Pete Hendrickson on whether the IRS is targetting CTC

cynicalflyer · Post by **cynicalflyer** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:04 pm

From Bob Hurt's "lawman" group . Bob's starting to wise up and realize Pete's full of it.

Pete responds thusly:

*From:* Pete
*Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2008 3:09 PM
**
*Subject:* Re: How to zero out a 1099

It's this simple-- since the empty PR "lawsuit" launched more than two years
ago against my wife and me (and a few other folks in major media markets at
the same time, at least four out of the seven of whom have gone on to get
additional complete refunds-- see
http://www.losthorizons.com/PostNewWitnessTampering.pdf for more on this), there
have been no other such efforts at all. In fact, by now, a large number of
the complete refunds won by CtC-educated Americans are well past the SOL for
any attack on any pretext or contrivance. No one is being "targeted".

What IS happening, on the other hand, is an occasional, highly revealing
effort to fool some folks into getting back in the barn, but which instead
just underscores the truth of the situation. It is confused (or
deliberately mischaracterized) rumors of these hokey and revealing efforts
that mislead those who don't bother to actually read what I post into
imagining the contrary.

The solution to this misunderstanding of the facts is to carefully read four
pages: http://www.losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLoose.htm,
http://www.losthorizons.com/Help.htm#HelpII,
http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Highlights.htm and
http://www.losthorizons.com/thedeniersp ... YouImagine.

Better still, of course, read
CtC<http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_th ... htm>itself...

Regards,

-Pete

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:19 pm

Thems fightin' words, Bob.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:31 pm

Yet another paytriot who doesn't understand that when the criminal investigation starts, the civil stuff goes quiet. Silence from the IRS following a flurry of civil action is a very bad thing for the TP involved.

Post by **Famspear** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:19 pm

Peter E. (Blowhard) Hendrickson wrote:

It's this simple-- since the empty PR [public relations] "lawsuit" launched more than two years ago against my wife and me . . .

I wonder what Pete's response will be if and when there eventually is an "empty PR indictment" against Hendrickson, to be followed by an "empty PR criminal trial," to be followed by an "empty PR conviction" and the usual "empty PR incarceration" at the applicable "empty PR federal prison."

Post by **LPC** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:09 pm

Peter Hendrickson wrote:It's this simple-- since the empty PR "lawsuit" launched more than two years ago against my wife and me (and a few other folks in major media markets at
the same time,

Sorry, but I've never before heard of Largo (Florida, near Tampa), Topeka (Kansas), Montgomery (Alabama), or Winter Park (Florida, near Orlando) described as "major media markets." San Diego (CA) or Henderson (Nevada, near Las Vegas), maybe, even though they aren't in the same class as NYC, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington DC, or other true "major media markets."

Peter Hendrickson wrote:at least four out of the seven of whom have gone on to get
additional complete refunds-- see
http://www.losthorizons.com/PostNewWitnessTampering.pdf for more on this),

If four of the other seven idiots that were sued by the US for refunds were actually stupid enough to claim additional refunds, I expect that the next time they hear from the government it will be in the form of an indictment. If the US was interested enough in them to sue them for refunds, the government will certainly be interested enough to indict them once they try the same scam again.

Post by **Quixote** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:46 am

In fact, by now, a large number of
the complete refunds won by CtC-educated Americans are well past the SOL for
any attack on any pretext or contrivance.

Pete is as confused about the procedural aspects of the IRC as he is about the substantive. Even if the IRS and the Tax Court treat the CTC filings as returns, the assessment limitation period for all of them least 6 years, because all CTC filings contain a substantial understatement of income. If fraud can be proved, there is no limitation period on assessment. Maybe Pete thinks that erroneous refund suits are the IRS's only option. Many CTC warriors, including some posting on LH, have discovered that is not the case.

LOBO · Post by **LOBO** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:20 am

LPC wrote:
Peter Hendrickson wrote:at least four out of the seven of whom have gone on to get
additional complete refunds-- see
http://www.losthorizons.com/PostNewWitnessTampering.pdf for more on this),
If four of the other seven idiots that were sued by the US for refunds were actually stupid enough to claim additional refunds, I expect that the next time they hear from the government it will be in the form of an indictment. If the US was interested enough in them to sue them for refunds, the government will certainly be interested enough to indict them once they try the same scam again.

Didn't the others who were sued, give or take one of two, pay back the refunds they received? It's pretty dense to dodge a bullet and not get out of the way when you get another chance.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:12 pm

These were the seven CtC followers who were involved in the civil suit with Hendrickson and his wife.

