SkankBeat at losthorizons is still at it.....

[Famspear]

I apologize for unintentionally receiving so much credit for plaigerizing someone else's statement which was to the effect of "If there's that big a pile of horse sh*t, the person totally detatched from reality immediately assumes there's a pony somewhere."

I didn't invent it. I just used it because I thought most people here had seen it before and would get it.

Yes, it is a well-known phrase, and I didn't take it that you were plagiarizing or trying to pass the saying off as having been invented by you.

It is like me using a phrase such as "the cat's out of the bag" or "there's no use crying over spilt milk." Most people are not going to think that I'm trying to pretend that these phrases are original with me.

No, I think the genius of your originality with this was in the way you applied the saying to the delusional mindset of tax protesters. It gave me a chuckle.

[Cathulhu]

Nikki, I gotta go with Famspear on this--it's a very common joke, and nicely applied. I've been plagiarized before, when a co-worker took my name off an essay and handed it out to a class as her own work. She's dead now. Karma's a bitch. It ain't plagiarism if you don't pass it off as your own original work. Right now I'm glad to say that Dok credited one of my favorite quotes in another thread and now I finally know who came up with it.

[Famspear]

At losthorizons dot com, SkankBeat writes:

If you followed Peter Hendrickson's case, you will note that collusion between court officers occurred to establish elements b [making of a false statement] and d [statement was made with knowledge of its falsity] for perjury, such as keeping CTC ["Cracking the Code", the tax scam book by Peter E. Hendrickson] out of evidence. CTC would have been the death blow to the government's case because it would become an issue of fact whether CTC is true or not. Evidence that the government failed three times to suppress the book for being false would speak for itself. Thus it was critical to keep CTC out of evidence, out of the case- out of view.

Question, why has CTC not been submitted into evidence in appeal? Certainly CTC is the "fascinating truth" that provides adequate defense to rebut the elements of perjury? How could the prosecution get indictment for perjury unless this evidence was suppressed from the get-go? Why all this focus on "person"? If perjury is the core issue, then this "person" issue is the largest of red herrings, the classic shiny object. Suckers BEWARE!

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... &start=195

Let's take this piece by piece.

SkankBeat wrote:

If you followed Peter Hendrickson's case, you will note that collusion between court officers occurred to establish elements b and d for perjury, such as keeping CTC out of evidence.

No, you will not note any "collusion." If there had been collusion, then you, SkankBeat, would have identified it yourself. YOU would have noted it. Merely claiming that there was collusion does not constitute establishing that there was collusion.

CTC would have been the death blow to the government's case because it would become an issue of fact whether CTC is true or not.

Well, to be precise, the issue (or, at least, one issue) is whether Hendrickson's statements on his tax return were true. Hendrickson claimed zero income from wages, when in fact he knew -- he was aware -- that he had been paid. Hendrickson's reporting of zero wages was based on his contention that what he was paid did not fit the legal definition of "wages" under the tax law.

Whether he was paid for working for some company is a question of fact. Whether what he was paid constituted "wages" (or to be more precise, whether it constituted "compensation for services" under Internal Revenue Code section 61) is a question of law, not a question of fact. [EDIT: On second thought, "whether what he received was compensation for services" could be a question of fact, while "whether compensation for services is generally includible in gross income" would be the question of law -- narrowly framed].

Questions of fact are addressed by presenting "evidence." With some possible exceptions not material to this discussion, questions of law are not addressed by presenting "evidence"; they're addressed by (for example) filing a legal memorandum or brief with the court, arguing that the law is such and such. Generally, questions of law are decided by the judge, not by the jury.

Let's take a question: "Is the pay you receive for providing services to someone includible in gross income as 'compensation for services' under section 61?" That's a question of law, not a question of fact. That question cannot be answered by introducing "evidence" in the form of a copy of "Cracking the Code," by Peter E. Hendrickson. Under the rules of law, a jury would not look at the book "Cracking the Code" to determine the answer to that question. Indeed, the jury would not be presented with that question at all. Instead, the Judge would INSTRUCT the jury on what the law is, often in a set of written instructions that summarize the law in (hopefully) layman's terms. The judge would not give the jury a copy of the Constitution, or a copy of the statutes, or a copy of the cases, or a copy of the regulations, or a copy of "Cracking the Code", for the purpose of having the jury try to figure out what the law is, because under our legal system it is not the job of the jury to try to figure out what the law is. The job of the jury is to take the JUDGE's explanation of what the law is and APPLY that explanation to the EVIDENCE (which covers only questions of FACT) and reach a verdict.

