Another Hendrickson follower has doubts

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree with famspear here, Hendrickson’s choir of the dim and bewildered has reached a level of religious fervor where they are convinced of the “truth” as it has been revealed to them, and no amount of actual proof to the contrary is going to change their minds, it is only that the latest failure didn’t “believe” hard or fully enough, and thus the failure was his and not the revealed truths of Hendricksonia. Many of them have now gone past the point of no return, and will surely slip into the quagmire that is the ultimate result of following this blindly, fully believing that they will be vindicated in the end, and of course they won’t.

[LPC]

After skimming through some of the attached links you and others have posted, it seems that this CtC scheme is a campaign to 1) slice and obscure language used in the section codes of 26 USC and 2) to push paper back and forth with IRS with the hope/promise that they will give up on the person.

So is Hendrickson and his crew banking on administrative inefficiencies in the IRS for the success of the scheme?

The black, shriveled heart of the "CtC method" is filing a Form 4852 along with Form 1040, reporting $0 in wages and the amounts of all taxes withheld (both income tax and FICA taxes), and requesting a refund for the taxes withheld.

Form 4852 is a real form with a real purpose, which is to allow employees to claim credit for taxes withheld when the employer fails to issue a Form W-2. And Hendrickson dresses it up with enough vague BS to make it appear that the return *might* be legitimate. (Although it's difficult for me to imagine how someone could have tax withheld from $0 wages.)

Unfortunately, the IRS must process returns and issue refunds before it can compare Forms 1040 with the Forms W-2 filed by the employers, so the CtC returns have been processed and refunds have been issued before the IRS could figure out what was going on. (Lately, the IRS has gotten better at spotting the CtC returns.)

The "federal privilege" BS is the rationalization for claiming the refund.

The "sworn testimony" BS is the rationalization for why the IRS should lose.

And the "rule of law" BS is a variation on the usual paytriot scoundrelisms.

[LPC]

I'm also on the docket with the District Court and am awaiting a ruling from them any time now.

Mooney lost his Tax Court case. He is on appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I don't know what the reference to the "District Court" is about.

I couldn't find anything current on PACER.

[Dezcad]

I'm also on the docket with the District Court and am awaiting a ruling from them any time now.

Mooney lost his Tax Court case. He is on appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I don't know what the reference to the "District Court" is about.

I couldn't find anything current on PACER.

Here you go:

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-1899 Docketed: 08/27/2008
Patrick Mooney v. Commissioner of Internal Reven
Appeal From: Tax Court, Internal Revenue Service
Case Type Information:
1) U.S. Tax Court
2) Petition for Review
3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: IRS-1 : 06-21647
Date Filed:
Date Decided:
05/05/2008

[LPC]

I was looking for the District Court case and couldn't find it.

[Prof]

Our firm was recently retained to assist some folks whose home was scheduled for sale by the IRS. In reviewing the matter on Pacer, and looking for similar cases in the district involving proceedings to sell homes by the IRS, I came upon one case involving a "sovereign citizen" and one case espousing CTC theories. The District court ignored both arguments, because, of course, the taxpayers had either been in Tax Court, where the tax claims had been sustained, or because these claims were treated as challenges to the tax claim -- and the taxpayers had not qualified for jurisdiction in the District Court by paying the taxes allegedly due.

The CTC matter went up to the 5th Circuit on appeal and the appeal was rejected, per curiam.

This bit of research indicates two things -- CTC is being "tried" even in the relatively remote WD of Texas -- and -- the only way to know of the loss would be to see the actual pleadings filed in the District and Circuit, since the unpublished opinion of the Circuit is merely one line per curiam and the District published no opinion.

This would certainly indicate that the CTC "owls" and other committed CTC followers have no idea how routinely the CTC theory fails in actual practice on the IRS, District, and Circuit level.

PS -- the sovereign citizen and his wife gave up, but so did the IRS, since the "citizen" had no equity left in the home -- meaning that the IRS didn't pursue the tax lien sale.

[.]

the IRS didn't pursue the tax lien sale

Turnips.

From whom nobody has any possibility of extracting anything.

The last, best hope of CtC.

[Dezcad]

I was looking for the District Court case and couldn't find it.

My bad.

[ASITStands]

I was looking for the District Court case and couldn't find it.

My bad.

The problem is in Patrick Mooney's head. He's mistaken the "district" court several times when he really meant either tax court or appellate. So, it wasn't a mistake on our part.

There is no district court case. Just a tax court and appellate case.

