Patrick Mooney promotes Blowhard Hendrickson

[Famspear]

Patrick Mooney at lost horizons writes:

Hello Warriors,

If you haven't read this weeks newsletter yet, here's a video endorsement of Pete's work that I contributed to our efforts.

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/ ... nlight.wmv

Please feel free to email this video all over the place, as well as post it on websites that are dedicated to getting the word out. Let's make it a viral video.

Happy Thursday!

Patrick

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1084

[RyanMcC]

The link to the video doesn't seem to work, but here is a copy of the video on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtYTX7NBE3c

[Dezcad]

Remind me again how Patrick Mooney's Tax Court case went.

[RyanMcC]

Mooney's tax case proved to him that "Pete Hendrickson is 100% correct in all that he says and writes about".

In other words, he lost.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2415&p=37282

[The Observer]

Mooney's tax case proved to him that "Pete Hendrickson is 100% correct in all that he says and writes about".

To be more precise, the upshot of what Pete was "right" about was that the courts are "corrupt" and/or under the thumb of the IRS. He has yet to show that CTC is going to result in the Crackheads not being liable for income tax.

[Nikki]

Mooney's tax case proved to him that "Pete Hendrickson is 100% correct in all that he says and writes about".

In other words, he lost.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2415&p=37282

In the sense of The Princess Bride, he's only partially lost.

He's submitted his case to the first level of appeal as of 8/4/08. The 4th Circuit will be laug<<<<hearing the matter.

[ClobberroTestii]

Mr. Mooney is well into the process of "unlearning". I note that his website http://www.unlearning.org/contact.htm contact page has some extra space. Perhaps that space will be used for his new contact information when he takes up residence at one of the government's premier unlearning "institutes"-you know...the ones you go to for extended post graduate "unlearning"!!!!!

[Patrick Mooney]

I see a lot of character assassination taking place in this forum, and not a lot of quality information being passed around. While forum banter is a wonderful exercise of our rights, recognized by the First Amendment, the quality of the exchanges in regards to my person or Mr. Hendrickson appears sophomoric at best.

I would be more than willing to participate in a public debate on the tax issues at hand in our cases with any of the supposed Quatloos experts. The debate would be recorded and posted on this site and all over the internet, for that matter. Any takers?

[wserra]

I would be more than willing to participate in a public debate on the tax issues at hand in our cases with any of the supposed Quatloos experts. The debate would be recorded and posted on this site and all over the internet, for that matter. Any takers?

Why, have at it. A number of us have tried over at Lost Horizons, but Hendrickson has this nasty habit of banning knowledgeable people who don't agree with him. It does make for shorter debates. While you're at it, perhaps you could answer the question that both Bulten and SubVet left rather than answer: if the Sixth Circuit denies Hendrickson's petition for a rehearing, and the Supreme Court denies cert, will you then accept that Hendrickson is wrong?

[Famspear]

I see a lot of character assassination taking place in this forum, and not a lot of quality information being passed around. While forum banter is a wonderful exercise of our rights, recognized by the First Amendment, the quality of the exchanges in regards to my person or Mr. Hendrickson appears sophomoric at best.

I would be more than willing to participate in a public debate on the tax issues at hand in our cases with any of the supposed Quatloos experts. The debate would be recorded and posted on this site and all over the internet, for that matter. Any takers?

Dear Patrick Mooney: Welcome to Quatloos.

No, I disagree. You do not see "character assassination" taking place in this forum. What you see are a lot of people giving scammers and criminals a hard time.

And yes, you do see a lot of quality information being passed around here. The regulars who post here have a vast --and accurate -- knowledge of federal income tax laws, and that information is posted free of charge. This information is gold for you, whether you believe it or not.

By contrast, your friend Peter Hendrickson has led you and many other people down a path of destruction.

It is ironic that you use the term "sophomoric."

sophomoric: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature

--Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1109, G&C Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976).