Evidence that the government failed three times to suppress the book for being false would speak for itself....

I'm not sure that the government has ever really tried to suppress the book itself. Maybe they did. I'm also not sure the government has "failed three times to suppress the book." Again, whether the book accurately describes the law might, for some limited purpose, be treated a question of fact. But you would not admit the book into evidence for the purpose of determining what the law is. Determining "what the law is" is not a function of determining a question of fact, but instead involves determining a question of law. Questions of law, in this context, are not normally determined by admission of "evidence," and are not presented to a jury for the purpose of having the jury try to figure out what the law is.

Question, why has CTC not been submitted into evidence in appeal? Certainly CTC is the "fascinating truth" that provides adequate defense to rebut the elements of perjury?

If Pete Hendrickson tried to have a copy of the book entered into evidence and the judge did not allow it, the Court of Appeals might indeed look at the book -- but not for purposes of determining whether the book correctly explains the law. Instead, the Court of Appeals would look at the book to determine whether the TRIAL COURT made an error in refusing to allow the book to be admitted as evidence. I don't remember whether Hendrickson tried to have the book entered into evidence. If he didn't try, then he probably cannot argue successfully that the Trial Court made an error on that point.

Why all this focus on "person"? If perjury is the core issue, then this "person" issue is the largest of red herrings, the classic shiny object. Suckers BEWARE

Yes, good question. Why the focus on the legal definition of "person"? Answer: Peter Hendrickson is the one who raised the issue of the definition of "person", not the government. And you are correct -- it IS A RED HERRING. So, Einstein, maybe you should ask Pete why he raised the issue.

[LPC]

CTC would have been the death blow to the government's case because it would become an issue of fact whether CTC is true or not.

As Famspear has already pointed out, whether CtC is "true" is a question of law, and not fact.

That being the case, Hendrickson didn't have to introduce the book into evidence; all he had to file a motion to to dismiss the indictment (or a motion for acquittal following the verdict) on the grounds that the returns he filed were legally correct, and then cut-and-paste the relevant arguments from the book into his brief. His "fantastic truth" would then be part of the record, and could be part of his appeal.

In the civil action by the United States for the "erroneous refund," Hendrickson could have easily raised the issue of whether or not he received "wages" in the motion by the government for summary judgment, but Hendrickson never even raised the issue, instead blathering about burdens of proof and whether his returns were "sworn testimony."

Similarly, in the criminal case, there were only half-hearted references to CtC. Hendrickson filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the government was trying to suppress his First Amendment rights to proclaim the truth in CtC, but it was all very elliptical. Still, the judge's order denying the motion cited United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 749 (7th Cir. 1985), and stated that, "the Seventh Circuit expressly addressed — and characterized as 'a preposterous reading of the statute' — the defendant’s [Latham's] proposed jury instruction indicating that 'under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of "employee" does not include privately employed wage earners.'"

One of Hendrickson's post-trial motions in his criminal case (Docket #78) states in a footnote that "In his oral Rule 29(a) motion, Defendant sought judgment of acquittal because the Government failed to offer any evidence that Defendant received wages and did not establish requisite materiality." But that's about it.

The problem is not that the government suppressed the arguments made in "Cracking the Code," but that Hendrickson failed to raise them, and he failed to raise them because even he knew that they were losers.

[Nikki]

The Loserheads fail to make a significant distinction:

CtC is (pretty much) true. It exists. It accurately cites statutory law and published decisions.

However, it is not CORRECT. In the giant step from citing facts to forming a conclusion, it deliberately misinterprets key definitions, thereby paving the road to the destination which ws determined before the book was written.

Pete, like all of his predecessors, decided years ago that he didn't want to pay taxes. He then spent years cobbling together facts, arguments, and interpretations to support his conclusion.

This resulted in imprisonment, serious financial damage to his family to the point that he is begging for money, and the loss of all but a few of the most brain-damaged of his followers.

[ashlynne39]

This resulted in imprisonment, serious financial damage to his family to the point that he is begging for money, and the loss of all but a few of the most brain-damaged of his followers.

Yes, in a new post called "A family of true Americans needs your help," databrain has posted on behalf of Pete and Doreen how everyone can step up and offer monetary support. So everyone open your wallets and give, give, give. Nothing like tossing good money after bad.

