Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Famspear »

From user "Viking" at losthorizons dot com:
Suggest, vote for Pete to be a guest.

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages ... uggestions
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1704

User "continentalarmy" responds:
Done! You can issue 3 votes at one time!

EVERYBODY on this forum needs to vote, and then send a link to EVERYONE in their personal address books and solicit their votes.

Whether or not Pete wins, if he gets an inordinately large number of votes, I guarantee it will get vis from those at FOX.

Losthorizons.com was all over FOX News and MSNBC last week, so the iron is hot!

Make this vote and telling others about it a priority!!!
See also:

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages ... uggestions

See also:

http://freedomwatchonfox.com/
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by grixit »

Was it losthorizons.com that was in the news? Or was it the teaparty movement with an aside about the fringe groups trying to piggyback on it?
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Famspear »

grixit wrote:Was it losthorizons.com that was in the news? Or was it the teaparty movement with an aside about the fringe groups trying to piggyback on it?
I think someone (either Pete or one of his followers) mentioned in the Paltalk conference with Peter Hendrickson on Friday, 17 April, that some news cameras at the tea party events caught people holding up signs supporting or endorsing Hendrickson or his scam.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Weston White

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Weston White »

Whoohooo! H00t! H00t!

Go Hendrickson, YOU'RE NUMBER ONE, THAT IS #1! We are all cheering for you amazing buddy. If I could post on LH I would, to let you know how great and wonderful you are, but sadly I cannot no longer! If somebody reads this thread please mail a link to PH, he needs to know that we all care about him and fret over his predicaments as if they were our very own, this is true even for the Quatloosians, as you can tell by their posting of this thread and many others like it... TIA.

:cry:
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Famspear »

Weston White wrote:Whoohooo! H00t! H00t!

Go Hendrickson, YOU'RE NUMBER ONE, THAT IS #1! We are all cheering for you amazing buddy. If I could post on LH I would, to let you know how great and wonderful you are, but sadly I cannot no longer! If somebody reads this thread please mail a link to PH, he needs to know that we all care about him and fret over his predicaments as if they were our very own, this is true even for the Quatloosians, as you can tell by their posting of this thread and many others like it... TIA.

:cry:
Weston, I give it roughly a 90% chance (unscientific, just my guess) that Hendrickson will be convicted and will be sentenced to a long prison term. Of course, that's a 10% chance he'll get off, too.

What's your prediction on Hendrickson's upcoming criminal case?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Weston White

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Weston White »

100% that he walks out fully vindicated with apologies from both the DOJ and the IRS, if for nothing else, but for the mere fact that when Hendrickson gets on that stand and kicks on his charm, he will just melt through the jurors hearts like a hot knife through soft butter!
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Arthur Rubin »

Weston White wrote:100% that he walks out fully vindicated with apologies from both the DOJ and the IRS, if for nothing else, but for the mere fact that when Hendrickson gets on that stand and kicks on his charm, he will just melt through the jurors hearts like a hot knife through soft butter!
Keyboard warning!
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95
Nikki

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Nikki »

Perhaps on Planet Weston...
Weston White

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Weston White »

Nikki wrote:Perhaps on Planet Weston...
Oh stop, there is no such thing and you know it.
jkeeb
Pirate Judge of Which Things Work
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by jkeeb »

Oh stop, there is no such thing and you know it.
I think that was his point.
Remember that CtC is about the rule of law.

John J. Bulten
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Famspear »

Weston White wrote:100% that he walks out fully vindicated with apologies from both the DOJ and the IRS, if for nothing else, but for the mere fact that when Hendrickson gets on that stand and kicks on his charm, he will just melt through the jurors hearts like a hot knife through soft butter!
The signals from Planet Weston are coming through quite clearly at the moment.
:)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Famspear »

In another thread, Weston White wrote:
They [Weston's parents] told me that I better get my narcissism in check or else they are removing me from their wills.
1. What do your parents mean by your "narcissism"? To what are they referring, specifically?
. . . . at least I am standing up for my principles and that I will not be wavered by mere possessions!
2. Can you summarize those principles?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by The Operative »

Famspear wrote:
Planet Weston wrote: . . . . at least I am standing up for my principles and that I will not be wavered by mere possessions!
2. Can you summarize those principles?
"[H]e is attempting willfully and intentionally to shift his burden to his fellow workers by the use of semantics. He seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance, all to the detriment of the common weal and of themselves."
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Gregg »

Weston White wrote:
Nikki wrote:Perhaps on Planet Weston...
Oh stop, there is no such thing and you know it.

