Patrick Mooney promotes Blowhard Hendrickson

[LPC]

Famspear's message goes to an issue that we have all referred to, but I'm not sure we have ever addressed directly:

How is "the law" determined?

If "the law" is determined by each person individually, based on their own research and readings, then we have a society of chaos because each person gets to interpret the law for herself (or himself) and no one can be punished for a faulty reading of the law.

But I believe we have a system of legislatures, and executives, and judges, and once there is a clear consensus of the law, that is what the law is.

In other words, we look to an institutional and societal understanding of the law, and not an individual understanding of the law, in order to determine what the law is and means.

[LPC]

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.

Another point: I can abide discussions of whether the law should be different from what it is. What I can't tolerate is misrepresentations about what the law actually is at present.

As I explain in my FAQ, "claims that the federal income tax is unfair, morally equivalent to theft, or bad economic policy are all matters of opinion, not law, and are outside the scope of this FAQ. However, a claim that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, unenforceable, or inapplicable is an assertion of law and is within the scope of this FAQ."

If Hendrickson (or Mooney) want to argue that the federal income tax should not apply to private sector workers, then they have taken themselves out of the category of lawless jerks and into the realm of harmless kooks. But if they claim that private sector workers are in fact not subject to federal income tax, and they act on those claims even while they have reason to know those claims are false, then they are criminals and not debaters or advocates.

[LPC]

will you continue to "believe" that his [Hendrickson's] "theories" are legally correct -- even if he is convicted?

Good question.

I'll be curious to see the answer.

[Nikki]

Weston:

If you have any intellectual honesty, you'll post your responses to our remarks here, instead of at the LoserHeads forum where all of ourm posts are deleted as soon as Pete notices them.

However, I don't expect you to post here, since you are an intellectual coward, nervous about your status as a follower of the great blowhard, and incapable of engaging in any sort of rational discussion regarding tax law or the inherent weaknesses of CtC.

[Doktor Avalanche]

"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.

The problem is, Mr. Mooney, that comrade Pete isn't nearly as noble or heroic as Jesus or Martin Luther King - nor is he an idealistic social activist.

Why don't you tell us kids the story about how Uncle Petey bombed a post office and injured a postal worker and then ask yourself if Jesus or Martin Luther King would've done the same?

I seem to remember someone once pointing out that Petey pretty much gut-shot his entire position by doing that.

Who was that person again? Oh yeah....it was me.

I have read the link you provided and whether or not PH planted a bomb and whether or not he objected to it is immaterial. The bottom line is he had something to do with it.

That makes him a turd in my book and it really doesn't matter that it was a "smoke bomb" or that someone may or may not have been injured. There was a device, it was meant to terrorize and by some strange coincidence it just happened to be directed at that evil IRS...the same evil IRS that he's been telling everyone within earshot that nobody has to listen to and obey.

That makes your boy a fanatic. I wonder when he's going to graduate to IED's and suicide bombers.

His assertion that he "objected" is more specious. If he was so dead set against it, why didn't he alert the authorities? That, to me, suggests he wanted it to happen.

You can't go around telling everyone the IRS is evil, that people who work/support the IRS are evil then wash your hands of any responsibility should someone decide to take you at your word.

His reasoning sounds an awful lot like those of Holocaust deniers who are quick to point out that Hitler never signed any orders to build the concentration camps or exterminate Jews (although that's true, it still doesn't get him off the hook).

I would, as a matter of principal, presume to lecture Mr. Hendrickson on the impropriety of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater but I get the impression it would fall on deaf ears - or that he'd twist it to say that I was lecturing him on yelling "movie" in a crowded firehouse.

[Nikki]

Totally lacking the courage to take his discussion to an OPEN forum, Weston again posts a snide remark at LoserHeads.

If he had any confidence in his views, he wouldmbe willing to sign in here and engage in open, uncensored debate about the CtC theories.

Instead, he lurks in his moderated forum of toadies to Pete's theories and snipes at people who disagree with him.

Weston is afraid to engage in open, honest discussion. He prefers to hide where no one can disagree with him or challenge him since any such posts will be immediately be deleted by Pete, who is afraid to open his forum to any honest challenge to his theories.

Weston is a coward.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Totally lacking the courage to take his discussion to an OPEN forum, Weston again posts a snide remark at LoserHeads.

