The Truth about Cracking the Code

[Joey Smith]

Number of courtroom wins versus the IRS: 0

Number of courtroom wins versus state tax agencies: 0

Number of accredited legal scholars who have said that Ctc has even the slightest merit: 0

Number of successful lawsuits against employers: 0

Criminal conviction rate against CtC filers: 100%

After all these years, CtC doesn't have a single win to its credit -- notwithstanding the number of people who have been able to criminally defraud the IRS into sending them refunds based on false returns.

Of course, then they get the levies and spend the rest of their lives living in cardboard boxes down by the bus depot ................

[Pottapaug1938]

Of course, then they get the levies and spend the rest of their lives living in cardboard boxes down by the bus depot ................

In the 1930s, these were called "Hoovervilles". Now, we can call them "Hendersonvilles" -- ops, "Hendricksonvilles".

[bmielke]

Of course, then they get the levies and spend the rest of their lives living in cardboard boxes down by the bus depot ................

In the 1930s, these were called "Hoovervilles". Now, we can call them "Hendersonvilles".

You mean Hendericksonvilles, Hendersonville is the nice little town that Johnny Cash lived in with a big lake.

[The Observer]

Number of courtroom wins versus the IRS: 0

Number of courtroom wins versus state tax agencies: 0

Number of accredited legal scholars who have said that Ctc has even the slightest merit: 0

Number of successful lawsuits against employers: 0

Criminal conviction rate against CtC filers: 100%

But you overlooked the LH supposition that every court loss proves how right Pete is regarding CtC. By my calculations, that makes Pete about 33 months worth of being right...and counting.

[Harvester]

Enslaver, we have plenty of wins.. outside of court, non-judicial. I am one. I'm a winner I've lawfully and successfully moved off your tax plantation.

# of Quatlosers who enjoy examples of our courts mocking the law: all
# of Quatlosers who keep repeating the court argument like it will deter a patriot: all
# of Quatlosers with a stake in govt-run scams: ?
# who've not read CRACKING THE CODE, yet act like they know all about it: all but 1
# of Quatlosers thinking they can lie forever with impunity: most
# who know that quatloos.com allows Morris Dees' SPLC to place tracking cookies on their PC: WHAT!

shall I go on ? . . .
http://www.losthorizons.com/WeedWhackers.htm

[silversopp]

Now hold up here a minute, those numbers are misleading. You make it out that this scam never works.

There are two points that work in CtC's favor:
1) the government is a very inefficient organization
2) the government is not likely to go after a small amount of money

Some of the false returns that CtC filers receive will never be caught because the IRS is simply not going to catch it. Of those that are caught, some percentage are going to be returns that would cost the IRS more to collect than they would receive back. There are going to be individuals that file the CtC method, receive a big refund check, and never hear squat from the IRS. Those are going to be the real winners - not because they found the right magic words, but out of sheer luck.

Those folks need to realize that got away with robbing the house and it's time to cash those chips in. Start filing real returns from that point forward, stay under the radar, and keep your mouth shut.

[The Operative]

Enslaver, we have plenty of wins.. outside of court, non-judicial. I am one. I'm a winner I've lawfully and successfully moved off your tax plantation.

Nonsense. First, you are probably too much of a small-fry for the criminal investigation division to worry about. Second, the IRS will probably catch you eventually.

# of Quatlosers who enjoy examples of our courts mocking the law: all

That is wrong. None of us enjoy examples of the courts mocking the law. Of course, you cannot actually show us an example of a court mocking the law. However, we do enjoy when the courts ENFORCE the law against criminal scammers like Pete Hendrickson.

# of Quatlosers who keep repeating the court argument like it will deter a patriot: all

That is true because we hope that one of the dimwitted patridiots will actually have two brain cells that still work.

# of Quatlosers with a stake in govt-run scams: ?

The answer is zero. The income tax is not a scam. Besides, I am not involved with preparing tax returns anyway. Regardless, morons like you still do not have an answer to the fact that if the income tax were a scam, tax preparers would earn far more money by getting their wealthy clients larger returns.

# who've not read CRACKING THE CODE, yet act like they know all about it: all but 1

I have actually read part of the version that is available on the Internet. That version is grossly wrong. I do not need to read the latest version to know that it is also wrong. All I have to do is look at Hendrickson's several court losses, and the losses of several people that followed it, to know that it is wrong.

# of Quatlosers thinking they can lie forever with impunity: most

The only liar here is you.

# who know that quatloos.com allows Morris Dees' SPLC to place tracking cookies on their PC: WHAT!

Nonsense. My computer does not have a tracking cookie from the SPLC.

shall I go on ? . . .

Only if you want to provide further proof of how much of an idiot you are.

[Joey Smith]

we have plenty of wins.. outside of court, non-judicial

Not a "win" at all -- you submit a totally fraudulent return, the IRS doesn't catch it and send you a refund check based on the fraudulent return, then figures it out later and assesses the back taxes, interest and penalties, and then the next thing any bank account that you keep in your own name is being levied. Just good 'ole criminal tax fraud.

The crazy thing is that most of the poor dumb bastards over at LostHeads would probably be on welfare and wouldn't owe any significant taxes anyway. But that form of dumb is exactly why they are poor. But otherwise who would clean my poor or keep my heath stocked with wood?

[webhick]

But otherwise who would clean my poor or keep my heath stocked with wood?

I wouldn't trust them to clean my poor and stock my heath.

[lorne]

well I did get a cookie from "splcenter.org" from this site. Interesting that no one here has read this book. or maybe no one will admit to it ?

[LPC]

Interesting that no one here has read this book. or maybe no one will admit to it ?

Hendrickson has excerpts from his book on his website. How much of an apple to you need to eat before you know it's rotten?

