Patrick Mooney promotes Blowhard Hendrickson

[Famspear]

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.

Dear Patrick Mooney: At the expense of appearing to twist an already well-embedded rapier, I point out that your understanding of legal terminology (e.g., "subject matter jurisdiction") is no better than that of Peter Eric Hendrickson.

Section 7206 of title 26 of the United States Code is not a "subject matter jurisdiction" statute. So the "subject matter jurisdiction" of the statute is "limited" all right - it's zero.

The legal term "subject matter jurisdiction" is a term I see bandied about on tax protester web sites, including losthorizons. On those web sites, I rarely see anyone use the term with any understanding of what it means.

The term "subject matter jurisdiction" refers to the power of a given court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong -- the court's legal competence to hear a particular category of cases. In general, a court either has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a particular kind of case, or it doesn't.

The ease or difficulty with which the prosecutor is blessed or burdened in proving the case against a criminal defendant in a federal case has nothing to do with subject matter jurisdiction.

The subject matter jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to hear the current criminal case of United States v. Hendrickson is granted to the Court by Congress under 18 USC 3231. End of story.

[Famspear]

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?

Yes, the court essentially ordered Pete not to use his Cracking the Code method. The method is fraudulent and legally frivolous, as a matter of law. There is no "legal right" to use a fraudulent or legally frivolous method on a federal income tax return, regardless of whether you are required to sign the return under penalty of perjury, and regardless of whether or not you believe that the method is correct.

One of your more hilarious arguments is this:

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.

Individuals do not have a "sovereign right" to use CtC on a federal income tax return. Nobody's rights are being violated here.

Under the U.S. legal system, truth -- with respect to the law -- is what the courts rule the law to be, not what Peter Eric Hendrickson "believes" the law to be.

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.

Wrong. An excise (in the U.S. constitutional law sense) is basically any tax that is not a direct tax. Except as described in the Pollock case, direct taxes under U.S. constitutional law consist only of capitations and taxes on property by reason of ownership. Contrary to what Peter has argued, no income tax can be a "capitation." And the effect of the Pollock case was overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment.

The "avoidability" argument is an old argument that was presented to -- and rejected by -- the courts long ago. The argument has been taken up by tax protesters over the years. Too late for the "avoidability" argument now.

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.

Wrong. There is absolutely nothing in any constitution, statute, regulation or case law that requires that the individual, etc., be engaged in any "activity" of any kind whatsoever in order to be liable for a federal income tax.

Yes, most income events do involve an "activity" by the taxpayer, but some do not. If you think about it really hard, you can come up with some examples. Don't let me down.

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.

Wrong. This is the crux of Pete's argument, and it is completely wrong.

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.

Corrrrrecct-a-mundo!

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.

Wrong. The Internal Revenue Code has a whole series of code sections that prescribe the procedure by which the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate (in short, IRS personnel) may "determine" (and that's legal term) a "deficiency" (another legal term) in tax -- based on a recalculation by IRS employees of the taxpayer's income -- regardless of the amount of income reported by the taxpayer on the return.

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.

No, they weren't tricked. But you have been tricked by Peter Hendrickson into believing this nonsense.

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

No, the private sector companies are correct. You and Peter are wrong.

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.

The government may well be addicted to tax revenues, but that has nothing to do with your delusional belief about Hendrickson's scam.

Were the government truly on the side of the people . . .

Hold on, Patrick, I think you've had enough for now.

[Famspear]

We now go directly to the horse's mouth (or to whichever end of the horse from which the following rhetoric emanated). Peter Eric Hendrickson states, on his losthorizons web site, that the U.S. federal income tax:

. . . amounts, in its actual application, to a tax on only a specialized subset of the larger class of income, consisting exclusively of revenues attributable to the voluntary, profitable use of federal privilege, property or power – that is, revenues in which the federal government has a direct ownership interest, and to which it can therefore exercise a direct claim as a matter of right.

Hendrickson also states that the U.S. federal income tax:

is thus, and only thus, NOT a tax attempting to burden any exercise of individual rights, a transgression which would drop it squarely into the category of a direct tax.

Now, here's a simple test for Patrick Mooney: Find a federal court case where a person has raised these arguments and the court ruled in that person's favor. (Hint: This is a fool's errand.)

Hendrickson also writes:

So, it is by confining itself exclusively to receipts proceeding from voluntary activities in combination with the federal government, either as a worker, investor, office-holder or relief beneficiary, that the “income tax” as practiced in America does not cross the line from an indirect tax to what would otherwise inescapably be a direct tax, and one which would require the mechanism of apportionment in its administration.

Again, Patrick: Find a federal court case where a person has raised these arguments and the court ruled in that person's favor.