I don't know about your "maturity," so I won't comment on that, but you and the other followers of Peter Hendrickson are indeed poorly informed when it comes to tax law. And you are most definitely overconfident of your knowledge. Pete is definitely "conceited" as well.

We welcome a discussion with you about the intricacies of federal income tax law, or about the tax issues in your cases.

[webhick]

I would be more than willing to participate in a public debate on the tax issues at hand in our cases with any of the supposed Quatloos experts. The debate would be recorded and posted on this site and all over the internet, for that matter. Any takers?

Why, have at it. A number of us have tried over at Lost Horizons, but Hendrickson has this nasty habit of banning knowledgeable people who don't agree with him.

Not only banning, but also wiping their posts from the forum.

[ClobberroTestii]

I would be more than willing to participate in a public debate on the tax issues at hand in our cases with any of the supposed Quatloos experts. The debate would be recorded and posted on this site and all over the internet, for that matter. Any takers?

The debate is raging and you're losing. But hold tight; when you get your full scholarship(with full room and board) to the federal "unlearning" center you will finally begin to see that. Oh, BTW, there are free "tours" to all of the "campus" locations via mandatory extracuricular 'diesel "unlearning" therapy' so you should not have any trouble finding new "friends" to indulge you in your self lust.

[Famspear]

. . . . I would be more than willing to participate in a public debate on the tax issues at hand in our cases with any of the supposed Quatloos experts. The debate would be recorded and posted on this site and all over the internet, for that matter. Any takers?

Dear Patrick Mooney: All over the internet?????

At the expense of stating what should be the obvious, I suspect that any postings here on this web site regarding tax protester scams will get a lot more hits, and thus be seen by a lot more people, than almost any copies of these postings pasted on other web sites on the internet that you can find. Compared to this web site, almost anywhere else on the internet would be a sideshow.

Hint: Google the exact phrase "tax protester".......

The first item in the resulting list should be one of the main Wikipedia articles on the subject of tax protesters.

Second will be the taxprotesterfaq web site by legal commentator Daniel B. Evans, attorney at law. This site is absolutely the best, most comprehensive, and most accurate internet resource on the subject, in my opinion. In a way, this site is even better than the online CCH annotations (found in the CCH Standard Federal Income Tax Reporter) on tax protesters -- with a difference: Access to the CCH annotations would cost you hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year, whereas access to the Evans web site is FREE. Advice: Read every word on this site, if you can find the time.

Third hit will be Quatloos. I assume that everything you write here -- and at losthorizons -- may well be copied and saved on a hard drive by federal law enforcement personnel somewhere.

Just want you to be clear on where you are when you post on the Quatloos site, fella.

[LPC]

I would be more than willing to participate in a public debate on the tax issues at hand in our cases with any of the supposed Quatloos experts.

There's nothing to debate.

You want to take the position that the Constitution does not mean what it says, that the Internal Revenue Code does not mean what it says, and that every judge in the history of the United States is wrong, ignore all evidence that you're wrong, drown your opponent in gibberish, and call it a "debate." But that's not a debate; that's just an exercise in fiction and fantasy.

[LPC]

Hint: Google the exact phrase "tax protester".......

The first item in the resulting list should be one of the main Wikipedia articles on the subject of tax protesters.

WHAT??!!! You bumped me from Number One? My FAQ used to be the top Google hit on "tax protester."

Damn.

Please excuse me while I go fill the tub with warm water and look for some razor blades.

[Patrick Mooney]

Fellow Gentleman,

You say that you do not engage in character assassination, yet you have already judged me a "scammer", a "criminal" and a "blowhard" in this thread. The last moniker I can live with. The other two are impossible for you to know without knowing me personally.

"Scammer" would have to mean that I am attempting to make money off of ignorant and unassuming people. For the record, I don't make one penny off of any of the books Pete sells. I invest my time and energy in promoting his works and fighting the IRS along side of him (at great personal cost) because I believe the man is right. I have not had anyone show me, to this date, where the man is wrong. I look forward to your attempts to do so.

