Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

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

Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by Famspear »

Pete Hendrickson as your expert witness?

Dude, you ARE desperate!

The case is United States v. Gregory P. Boyd, case no. 1:13-cr-00133 SS, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin.

Result?

On Thursday, November 21, 2013, Mr. Boyd was found guilty by the jury on all three felony counts of filing false federal income tax returns under Internal Revenue Code section 7206.

:cry:

But, let's let Blowhard Hendrickson Himself tell the story (from the newsletter at Hendrickson's losthorizons web site):
Three Wasted Days In Austin

[ . . . ]

IT'S A THIN (AND LATE) NEWSLETTER THIS WEEK, I'M AFRAID... I spent most of this week in Austin, Texas, where I had been asked to testify as an "expert witness" in the trial of a fellow named Greg Boyd on charges of filing false returns concerning 2004, 2005 and 2006.

It was a rather shabby and depressing affair. At one time, it seems Boyd had professed to be a CtC-educated American. At least, when he was indicted this past April, he sent me a letter, proving that at that point, anyway, he knew who I was.

However, when I asked him to send me scans of the returns to which the charges related, Boyd didn't do so. Instead, he sent me docs related to later years (for which no charges were filed) which certainly appear meant to have been CtC-educated filings (but in which 4852s were deployed as rebuttals to 1099-MISC allegations...).

Needless to say, there may be more dramatic issues with the filings for which Boyd was charged, and which he has still never shown me. They may involve not even a hint of CtC-related understanding, and Boyd's reluctance to present them makes me suspect this is true.

In any case, it appears that Boyd had a lot of quirky history on the tax subject, both as a non-filer and otherwise. This history, with which I have just become somewhat familiar based on filings in the case, extended back many years prior to the filings over which he was charged, all of which were done at the same time in late 2007, by the way.

Most significantly, though, when faced with challenges to the sincerity of his beliefs about what is taxed under the law, Boyd repudiated his return testimony. Rather than defend his reasons for filing these not-really-CtC-educated returns, whatever they may really have been, Boyd has now declared himself to have simply acted on a "good-faith misunderstanding". It's hard to imagine why that should be taken seriously in light of the admitted inconsistency, and his history...

EVEN THOUGH MOST OF WHAT I HAVE JUST RELATED was not known to me beforehand, I was not enthused about testifying in this case. The request was made to me giving me no time to apprise myself of what the case was really about, and what little I did know was just that Boyd had made some filings for later years than those charged which reflected misunderstandings of CtC (suggesting the same flaws, at least, in those involved in the charges).

A mere couple of weeks before Boyd's trial, his attorney wrote me out of the blue, introduced herself, and asked if I would testify. She claimed that in a mock-jury test-run of the defense, the jury had found particularly significant-- and particularly favorable to the defense-- what Boyd explained about the history and actual effect of the 16th Amendment:
Dear Mr. Hendrickson,

My name is Rain Minns. I am the attorney defending Gregory Boyd in his criminal tax case in Austin, starting November 18th.

Since you are the author of Cracking the Code, I believe that you are the best person on this earth to explain it. When we had a mock jury, the mock jurors specifically asked for a copy of the 16th Amendment and for us to provide more explanation about your book. One of our mock jurors even said that with eight printings of the book, there had to be something that really spoke to people. She wanted to learn more.
I couldn't even begin to pay attention to this at the time, being fully-consumed then and for the next week with Doreen's trial.

When I WAS able to respond to this request, time was even shorter, and no more information was forthcoming to give me reassurances about the virtue of the defense being mounted, despite my requests. Still, I was told I was wanted to give expert testimony on the 16th amendment and related subjects, something I would be willing to do in any proceeding if the court would allow it, even one involving a non-CtC-educated defendant, and even one in which the defendant had decided to impeach his own past testimony. The truth is the truth, and I'll tell it wherever it is relevant, letting those whose conclusions seem to depend on what's at stake for them personally fend for themselves against the ramifications thereof.

