other people.

[LOBO]

. After gaining some insight, much of it from Hendrickson, I filed a correct tax return and received everything back.

So where's you refund on Pete's "victory" page?

I now no longer file.

And you're still too much of a coward to explain why this is a better idea than filing like everyone else on Lostheads.

I redeem 'lawful money' & contract only with those who issue no 'info returns'

Seeing as how you would have gotten a 1099-R from withdrawing from your IRA for whatever how many years you did, you're probably clueless about the reporting requirements for everything else you make also.

(as you know, without an info return the IRS has jack squat).

Not quite. There are plenty of people who get audited without having information returns. Do you think Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion because of information returns? Even without information returns, there are other paper trails indicating that there is income being earned somewhere.

And your "no court has ever ruled" argument holds little water with me.

That's because you're an idiot.