We know it, we wonder if you know it
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Famspear »

Now, a losthorizons user called "mattdig" has committed what might be considered a social faux pas at Hendrickson's web site - citing cases that show Pete Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam to be -- a scam.

User ericcalderon had previously written:
My last post was not very clear-

Did any of the lost cases argue that private sector pay did not amount to wages as defined in title 26? If so, what are the citations for these cases?

Thanks
"mattdig" responded:
Eric, here is a post from the freedomwatch website where a guy was commenting against CTC beliefs, note that I have not checked this info for accuracy, it is only quoted from a posting. The guy was obviously there to discourage people from voting, anyway here is what he said.
Here is the material copied and pasted (from the freedomwatch site) by "mattdig":
One of the keys to Hendrickson's tax scheme is the frivolous argument about the terms "includes" and "including" and "employee."

Hendrickson (and many others before him) have argued that for Federal income tax purposes, the term "employee" under Internal Revenue Code section 3401(c) does not include a regular, private-sector employee. The courts have uniformly rejected this argument. The text of section 3401(c), which deals only with the employer's withholding requirements and not with the employee's requirement to report compensation for personal services (whether called wages, salaries, or any other term), is as follows:

-----For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

Internal Revenue Code section 3401(c)

In ''Sullivan v. United States'', taxpayer Grant W. Sullivan argued that he had not received “wages” and was not an “employee” under Internal Revenue Code section 3401(c). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Sullivan, stating:

-----To the extent Sullivan argues that he received no “wages” in 1983 because he was not an “employee” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. §3401(c), that contention is meritless. Section 3401(c), which relates to income tax withholding, indicates that the definition of “employee” includes government officers and employees, elected officials, and corporate officers. The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.

''Sullivan v. United States'', 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986) (''per curiam'').

In ''United States v. Ferguson'', taxpayer Joy Ferguson -- a follower of Peter Hendrickson -- argued that she was not an “employee” under section 3401(c), and that she therefore could not have “wages.” The court ruled against her, stating:

-----The core of the dispute before the court is Ferguson's assertion that she was not an “employee” as defined by §3401(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, and therefore did not earn any "wages." . . . . As such, she argues that her Form 1040 and Form 4862 [sic; probably should read "4852"] accurately reported her wages as zero. As noted by the government, Ferguson's interpretation of §3401(c) has been considered and rejected numerous times by many courts. This Court would agree with the overwhelming precedent on this issue, Ferguson's argument that she is not an employee as defined by §3401(c) is frivolous.

''United States v. Ferguson'', 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,461 (D. Nev. 2007).

In ''Luesse v. United States'', taxpayer Chell C. Luesse of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, argued that he received no “wages” because he was not an “employee” under section 3401(c). The court ruled against Mr. Luesse. See ''Luesse v. United States'', 84-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9389 (D. Minn. 1984).

In ''Richey v. Stewart'', the court stated:

-----Another familiar argument from Mr. Richey [the taxpayer] is that he is not an employee under the terms of the Internal Revenue Code, citing Section 3401(c), which states that the term “employee” includes government employees. What Mr. Richey misapprises in his reading of the statute is the inclusionary nature of the language. The Code does not exclude all other persons from taxation who are not government employees.

''Richey v. Stewart'', 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9642 (S.D. Ind. 1984).

In ''United States v. Charboneau'', the court stated:

-----[ . . . ] Ms. Charboneau contends that the Code's definitions of "wage income" and "self employment income" only include income derived from individuals who work for the federal government, or whose work involves that of "the performance of the functions of a public office." Because Ms. Charboneau never worked for any federal or state government during the tax years in question, she claims that the IRS cannot make any tax assessments against her.