So, I indicated that I would be willing. Shortly afterward, I was told that despite not one but five government motions to prevent it, I had been admitted by the court to testify as an expert witness, and a flight to Austin had been booked for me.

However, on arrival in Texas no effort was made to discuss my anticipated testimony. The excuse given was that with trial underway there simply was no time to set aside for that. Once I was on the stand, no such testimony was sought.

Afterward, I was told that this was due to the judge having belatedly decided such testimony would not be allowed. Maybe so-- I don't know. In any event, all I was really asked to do was make clear to the jury that CtC was very widely read; verify a couple of emails I had exchanged with Boyd after he was indicted; and identify something he had sent to the IRS in response to a "frivolous" threat-letter as containing content that might have been copied from something posted on this site.

As I said, a shabby and depressing affair. An odd one, too, in that despite what I have discovered about the "defense strategy" after the fact, while I was in Austin, Boyd and friends of his on hand to act as character witnesses seemed to believe that I really had been asked to come in order to explain to the jury why his charged returns really WERE correct (or might have been, anyway-- I still don't know just what it is that Boyd was paid for during the years at issue, and so can't say whether what I assume were his reported conclusions of no "income" for those years might have been sound or not).

As it happens, Greg was found guilty after a few hours of jury deliberation. I think he would have fared better had he rested his defense on the truth about the tax. The practical outcome might well have been different (and couldn't have been worse), and the spiritual outcome would surely have been better.

HERE'S THE OTHER THING I THINK CAN BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THIS STORY: Government assaults concerning CtC educated filings-- such as the one on me in 2009 and even the one on Greg Boyd's filings, which, while likely not really very CtC educated, were nonetheless apparently denials of having received "income", with a probably-plain intention of rebutting information-return allegations to the contrary-- are revealingly confined to "belief" charges. In my case the jury was instructed to disregard the fact that the government made no effort to prove I owed any tax. I believe the same would have been true in Boyd's case had he not spared the government even the possibility of any such burden by declaring himself to be liable. In both cases the government revealingly declined to attempt any charge such as "evasion", in which liability must be proven.

Indeed, the only time an actual allegation of a tax owed contrary to the filer's educated returns was made where the matter might have theoretically had to be proven to a jury was the "civil lawsuit" against my wife and me in 2006, but even there our demand for a jury trial was simply ignored without comment by the district court, which instead just issued summary judgment for the government based on an unprecedented order that we remove our educated returns from the record and replace them with testimony dictated by, and serving the interests of, the government. That is, the only apparent exception to the never-challenge-what-an-educated-filer-actually-said-in-front-of-a-jury rule was no real exception at all. Just as in the other assaults, the government dodged the educated returns-- in this case by trying to (forgive me) excise them.

THE SECOND TAKE-AWAY, THEN, is recognition of the significance that the very best the government dares try to prove in even its most dramatic efforts to discourage CtC -educated filings is the ever-more dilapidated contention that, "Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so can't possibly believe that his or her earnings aren't "income taxable", ladies and gentlemen, after all, who could believe such a wild idea!" (the subtext to which is, "Please pay no attention to our refusal to dispute what they say, of course... and to our continuous honoring of returns just like the ones we say no one could believe are true and correct... and for God's sake, please don't read CtC or The Fascinating Truth About the Sixteenth Amendment. You could get infected with this seditious, Leviathan-constraining belief just like we are and THEN what would happen? Why, we'd have to go look for honest work, like you mundanes have to do...")

Just as CtC points out, where the tax doesn't really apply as an objective fact, it is solely the filer's beliefs (and expression thereof in a legally-meaningful manner) that matters, and because this is so, the revenue-hungry government will strive mightily to suppress and discourage any expression of belief inconvenient to its wallet. At bottom, CtC-related assaults are speech assaults, because the state can't have its lawless way with your money when you stand up and speak your honest mind.
from


http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm
"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: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by Famspear »

Based on the Defendant's response to the Government's motion in limine (the response is at entry 42 in the case docket), it does appear that the plan was (1) to agree that the Boyd tax returns that allegedly adhered to the Cracking the Code scheme were incorrect, (2) to agree to the government's calculation of the tax, (3) to repudiate Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam ("Mr. Boyd is no longer following Mr. Hendrickson", in the words of the motion), and (4) to use Hendrickson and his writings only for the purpose of a Cheek defense - to make the argument that when he filed his tax returns, Greg Boyd had had a subjective but mistaken good faith belief that negated willfulness -- a mistaken belief caused by his reliance on Hendrickson's writings, etc.

