NY Times Magazine this weekend

[Demosthenes]

Teaser...

Hell Nay, We Won’t Pay!
By JASON ZENGERLE
Published: March 27, 2009

On Monday, April 16, 1990, millions of Americans sent their tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service. Peter Hendrickson sent a bomb. He was 34 years old, and since graduating from high school, he’d cobbled together an unremarkable career that included a stint as a video-arcade manager and other odd jobs. The only realm in which he showed direction — even distinction — was fringe politics. He was a Libertarian Party activist with a flair for the dramatic. On several occasions, he hired a plane to tow a “Ron Paul for President” ba nner over the University of Michigan football stadium during Paul’s otherwise-little-noticed 1988 presidential campaign.

[jg]

Not a tease:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magaz ... f=business

[Famspear]

Cool.

Looks like it's dated March 29th. I guess that means it will be in the Sunday hard copy edition?

Someone named MacNab is mentioned in the article. Seems she's workin' on a book.

Jason Zengerle, the author, effectively calls Hendrickson a narcissist at one point. Refers to Hendrickson's book as a "Talmudic reading" of the tax code -- I think that's overstating the case a bit.

He says that if the IRS had a Most Wanted list, "Hendrickson would almost certainly sit atop it." He says that about 10,000 returns have been filed using CtC. Also says that the Frivolous Return Program unit at the IRS has about 40 people working.

One mistake by the reporter. Read this passage: "In other words if a tax denier truly believes that the 16th Amendment was never ratified or that the law doesn't consider his wages to be income, then he can't be guilty of willfully trying to defraud the government."

Obviously (obvious to us, not obvious to the reporter), under Cheek, a person most certainly can be guilty of -- and can be properly convicted of -- federal tax related offenses (including willfully trying to defraud the government), even if that person "truly believes that the 16th Amendment was never ratified." If he truly believes the law doesn't consider his wages to be income, however, then he could properly be found not guilty on that basis.

He says that Hendrickson told him that Hendrickson would refuse a plea bargain deal.

More from the article:

And yet today, Hendrickson doesn't seem to blink at the prospect of going to jail for 50 years, which, at his age, would effectively be a life sentence [ . . . . ] At times, Hendrickson seems to expect this will be his fate.

Me too, Pete.

[RyanMcC]

Someone named MacNab is mentioned in the article. Seems she's workin' on a book.

Just goes to show ya, you can't believe everything you read.

[jg]

Cool.
Looks like it's dated March 29th. I guess that means it will be in the Sunday hard copy edition?
Someone named MacNab is mentioned in the article. Seems she's workin' on a book.
...

Repeatedly, such allegations have been made; but there has yet to be any tangible evidence of that alleged book.

[Famspear]

I just sent an email to one of the regulars over at losthorizons, with a link to the article.

[Famspear]

Someone named MacNab is mentioned in the article. Seems she's workin' on a book.

Just goes to show ya, you can't believe everything you read.

Cool.
Looks like it's dated March 29th. I guess that means it will be in the Sunday hard copy edition?
Someone named MacNab is mentioned in the article. Seems she's workin' on a book.
...

Repeatedly, such allegations have been made; but there has yet to be any tangible evidence of that alleged book.

Oh, I do believe I do believe I do believe I do believe I believe I do believe I do believe I do believe I do believe I do believe I do believe I do believe I believe I do believe I do believe I do believe . . . .

[ASITStands]

I just sent an email to one of the regulars over at losthorizons, with a link to the article.

Have you noticed the forum is down?

I have waiting to see if the newest newsletter mentions the problem with certiorari.

Maybe the forum's gone dark because Pete feels the heat of 'mutter' and 'Weston' defecting.

And, the reference to a Cheek defense probably comes from Hendrickson himself. So, it's more a matter of the reporter simply reporting what the target said. Sort of provides hope.

[Demosthenes]

Cool.

Looks like it's dated March 29th. I guess that means it will be in the Sunday hard copy edition?

It'll be in the glossy magazine.