-----This nonsensical argument is belied by the plain language of the Internal Revenue Code itself. For example, 26 U.S.C. §3401 defines wages as "all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer...." 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) (emphasis added). The statute then goes on to define various exceptions to this broad definition of wages in certain categories of private employment, such as in the agricultural and domestic service fields, newspaper delivery, the clergy, and for wages incurred by individuals working for employers "other than the United States or an agency therof" within Puerto Rico or a possession of the United States. There is nothing in the statute limiting "wages" to solely publicly-derived income. [footnotes omitted]

-----Ms. Charboneau, however, focuses on §3401(c), which states that:

---------------the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

-----26 U.S.C. §3401(c). Setting aside the last sentence of this provision, which clearly states that officers of private corporations are considered employees for purposes of determining wages, it is obvious that within the context of this statute that the word "includes" is a term of enlargement, not of limitation, and the reference to certain public officers and employees was not intended to exclude all others. See also ''Sims v. United States'', 359 U.S. 108, 112-13 (1959) ([the United States Supreme Court ruling] ..... that a similar provision in 26 U.S.C. §6331 dealing with levies on salaries and wages does not exclude wages of private citizens); ''Sullivan v. United States'', 788 F.2d 813,815 ("[Section 3401(c)] does not purport to limit withholding to persons listed therein"); ''United States v. Latham'', 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir, 1985) (the Internal Revenue Code definition of “employee” in 26 U.S.C. §3401 does not exclude privately employed wage earners);. In addition, 26 U.S.C. §7701, which provides the definitions of terms used throughout the Internal Revenue Code, states that the "terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." 26 U.S.C. §7701(c).

''United States v. Charboneau'', 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,507 (M.D. Fla. 2006).

In ''McCoy v. United States'', the court stated:

-----McCoy argues she should not have to pay taxes for 1996-98 because under Code Section 3401 she was not an “employee” which she contends is defined as an elected or appointed employee or official of the federal government. McCoy clearly misconstrues Section 3401(c). The definition of “employee” includes private-sector employees, employees of the federal government, as well as elected and appointed officials. The very language of the Code is inclusive, not limited to the examples of included persons.

''McCoy v. United States'', 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986, 2001-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,787 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (footnotes omitted).

The argument that only certain types of taxpayers (such as only Federal government employees, corporations, nonresident aliens, residents of the District of Columbia, or residents of Federal territories) are subject to income tax and employment tax, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

Peter Hendrickson tries to argue about the nuances in Sullivan and other cases -- to fool his followers into thinking that the holdings of the courts in those cases do not apply to his particular version of the scheme. Hendrickson is wrong.

Further, as noted in an earlier post, the courts have specifically referred to Peter Hendrickson by name in some of the more recent cases. Many of Hendrickson's followers still believe that Hendrickson is still appealing his court loss. Hendrickson has posted what purports to be a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on his web site. Based on what I have read, he may well file the petition soon. As of this afternoon, April 22, the Supreme Court listed nothing on file, though. And, in any case, it is highly unlikely that the Court will even hear Hendrickson's case. As far as the chance of his obtaining a court ruling that his scheme is valid, there is about as much chance of that as there is a chance that Hendrickson will land on the planet Saturn later today.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 6162#16162

On this last point, I check a few minutes ago; the U.S. Supreme Court docket still shows no recent petition by Peter Hendrickson (as of afternoon of Monday, April 27, 2009).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by notorial dissent »

Heresy I tell you, heresy, can the inquisition be far behind??? After all isn’t it the inspired word of Pete that he is daring to question here?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
LDE

"Freedom Watch"

Post by LDE »

What these petty anarchists don't get is that the government in Washington, economically, is just a puppet of the banksters in New York. Obama might be free to negotiate arms reduction with Russia or unilaterally bomb Iran but if he tried to break up the Bank of America (which is badly needed, as it is in effect a criminal syndicate that has strong-armed Congress into legalizing its ugly depredations) he would probably be assassinated very quickly. Not that he would want to challenge BofA or Citi (in fact Geithner is bending over backwards to increase their unimaginable power); in domestic policy Obama is a creature of the technocratic business elite.