[notorial dissent]

Pete Hendrickson, is, purely and simply, a liar, a fraud, a con man, a failed bomber and an attempted murderer. I think this last bit is something far too many people seem to forget. All sterling character traits if ever I saw them, and a sure and certain guarantee of veracity-NOT. If this is the sort of person you want to tie you fate to, then so be it, but do not expect any sympathy from me when you do ultimately get what you have asked for.

[Imalawman]

The courts once ruled that the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe. This was the law at that time. Every Quatloosian would say that that is the law and any claim that it was not the law is ridiculous. Then we would have argued about what the law should be and how to change it.

The law once ruled that a black man was only 3/5 the value of a white man. This was the law at that time. Every Quatloosian would say that that is the law and any claim that it was not the law is ridiculous. Then we would have argued about what the law should be and how to change it.

The law once stated that a war in Vietnam was authorized because of an incident that never occured (Gulf of Tonkin resolution). Well, if true, then that was the law at that time. Every Quatloosian would say that that is the law and any claim that it was not the law is ridiculous. Then we would have argued about what the law should be and how to change it.

I've given you all enough to chew on today. Chew on? Hahaha, you mean laugh at don't you? Please tell me you don't really think you gave us anything worth "chewing on". I read your post when I needed a good laugh to relax at the end of my day - incidentally after spending the day studying tax law.

That is really the point. You don't understand the difference between what the law is and what is should be. Just because a law is morally wrong and perverse, doesn't mean that its not the law. Violations of even a morally repugnant law will result in the consequences of all illegal activity. Sometimes the punishment is worth the morally right stand. However don't claim afterwards that you were really abiding by the law.

So, while the civil rights heroes were breaking laws at times, I view them with honor. Not because there were really abiding by the law which they uncovered to be correct, but because they saw the law was unjust and broke the law just the same. That is why I hate your and your kind's whining. You break an obvious law and then bitch and moan about the concomitant punishment.

The law is what it is, right or wrong. We don't claim the law is correct, we just state what the law is. Don't like it? Work to change it or accept the consequences of your illegal actions.

[Red Cedar PM]

Issue 1: Will I admit that Hendrickson is wrong if the Sixth Circuit denies Peter a rehearing or the Supreme Court denies cert?
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.
Issue 3: Pete's conclusions about the law are misrepresented frequently in this forum.
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.
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.
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.

1. Ahhh, the ultimate TP dilemma. Under your reasoning, PH can never be wrong. He cannot be wrong despite the fact that every lawyer, CPA, tax scholar, or judge with any shred of credibility thinks his arguements are not only wrong but frivolous and worthy of sanctions.
2. Maybe not directly, but the bombing, conviction, and the way he rolled over on his co-conspirators definitely speaks to his character. I don't really care if he paid his debt to society or not, he is still an ex-con. The fact that he shows absolutely no remorse and is continuing to act like a complete arrogant bastard does not help him in my eyes either. Why anyone would take any advice from such a total scumbag is beyond me. You and the lostheads are so incredibly delusional it blows my mind.
3. Assuming you are correct on this, there is nothing that can really be done about it. PH does not allow open dialogue on his forum, and none of the lostheads are willing to post over here for more than a few weeks before they scamper off. Either way your point is moot as the courts are the ones who ultimately determine who is right. How has Pete done in court so far?
4. This is entirely your opinion, which doesn't mean much to me. Let's see how a jury of his peers weighs the evidence. My guess is it won't even get that far as PH will probably go for a plea deal - anything to save his skin.
5. If he doesn't, he has absolutely no chance of avoiding conviction. You can take that to the bank.
6. See response to number 3. If we are wrong about you people, you are free to post over here and prove us wrong, unlike at lostheads. Additionally, this totally contradicts your first point, as you said you think PH will never be wrong even if the courts disagree with him. Riddle me this - is there any series of events that could reasonably occur that would cause you to think Pete is wrong? If your answer is no, then you are lying about #6, and you are delusional.

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.

Guarantee Nikki will not hear an answer to her question (at least one that is not total horse puckey).

[dude101]

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.

Yes it is written very simply and it means what it says - "taxable income" is, well, taxable. By implication some types of payments are NON-taxable...

Might those be those payments from NON-taxable activities? I shutter to think...there are actually untaxable economic activities. Can you say "excise tax"?

QED

[rachel]

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.

Yes it is written very simply and it means what it says - "taxable income" is, well, taxable. By implication some types of payments are NON-taxable...

Might those be those payments from NON-taxable activities? I shutter to think...there are actually untaxable economic activities. Can you say "excise tax"?

QED

Ok Dude,
Now that you mention "excise tax" I have one for you to take back to Losthorizons for those who think Pete is a guru.

Look at section 3111.

Code: Select all

§ 3111. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance 
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))— 

Why is the employer being taxed an "excise tax" for having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))?