If he had any confidence in his views, he wouldmbe willing to sign in here and engage in open, uncensored debate about the CtC theories.

Instead, he lurks in his moderated forum of toadies to Pete's theories and snipes at people who disagree with him.

Weston is afraid to engage in open, honest discussion. He prefers to hide where no one can disagree with him or challenge him since any such posts will be immediately be deleted by Pete, who is afraid to open his forum to any honest challenge to his theories.

Weston is a coward.

I concur - he and the rest of those idiots at Lost Horizons are on borrowed time and they know it.

Anyone with half a brain would only need to ask why Petey doesn't allow dissenting views on his forums in order to see that something is quite wrong.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Dear Mr. White:

I hope for your sake that you are secretly not a CtC educated tax filer because the minute things start going south for Uncle Petey your name (along with everyone else over there at Lost Horizons) is going to show up on a list that will be handed over to the authorities (courtesy of Uncle Petey) who will, in turn, start making life very uncomfortable for all of you.

In short, you're all gonna have some 'splaining to do.

Uncle Petey has a rather nasty habit of throwing people under the bus when it's his ass in the sling. Just ask one of his accomplices in that mail bombing incident - you know, the one who was secretly recorded by Uncle Petey and then grassed off to the authorities in exchange for a lighter sentence?

Sincerely,

Doktor Avalanche

PS Yes, Mr. White, your nervousness is quite apparent.

[wserra]

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.

If you look at my single post to the thread, I called you no names whatsoever. I did ask a simple question, though, which appears to be kryptonite to Hendrickson followers, since none of them even try to answer it. Here it is, again: 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? No tricks, no big words, simple. Just never answered, and I've asked it of Bulten and SubVet as well.

Gonna give it a shot?

[LOBO]

Anyone notice that he hasn't tried to defend the CTC position yet? Probably because he knows half the people on this board will provide actual cites showing why he's wrong and he'll slink off like all the others have.

[Patrick Mooney]

Dear Gentlemen,

Happy Sunday! I will continue to address the issues that are brought up here, but the vitriol of some of your posts in this thread are not appreciated. They contribute to a lack of debate rather than promoting a healthy exchange on this very important subject. I again plead to you (and you know who you are) to show some restraint.

Here is my response to a few of your challenges:

Issue 1: Will I admit that Hendrickson is wrong if the Sixth Circuit denies Peter a rehearing or the Supreme Court denies cert?

My answer, at present, is no. The many references to Mr. Evans' expositions on the law in this Forum are both telling and practical. What they really explain is that the law is a political animal, and despite what the law actually says, it is the will of people (whether informed or not) that ultimately determines the "correctness" of a given position in a legal contest.

Based on this understanding, there is a real chance that Peter or myself may one day be found "guilty" in some court or other, because a large portion of the American people are ignorant about the tax laws of this country. I believe there is a quote somewhere by a Supreme Court Justice noting the fact that many of the lawyers that argue in front of the Court are ignorant of the tax law.

So there is a vast "culture of ignorance" regarding the income tax that the Courts and the DOJ, at present, may exploit to the government's advantage. Pete is not unaware of this reality nor am I.

But if you all be reasoned men, then you must clearly see that a ruling of "guilt" or "innocence" by a court does not necessarily make it so in objective reality. Yes, it can be made so in practical reality, with the loser suffering great harm in defeat and the winner enjoying his spoils. Yet those interested in the preservation of truth will press on in their claims for redress regardless of the consequences.

The courts once ruled that the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe.
The law once ruled that a black man was only 3/5 the value of a white man.
The law once stated that a war in Vietnam was authorized because of an incident that never occured (Gulf of Tonkin resolution).

Now before this turns into a long diatribe about how the legal system can easily be subverted to serve the will of the powerful, it should be readily apparent that one Court's decision in a matter does not cease debate on an issue once and for all. It simply does not. In Hendrickson's case, many who share the understanding he articulates so well are willing to launch themselves at the legal system until we feel true justice is served. It is our highest obligation as moral creatures to do so.

The DOJ tried once to stop Pete from publishing Cracking the Code, insisting that he was promoting "an abusive tax shelter." They failed. Does this vindicate Pete's work in the eyes of Quatloos adherents? I think not. So the political war for the minds of our fellow citizens rages on.

Issue 2: Pete's earlier conviction regarding the Post office bombing are not in any way connected to his work outlined in Cracking the Code.