A Family of True Americans Needs Your Help

(and you need to know why, for your own sake and that of your children)


A brave whistleblower on a decades-old income-tax scam by tax agencies and "tax professionals", who exploit widespread public ignorance of fine-print in the law, and have been fleecing the American people of trillions of dollars, languishes in prison after being railroaded in a corrupt trial by those eager to silence his voice and keep a lid on the liberating truth about the tax.

Learn about what has now been more than seven-years-and-counting of tens of thousands of Americans being set free from mis-application of the income tax (including Social Security and Medicare) by simple knowledge of the law, and more than seven years of increasingly intense government efforts to suppress that knowledge, at
http://losthorizons.com/.

Learn how and why the man who presented this knowledge to the world now sits behind bars for the crime of inconveniencing the state and letting his fellow citizens know what's been being done to them for the benefit of the politically-connected on Wall Street, in big business, in the military-industrial complex, and in the ranks of the political hacks who have been making a nice living for themselves passing other people's money over to these special interests, and getting a fat share back in campaign contributions, pay, perks and benefits.

And then HELP.

Help this good man and his family, who are standing in the front lines of the battle for liberty and the rule of law-- who are standing in YOUR front lines-- make it through this assault.

Please make your generous donation to Peter or Doreen Hendrickson at 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., Michigan 48382.

Then help spread the truth about the corrupt outrage these brave citizens are enduring, and help spread the liberating truth about the tax, as well.

Pete Hendrickson's books revealing the liberating truth about the tax can be ordered at http://losthorizons.com/cc.htm. His first book, 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' can be downloaded as a .pdf at http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf.

The fully-documented, millions-of-dollars-worth of complete refunds, levy releases, notice-of-deficiency "closing notices", Treasury Department transcripts and more secured by readers of these books continuously for years and years now, even in the face of intense government resistance, can be seen in their hundreds and hundreds on dozens of pages starting at http://losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories.htm and http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLoose.htm.

The last weekly newsletter Pete posted to his million-hit-per-month website before being imprisoned can be seen at http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm, along with the messages he has sent out to the world during his sojourn in the belly of the Beast.

Please read, learn and share with neighbors, friends and family.

And then again, please help Pete and his family.

Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

[LPC]

"TranscriptsDontLie" weighs in:

Thanks for the link to the DOJesters' prosecution manual, SB ! The foundational question that must be posed by everyone here: why was PH not prosecuted under "18 USC Sec. 1621 - perjury generally" instead of IRC 7206(1)? Answer: a conviction under 18 USC is based upon credible evidence (the burden of proof rests on the prosecution), a conviction under the IRC is based upon auntie's presumptions (the burden of proving the negative rests upon the accused).

CtC was kept out of evidence in a fashion similar to other "staged" trials, such as: Thurston Bell (NITE.org) was barred by the DOJesters from bringing into evidence his "Gross Income" materials; Larken Rose (Theft-By-Deception.com) was barred by the DOJesters from bringing into evidence his "Taxable Income" materials; George Schultz (WeThePeople.org) was barred by the DOJesters from bringing into evidence his materials re. the wage-withholding scam; just to mention a few prominent cases (I apologize, there are plenty more - too many to list here). Note: the foregoing recital is not about the respective merits of the evidence (facts, laws, conclusions) the accused relied upon, it is about a defendant's notoriously-abridged right to be fully heard by the tribunal.

In all those cases (as in many others) the prosecutorial tactic was/is the same: (a) manipulate the Grand Jury process; (b) shop for a guv-leaning judge scared $$itless by what auntie could do to him/her; (c) by judicial fiat, exclude the accused's exculpatory evidence from ever reaching trial; (d) select guv-leaning jurors scared $$itless by what auntie could do to them; (e) manipulate jury instructions; (f) secure the desired verdict; (g) imprison the confict a.s.a.p. after trial; (h) delay & derail appeal proceedings a.l.a.p, sometimes beyond the actual time served; etc. ... Welcome to the new Amerika

[.]

The most brain-dead CrackHeads really do have a truly amazing tolerance for absolute and total losses.

Blowhard himself has racked up so many, both civil and criminal, at all levels that I've lost count. His numerous marks, er, customers also have a record completely unmarred by a win of any kind.

Their head-scammer is imprisoned, his bank and PayPal accounts have been emptied and if the lien remains unsatisfied any equity in any property is next. He's broke and begging for nickles and dimes. His equally idiotic wife is reduced to using cash unless she wants to run the risk of another emptied bank account. His children are now probably dependent on welfare.