[Cpt Banjo]

The article's description of the Pollock case was a bit misleading in that it seemed to suggest that the Supreme Court struck down all income taxes as unapportioned direct taxes, which of course it didn't.

The final quote from Hendrickson was telling:

“People have read ‘Cracking the Code,’ they’ve read the law, they know what the truth of the matter is,” he told me. “It has nothing to do with whether a jury or a court acknowledges it.”

Riiiiight -- the decisions of the courts don't matter; Pete and Pete alone can determine what the law really is. Sounds like a rationalization for his upcoming conviction.

And comparing himself to Copernicus is simply pathetic. Narcissus had nothing on this guy.

[Famspear]

I wonder how quickly the article will make its way into the hands of the prosecuting attorney in the Hendrickson case.

I am thinking it might, as the fog, come in on little cat feet........

And I wonder whether the defendant's attorneys knew in advance that this story was going to be published.

[Famspear]

Losthorizons regular "deslocc" has posted a link to the article and has made these comments:

[ . . . . ]My guess is the article was written by someone who knows very little about the nature of the "income tax" and so perhaps has sent this around to various members of this group for some unknown purpose. plus it is getting close to that final day for people to surrender their souls..

It's also interesting how Pete's past continues to taint his common day efforts, yet the numerous mistakes and imho criminal actions by are own government go un-noticed..

Take it for what it's worth, I got about 1/2 thru and decided that since the person who wrote it did not obviously take the time to actually learn about the subject they were writting about... I felt it's value was more a mindless rant or "soap box" than an objective article.. worth the effort to read. [. . . . ]

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1604

[Famspear]

Losthorizons regular "deslocc" wrote:

[ . . . . ]My guess is the article was written by someone who knows very little about the nature of the "income tax" and so perhaps has sent this around to various members of this group for some unknown purpose.

(bolding added).

Hmmm. I'm the person who sent the link to "deslocc" by email, and I clearly identified myself as "Famspear" in the email. I am certainly not the author of the article.

My "unknown" purpose is not mysterious: It is to make the people at losthorizons aware of the article, and then to make fun of the responses they post at losthorizons (oh wait, oops, I wasn't supposed to let on about that part......)

[Famspear]

Regarding "deslocc's" comments:

[ . . . . ]It's also interesting how Pete's past continues to taint his common day efforts, yet the numerous mistakes and imho criminal actions by are own government go un-noticed..

Yes, it's interesting how Pete's past -- his hatred of the federal income tax to the extent that he participated in the event that led to his felony convictions and prison term -- continues to "taint" his current "efforts." It's funny to watch Hendrickson and His Heroes squirm every time Hendrickson's tax conviction is mentioned.

Yeah, Hendrickson's hatred of federal income taxation had absolutely nothing to do with his motivation in writing a book that purports to expose the "truth" about the federal income tax -- with the remarkable and oh so surprising conclusion that most people don't owe the tax. Gee willikers, what a coincidence that Hendrickson should have "discovered" the "truth" after first falling for Irwin Schiff's tax scams and then going to prison for a tax-related offense! Yes, what a coincidence!

[LPC]

My "unknown" purpose is not mysterious: It is to make the people at losthorizons aware of the article, and then to make fun of the responses they post at losthorizons (oh wait, oops, I wasn't supposed to let on about that part......)

This matter has been referred to the Illuminati Inquisition (NWO Division), and you will be informed in due course of the date and time that The Question will be put to you about what you have "let on."

Until then, you are free to get up and move about the cabin.

[Judge Roy Bean]

This matter has been referred to the Illuminati Inquisition (NWO Division), and you will be informed in due course of the date and time that The Question will be put to you about what you have "let on."

Until then, you are free to get up and move about the cabin.

Move at your peril. The battery in the cattle prod is fully charged.