Pete is a true patriot, cut from the cloth of our Founding Fathers. In his earlier days, Pete had an understanding that the income tax was not being properly administered, though he lacked the specific knowledge as to how that might be so. I do not condone, nor endorse, the actions that Pete took in those days. But I do understand it. When some feel that their very liberty is under attack, or they feel their country is headed in a dangerous direction, violent expressions of outrage can and will occur. If such actions were to never take place, then revolutions would not occur and this country would not assume the face and character it has today.

Finally, it should be recognized that Pete did pay the price for his actions. Case closed on that matter. Those of you who continue to harp on this prior conviction are trying to take the issue off topic and this reflects poorly on the confidence you must have in your own understanding of this, more recent, debate.

Issue 3: Pete's conclusions about the law are misrepresented frequently in this forum.

It is clear that the enemies of Mr. Hendrickson must rely on the distortion of his views in order to succeed in winning the minds of the ignorant and timid. Some of you sound like IRS officials, who engage in the same kind of skullduggery with the average American citizen on a daily basis.

Pete, nor any informed reader of his works, believe in or advocate the following positions that are often linked to him by his enemies:

1) Wages are not income.
2) There is no law requiring anyone to pay the tax on income.
3) The income tax is unconstitutional.
4) The income tax only applies to government employees.
5) Filling out an income tax return is a violation of one's 5th Amendment rights.

So if you read any posts alleging any of these tyes of falsifications to him, then you know you are reading a post from someone completely ignorant on the subject, or completely evil in their attempts to sully the good work Pete has done.

Issue 4: The strength of Pete's work is verified by the IRS and DOJ, who, in their legal pursuit of Mr. Hendrickson, make their case on extemely shifty grounds.

In the circuit/appellate rulings against Pete, the courts ordered Pete to file his income tax return in a different way. Do any of you Quatloos proponents have a positive opinion of that?

The enitire case of the DOJ/IRS is that Pete doesn't really believe what he writes about or testifies under oath about. The courts are essentially trying to collude with the DOJ in witness tampering.

If they are allowed to succeed in this endeavor, then the sovereign rights of the individual will everywhere be in peril. Because truth, then, will simply be a matter of what the AUTHORITIES SAY IT IS.

As I told the 4th Circuit Court in my brief to them, this would present a tyranny on the populace that it will not tolerate.

Maybe we are heading in that direction as a country, and as a world, but it will not be a peaceful transition to that Soviet reality, you can be sure.

To return to Pete's case, the only way the government can win is if they can successfully overrule his sworn testimony. In other words, if his testimony is accepted in the record as it presently stands, then Pete wins.

This is a complete vindication of his work, because what they are saying is that "Pete is technically correct in his understanding of the law, but that in his own personal case, he knowingly lied about the nature of his receipts. The only way we can find him guilty is to invalidate his testimony, because beyond that, we don't have any direct evidence against him."

It is hard to believe that the enlightened minds on this forum would not only endorse, but energetically root for, the validation of this kind of leagal fiction.

Issue 5: Pete will not use "ignorance of the law" as a defense in his upcoming trial, nor would any fully informed reader of his work.

The defense of the truth outlined in Cracking the Code centers on the following FACTS:

1) The Income Tax is an excise tax. By it's nature, excise taxes must be avoidable.
2) One becomes liable for this excise tax when one engages in any activity that generates income, and that income exceeds the personal exemption amount.
3) Not all private sector jobs in the several states of our Union fall into the realm of taxable activity that generate income, therefore, everyone who works is not necessarily liable for the tax.
4) The way the law is written, each individual liable to the tax must file a truthful reporting of their income and self-assessment of the tax owed on that income.
5) The law does not give the IRS or any part of the Federal Government the power to declare the amount of income reported in a timely filed tax return or claim for refund.

Because of the vast and, until recently, increasing amount of ignorance regarding the income tax laws in our country, many private sector companies were tricked into making annual reports to the IRS about what they paid to their workers, as well as withholding amounts of that pay and turning it over to the Feds.

If one studies our history, you will find that a lot of this confusion was engendered during the desperate times our country faced during the Great Depression and World War II, as well as the culture of fear and obedience to authority that the early Cold War fostered in 1940s and 1950s America. In this sad era, the Federal Government greatly expanded its powers and engaged the private sector in a partnership to advance the agenda of Socialist programs and the expansion of the Military/Industrial complex.