Mules meet 2x4s, to no net effect.

[Pottapaug1938]

This resulted in imprisonment, serious financial damage to his family to the point that he is begging for money, and the loss of all but a few of the most brain-damaged of his followers.

Yes, in a new post called "A family of true Americans needs your help," databrain has posted on behalf of Pete and Doreen how everyone can step up and offer monetary support. So everyone open your wallets and give, give, give. Nothing like tossing good money after bad.

A Family of True Americans Needs Your Help

(and you need to know why, for your own sake and that of your children)


A brave whistleblower on a decades-old income-tax scam by tax agencies and "tax professionals", who exploit widespread public ignorance of fine-print in the law, and have been fleecing the American people of trillions of dollars, languishes in prison after being railroaded in a corrupt trial by those eager to silence his voice and keep a lid on the liberating truth about the tax.

Learn about what has now been more than seven-years-and-counting of tens of thousands of Americans being set free from mis-application of the income tax (including Social Security and Medicare) by simple knowledge of the law, and more than seven years of increasingly intense government efforts to suppress that knowledge, at
http://losthorizons.com/.

Learn how and why the man who presented this knowledge to the world now sits behind bars for the crime of inconveniencing the state and letting his fellow citizens know what's been being done to them for the benefit of the politically-connected on Wall Street, in big business, in the military-industrial complex, and in the ranks of the political hacks who have been making a nice living for themselves passing other people's money over to these special interests, and getting a fat share back in campaign contributions, pay, perks and benefits.

And then HELP.

Help this good man and his family, who are standing in the front lines of the battle for liberty and the rule of law-- who are standing in YOUR front lines-- make it through this assault.

Please make your generous donation to Peter or Doreen Hendrickson at 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., Michigan 48382.

Then help spread the truth about the corrupt outrage these brave citizens are enduring, and help spread the liberating truth about the tax, as well.

Pete Hendrickson's books revealing the liberating truth about the tax can be ordered at http://losthorizons.com/cc.htm. His first book, 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' can be downloaded as a .pdf at http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf.

The fully-documented, millions-of-dollars-worth of complete refunds, levy releases, notice-of-deficiency "closing notices", Treasury Department transcripts and more secured by readers of these books continuously for years and years now, even in the face of intense government resistance, can be seen in their hundreds and hundreds on dozens of pages starting at http://losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories.htm and http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLoose.htm.

The last weekly newsletter Pete posted to his million-hit-per-month website before being imprisoned can be seen at http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm, along with the messages he has sent out to the world during his sojourn in the belly of the Beast.

Please read, learn and share with neighbors, friends and family.

And then again, please help Pete and his family.

Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

I've got 100 Trillion dollars that I can send him.

[Nikki]

It's a shame his PayPal account was shut down. If it weren't, I'd continue sending him the daily $0.02 donations as I was doing in the past.

[Pottapaug1938]

"TranscriptsDontLie" weighs in:

Thanks for the link to the DOJesters' prosecution manual, SB ! The foundational question that must be posed by everyone here: why was PH not prosecuted under "18 USC Sec. 1621 - perjury generally" instead of IRC 7206(1)? Answer: a conviction under 18 USC is based upon credible evidence (the burden of proof rests on the prosecution), a conviction under the IRC is based upon auntie's presumptions (the burden of proving the negative rests upon the accused).

CtC was kept out of evidence in a fashion similar to other "staged" trials, such as: Thurston Bell (NITE.org) was barred by the DOJesters from bringing into evidence his "Gross Income" materials; Larken Rose (Theft-By-Deception.com) was barred by the DOJesters from bringing into evidence his "Taxable Income" materials; George Schultz (WeThePeople.org) was barred by the DOJesters from bringing into evidence his materials re. the wage-withholding scam; just to mention a few prominent cases (I apologize, there are plenty more - too many to list here). Note: the foregoing recital is not about the respective merits of the evidence (facts, laws, conclusions) the accused relied upon, it is about a defendant's notoriously-abridged right to be fully heard by the tribunal.