Sharon K. Artman - repaid $8,597.39 in 2006, and accused the government of being at fault because they trusted her CtC amended returns.
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/artman5.pdf

Michael J. Dowling - repaid back his $26,520 refund plus interest plus a $500 frivolous filing penalty in 2006
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/dowling14.pdf

Joy M. Ferguson - repaid $4,753 plus interest in 2008 via garnishment
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/ferguson50.pdf

Melvin L. Gerstenkorn - never responded to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment and was ordered to repay $2,275 plus interest
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gerston16.pdf

Larry B. Golson and Debra G. Golson - repaid $69,761 plus interest in 2006
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/golson18.pdf

James A. Spitzer - ordered to repay $16,614 plus interest plus $16,285 in sanctions
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/spitzer49.pdf

ClobberroTestii · Post by **ClobberroTestii** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:37 pm

Demosthenes wrote:These were the seven CtC followers who were involved in the civil suit with Hendrickson and his wife.

The links no longer work.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:40 pm

Try them again.

ClobberroTestii · Post by **ClobberroTestii** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:52 pm

Demosthenes wrote:Try them again.

Ok now. Thanks!

cynicalflyer · Post by **cynicalflyer** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:41 pm

Bob Hurt's email about Pete struck a nerve, including one reader (RE) saying she used Pete's method and is in trouble for it.

> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:38 PM, RE wrote:
>> Bob,
>> I have found that I am now under Criminal Investigation from CID/IRS, as
>> of August 2007. It was in March of 2006 that I filed 1040's using Pete's
>> 4852 method.
>> Can you advise of anyone who I might be able to get in touch with to find
>> out how to handle what has begun. As of right now, summons have gone out to
>> about 25 entities for 'their books and records" in association with whatever
>> dealings these entities have had with me.
>> Any connections you know of would be of interest.
>> Thank you,
>> R. E.

And typical of Pete, he obfuscates:

phendrickson@losthorizons.com> wrote:

> The fact that an investigation might be occurring (and might really not, as
> well-- third-party-record-keeper summonses issue all the time without
> resulting in any kind of prosecution) and the fact that someone may have
> filed what they imagine to be CtC-educated returns doesn't mean that the two
> things are related (and some who make what they imagine to be CtC-educated
> filings really prove not to be, once examined-- for a recent case in point,
> see http://www.losthorizons.com/newsarchive.htm#Menner, and the discussion
> at http://www.losthorizons.com/Help.htm#HelpII regarding baggage from the
> past which can persist DESPITE even completely correct filings). I mention
> this latter point because I don't know you Roanne, and don't have you on my
> mailing list of CtC-owners. Have you actually read the book? There are a
> number of erroneous notions out there about what a CtC-educated filing is
> all about, and even some completely mistaken ideas about filing make use of
> Forms 4852 (see http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/faq.htm#Schiff for some
> comments about some of these).

> In any event, send me scans of what you filed, and a timeline of the
> history of filings and agency correspondences both by you and to you or
> about you by others relevant to the periods for which you think you are
> being investigated. I may be able to direct you to some helpful resources.

> Regards,
> -Pete Hendrickson

LOBO · Post by **LOBO** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:24 pm

cynicalflyer wrote:And typical of Pete, he obfuscates:

phendrickson@losthorizons.com> wrote:

> The fact that an investigation might be occurring (and might really not, as
> well-- third-party-record-keeper summonses issue all the time without
> resulting in any kind of prosecution) and the fact that someone may have
> filed what they imagine to be CtC-educated returns doesn't mean that the two
> things are related (and some who make what they imagine to be CtC-educated
> filings really prove not to be, once examined-- for a recent case in point,
> see http://www.losthorizons.com/newsarchive.htm#Menner, and the discussion
> at http://www.losthorizons.com/Help.htm#HelpII regarding baggage from the
> past which can persist DESPITE even completely correct filings). I mention
> this latter point because I don't know you Roanne, and don't have you on my
> mailing list of CtC-owners. Have you actually read the book? There are a
> number of erroneous notions out there about what a CtC-educated filing is
> all about, and even some completely mistaken ideas about filing make use of
> Forms 4852 (see http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/faq.htm#Schiff for some
> comments about some of these).

> In any event, send me scans of what you filed, and a timeline of the
> history of filings and agency correspondences both by you and to you or
> about you by others relevant to the periods for which you think you are
> being investigated. I may be able to direct you to some helpful resources.

> Regards,
> -Pete Hendrickson

What was that? You lost an erroneous refund lawsuit? Have you actually read the book??

Bud Dickman · Post by **Bud Dickman** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:40 am

This post will not be around for long- http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 63619#8457

ericcalderon wrote:
CW-

Why guess at what Pete wants when the sensible thing to do is wait until he tells us.

Well, I'm still waiting.

In the meantime, my wife's SSDI check just got levied (real
time money taken out), all for
the 2004 full refund, plus $500 penalties for all other years and
has taken them a little over 3 years to get to this point. The first
point was a levy on her employer which I got withdrawn. The other
was a levy on me, which I got withdrawn (but not until they got
15% first and cannot be returned). Nothing is permanent with
the IRS, obviously.

Those of you that have been successful, hang on to your heart,
because your ass is theirs whenever they feel the time is right.

I suspect more to come, whether that is positive or negative thinking is
irrelant at this point.

It still all started with a 3176 letter and a response that cost
me $5 for mailing certified, plus $500 for asking for more
specific information as to why it was determined "frivolous" as
well as a few quotes of statutes to back up my position.