"Criminal" means one who is breaking the law, in its most literal sense. We must be careful, however, in judging all who break the law. Martin Luther King broke the law, and for all you Christians out there, Jesus broke the law. There are numerous other heroes, both known and unknown, who went to jail for the exercise of their beliefs. It is the unfortunate cross to bear of any social activist who is willing to put his life on the line for his beliefs. Mock Hendrickson and myself all you like, but you are wrong if you think you understand his motives to be anything other than the protection of freedom and the individual sovereignty of each human being in the United States of America. When it comes to Pete's case, or my own, it still has not been proven that either of us have broken the law.

Futhermore, a number of you seem eager to cheer for me winding up in a federal penitentiary. How is this kind of rhetoric helpful to anyone trying to learn the truth about the income tax laws of this country? Such rhetoric only serves to scare bystanders away from this all important debate. Perhaps these are calculated strategies to manipulate those still undecided and on the fence. That is a shame.

If it is ultimately shown that I am wrong on this issue, I am willing to pay the full price of my actions. But there has not been one shred of evidence of my guilt in the 5 years I have spent investigating the truth that Pete articulates so eloquently in his book. The recent indictment of Pete by the DOJ, as well as the appellate Court decisons against him thus far, will not stand the light of day when Pete has his day in court.

[LPC]

Blah, blah, blah.

Sorry to have to break it to you, Mr. Patrick let-me-pontificate-about-myself Mooney, but you're at about minute 8 of your 15 minutes of fame, and in about 7 minutes I won't remember who you are, much less care what you think.

Please bear that in mind before you compare yourself again to Martin Luther King Jr.

[Nikki]

...

The recent indictment of Pete by the DOJ, as well as the appellate Court decisons against him thus far, will not stand the light of day when Pete has his day in court.

If I recall correctly, Pete has already had a recent day in court and lost. It was something about the recovery of an inappropriate tax refund and he is now in the process of appealing that loss.

Let me give you a clue as to what is going to happen to Pete.

He will go on trial for tax evasion (By the way, he is lucky that he isn't facing criminal prosecution -- yet -- for marketing a tax evasion scheme.) He might be found not goulty of this criminal charge, but it's not likely -- his only possible defense is Cheek: basically claiming that he was too stupid to understand that he was breaking the law. However, his web site and forums clearly speak against this defense. He might try to plead to a lesser charge by turning over the list of everyone who bought his book and everyone who has sent a copy of their refund information to him, but the government already has that information.

In any case, guilty of the criminal charge or not, he will again face a civil trial for his outstanding tax liabilities. He WILL lose that one. He will face a significant tax bill for every cent he has evaded, the associated penalties and accrued interest. Unless he has the cash reserves to pay that bill, he will lose his home and every other asset he has.

Once that process is completed, all of his disciples will face the same process. If you and your fellow true believers are lucky, you won't face criminal charges.

Your best move at this point is to pay a call on your local IRS office, tell them that you were bamboozeled by a fast-talking snake oil salesman, and start working out what you owe and how you can repay it.

Remenber, those $5,000 frivolous filing penalties add up really fast to a substantial amount of money.

It's entirely possible that you and your fellow CtC adherants may end up making a significant contribution to a balanced federal budget, for which we all thank you.

[LPC]

In any case, guilty of the criminal charge or not, he [Hendrickson] will again face a civil trial for his outstanding tax liabilities.

Not necessarily.

The government already has a judgment against Hendrickson for the erroneous refunds he received for taxes withheld from his wages.

It is theoretically possible that there will be a deficiency assessed against Hendrickson for taxes he owes in addition to the taxes withheld, but it is more likely that that will never happen. You see, it is likely that Hendrickson would have been entitled to a refund if he had filed an accurate return. It is likely that if he had filed a return claiming deductions to which he might be entitled for real estate taxes, or home mortgage interest, or other expenses, he would have owed less tax than what was withheld from his wages.

But we'll probably never know, and neither will Hendrickson, because he's a flaming idiot.