Working in partnership with the Feds meant that private sector companies, who before that partnership existed outside the bounds of Federally exciseable activity, were now legally a part of it.

However, when that partnership ended, so too, should the withholding and reporting requirements have ended. But Daffy Duck cartoons, and willful subterfuge on the part of the Feds and their crony beneficiaries, permitted the withholding and reporting to stay in place (saying the private sector "voluntary complied"), as the gravy train of easy money it produced was too tempting to walk away from. Over time, the human tendency of "monkey see, monkey do" fell into place and we have the situation that we have today.

That situation is that many private sector companies are falsely reporting the payment of "wages" without really understanding what that term legally means.

The government today is obviously addicted to its ill-gotten gains, and is free to use the power of those vast resources to squash any attempts at restoring a popular, widespread understanding of the law as it is actually written.

Were the government truly on the side of the people, it would prosecute the companies making these false "wage" statements (as the law already provides for) and defend the people's right to their own property. But doing so would mean that the Federal Government would have to return to the practice of passing Apportioned, Direct taxes to fund its overly ambitious projects. This is an unpalatable option for the crooks in Washington and the central bankers that they serve, because it would immediately involve convincing the will of the people to support them each time a tax bill was raised. Much easier to continue stealing now and ask for forgiveness later when they are ultimately caught.

Furthermore, 26 USC 7206, which the DOJ is using to prosecute Pete, has a very limited subject matter jurisdiction and it will be very tough to make that law stick to his case.

Issue 6: Cracking the Code Warriors do not endorse the reasoning that the law is subject to personal interpretation, as others have alluded to in this thread.

Our admonishment to every American is simply to "uphold the law" as it is written. If the law actually said that my labor is a taxable, income generating activity, then I would be happy to pay any tax associated with that.

But that is not what is happening all across America. What is happening is that some entities are reporting to the IRS that an individual's sovereign labor is a federally exciseable activity. When the individual then submits a counter claim to that statement, the government is choosing to believe the original reporting entities over the sovereign individual (because of the obvious economic benefit to them).

This is being done despite the requirements in the law that says the individual's sworn testimony is the controlling truth in the matter. Furthermore, the government is ignoring its lawful requirement of meeting the burden of proof when it seeks to dislodge the sovereign individual's testimony.

The only leg the government can stand on is to try and prove that all the Cracking the Code informed readers are lying, but it is trying to prove that by silencing their testimony entirely, instead of simply providing undeniable evidence, from its own FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE that the sovereign individual engaged in taxable activity.

If Quatloos is to really do a service to the American public, then it will change its tune and endorse the work of Peter Hendrickson, and list the IRS as one of the top SCAMMERS of all time (up there with all the world's religions).

I've given you all enough to chew on today. May the Llamas start their spitting!

Happy Sunday!

[Paul]

What they really explain is that the law is a political animal, and despite what the law actually says, it is the will of people (whether informed or not) that ultimately determines the "correctness" of a given position in a legal contest.

The defense of the truth outlined in Cracking the Code centers on the following FACTS:

1) The Income Tax is an excise tax. By it's nature, excise taxes must be avoidable.
2) One becomes liable for this excise tax when one engages in any activity that generates income, and that income exceeds the personal exemption amount.
3) Not all private sector jobs in the several states of our Union fall into the realm of taxable activity that generate income, therefore, everyone who works is not necessarily liable for the tax.
4) The way the law is written, each individual liable to the tax must file a truthful reporting of their income and self-assessment of the tax owed on that income.
5) The law does not give the IRS or any part of the Federal Government the power to declare the amount of income reported in a timely filed tax return or claim for refund.

So there is no immutable "law," just the will of the people, but Pete's CTC centers on 5 immutable propositions of what the law is? Only one of these statements can be true. Which?

BTW, I suggest you pick the second, or there is nothing to debate except whether the will of the people will be to come and collect the tax from all the CTC-spouting morons who fail to do what the vast majority of the people to, which is pay their taxes. Also, the first propostion cannot have been accurately stated, because, if the law is the will of the people, there is no such thing as "uninformed" will. The only fact is the will of the people. So, if you want to debate the first proposition, you'll have to rephrase it to remove its internal contradiction.

[Cpt Banjo]

1) The Income Tax is an excise tax. By it's nature, excise taxes must be avoidable.