Obviously, Hendrickson's feelings have been hurt.

:cry:

EDIT: Sentencing for Greg Boyd has been set for February 10, 2014.
"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: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by Famspear »

Excerpt from a report from CBS News, by way of KPHO-TV, channel 5, in Phoenix, Arizona:
Former NFL player convicted of tax evasion

[ . . . ]

A jury has found a former NFL player guilty of tax evasion.

.....Gregory P. Boyd, 62, formerly of Scottsdale, AZ, was convicted Thursday night of three counts of tax evasion.....
http://www.kpho.com/story/24046118/form ... ax-evasion

The story goes on to say that Boyd had been selected in the 1973 NFL draft by the Miami Dolphins, and went to New England Patriots and later the New Orleans Saints.

Of course, Boyd was not convicted of "tax evasion," but rather of filing false federal income tax returns.

EDIT: According to the report, Boyd made over $180,000 in 2004, over $390,000 in 2005, and over $225,000 in 2006, but claimed no income.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by fortinbras »

At least Hendrickson went through the motions of trying to help a customer. Roger Elvick pled the Fifth rather than testify for people who had bought his instruction packet.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by grixit »

I wonder how much the defense spent on PH's travel, lodging and fee.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by . »

That airfare/hotel money would be as nothing compared to having to endure:

Boyd's lawyer: "We just want you to testify about your book to establish the basis for a Cheek defense."

PH: "No, no, you're doing it all wrong. Don't you know that I'm an expert on tax law?"

Boyd's lawyer: "We think you're full of crap and no court in the land would admit a word you say about anything as expert testimony. We only want your testimony that you wrote certain things so that we can try to prove that our client is naive and perhaps an idiot for believing what you wrote."

PH: "No, no, no, it's all true. I know everything about tax law. Now is the time to defeat them. Why do you think I wrote my book?"

Ad nauseam.

Boyd's lawyer: "You'll have to excuse me, I have another appointment."
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by notorial dissent »

I very nearly inhaled my coffee on that headline.

I seriously doubt that Prattlin' Pete could qualify as an expert witness on janitorial functions or the operation of a pinball arcade, let alone tax law, tax evasion, and fraud maybe, but he's hardly an expert at that as he keeps getting caught.
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.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by Famspear »

notorial dissent wrote:.....I seriously doubt that Prattlin' Pete could qualify as an expert witness on janitorial functions or the operation of a pinball arcade, let alone tax law, tax evasion, and fraud maybe, but he's hardly an expert at that as he keeps getting caught.
Maybe he can be considered an expert on the incarceration aspect of tax fraud, etc....

:)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by fortinbras »

The lawyer who invited Hendrickson seems real enough.
http://www.rainminnslaw.com/bio.html

I strongly suspect that, if she were willing to discuss the internal workings of the case (which is probably not going to happen for some years), we'd get a Very Different story of why/how Hendrickson was approached.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by wserra »

Actually, I'd say "."'s version of events is likely exactly what happened.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by notorial dissent »

Famspear wrote:Maybe he can be considered an expert on the incarceration aspect of tax fraud, etc....

:)
Yabbut, you're supposed to have learned something from the exercise, and to date Prattlin' Petey has evidenced no indication of that, or any other kind of learning. Which means he, and by default, Doreen are doomed to repeat the same old mistakes yet again.
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.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

Apparently Hendrickson is dumb enough to think a Judge would allow him to be called as an expert on a matter of well-decided law. I guess the lure of the ego satisfying appellation "expert witness" was just too enticing.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by notorial dissent »

Well, he's certainly sulking about it all now.
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.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by Famspear »

notorial dissent wrote:Well, he's certainly sulking about it all now.
Well, I just don't know what Humiliated Hendrickson is so sore about.