Out here in flyover country one of the few things we hate and fear more than the federal government is the financial establishment that has looted the pensions and savings of every single one of us who had any and which never ceases to finance enterprises that suck our resources out of state and ship them to cronies in Spain, Korea, San Jose, or New York. In our nominally democratic but actually deeply feudal and colonialistic polity, we peasants and tradesmen are reacting just as our medieval ancestors did: ally with the king (federal power) against the aristocracy (super-wealthy, utterly selfish plutocrats on both coasts). This does not mean we love or honor the king—just that we consider the finance establishment the more dangerous enemy. Hendrickson's followers are making a huge mistake: allying with the aristocracy against the king. Currently the aristocracy has the upper hand, but that doesn't mean they will throw their supportive peasants so much as a dirty crust of bread in exchange for their ridiculous "tea parties."
Prof
El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: East of the Pecos

Re: "Freedom Watch"

Post by Prof »

LDE wrote:What these petty anarchists don't get is that the government in Washington, economically, is just a puppet of the banksters in New York. Obama might be free to negotiate arms reduction with Russia or unilaterally bomb Iran but if he tried to break up the Bank of America (which is badly needed, as it is in effect a criminal syndicate that has strong-armed Congress into legalizing its ugly depredations) he would probably be assassinated very quickly. Not that he would want to challenge BofA or Citi (in fact Geithner is bending over backwards to increase their unimaginable power); in domestic policy Obama is a creature of the technocratic business elite.

Out here in flyover country one of the few things we hate and fear more than the federal government is the financial establishment that has looted the pensions and savings of every single one of us who had any and which never ceases to finance enterprises that suck our resources out of state and ship them to cronies in Spain, Korea, San Jose, or New York. In our nominally democratic but actually deeply feudal and colonialistic polity, we peasants and tradesmen are reacting just as our medieval ancestors did: ally with the king (federal power) against the aristocracy (super-wealthy, utterly selfish plutocrats on both coasts). This does not mean we love or honor the king—just that we consider the finance establishment the more dangerous enemy. Hendrickson's followers are making a huge mistake: allying with the aristocracy against the king. Currently the aristocracy has the upper hand, but that doesn't mean they will throw their supportive peasants so much as a dirty crust of bread in exchange for their ridiculous "tea parties."
I was going to post something "smart," but somehow, deep down, I share many of your reactions to the current economic structure.
"My Health is Better in November."
Weston White

Re: "Freedom Watch"

Post by Weston White »

LDE wrote:What these petty anarchists don't get is that the government in Washington, economically, is just a puppet of the banksters in New York. Obama might be free to negotiate arms reduction with Russia or unilaterally bomb Iran but if he tried to break up the Bank of America (which is badly needed, as it is in effect a criminal syndicate that has strong-armed Congress into legalizing its ugly depredations) he would probably be assassinated very quickly. Not that he would want to challenge BofA or Citi (in fact Geithner is bending over backwards to increase their unimaginable power); in domestic policy Obama is a creature of the technocratic business elite.

Out here in flyover country one of the few things we hate and fear more than the federal government is the financial establishment that has looted the pensions and savings of every single one of us who had any and which never ceases to finance enterprises that suck our resources out of state and ship them to cronies in Spain, Korea, San Jose, or New York. In our nominally democratic but actually deeply feudal and colonialistic polity, we peasants and tradesmen are reacting just as our medieval ancestors did: ally with the king (federal power) against the aristocracy (super-wealthy, utterly selfish plutocrats on both coasts). This does not mean we love or honor the king—just that we consider the finance establishment the more dangerous enemy. Hendrickson's followers are making a huge mistake: allying with the aristocracy against the king. Currently the aristocracy has the upper hand, but that doesn't mean they will throw their supportive peasants so much as a dirty crust of bread in exchange for their ridiculous "tea parties."
I can say for one that I am not an anarchist. I am however, a believer in the Constitution and in the Republic, for which it stands! I believe that is all we need, nothing less and certainly nothing more.

When you have a President calling for a Justice who can enforce and ensure enforcement of the Constitution, meanwhile himself violating that same Constitution on a daily basis, well as K's Choice put it... somethings wrong!
Paul

Re: Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

Post by Paul »

I am however, a believer in the Constitution and in the Republic, for which it stands! I believe that is all we need, nothing less and certainly nothing more.
Including the 16th amendment? Interpreted using the everyday meaning of its terms, not some hidden meaning that you get from running it through a paper shredder?