Wrong. Avoidability is not a necessary condition for the imposition of an excise. For example, unless you've found the secret to immortality, you will die. Accordingly, you will not be able to avoid the estate tax (and don't try giving your property away during your lifetime, for then you'll be subject to the gift tax.).

3) Not all private sector jobs in the several states of our Union fall into the realm of taxable activity that generate income, therefore, everyone who works is not necessarily liable for the tax.

There is no legal basis for this claim, unless the job pays nothing.

Working in partnership with the Feds meant that private sector companies, who before that partnership existed outside the bounds of Federally exciseable activity, were now legally a part of it.

Another preposterous claim with no legal basis. You've obviously swallowed the demonstrably false premise that there must be some "federally exciseable activity" before income from such activity can be taxed. Since all of the other CtC fans who have visited here have refused to answer a very simple question, I'll pose it to you: how is it that the law taxes income from illegal activities? Will you be the first CtC'er to attempt an answer? Or will you be like all the others and run away from it like a scalded cat [sorry, Demo] because you realize there is no answer that is consistent with the premises of CtC?

[Nikki]

Another simple question for Mr. Mooney:

Why is it that Pete has discovered a fact about the income tax laws that every lawyer, CPA, financial planner, etc that has worked for Gates, Turner, Jobs, Winfrey, and so on has missed?

Doesn't it seem a little strange that all of these multi-millionaires, who each pay more income taxes than all the "CtC warriors" combined, who can afford the best legal talent money can buy, and who would benefit greatly from any reduction in their income taxes haven't been able to find the same secret that Pete uncovered or are using Pete's strategy for reducing taxes?

Perhaps the answer comes in a simple application of Occam's razor: Pete is wrong.

[LOBO]

2) One becomes liable for this excise tax when one engages in any activity that generates income, and that income exceeds the personal exemption amount.

This is why you should should look at the actual tax laws and related court cases and not a book written by a soon-to-be-convicted tax evader to determine what the "truth" is.

It's not an activity that creates the liability for the tax, it's the income itself.

For example, if you more your own yard, it does not create a tax liability. If you mow your neighbor's yard, and he doesn't pay you, there's no tax liability. If you mow other peoples' yards and they pay you, that amount is included in your income, and it is taxed if the total is above the threshold after deductions, credits, etc...

[Famspear]

Dear Patrick: Let's take some samples of your comments.

Dear Gentlemen,

Issue 1: Will I admit that Hendrickson is wrong if the Sixth Circuit denies Peter a rehearing or the Supreme Court denies cert?

My answer, at present, is no. The many references to Mr. Evans' positions on the law in this Forum are both telling and practical. What they really explain is that the law is a political animal, and despite what the law actually says, it is the will of people (whether informed or not) that ultimately determines the "correctness" of a given position in a legal contest.

No, that is incorrect. The law is not a political animal in the sense in which you apparently mean. And it is not the will of the people that determines the "correctness" of a given position in a legal contest under our legal system.

In a legal contest under the U.S. system, the correctness of a given position is determined not by the voters, not by the Congress, not by the President or others in the executive branch. The correctness of a given position is determined by a judge in a ruling in a court of law.

If the judge's ruling on the law is not to the liking of the people, the people can elect a Congress that will change the law through legislation -- but that does not change the correctness of the decision rendered by that judge in that particular case.

Based on this understanding, there is a real chance that Peter or myself may one day be found "guilty" in some court or other, because a large portion of the American people are ignorant about the tax laws of this country.

No, if you or Peter are convicted, it will not be because of some supposed ignorance by the American people. It will be because of what happened in a court of law. And the vast majority of the American people -- who believe that the federal income tax is valid as applied to the wages (the way the statute defines wages, and not the way Hendrickson claims the statute defines wages) of an ordinary private sector employee (the way the statute defines employee, not the way Hendrickson claims the statute defines employee) in the United States - are correct. You and Pete are wrong.

But if you all be reasoned men, then you must clearly see that a ruling of "guilt" or "innocence" by a court does not necessarily make it so in objective reality.

Wrong. Completely wrong. In law, "objective reality" does not mean what you, Patrick strongly believe. Your personal belief is not "objective." Your personal belief about what the law says is a subjective belief, and the so-called "reality" in which you believe is, essentially, your subjective reality, not objective reality. You are quite wrong.

. . . .one Court's decision in a matter does not cease debate on an issue once and for all. It simply does not.