I mean, the defendant had Hendrickson come 1,100 miles from the frozen north of Michigan to the scenic hill country of Austin, Texas -- with His Haughty-ness expecting that He would be treated as The World's Foremost Authority On U.S. Federal Income Tax Law, only to find that He was destined to be publicly humiliated by the defendant who, for all intents and purposes, more or less used Hendrickson as a piñata in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid jail time for using Hendrickson's scam.

What could be more enjoyable than that?

:lol:
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by LPC »

fortinbras wrote:The lawyer who invited Hendrickson seems real enough.
http://www.rainminnslaw.com/bio.html
We've talked in the past about a Texas lawyer named Michael Minns. She seems to be his daughter.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by LPC »

Chief Crackhead Peter Hendrickson wrote:I spent most of this week in Austin, Texas, where I had been asked to testify as an "expert witness" in the trial of a fellow named Greg Boyd on charges of filing false returns concerning 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Even Hendrickson put the words "expert witness" in "scare quotes."
Chief Crackhead Peter Hendrickson wrote: It was a rather shabby and depressing affair.
And in what way would that make it different from other cases you've been involved with?
Chief Crackhead Peter Hendrickson wrote:The request was made to me giving me no time to apprise myself of what the case was really about,
I'm sure that, given enough time, Hendrickson could have completely misunderstood what the case was "really about," so the lack of time left him merely ignorant instead of willfully deluded.
Chief Crackhead Peter Hendrickson wrote:Shortly afterward, I was told that despite not one but five government motions to prevent it, I had been admitted by the court to testify as an expert witness,
Two chances: (a) slim and (b) none.
Chief Crackhead Peter Hendrickson wrote:In any event, all I was really asked to do was make clear to the jury that CtC was very widely read; verify a couple of emails I had exchanged with Boyd after he was indicted; and identify something he had sent to the IRS in response to a "frivolous" threat-letter as containing content that might have been copied from something posted on this site.
Yes, the defendant was looking for a scapegoat, and you were the most convenient goat.

But what was the cross-examination? Wouldn't the prosecutor have attempted to show that it would have been ridiculous for the defendant to have relied on the writings of a man who has consistently lost to the IRS in his own cases and was actually convicted of filing false returns?

Strange that Pete doesn't mention any cross-examination.
Chief Crackhead Peter Hendrickson wrote:HERE'S THE OTHER THING I THINK CAN BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THIS STORY: Government assaults concerning CtC educated filings-- such as the one on me in 2009 and even the one on Greg Boyd's filings, which, while likely not really very CtC educated, were nonetheless apparently denials of having received "income", with a probably-plain intention of rebutting information-return allegations to the contrary-- are revealingly confined to "belief" charges. In my case the jury was instructed to disregard the fact that the government made no effort to prove I owed any tax.
Right. You were convicted of filing false returns, not of tax evasion.

But the government still had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your returns were FALSE, and the government had to prove that you knew they were false.

So the whole "prove I owed any tax" is a smoke screen, and disingenuous (at best).
Chief Crackhead Peter Hendrickson wrote:Indeed, the only time an actual allegation of a tax owed contrary to the filer's educated returns was made where the matter might have theoretically had to be proven to a jury was the "civil lawsuit" against my wife and me in 2006, but even there our demand for a jury trial was simply ignored without comment by the district court, which instead just issued summary judgment for the government based on an unprecedented order that we remove our educated returns from the record and replace them with testimony dictated by, and serving the interests of, the government.
Let's parse this crap.

First, your case was NOT the "only time an actual allegation of a tax owed." When the government filed the civil action against you and your wife for the erroneous refunds paid to them, the government also filed six similar suits against some of your followers. "United States Sues Nine in Nationwide Crackdown on Tax-Refund Scam," U.S. Dept. of Justice Press Release (4/13/2006). The other suits were against Sharon K. Artman of Largo, Fla.; Michael J. Dowling of San Diego; Joy M. Ferguson of Henderson, Nev.; Melvin L. Gerstenkorn of Topeka, Kan.; Larry B. Golson and Debra G. Golson of Montgomery, Ala.; and James A. Spitzer of Winter Park, Fla. The government was successful in every case. See, e.g., United States v. Ferguson, 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) par. 50,461 (D. Nev. 2007).