In all those cases (as in many others) the prosecutorial tactic was/is the same: (a) manipulate the Grand Jury process; (b) shop for a guv-leaning judge scared $$itless by what auntie could do to him/her; (c) by judicial fiat, exclude the accused's exculpatory evidence from ever reaching trial; (d) select guv-leaning jurors scared $$itless by what auntie could do to them; (e) manipulate jury instructions; (f) secure the desired verdict; (g) imprison the confict a.s.a.p. after trial; (h) delay & derail appeal proceedings a.l.a.p, sometimes beyond the actual time served; etc. ... Welcome to the new Amerika

And in all those cases, the defense tactic is the same: (a) trying to introduce their own fantasies of what the LAW is into evidence, while (b) ignoring what any first-year law student knows, namely that juries determine facts while JUDGES determine law, without looking at the evidence which is only there to determine facts; and (c) proving their ignorance as to the distinction between fact and law by whining about corrupt trials, etc. etc. etc., and refusing to acknowledge that their own personal idiot was convicted largely through their refusal to recognize that distinction.

[Paul]

Mules meet 2x4s, to no net effect.

I guess we need to change the old saying to, "No mule learns anything from the second whack with the 2x4."

[Gregg]

The most brain-dead CrackHeads really do have a truly amazing tolerance for absolute and total losses.

Blowhard himself has racked up so many, both civil and criminal, at all levels that I've lost count. His numerous marks, er, customers also have a record completely unmarred by a win of any kind.

Their head-scammer is imprisoned, his bank and PayPal accounts have been emptied and if the lien remains unsatisfied any equity in any property is next. He's broke and begging for nickles and dimes. His equally idiotic wife is reduced to using cash unless she wants to run the risk of another emptied bank account. His children are now probably dependent on welfare.

Mules meet 2x4s, to no net effect.

Stand Tall Warriors!

We are winning!

[Nikki]

No mule learns anything from any whack with a 2x4 (except, perhaps, to leave the area when it sees a 2x4 approaching).

The purpose of applying said board to the mule is merely to get its attention.

Any training or education follows that.

The LoserHeads HAVE encountered the 2x4 and they are paying attention. Unfortunately, they are paying attention to their guru and his disciples -- not to the clear body of law which contradicts their every statement and action.

They still fervently believe that there IS a silver bullet and that they've just not been filing the correct paper work or not sending it to the right person.

They will continue to do so until entropy wins. They know they are right, the system is corrupt, and (someday) they will be able to stand tall as victors..

[Gregg]

Well, I'm scoping out Pete's house myself, I figure it'll make a good rental property when the IRS sells it.

[webhick]

Well, I'm scoping out Pete's house myself, I figure it'll make a good rental property when the IRS sells it.

No, no it won't. You have to nuke the inside to get all the TP cooties out of it. And even then, there's no guarantees. Those things are more persistent than the flea/bedbug/cockroach hybrid I invented. Fleabedroach, for those interested. And you can get yourself a batch for just thirty-two easy installments of $29.95 each. Act now and I'll throw in a Vince Offer clone.

[wserra]

the flea/bedbug/cockroach hybrid I invented. Fleabedroach, for those interested.

Interesting. Used Bob Shultz for a model, right?

[Duke2Earl]

Do I understand correctly that the Hendrickson's are reduced to begging for valueless Federal reserve notes? How demeaning is that?

[Famspear]

Do I understand correctly that the Hendrickson's are reduced to begging for valueless Federal reserve notes? How demeaning is that?

Oh, it's not too bad. I do it all the time. In fact, would everyone reading this please send me one, just one, of your valueless Federal Reserve notes???....... puh-leeeeeze??



If I recall correctly, Hendrickson at one point (shortly after he went back into the slammer last summer) was actually asking "SkankBeat" for help. Considering the hilarity of SkankBeat's subsequent posts at losthorizons over the ensuing months -- especially the times SkankBeat has actually posted nonsense that contradicts Blowhard Hendrickson's method (oops, sorry, his "non-method") -- Hendrickson would be turning over in his, uh, his bunk if he knew how much his web site has deteriorated.

That is, if even more "deterioration" is even metaphysically possible for a web site like losthorizons.....

[The Observer]

If I recall correctly, Hendrickson at one point (shortly after he went back into the slammer last summer) was actually asking "SkankBeat" for help.

One possible interpretation of Hendrickson's "help" request was that he was calling Skankbeat's bluff in regards to Skankie always puffing about what tactics and arguments Hendrickson should be using on any appeal actions he filed. Hendrickson basically asked him to forward a copy of a brief to Doris that contained the type of "magic language" that Skankbeat claimed would get Pete out of jail. Skankbeat evaded the request and in so many words told Pete to go do his own homework. Which is what Skankbeat always tells anyone who asks him to provide an example of his arguments in practice.