People can debate about the law all they want, but mere debate does not change what the law is. Merely strongly believing that you are right about what the law is does not make your belief correct, and merely debating, even endlessly debating, is ineffectual by itself to change the law.

Pete is a true patriot, cut from the cloth of our Founding Fathers. In his earlier days, Pete had an understanding that the income tax was not being properly administered, though he lacked the specific knowledge as to how that might be so.

No, Pete is not a patriot. Pete is a con artist. He is a convicted felon. He is a tax cheat. Pete has never had an understanding that the income tax was not being properly administered. First, the income tax is not being improperly administered.

Second, in my personal opinion (which may differ from the opinions of the members of the jury), Pete has never had an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law. Instead, Pete has constructed an elaborate, hilariously erroneous hoax, borrowing heavily from the "work" of prior tax protesters -- complete with the erroneous use of quotations from court cases about which, in some instances, he apparently knows little if anything. He has combined his hilarious falsehoods with a smattering of correct observations about certain aspects of tax law in a way that, to me, illustrates that he has studied the law enough to foreclose any reasonable argument that he is unaware of what the law actually is. He in fact knows that the law is what the courts have ruled the law to be, and he in fact knows that his own theories do not comport with what the courts have ruled the law to be. If, in a court of law, I were all 12 members of the jury (now there's a fantasy!) and I were presented with the evidence against Pete that he himself has presented to me on his own web site, I would find that, under the Cheek doctrine, he does not have a valid Cheek defense (I know, I know, you have more or less said you don't believe he'll try to mount a Cheek defense).

Finally, it should be recognized that Pete did pay the price for his actions. Case closed on that matter.

Umm, excuse me, but no case was never "open" on that matter. I don't recall anyone here arguing that he did not pay the price for his actions. Just the opposite. We have reminded readers that he is a convicted felon, and I'm not sure but I suspect somebody somewhere may have mentioned that he did spend time in federal prison.

Those of you who continue to harp on this prior conviction are trying to take the issue off topic and this reflects poorly on the confidence you must have in your own understanding of this, more recent, debate.

No, you are quite wrong. You have no idea of the confidence that the Quatloos regulars have in the proposition that we are right and Pete is wrong about what the law is. We have virtually 100% confidence that we are right. Why? Because while Peter is aware of what the law really is -- that is, he is aware that his book does not comport with the real law -- we know the law in a way that Pete does not know it.

First, Peter has studied the law as a dabbler. Granted, based on my reading of his work, his dabbling is far more extensive than that of the average tax protester, but it is dabbling nonetheless. He has not made a serious study of the law. Without going into detail as to why (at this time), I can say with confidence that almost any first year law student studying Peter's verbiage on his web site and, in particular, looking up the court cases he cites, would quickly discover how clueless Pete is and how nonsensical his work is.

Second, Peter lacks the intellectual tools needed to analyze legal materials. There is an awful lot that goes into learning how to properly analyze legal texts that cannot be learned by Peter Eric Hendrickson by his reading of tax protester material (which I can confidently say is where Peter started his "research") and by Peter's reading of the texts of the court cases he has read. This is because Peter -- in addition to being totally wrong on the final "substance" of what he claims about tax law -- also lacks certain tools needed to analyze legal materials (particularly case law). These tools are acquired not by reading the texts of one case, or ten cases, or even a hundred cases. These tools are acquired only by reading the texts of literally thousands and thousands of court opinions -- and not limiting that reading to tax cases, but to all kinds of cases including those dealing with property, contract, torts, substantive criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, and so on. Based on a reading of Peter's work, it is obvious that he lacks the tools he needs.

More to come later.....

[jg]

The defense of the truth outlined in Cracking the Code centers on the following FACTS:

1) The Income Tax is an excise tax. By it's nature, excise taxes must be avoidable.
2) One becomes liable for this excise tax when one engages in any activity that generates income, and that income exceeds the personal exemption amount.
3) Not all private sector jobs in the several states of our Union fall into the realm of taxable activity that generate income, therefore, everyone who works is not necessarily liable for the tax.
4) The way the law is written, each individual liable to the tax must file a truthful reporting of their income and self-assessment of the tax owed on that income.
5) The law does not give the IRS or any part of the Federal Government the power to declare the amount of income reported in a timely filed tax return or claim for refund.