This is specifically an excise tax for paying 3121(a) "wages" based solely on 3121(b) "employment".

[Nikki]

Dude0for1:

Care to take a shot at my simple question about three posts above?

Or would you rather ignore simple logic and stick to inane misinterpretation of the tax laws?

[dude101]

Dude0for1:

Care to take a shot at my simple question about three posts above?

Or would you rather ignore simple logic and stick to inane misinterpretation of the tax laws?

WHICH POST = THE ONE WHERE YOU ASK WHY ALL THE TAX PRO'S "MISSED" THE TRUTH?

THEY DIDN'T MISS IT (IN FACT, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T "MISSED" IT) THEY ARE LICENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE IRS - THEY REPRESENT THE PROCESS FIRST, THE CLIENT SECOND...JUST LIKE LAWYERS.

IT'S THE PROCESS THAT PROVIDES WEALTH TO THESE "PRO'S". VERY SIMPLE REALLY.

[Nikki]

He's got us.

Pete's right and everything else is just a big conspiracy.

Irwin's right and everything else is just a big conspiracy.

Larken's right and everything else is just a big conspiracy.

Lynne Meredith's right and everything else is just a big conspiracy.

[LPC]

"taxable income" is, well, taxable. By implication some types of payments are NON-taxable...

No. Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income less deductions. There is NO inference in that definition that any income is excluded from gross income.

Now, as a matter of fact, there are some kinds of payments that are excluded from gross income. You can find those exclusions in sections 101 through 140. Try to find your income among those exclusions.

Might those be those payments from NON-taxable activities?

No. The phrase "non-taxable activities" does not appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

QED

More like "BFD."

The question I want you to address is this: Are you willing to talk about the law as it actually exists? Or do you want to pontificate about fictions?

The law as written in the Internal Revenue Code, says that "gross income" means ALL INCOME and you have to find an exception in the IRC if you want to exclude your income from taxable income. So what in the IRC excludes your income from gross income?

[LPC]

Dude0for1:

Care to take a shot at my simple question about three posts above?

WHICH POST = THE ONE WHERE YOU ASK WHY ALL THE TAX PRO'S "MISSED" THE TRUTH?

That would be a "No."

Or would you rather ignore simple logic and stick to inane misinterpretation of the tax laws?

THEY DIDN'T MISS IT (IN FACT, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T "MISSED" IT) THEY ARE LICENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE IRS - THEY REPRESENT THE PROCESS FIRST, THE CLIENT SECOND...JUST LIKE LAWYERS.

IT'S THE PROCESS THAT PROVIDES WEALTH TO THESE "PRO'S". VERY SIMPLE REALLY.

And that would be a "Yes."

[Red Cedar PM]

Dude0for1:

Care to take a shot at my simple question about three posts above?

Or would you rather ignore simple logic and stick to inane misinterpretation of the tax laws?

WHICH POST = THE ONE WHERE YOU ASK WHY ALL THE TAX PRO'S "MISSED" THE TRUTH?

THEY DIDN'T MISS IT (IN FACT, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T "MISSED" IT) THEY ARE LICENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE IRS - THEY REPRESENT THE PROCESS FIRST, THE CLIENT SECOND...JUST LIKE LAWYERS.

IT'S THE PROCESS THAT PROVIDES WEALTH TO THESE "PRO'S". VERY SIMPLE REALLY.

Really?

It couldn't be because this would happen to them, would it? No, that explanation would make way too much sense to find its way into Dud's la-la land.

I am a CPA. It is my duty to do whatever I can legally and ethically do to aid my clients. I have read the law. Pete is wrong. I haven't missed it. I also work in my firm's audit and consulting practice, and so even if the law was struck down and I had no more tax clients, I would be just fine doing other things. You are either totally dishonest or delusional. I advise that you embrace reality before the anvil clobbers you on the head. It will not be pretty.

[Famspear]

THEY DIDN'T MISS IT (IN FACT, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T "MISSED" IT) THEY ARE LICENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE IRS - THEY REPRESENT THE PROCESS FIRST, THE CLIENT SECOND...JUST LIKE LAWYERS.

Well, in a sense you're pretty close to being right on this -- but the truth is not what you seem to imply.

For example, under Texas law, a person -- upon being licensed as an attorney at law -- takes an oath prescribed in the Texas Government Code (a statute). In the wording of that oath, the lawyer's duty to his or her client is not first on the list - oh my gosh!

It's not even second on the list.

It's not even third on the list.

It's fourth on the list -- in a list of four things that the lawyer swears to do.

The first thing a Texas lawyer swears to do is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That includes "process," baby, and a whole lot more!

The second thing a Texas lawyer swears to do is to uphold the Constitution of the State of Texas. Yes, that's includes "process"!