[Imalawman]

I appreciated the quote about various scorned people throughout history, such as Galileo and Copernicus. "one day I'll be redeemed". Only...you're arguing about what the law is, not a certain verifiable scientific fact. If the court says that your theory is not the law...guess what, its not the law. You're wrong, that is what happens when you lose in court on a legal issue. I've brought many a legal issue to a court, only to have them tell me that I'm wrong - one day, maybe the court will say, "Imalawman was right that this is what the law should be, we'll change it now". But that won't have made me right in the past. The law was still what the judge and/or statute said it was - I was still wrong about the law then. I might have had a good idea, but I was still wrong about what the law was at that time.

Also, for every Copernicus, there were hundreds of people claiming things were true just like him. But only a very very few ended up actually being vindicated. Odds are when everyone that matters says you're wrong, you're probably wrong. But its amazing what a narcissistic personality disorder will get you.

[wserra]

Also, for every Copernicus, there were hundreds of people claiming things were true just like him. But only a very very few ended up actually being vindicated.

Or, as Carl Sagan put it, "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

[Famspear]

Some reactions to the article from the losthorizontals. This, from "continentalarmy":

I'm amazed this type of article, and forthright admission about Peteand his book went into the NYT. Certainly the "bomb plot" (what a joke) was overblown . . . but I would think that any press regarding Pete's book would get more eyeballs on losthorizons.com. Anyone with half a brain can continue down the main page and figure out it's the IRS that's bogus . . . not Pete's research and cited quotes and facts about the biggest scam of all time.

The article could have been better . . . but it certainly could have been much worse.

I agree that the article could have been a lot worse, in that the author went fairly "easy" on Hendrickson.

But user "Nof" has a different take (excerpt):

I don't like this at all! It is laced with so much crap. It reads much the same as the (pdf) charges brought against him. It makes his smokebomb thing look as though it was WMD's.

Ooooh, touchy, aren't we?

From user "harley":

Cmon, april is upon us, should we expect any less from the scum that do this? Expect the blitz of this crap, they know the game is over, they just have to convince as many idiots as they can to send the money in.

Ah yes, the game is over. Hendrickson has the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice prosecutors and the International Bankers and the Illuminati and The Whole Universe right where he wants them.

And Richardf614 somehow begins to think of Ghandi and Mother Teresa while on the subject of PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson:

I wonder how the author [of the New York Times article] feels about how his tax dollars are being used?
I always find it interesting how a SMOKE bomb always is turned into a suitcase nuke.

Anyone can write an article that could have Ghandi or Mother Teresa looking like a terrorist. This article in the NYT reveals deeper questions that were not addressed. WHY are such large numbers of people drawn to the message and subject? Why are such large numbers of people drawn to representatives who adhere to the constitution?

Maybe when they address these questions they will find their answers. I think they call it "Blow back."

Ah, wise words, Richard. You are so wise and insightful.

While you are asking these wise and insightful question, ask yourself why you people are drawn to Blowhard Hendrickson and his writings as your Ultimate Source of Truth regarding the tax law.

[LOBO]

Losthorizons regular "deslocc" has posted a link to the article and has made these comments:

[ . . . . ]
Take it for what it's worth, I got about 1/2 thru and decided that since the person who wrote it did not obviously take the time to actually learn about the subject they were writting about... I felt it's value was more a mindless rant or "soap box" than an objective article.. worth the effort to read. [. . . . ]

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1604

That's a shame. If he read the article all the way to the end, it wold have given him helpful advise about what bogus bandwagon to jump on after Hendrickson is convicted.

Peymon Mottahedeh says he expects it will be Hendrickson’s fate, too. Although Mottahedeh told me he’s rooting for his competitor to be acquitted, he predicts that Hendrickson will be found guilty, if only because “these tax trials are never conducted in a fair manner.” And if Hendrickson is found guilty, then Mottahedeh — who can sometimes be found outside the courtroom at tax-denier trials handing out his business cards — expects that Freedom Law School will see an uptick in enrollment, as the lost sheep from Hendrickson’s flock look for another shepherd. Mottahedeh says he’ll welcome them with open arms: “I’ll tell them I wish they had not followed his advice and that I’ll try to minimize the damage as best as can be done.”