Practical advice for Hendrickson's Heroes

[Red Cedar PM]

Like others here, I've figured it out - I pay no income tax.

Let me know how that works out for you.

[Famspear]

Doreen Hendrickson wants Peter Hendrickson's followers to try to influence the judge in Pete Hendrickson's case by showing up at Pete's sentencing, set for April 19th at the U.S. District Court in Detroit. She responds to the efforts by Tim Whitney ("databrain") to get Hendrickson's Heroes to commit to showing up at the courthouse:

Thank you for your continued support, Tim. I think it's important that it's apparent to Rosen [Judge Rosen] that he's not operating in a vacuum.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 4237#24237

(bolding added).

But Tim is having trouble whipping up excitement among Hendrickson's Heroes about attending Pete's sentencing:

Doreen,

We're not seeing great numbers of CTC warriors responding with intent to to be there.

Based on the way many of them post/reply in the LHF - they would walk their talk and find a way to Detroit for next Monday's [sic] hearing.

Regards,

Tim

(bolding added). (Tim later clarified that the hearing is set for Monday, April 19th.)

Today, Thursday April 8th, Tim Whitney posted:

Who is going to join us in Detroit - time is running out?

Yes, time is running out, folks.

[LPC]

Doreen Hendrickson wants Peter Hendrickson's followers to try to influence the judge in Pete Hendrickson's case by showing up at Pete's sentencing, set for April 19th at the U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Showing once again that those who rant most about the Constitution understand it the least.

That the "founding fathers" (whom tax protesters so often profess to venerate) might have wanted an *independent* judiciary, free from influence from mob rule as well as the executive and legislature, seems to be completely unknown or incomprehensible to them.

[Gregg]

Doreen Hendrickson wants Peter Hendrickson's followers to try to influence the judge in Pete Hendrickson's case by showing up at Pete's sentencing, set for April 19th at the U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Showing once again that those who rant most about the Constitution understand it the least.

That the "founding fathers" (whom tax protesters so often profess to venerate) might have wanted an *independent* judiciary, free from influence from mob rule as well as the executive and legislature, seems to be completely unknown or incomprehensible to them.

Oh come on Dan, Jefferson and Madison were both big fans of the French Revolution!

[Pottapaug1938]

That the "founding fathers" (whom tax protesters so often profess to venerate) might have wanted an *independent* judiciary, free from influence from mob rule as well as the executive and legislature, seems to be completely unknown or incomprehensible to them.

Oh come on Dan, Jefferson and Madison were both big fans of the French Revolution!

Yeah, but I doubt that they would have been overjoyed by revolutionary mobs surging through the nation's capital to do there as was done in paris.

[grixit]

I read somewhere that by 1800, some people were attending political rallies carrying toy guillotines as part of their protest of the Alien and Sedition acts. Personally i think the election of that year fullfilled the requirements of a jeffersonian periodic revolution.

[Famspear]

At losthorizons, a user called "fragrantlady" writes:

I also received the LTR3176C from Ogden on Friday, April 3. This is in response to my first CTC filing for 2008.

It looks like a computer generated form letter with a copied signature. They are giving me 30 days to respond and imposing a $5,000 penalty.

They tell me I need to send a corrected return and they will disregard my previously filed documents and not assess the frivolous penalty. However, if I respond with another document asserting a frivolous position, they will assess the $5,000 penalty. Also, they will not respond to future correspondence asserting any frivolous position.

In addition to the $5,000 they will send me a notice of deficiency stating the amount of additional tax and/or penalties owed. How can they possibly determine how much tax I owe?

I have been scanning the Forum for anything to help me know what I need to do now. It seems that what use [sic] to work isn't working at this time.

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... e8ba#24263

Better watch yourself, lady! You might get yourself banned by the Fabulous Felon, the PontificatingPrisonBound PeteMeister!

Actually, m'lady, what "used to work" never did really work -- or it "worked" only in the mind of Hendrickson and in the minds of some of Hendrickson's fellow scammers.

[webhick]

At losthorizons, a user called "fragrantlady" writes:

What an unfortunate username. I mean, why the hell would you want to be known as that? And if you're tooting so much that you're known as "fragrant," it's time to open a window and do something about your diet. And for the love of the FSM, stay the hell away from me or else I'll shove a can of Oust up your keister so you'll auto-spray and spare us from gagging.