I'll tell you what, you quote a paragraph from his book, or enough of a quotation to provide some context, and I'll tell you why it's wrong, misleading, or irrelevant.

[The Operative]

well I did get a cookie from "splcenter.org" from this site.

What page were you viewing when you supposedly got this cookie from splcenter.org? I have looked at several forums on the board and none of those have an entry to deposit a cookie from anywhere except quatloos.com. I visit this board often and read many of the forum categories. I still do not have a cookie from "splcenter.org" on my computer.

Interesting that no one here has read this book. or maybe no one will admit to it ?

As Dan said, if you bite into an apple and the bite is rotten, are you going to eat the rest of the apple? Hendrickson's book starts with quotes taken out of context or misinterpreted and just gets worse from there.

[Joey Smith]

Pete's book is to legitimate tax law what "Bat Boy Found In Cave" is to legitimate journalism -- you don't need to read too much to understand that it is completely bogus.

But where are the accredited legal scholars that say that Pete is right? When did the mail bombers suddenly get the monopoly on knowledge?

[Harvester]

What page were you viewing when you supposedly got this cookie from splcenter.org? I have looked at several forums on the board and none of those have an entry to deposit a cookie from anywhere except quatloos.com. I visit this board often and read many of the forum categories. I still do not have a cookie from "splcenter.org" on my computer.

Congrats, you have not been targeted for 'identification.'

[webhick]

well I did get a cookie from "splcenter.org" from this site.

No you didn't. This site only places session and style cookies for THIS site. No other. And the only time we had a problem with malware was during a virus attack a few months ago. Given what you've been posting, it's possible that you've picked up something from one of those nutball sites you've been visiting. I've heard of several tech departments banning sites like them from their networks because of malicious activity. You should ask the tech department at your place of employment to scan your workstation for problems.

[Imalawman]

well I did get a cookie from "splcenter.org" from this site. Interesting that no one here has read this book. or maybe no one will admit to it ?

I've read large portions of it. I want my money back. What in the book specifically are you thinking would change my mind? Let me know.

[Famspear]

I have heard this nonsense from Harvester and maybe one or two other Crackheads before -- over and over and over. This highlights the thinking of these people.

Essentially, they want to believe that you have to read Hendrickson's book -- the entire book -- in order to be able to properly evaluate whether it's legally correct. This is akin to the assertion of "How can a movie critic review a film he or hasn't seen" or "How can Eric Holder evaluate the Arizona immigration law if he hasn't read it."

The argument has a limited attractiveness to people who don't understand how legal analysis works.

I suspect many Crackheads essentially take Hendrickson as their authority -- they read the book and accept Hendrickson's analysis of the court cases. Or, at best, many Crackheads will read the court cases in their entirety (and I'm being generous in that assumption here). They then say, OK, who is right?

They place the court cases, etc., on one side over on the left and Hendrickson's book on the right. Then, the Crackheads SELF-DETERMINE which is correct (the courts? or Hendrickson?) -- and SURPRISE!-- after careful evaluation they conclude that Hendrickson's book is correct. (This is an oversimplication of the process, I realize.)

The problem is that, aside from reaching the wrong conclusion, these people are using the wrong process to arrive at that conclusion.

The proper way to approach this is not to read the entire book, then read all the statutes, court cases, constitutional provisions, etc., and then to draw your own conclusion about whether the book is correct.

This process -- for the Crackheads who desperately want to believe Hendrickson is right -- succumb to the idiocy of declaring that "well the courts are just wrong" or "the courts are corrupt" or "the courts are afraid to rule against the IRS", or "the courts can be wrong" or some variation on those themes, in an effort to essentially "equalize" the authority status of Hendrickson and the courts. Essentially, the reader says, "Look, I have read Hendrickson with an open mind and I have read the court decisions with an open mind, and I have studied this really hard and I have given them equal regard and, after all my analysis, I have self-concluded that Hendrickson is legally right."

That is simply not a valid process for legal analysis.

[Pottapaug1938]

Of course the Crackheads want us to read Petey's book. They are just so ultra-double-convinced that once we finish it, we will see the Wisdom Within, and leap to our desks to make preparations for filing our first CtC tax return. The (ahahaha) Truth of CtC philosophy is just so obvious to them all that they can't grasp the concept of it not being obvious to anyone else who ... wastes good money on Cracking the Code.

[Joey Smith]

Right now the biggest use of Cracking the Code is for Pete himself to hide his sugar granules in, so that he can brew his hooch in the toilet.

[Harvester]

This highlights the thinking of these people.

Essentially, they want to believe that you have to read Hendrickson's book -- the entire book -- in order to be able to properly evaluate whether it's legally correct. This is akin to the assertion of "How can a movie critic review a film he or hasn't seen" or "How can Eric Holder evaluate the Arizona immigration law if he hasn't read it."

HAAAA, preserved for posterity. Jay, I mean Larry, I mean Famspire, are you getting enough sleep? Have you looked at your posts in a mirror? I think you're beginning to 'lose it.'

No, I don't "want to believe" you have to read a book to understand it. I've found that reading that some-thing really does help me understand that some-thing. Very odd isn't it. Yes, Jay we all self-determine. Is $429. a good deal for a laptop? Should I just sign this contract? Is this info reliable? We gather information, often from diverse sources including Quatloos, process & evaluate it. That's self-determination. That's BS detection in action.

So far, I've found your efforts at CtC-refutation to be . . lacking. Take the "includes" argument for example. You and LPC have argued it's to be taken as "moreover" or "as well as" which simply doesn't hold water upon examination. And that's shameful on your parts because, as attorneys, as professionals, people look to you for interpretation and understanding, but instead of truth, you lead them astray. You deceive and lie.

If you're relying on someone else for determination, well .. that could be why you're paying taxes you don't owe.