Most Guru's with confidence in their teachings, also provide
remedies for the less fortunate such as those of us that are
considered mentally deficient if we don't listen only to him and
are not successful in our efforts. (Dave Champion, Hanson, Chuck
Conces, Clarkson, and the list goes on) Not ol' Pete. He just says,
"Here's what I believe, learn it and apply it the best you can,
and if anything else happens to the contrary and is not being accepted
by the IRS, it's all your fault".

I'm not impressed.

Book sales must be the goal. Just like Paulsons goal is the bail out
of Investment Banks (worldwide) and of which he owns a piece of all
of them.

I guess the "defense fund' is for Pete. I thought it was for
issues that are causing his readers the most problems due to
the IRS's unlawful actions and determinations, etc.

Good Luck all. You're most likely going to need it before your
out of the woods, permanently.

You will discover, a 'closing notice' is not final. It is only an
official pause until they figure a way to make it stick - next time.

I can tell you now, Pete may respond to this but will say "you've
proven my point by getting two previous levies released or
withdrawn".

No, that was temporary until they decided to ignore such 'reasons'
for withdrawing the levies, then continue with the levy and just let
you 'sue' them or whatever is appropriate in attempting to get
them reversed. They know the judges are on their side for the
most part and would rather take that chance with you; one - either
you cannot afford to sue, or two - their odds are 50/50 if you do.
They don't lose either way and in fact stand to gain from that strategy.

Post by **Famspear** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:15 am

User "CW" at losthorizons wrote:

Why guess at what Pete wants when the sensible thing to do is wait until he tells us.

Well, I'm still waiting.

[ . . . ]

Most Guru's with confidence in their teachings, also provide
remedies for the less fortunate such as those of us that are
considered mentally deficient if we don't listen only to him and
are not successful in our efforts. [ . . . ] Not ol' Pete. He just says,
"Here's what I believe, learn it and apply it the best you can,
and if anything else happens to the contrary and is not being accepted
by the IRS, it's all your fault".

I'm not impressed.

Book sales must be the goal. Just like Paulsons goal is the bail out
of Investment Banks (worldwide) and of which he owns a piece of all
of them.

That kind of language is just way out of bounds! Who does CW think he is? He's talking about PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson, the Savior of the American Republic! How dare he talk about Peter like that??!!

Post by **Famspear** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:59 pm

Now, one of Pete's cheerleaders (Patrick Mooney) responds to CW:

Dear CW,

I am sorry to hear about your troubles, but it is sour grapes to place the blame for your situation on Pete, or to question the motives for his very powerful book.

Translation: "How dare you blame or question the motives of the powerful, all knowing PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson!??!"

Pete is a hard working man who lives very modestly.

Translation: "Pete is financially unsuccessful. He spins his wheels and has little to show for his effort."

I have visited him at his home and he is a good family man, as well as a concerned citizen. If his book is making him a lot of money, he certainly isn't living like it. But even if he were, I would say he deserved such a reward for the hard work he has done and the legal assaults he has had to deal with.

Translation: "Despite Peter's failures with the legal system, I am making a monumental, Bultenesque effort to suck up to Peter."

In Cracking the Code, you have a lucid presentation of how our government is exceeding its statutory bounds to the peril of all Americans.

Translation: [garbled, can't quite make it out...]

Pete did not promise that the government would behave nicely once its citizens started holding it accountable to the law.

Translation: "Pete's method does not actually work when you try to use it."

Nor can Pete be relied upon to fight the fights of everyone else who, agreeing with Pete, undertakes the same immense struggle for freedom and prosperity.

Translation: "Pete is not reliable."

The system has not been kind to me, either, since I began filing CTC educated returns.

Translation: "Like Pete, I too am a loser."

But I won't ever go back to the old way, no matter what the consequences are.

Translation: "Like Pete, I too am stupid."

The only thing I owe Pete, no matter what my outcome, is gratitude.

Translation: "I know I am going to lose, but I will continue to suck up to Peter, no matter what."

Undoubtedly, many of our warriors will one day find themselves in courtrooms all across the land to seek redress for our grievances.

Translation: "Many followers of Pete are just as stupid as Pete."

We must each find our own way through the legal maze.

Translation: "Pete cannot help us."

You acted on Pete's info because you knew it to be true. Do not take down the man who brought the truth to you. It does not speak well of your character as a man to do so.

Translation: "Stop bad mouthing Pete. Try sucking up to Pete. But wait your turn; I got here first."

I wish you luck in your continued pursuit for truth and justice.

Translation: "I wish you would just go away and not bother the rest of us. Leave us to our delusions."

Leftcoaster · Post by **Leftcoaster** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:03 pm

Must be nice having a Rosetta Stone...

Post by **LPC** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:19 am

Famspear wrote:Now, one of Pete's cheerleaders (Patrick Mooney) responds to CW:

Dear CW,

I am sorry to hear about your troubles, but it is sour grapes to place the blame for your situation on Pete, or to question the motives for his very powerful book.