[Famspear]

Losthorizons user "netgazer" is asking for some practical advice. At the losthorizons web site, he/she writes:

I've recently been bombarded with penalties, Notices of Deficiency, and CP22 collection notices. All within the last 45 days.

Please note the following:

My first CTC return was timely filed for 2004, which they never processed or even acknowledged. In late 2008, as a prerequisite for a CDPH for 2002/3, they demanded a copy, after which they promptly assessed a $5k penalty. And now I have a $28K NOD [statutory notice of deficiency] for the basic liability of 2004 as well, which I let expire without taking to TC. I"m sure the CP504 [IRS Notice of Intent to Levy] is soon to follow.

I also have about $25k in other penalties, frivolous and otherwise, for which no NOD was required. Tthe [sic] CP22 (first collection notice) was sent to me about three weeks ago.

My 2005 CTC return was actually a victory, resulting in a partial refund, but just an hour ago I received another NOD for 2005, totaling almost $14k. Take note that the three year limitation on making an assessment, for both 2004 and 2005, has expired. But they don't care, probably because they'll make the case that significant income was omitted from the return, which gives them up to six years.

In addition to these amounts, they're taking almost $40k from a lien (for 2002/3) on a property I'm selling in the next few weeks, and they garnished my pay in 2005 for about $25k, for years 1998/2001. When you add all this up it comes to about $92,000 taken, or soon to be taken, over the last five years. They've yet to process 2006-2008.

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2494

Good job, netgazer! Looks like you won the IRS collection procedures lottery! You get to see just about everything!

I've been to district court once, tax court once, and been through three CDPHs. All with negative results.

Yeah, but remember, Netgazer: In the Wackadoo World of losthorizons where you live with the Big Peter and His Pontificating Parasites, every defeat is a "victory" -- just ask Patrick Michael Mooney and the other moonbats in your neighborhood. Cheer up, netgazer!

It's very clear to me that I am in need of legal aid beyond my own capabilities, if I am to prevail on any of these pending allegations.

Does anyone have a recommendation on how to get some assistance? The tempo and the potential losses demand something more than I've been able to muster

Wait a minute, netgazer, it sounds like you haven't read Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code all the way through, cover to cover, enough times. Don't you know that -- according to the Big Peter, the Narcissistic Nitwit, the Fabulous Felon himself, the Hubristic Head Honcho, the PontificatingPrisonBoundPeterMeister -- Cracking the Code is supposed to be:

. . . . the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted.

You've already read Hendrickson's book, netgazer! You've already read the losthorizons web site! So, why are you having these huge defeats (oops, I mean "victories")? As the Blowhard-in-Chief has said:

ANYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT WILL BE FOUND ACCURATELY AND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THIS WEBSITE. ANYTHING NOT FOUND ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THE WEBSITE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT, AND WILL INTERFERE WITH YOUR ACCURATE COMPREHENSION OF THE SUBJECT.

I hope that gives you some encouragement, netgazer!

Oh, and in case you haven't forgotten, Pete is scheduled to be sentenced on Monday, April 19, after having been found guilty of filing false documents with the IRS -- using his own Cracking the Code scam on his own federal income tax returns (the tax scam that has resulted in all this grief for you as well, netgazer).

[Thule]

Netgazer does show hints of reason. The locals recommend Pablo Rodriguez' taxreturnteam.com or Legal Bear. But Netty wanna lawyer.

thanks guys. I'm in contact with both but I'm looking for actual help with representation and in actually doing the legal briefs. Mine haven't been successful so I want something more formal than pro se.

Smart move. And if Netgazer finds a competent lawyer, and listens very carefully to the advice that is bound to come, he might salvage what's left of his life. But I have this feeling that Netgazer wants a lawyer who will spout CtC-speak. Good luck with that!

Speaking of taxreturnteam, business must be good, since they are hiring new staff;

We want to extend special invitations to MixChex, MN Stix, Continental Army, Weston, and Harley. These people have provided invaluable input to others.

[Famspear]

Over at the losthorizons web site, loony Mister Patrick Mooney responds to "netgazer":

Dear Aseeker, [sic; Mooney apparently means to respond to "netgazer"]

Very sorry to hear of your troubles, though my case is similar, in the context that the Service has piled up thousands of dollars in frivolous "penalties". I hope they reach a million dollars one day. That practice itself is only making a mockery of their authority.