Although it is not clear if FACTS are somehow different than facts, these statements would not be facts in the legal sense; but rather interpretations of the law. As such, unless there is support in the statutory language or case law then the statement is mere opinion (and personal opinion at that , as opposed to legal opinion).

So, please indicate where the premises that "all excise taxes must be avoidable" and "One becomes liable for this excise tax when one engages in any activity that generates income" are stated. You can not, I am sure.

The current statute says in 26 U.S.C. § 1. "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual ..." This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. For more see http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... tNoLaw.htm

So, between sections 1, 61, and 63, we see that the tax code passed by Congress imposes a tax on your taxable income, which includes all your income, from whatever source derived, less the deductions allowed by the tax laws.

There is nothing that speaks to "One becomes liable for this excise tax when one engages in any activity that generates income" in the statutes or the case law in regard to income taxes. The receipt of income from whatever source derived is taxable unless there is a specific provision in the law to exclude that income.

Under those rules, everyone who works is not necessarily liable for the tax since their income may not exceed the threshold; but again there is no statute or case law to support your opinion. Hendrickson twists or misinterprets the terms "includes" and "wages" and "employee" and "employer" and "compensation for services" , etc. contrary to the language of the statute and the interpretations of the courts to construct a theory of why "Not all private sector jobs in the several states of our Union fall into the realm of taxable activity" but he merely tries to prove the premise that is incorrect. That discussion ignores that whether the payments are or are not wages, or are or are not subject to withholding at the source, has no bearing on the inclusion in taxable income that is subject to the income tax.

That situation is that many private sector companies are falsely reporting the payment of "wages" without really understanding what that term legally means.

From Hendrickson's own encounters with the law and the courts it is clear that his determination of "wages" is not the same as that of the courts. Hendrickson is falsely not reporting the payment of wages in accordance with what that terms legally means; but rather he has reported with what it means in his own imagination.

According to the Constitution it is the Congress that writes the statutes and the courts that have the judicial power to decide what the terms mean when used in the statutes and the Constitution. Sorry Mr. Moody, but neither you nor I nor Hendrickson can use our own analysis of the nature of the income tax as a substitute for the holdings of the Supreme Court and lower courts. When our analysis has a contrary result from the SCOTUS (or lower courts for issues not decided by the SCOTUS) we must admit that our argument has no legal basis.

You and Hendrickson choose to ignore the proper operation and application of the Constitution in order to reach your self serving conclusion that your testimony decides what is included in taxable income or that the income tax is somehow imagined to be a capitation or that an excise tax is avoidable.

A patriot of the United States does not substitute himself for those that are granted the judicial power by the Constitution.

Perhaps you should speak to Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, or another convict to get their opinion on whether "The law does not give the IRS or any part of the Federal Government the power to declare the amount of income reported in a timely filed tax return or claim for refund." That power has been more than aptly demonstrated.

Best wishes to you as you examine what the law actually is rather than claiming what you would like it to be or asserting that you have judicial power to decide what it actually is.

[RyanMcC]

Pete, nor any informed reader of his works, believe in or advocate the following positions that are often linked to him by his enemies:

1) Wages are not income.
2) There is no law requiring anyone to pay the tax on income.
3) The income tax is unconstitutional.
4) The income tax only applies to government employees.
5) Filling out an income tax return is a violation of one's 5th Amendment rights.

So if you read any posts alleging any of these tyes of falsifications to him, then you know you are reading a post from someone completely ignorant on the subject, or completely evil in their attempts to sully the good work Pete has done.

Nearly every Hendrickson acolyte makes sure to provide the above admonishment, as if trained to do so. However, no matter how many times you may wish to make the above point, nobody here has ever claimed any of those things.

1) We know you don't claim wages are not income. Instead, you claim your income is not "wages". Which is not only wrong, it is a moot point as anything you earn likely falls into the definition of "gross income" as defined in 26USC61.

2) You don't claim there is no law requiring anyone to pay the income tax, you just claim there is no law requiring you (or the average private-sector employee) to pay the income tax.

3) You don't claim the income tax is unconstitutional, you just claim the income tax doesn't apply to you, and if it did, then it would be unconstitutional.

4) You don't claim only federal employees are subject to the income tax, you claim that only income from certain "federally connected" activities are taxable.

5) You don't claim filing a tax return is a violation of the 5th amendment, you just lie when you do fill it out.