As an aside, I downloaded the Informal Briefs for both Appellant and Appellee in the Circuit. Mooney makes the "federal privilege," "Section 93 final word" and "SFR Authority" arguments.

It could rightly be said that he's litigating the 'CtC' position better than Pete himself.

[Red Cedar PM]

It could rightly be said that he's litigating the 'CtC' position better than Pete himself.

And yet, the result is likely to be exactly the same (with possible variations in sanction amounts).

[LPC]

As an aside, I downloaded the Informal Briefs for both Appellant and Appellee in the Circuit. Mooney makes the "federal privilege," "Section 93 final word" and "SFR Authority" arguments.

It could rightly be said that he's litigating the 'CtC' position better than Pete himself.

Good. Maybe we'll get a published opinion (or even a good unpublished opinion) that specifically refutes those arguments.

Of course, Hendrickson might then say that Mooney screwed up and ruined it for everyone else (ala Becraft's "Destroyed Arguments"), but at least we might get an admission that the arguments have in fact been specifically rejected.

[ASITStands]

As an aside, I downloaded the Informal Briefs for both Appellant and Appellee in the Circuit. Mooney makes the "federal privilege," "Section 93 final word" and "SFR Authority" arguments.

It could rightly be said that he's litigating the 'CtC' position better than Pete himself.

Good. Maybe we'll get a published opinion (or even a good unpublished opinion) that specifically refutes those arguments.

Of course, Hendrickson might then say that Mooney screwed up and ruined it for everyone else (ala Becraft's "Destroyed Arguments"), but at least we might get an admission that the arguments have in fact been specifically rejected.

I share your hope that we get a detailed response.

However, Appellee barely mentioned the arguments. It preferred characterizing them as "frivolous and groundless" instead and cited Connor v. Commissioner. I hope the Panel addresses them a bit more in depth or at least makes a connection to 'Cracking the Code.'

It would go a long way towards ending this mess in my opinion.

[Imalawman]

the IRS didn't pursue the tax lien sale

Turnips.

From whom nobody has any possibility of extracting anything.

The last, best hope of CtC.

I had a guy that I worked with a lot in the IRS who kept a small bottle of red liquid on his desk. The label read, "turnip blood". It always made me chuckle.

[Quixote]

As an aside, I downloaded the Informal Briefs for both Appellant and Appellee in the Circuit. Mooney makes the "federal privilege," "Section 93 final word" and "SFR Authority" arguments.

It could rightly be said that he's litigating the 'CtC' position better than Pete himself.

Good. Maybe we'll get a published opinion (or even a good unpublished opinion) that specifically refutes those arguments.

Of course, Hendrickson might then say that Mooney screwed up and ruined it for everyone else (ala Becraft's "Destroyed Arguments"), but at least we might get an admission that the arguments have in fact been specifically rejected.

I share your hope that we get a detailed response.

However, Appellee barely mentioned the arguments. It preferred characterizing them as "frivolous and groundless" instead and cited Connor v. Commissioner. I hope the Panel addresses them a bit more in depth or at least makes a connection to 'Cracking the Code.'

It would go a long way towards ending this mess in my opinion.

I doubt it. Anyone who thinks that section 93 of the 1864 income tax act is relevant to an understanding of the current IRC is not going to understand, much less accept, anything the court will say.

[Famspear]

User ArtusRegister at losthorizons has received some really cogent, useful responses to his desperate plea for feedback.

In addition to the responses cited above, he's received this from Legal Scholar Weston White:

Filing CtC is not only a good idea it is a great idea, so long as you are otherwise not qualified to have actually filed CtC. Of course it will be challenging, most things when done correctly are challenging. That is all apart of the experience. With each passing year, you will become only better at it and the IRS will become more and more desperate to ensconce what we all know in our hearts to be truth.

I say keep it up as you have been and in the meantime let us all focus on teamwork. A dozen motivated men and women are by far more effective than an any bureaucratic socialist office full of corporate scumbags and sellouts. Respect by the Constitution, because not respecting the Constitution is exactly what has gotten this Nation into this entire mess to begin with.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1269

Yeah, Weston, that's really gonna help Artus!

User "Richardf614" goes off on a brief "foreign aid" tangent. Really helpful.

From user "SubmarineVeteran":

This is a war about TRUTH!

If we can be intimidated to do something that we know is wrong because of the fear instilled by a faceless organization and computer-generated letters, we are slaves.

If we stand for what we know is right and suffer for it, we are strengthened by it and we encourage others to stand for the truth as well.