I've been to Tax court twice. First time, I lost on procedure[,] and the higher Appeals courts would not grant me a trial. I haven't paid any of the judgements against me because I still hold the government is acting improperly[,] and I have not received my due process in good faith. The evidence on record proves my tax liability is zero, regardless what the courts say (or won't say).

If they [the Internal Revenue Service] want the money, they are going to have to sic the DOJ [Department of Justice] on me and play this case out in front of a trial. I'm not worried when that day comes.

My second time in Tax Court, this year, was a much more positive experience, to the extent I felt like I actrually [sic] prosecuted the case. I'm still waiting on the Court's decision, as it's been nearly a month since the trial took place.

If you read the newsletter, I used a tool from the Federal Rules of Evidence, #201, which is a request for Judicial Notice. Using this at trial was a big help in getting all the relevant CTC facts into the record, which I was not able to do during my first go-around.

Ahem!

You are correct that taking the fight to court is the correct thing to do, if only to add the the mounting evidence of government corruption (how much more proof do we folks really need?)

But the sound of your question infers [sic] that you might not be all to clear about your CTC arguments. There's a good chance that you are going to know more than your lawyer about this, and he's probalby going to tell you to be practical and settle, because lawyers don't consider the law when advising their clients.

They [lawyers] advise on whether they think they can win, and CTC is a hard fight, even though it is the right one. The saddest part of my discovery of CTC is watching people I love and respect turn away from the information in FEAR, because they have not pulled the curtain away from the all-powerful-wizard yet.

If you do acquire legal help, my advice would be for you to use them to prepare your paperwork, but for you to argue the case, having the lawyer act as a "technical consultant" to the proceedings, advising you on courtroom procedures, presentments, helping you take depositions and prepare for cross examinations. I don't know if their are legal professionals willing to take on that role where you live, but I'm sure they are out there.

As for the liens and garnishes, if these are occurring without a signed court order, you do have legal recourse to stop them. Others on the forum have had experience with this.

But I would not worry about how many fines the Service keeps "assessing". The purpose of that tact [sic] is to scare you off your case. All the frivolous penatlies [sic] have to be PROVEN, which means that your return must somehow have a defect or argument in it that stops the Service from processing your return.

No, Patrick. A frivolous return penalty can be validly asserted -- and eventually collected -- even if the IRS is able to process the tax return.

If it [the tax return] is CTC-educated, then the above is simply not possible. It is your job to defend that truth, and keep the court's eye fixed on that narrow area.

Good luck in your fight!

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2494

So, Patrick Michael Mooney joins people like Larken Rose -- essentially asking the Department of Justice to prosecute him.

[Famspear]

Patrick Michael Mooney wrote:

I haven't paid any of the judgements against me because I still hold the government is acting improperly[,] and I have not received my due process in good faith. The evidence on record proves my tax liability is zero, regardless what the courts say (or won't say).

That verbiage reminds me of what the United States Supreme Court said about John L. Cheek in the famous leading case:

[ . . . . ] he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court [ . . . .] with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. [ . . . . ] Cheek took neither course in some years, and when he did was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under §§ 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts, who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

(bolding added).

--from Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

Like John Cheek, Patrick Mooney has indeed used the courts, but he simply rejects the rulings of the courts when the rulings don't go his way.

In the the case of John Cheek, the Supreme Court was talking about Cheek's arguments about constitutionality of the tax law. But, without going back right this minute to check the record, I believe Mooney is running the same kind of risk that John Cheek did with what is, I would assume in Mooney's situation, a "statutory" argument (i.e., an argument about the meaning of statutory terms like "employer," "employee," "person", "includes," or whatever).

[The Observer]

If it [the tax return] is CTC-educated, then the above is simply not possible. It is your job to defend that truth, and keep the court's eye fixed on that narrow area.

Good luck in your fight!

Good luck? Why would you need luck in fighting for CtC in a courtroom? I thought Pete said CtC was everything that you needed. Now the Peteheads are telling you that you need luck as well?

(Well, it might be the most honest thing they have ever said regarding CtC - the only wasy I could see CtC winning is if a Petehead had overwhelming luck on their side and a senile judge on the bench).

[Judge Roy Bean]

I especially like the misunderstanding about the SOL.

Hint to LostHeads - there is no SOL on fraud cases.

And with that, we close yet another chapter on the dismal story of just another blowhard and the fools that follow them.