You may notice if you read your post again Patrick, that it is 90%+ pontification and shows you would rather talk around in circles than address the actual law as courts have ruled it to be. Then again, if I took your position, I wouldn't want to talk about the law as the courts have ruled it to be either, it would be a short discussion and I would lose.

Let me ask the following about your above list:

1) Provide one court citation which agrees with your definiton of "wages". Provide one court citation that agrees with your definition of "includes".

2) Cite the law that requires ANYONE to to pay the income tax, and explain how that doesn't apply to you. Cite one court that agrees with your explination.

3) Provide one court citation that states taxing a private-sector employee's income is currently unconstitutional.

4) Provide one court citation of a judge agreeing that only certain income from "federally connected activities" are taxable.

[LPC]

Furthermore, 26 USC 7206, which the DOJ is using to prosecute Pete, has a very limited subject matter jurisdiction and it will be very tough to make that law stick to his case.

The statute in question reads (in relevant part):

"Any person who— ... Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter ... shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

The above language does not express any "very limited subject matter jurisdiction" but applies as written to any person filing any false return.

Hendrickson is a person, and he filed returns that were made under penalties of perjury, so the statute applies by its terms as written. Whether or not the returns he filed were willfully false is a question of fact that the court will have subject matter jurisdiction to determine.

If the law actually said that my labor is a taxable, income generating activity, then I would be happy to pay any tax associated with that.

Then be prepared to be happy.

IRC Section 61(a) states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) ... Compensation for services...."

IRC Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income less deductions.

So if you used your labor to perform services for which you received compensation, and you can't find some exemption elsewhere in the IRC, the services you performed were a taxable, income generating activity, and the compensation you received must be reported as income subject to tax.

That's based on the law as written. To refute this conclusion, you have to quote something written in the Internal Revenue Code. The words "federally exciseable activity" do not appear in the IRC as written and so your claims about what is (or is not) "exciseable" are not relevant to the meaning of the law as written.

[wserra]

Issue 1: Will I admit that Hendrickson is wrong if the Sixth Circuit denies Peter a rehearing or the Supreme Court denies cert?

My answer, at present, is no.

At least you have the courage of your convictions, something found lacking in Bulten and SubVet. But, if it comes to that, you will not have a Cheek defense. You have admitted that you do not have a good-faith misunderstanding of the law, but rather a disagreement with it. Strangely enough, it is not the criminal case against Hendrickson which will determine the correctness of his stuff. The standard applied there is whether the prosecution can prove factual guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the civil refund case which determines whether he is right or wrong; your failing to accept the final determination of that matter simply shows a disagreement with the law, since under our system the law is what the courts determine it to be.

Based on this understanding, there is a real chance that Peter or myself may one day be found "guilty" in some court or other, because a large portion of the American people are ignorant about the tax laws of this country.

"A large portion of the American people" don't decide the meaning of the tax laws. Judges do, just as with every other type of law. If Congress doesn't like judges' interpretations, they get to change the law to overrule the judges on anything except constitutional issues. That's the way our system works, you see. Whatever you think or he thinks, the judge in Hendrickson's case will tell the jury what the law is.

But if you all be reasoned men, then you must clearly see that a ruling of "guilt" or "innocence" by a court does not necessarily make it so in objective reality.

Yes, it does. Since you don't believe that judges determine the law, no Cheek for you.

Issue 5: Pete will not use "ignorance of the law" as a defense in his upcoming trial, nor would any fully informed reader of his work.

I was going to leave the rest of your points, such as they are, to others, but I can't resist this one. Were there a way to secure and enforce a bet among strangers, I would bet you a substantial amount that this is exactly what he will do - assuming by "ignorance of the law" you mean "Cheek". Let's see how accurately I play it out. Hendrickson is represented by Ellen Dennis, an experienced lawyer who has been around the block a few times. Since he is represented, he will not be permitted to file the sort of nonsense he filed in his pro se refund suit, since represented parties are not permitted pro se filings. I would be surprised if Ms. Dennis would agree to file bullshit over her name. So Hendrickson will either have to fire Ms. Dennis or do without the type of stuff you write above. If it does get filed, it will be denied. Hendrickson will then find himself in the unenviable position of choosing between the Cheek "mistaken good faith belief" defense, or presenting no defense at all. He, like Cryer, like Rosie, like everyone except crazy old Irwin, will choose Cheek.

After your posts here, in the unfortunate event that you are ever indicted, that's a choice you won't have.