When enough of us stand and fight, we will overwhelm them.

I have observed a tremendous increase in the "IRS Specialists" commercials and print ads on how they'll help you "reduce your debt". I believe there are far more people who are starting to fight this injustice and they are finally starting to fear US - something that is long overdue.

We need a tidal wave of CtC filings this year! We need to completely overwhelm them with lawful [sic] returns as this will paralyze them.

In other words, SubVet says the way for Artus to solve his IRS problem is for more and more dimwits to file their own returns using the scam.....

SubVet continues:

I have been in this fight for well over a decade - This year will be my 10th filing using the truth [sic] and, although I have not seen a penny returned to me and have been continually harassed, I'm still here fighting. Does this make me foolish? If so, call me a fool but I'm never backing down from what I know to be truth [sic]. If only all Americans decided to be fools for the truth.

Be strong in what you know.

That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

(bolding added).

Boy, now that should inspire some confidence in the mind of Artus!

User "mutter" responds with:

What we need is proper legal strategy for dealing with tax court and tax issues in district courts.
the bottom line is the IRS cant [sic] prove you were paid income so the system is setup for you to have to prove a negative. Attack their presumptions and you destroy their case. . . . .

Ah, and when has that ever happened "mutter"? When has any CtCer ever succeeded in court?

And user "sandman" is really helpful. He provides quotes from Ralph Waldo Emerson! As though that's going to help Artus with the Internal Revenue Service.......

A psychologically normal person (probably a rare bird at losthorizons) at this point should be asking himself why, after all this, these Legal Scholars cannot come up with a single cogent thought that is really meaningfully responsive. All Artus is getting are platitudes and rhetoric and Ralph Waldo Emerson. With responses like that, personally, I'd be worried.......

[grixit]

This is a lot like a movie, you know, the part where all the teenagers are telling each other that there's nothing out there, don't pay attention to the noises.

[Famspear]

More doubts from followers of Hendrickson, this on 13 January 2009, from a user called "taxdoc" in a new thread at losthorizons.com called "The Mounting Number of Frivolous Returns":

As I peruse the National Forum, I get the distinct feeling that the majority of us submitting returns with rebuttals of W-2s and 1099s are receiving frivolous return letters followed by frivolous penalty letters. The IRS must feel like they have found our "Achilles" heel. The amount shown as returned to CTC personnel from the U.S. Treasury has remained the same for some time now. We can expect to lose some battles along the way, but hopefully not the war. These are hard times and and [sic] for things to improve it will require good, collective thinking of the most experienced and intelligent people and most importantly the help ot [sic] the Lord above. Let us all work harder, but not forget to pray like our lives depended on it.
Your comments please.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1295

(bolding added).

[notorial dissent]

I would say rather that their "Achilles" heel is about six inches above their shoulders.

There seems to be a glimmer of recognition of what is happening here, and then it passes. When they know that members of their merry band who have posted as a win on the website get nailed, and yet that Pete hasn’t moved the refund out of the “win” column, should signal something to them, and yet it doesn’t seem to.

I should expect at this juncture that the refunds column should be moving well into negative numbers now with the loss and fines his merry band have garnered.

[Doktor Avalanche]

[RyanMcC]

We need a tidal wave of CtC filings this year! We need to completely overwhelm them with lawful [sic] returns as this will paralyze them.

In other words, SubVet says the way for Artus to solve his IRS problem is for more and more dimwits to file their own returns using the scam.....

This is a notion that I see alot of tax protesters subscribe to. Thier belief is that if they can get enough people to stop paying taxes, the ones that still do will demand a different system and the IRS will collapse.

If a tax protester truely believes that, and believes the ends justify the means, it doesn't matter if the arguement they are making is valid, it only matters that someone will believe it and stop paying taxes. Sure it causes collateral damage, but you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, and considering the well-being of others isn't something tax protesters are generally well-known for.

Naturally their logic is flawed on many levels (they can't get enough people to do it, the IRS wouldn't collapse even if they did), but they are largely oblivious to that. It's also a "saftey in numbers" issue. They probally believe that the more people the government has to deal with, the less likely it is they will get attention turned on them.

There's also that old saying "misery loves company". It's entirely possible that they just feel less stupid knowing they aren't the only ones getting in trouble with the government.

I had a guy that I worked with a lot in the IRS who kept a small bottle of red liquid on his desk. The label read, "turnip blood". It always made me chuckle.

Funny.. Evil.. But Funny.. It would suck to walk in for an audit and see that..