[Famspear]

Dear Patrick Mooney: I can't speak for other posters here, but the labels "scammer" and "blowhard" were applied only (as far as I remember) to Hendrickson, not to you.

When it comes to Pete's case, or my own, it still has not been proven that either of us have broken the law.

Agreed, in the sense that Pete has not even gone to trial in this case yet (and of course disregarding his earlier convictions, which apparently were not for crimes involving the Cracking the Code scam, which came later).

How is this kind of rhetoric helpful to anyone trying to learn the truth about the income tax laws of this country? Such rhetoric only serves to scare bystanders away from this all important debate. Perhaps these are calculated strategies to manipulate those still undecided and on the fence. That is a shame.

At least one other person has raised this critique about Quatloos recently. Good; I take it that you are willing to be convinced that you and Pete are in error. Don't let me down.

If it is ultimately shown that I am wrong on this issue, I am willing to pay the full price of my actions. But there has not been one shred of evidence of my guilt in the 5 years I have spent investigating the truth that Pete articulates so eloquently in his book.

If you follow Pete's instructions on how to file tax returns, then you might be convicted of willfully filing false tax returns under 26 USC 7206 -- UNLESS your conduct was not, well, not willful (I know, that sounds a bit circular). In a criminal case, it would be up to a jury to decide whether your actions were willful.

The following is adapted from something in "another forum" (much of which I wrote) regarding the leading U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Cheek case:

Under U.S. criminal law, the general rule is that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is not a valid defense to criminal prosecution. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 199.

However, there are exceptions to that rule. Some U.S. criminal statutes provide for what are known as "specific intent" crimes, where ignorance of the law may be a valid defense. The criminal tax statutes in the Cheek case are examples of statutes for specific intent crimes, where actual ignorance of the law is a valid defense. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 200.

The two essential holdings of the Supreme Court in Cheek were:

1. A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law (e.g., the complexity of the statute itself) is a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 203.

2. A belief that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional is not a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even if that belief is genuine and is held in good faith. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 206.

John Cheek's arguments about the constitutionality of the tax law in various prior court cases were expressly labeled "frivolous" by the Supreme Court. See Cheek, 498 U.S. at 204-205. For example, John Cheek had specifically contended prior to his conviction that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain or profit. See Cheek, 498 U.S. at 196.

The Supreme Court in Cheek distinguished arguments about constitutionality from statutory arguments about the law. The Court ruled that the defendant's belief that the tax laws were unconstitutional was not a defense, no matter how honestly that belief might have been held. To the contrary, Cheek's acknowledgement that his failure to file tax returns was based on a belief about constitutionality was viewed by the Supreme Court as possible evidence of (1) Cheek's awareness of the tax law itself (the Court stating that constitutional arguments reveal the taxpayer's "full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable", Cheek, 498 U.S. at 205.) and (2) of the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty imposed by the tax law.

However, John Cheek's statutory argument -- his asserted belief that his wages were not income under the statute (the Internal Revenue Code itself) -- was ruled by the Supreme Court to be a possible ground for a valid defense even though that belief was not objectively reasonable, provided that the belief was actually held in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that by instructing the jury that the defendant's statutory argument had to be based on a belief that was "objectively reasonable," the trial judge had erroneously transformed what should have been treated as a ''factual issue'' (for the jury to decide) into a ''legal issue''. The Supreme Court stated that whether the defendant acted willfully is a factual issue to be determined by the jury, and that a valid defense of ''lack of willfulness'' could be found even though the defendant's belief is not "objectively reasonable." The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a retrial. Upon retrial, John Cheek was convicted, and the conviction was upheld on appeal. John Cheek went to prison.

In Cheek, the Court spoke of an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law.

In the case of Cracking the Code the argument that wages are not taxable (or that certain wages are not taxable, etc., etc., in whatever verbal formulation Pete Hendrickson likes to put it) may be a "statutory" (and not a "constitutional") argument. A Cheek defense -- an argument that Pete Hendrickson lacks the element of willfulness because of an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law -- might be accepted by a jury. It's rare, but it does happen.