The third thing a Texas lawyer swears to do is to honestly demean himself or herself in the practice of law.

And the fourth thing a Texas lawyer swears to do is to represent clients to the best of his or her ability.

So, a Texas lawyer is not free to do just whatever the client wants him or her to do. A Texas lawyer's first duty is not to the client -- the first duty is to uphold the law.

IT'S THE PROCESS THAT PROVIDES WEALTH TO THESE "PRO'S". VERY SIMPLE REALLY.

Yes, that's more or less correct. And people pay me big bucks (actually, I'm currently practicing as a CPA, not as a lawyer, but you get the idea) because (multiple choice) either:

A. I go out and club people over the head and force them to pay me to do work they don't want me to do, or

B. They come to me and ask me to do work for them, and they are willing to pay what I charge.

You figure it out.

[dude101]

THEY DIDN'T MISS IT (IN FACT, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T "MISSED" IT) THEY ARE LICENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE IRS - THEY REPRESENT THE PROCESS FIRST, THE CLIENT SECOND...JUST LIKE LAWYERS.

Well, in a sense you're pretty close to being right on this -- but the truth is not what you seem to imply.

You figure it out.

I have figured it out - a CPA's first responsibility is to the IRS. a lawyers first responsibility is to the court.

The "PRO's" need the waters to be full of sharks so they can pull you out and bill you!

You guys thrive on artifical chaos.

ENJOY -

[Nikki]

Dud.001:

It was really nice of you to post your information on Pete's web site.

Please rest assured that every single one of the items there will receive the appropriate attention from the federal and state tax authorities.

You may have won a momentary respite, but it takes time for the IRS to focus its attention on a relatively small-time tax evader. Once Pete is in the can, you can be sure that you, and all of the others who have stupidly posted evidence of tax evasion on the LoserHeads web site, will be appropriately prosecuted.

In summary, you are going to have the choice between civil and criminal prosecution.

You can pay up what you owe or join Pete in prison -- unless he sticks true to form and sells all of you out to get a reduced sentence.

[Famspear]

I have figured it out - a CPA's first responsibility is to the IRS. a lawyers first responsibility is to the court.

No, apparently you have not quite figured it out.

The "PRO's" need the waters to be full of sharks so they can pull you out and bill you!

You guys thrive on artifical [sic] chaos.

Actually, I thrive on (among other things) representing taxpayers in their dealings with the Internal Revenue Service.

Why don't you contact all the Hendrickson followers who have lost their cases and ask them if they think the chaos they are experiencing as a result of Hendrickson is "artificial." I just received an email recently from a family member of someone who followed Hendrickson, and who as a result has had his/her life ruined. When you hear from a family member of one of these people, it's very hard to know what to say. Innocent children go through a lot because of parents who go along with Hendrickson's scam.

ENJOY -

I do enjoy tax practice. I do enjoy the big bucks. I do enjoy torturing people like Hendrickson, who cause so much misery. I do enjoy seeing justice meted out to tax protesters.

I do not enjoy hearing, almost first hand, about the suffering that people like Hendrickson cause.

[.]

It was really nice of you to post your information on Pete's web site.

How delusional do you have to be to voluntarily post evidence of your commission of serious federal crimes in public venues and then blather on about it ad nauseum?

I seem to recall that it's been pointed out numerous times in the last few years that the redactions are totally ineffective at hiding the identity of the recipients of fraudulent Crack-head refund checks, and that the IRS monitors not just that sort of thing but all TP blather anywhere and everywhere they find it.

Granted, the IRS is ponderous and makes low-level bureaucratic mistakes for various reasons that seem to confuse Crack-heads and others, but they surely ain't stupid. Hopefully, CID finds the time and resources to put at least a dozen Crack-heads away. Just to make their point with a little more emphasis than usual.

[LPC]

THEY DIDN'T MISS IT (IN FACT, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T "MISSED" IT) THEY ARE LICENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE IRS - THEY REPRESENT THE PROCESS FIRST, THE CLIENT SECOND...JUST LIKE LAWYERS.

Well, in a sense you're pretty close to being right on this -- but the truth is not what you seem to imply.

You figure it out.

I have figured it out - a CPA's first responsibility is to the IRS. a lawyers first responsibility is to the court.

Another example of poor reading comprehension compounded by cranial-rectal impactation.

What Famspear just explained to you was that Texas lawyers swear an oath to first defend and protection the Constitutions of the U.S. and Texas. A Texas lawyer would therefore be responsible to the courts only if and to the extent that the court was operating within those Constitutions.

And this is also a typical tax denier "dialog." Tax deniers reach a conclusion and then think that they can justify the conclusion by repeating the same conclusion using only (sometimes) different words. The concepts of "evidence," "support," or "authority" for their conclusions is simply beyond their comprehension.