The troublesome language for Peter Hendrickson is the Court's reference to a taxpayer's "full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable". The Supreme Court was talking about the constitutional arguments -- but what happens if the members of a jury unanimously conclude that (1) the evidence of a taxpayer's extensive study of various tax STATUTES, and (2) the evidence of the taxpayer's publication of a book on his own theory about the STATUTES, and (3) the taxpayer's operation of an internet web site on his own theories, are evidences of that taxpayer's full knowledge of the provisions of the STATUTES at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those STATUTORY provisions are to be interpreted differently from the way the IRS and the courts interpret them? The members of a jury might conclude that the taxpayer's asserted "belief" is not really based on a "misunderstanding" caused by the "complexity of the statutes" but is instead the result of a stubborn, obdurate recalcitrance -- in short, a DISAGREEMENT with the law, rather than a true, good faith belief.

"Actually held" belief is not enough to avoid conviction under Cheek. The belief must be actually held in good faith. And the Court's additional comments -- "based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law" -- might make a Cheek defense even more problematic.

It's up to the jury. Pete may be acquitted. Or he may go to prison again.

The recent indictment of Pete by the DOJ, as well as the appellate Court decisons against him thus far, will not stand the light of day when Pete has his day in court.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Even if Pete were to be acquitted, that would not change the appellate Court decisions thus far -- not in any way whatsoever. Jury acquittal in a criminal tax trial (especially where, as here, the only defense might be a Cheek defense) does not change the tax law itself, and does not affect the validity of prior court decisions interpreting that law. The "stand the light of day" statement above shows a basic lack of understanding of how the law works.

You say you have spent five years investigating this. Yet, you seem to labor under the misconception that the appellate court cases you reference "will not stand the light of day." That indicates to me that your investigation is faulty, and that your knowledge of the law is faulty. I would strongly suggest that you read (or re-read) the commentary by Daniel B. Evans regarding how the law actually works. Law, essentially, is not something that exists outside the legal system that can be "discovered" by you, Patrick Michael Mooney, in such a way that you yourself can correctly determine that an appellate court decision was "wrong" or "incorrect." Under the U.S. legal system, the law literally is what the courts rule the law to be.

From Daniel B. Evans (and where Dan refers to the "Constitution," you may just as well insert the phrase "Constitution, statutes, regulations, etc."):

I am often asked, “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong?” Or, “Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?” Those questions demonstrate that the questioner doesn’t really understand what is meant by “law” or the “rule of law.”

Law is not some kind of abstraction that floats in the air, free from any connection to people or events. “The law” is what legislatures, courts, and governments do, and the real test of what the law “is” shows in how the law is applied in actual cases.

The immediately preceding sentence (with the bold font added) is a crucial one for anyone who has never been to law school. If you do not accept this sentence, then you are lost, Patrick.

Evans continues:

So when lawyers talk about what “the law” is, they are talking about how a judge will rule. Not how the judge should rule, or might rule, but will rule. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, “the only definition of law for a lawyer’s purposes is something which the Court will enforce.” Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock, 7/3/1874. Or, more famously: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.” The Paths of the Law (1897).

[ . . . ]

In the case of the income tax, there is no conflict. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of our government, and a majority of the voters, have all agreed for more than 90 years that (1) an income tax is constitutional, (2) it applies to wages, and (3) every citizen and resident of every state is required to file a tax return and pay the tax. That is what the law is. There is no question about it.

So this FAQ states what “the law” is, because a judge will rule against the tax protester arguments described in this FAQ 100% of the time. Not 95% of the time, or even 99.999% of the time. 100.00%.

from

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#courts

(copyright by Daniel B. Evans).

Patrick, since you presumably reject all the court cases rejecting Pete's Cracking the Code scam, will you continue to "believe" that his "theories" are legally correct -- even if he is convicted?