The quotations marks around "civil lawsuit" are weird. Was it really a criminal lawsuit? Or was it not a lawsuit? Or what?

Your demand for a jury trial was not "simply ignored." Summary judgment was entered because there was no dispute about any material fact. You admitted you worked for Personnel Management, and that you received money for your work. That was it. Case over.

And the summary judgment was not "without comment." The report of the Magistrate Judge (which was accepted by the District Court in granting the summary judgment) spent several pages discussing the applicable law, the evidence presented, and the reasons "no rational trier of fact could possibly find for the Defendants." (That's a direct quote from the Magistrate Judge's report.)

And the claim that the summary judgment was "based on an unprecedented order that we remove our educated returns from the record and replace them with testimony dictated by, and serving the interests of, the government" is somewhat insane. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion for summary judgment, but denying the government's request for an injunction, which clearly shows that the two issues were independent, and that the judgment could not have been "based upon" an injunction that was initially denied. (The District Court granted the motion for summary judgment but also granted the injunction, but it still took the issues in the same order, issuing the injunction based on the summary judgment, and not vice versa.)
Chief Crackhead Peter Hendrickson wrote:Just as CtC points out, where the tax doesn't really apply as an objective fact, it is solely the filer's beliefs (and expression thereof in a legally-meaningful manner) that matters, and because this is so, the revenue-hungry government will strive mightily to suppress and discourage any expression of belief inconvenient to its wallet. At bottom, CtC-related assaults are speech assaults, because the state can't have its lawless way with your money when you stand up and speak your honest mind.
Totally wrong. The law is quite the opposite.

“The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).

It is the actions (the filing of returns, or failing to file returns) that are the crimes, not "stand[ing] up and speak[ing] your honest mind."
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by AndyK »

LPC wrote:We've talked in the past
Ahh; those were the days -- Trans-planetary debates between Earth and Planet Merrill, In retrospect, David clearly missed his career calling.

He should have been a training partner for professional wrestlers since he is IMPOSSIBLE to pin down.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by Famspear »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:Apparently Hendrickson is dumb enough to think a Judge would allow him to be called as an expert on a matter of well-decided law.....
Here's an excerpt from the Judge's instruction to the jury that should put Blowhard Hendrickson in a bad mood:
Peter Eric Hendrickson appeared as a witness and authored the book, Cracking the Code. You are instructed Mr. Hendrickson is not an expert witness, and his views regarding the tax code and tax liability are invalid, as determined by the U.S. federal courts.
--from Jury Instructions, Nov. 21, 2013, docket entry 95, p. 6, United States v. Gregory P. Boyd, case no. 1:13-cr-00133 SS, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by LPC »

Got it: Not "expert witness" but "clown specimen."
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Pete Hendrickson: expert witness!

Post by Famspear »

Blowhard Hendrickson wrote:.....it seems Boyd had professed to be a CtC-educated American. At least, when he was indicted this past April, he sent me a letter, proving that at that point, anyway, he knew who I was.

However, when I asked him to send me scans of the returns to which the charges related, Boyd didn't do so. Instead, he sent me docs related to later years (for which no charges were filed) which certainly appear meant to have been CtC-educated filings (but in which 4852s were deployed as rebuttals to 1099-MISC allegations...).

Needless to say, there may be more dramatic issues with the filings for which Boyd was charged, and which he has still never shown me. They may involve not even a hint of CtC-related understanding, and Boyd's reluctance to present them makes me suspect this is true.....
:violin:

This -– Pathetic, Prevaricatin' Pete's latest desperate attempt to distance himself and his CtC tax evasion scam from yet another case in a series of federal criminal tax convictions involving the scam (including Roger Charles Menner, Michael I. O'Daniel, possibly Eugene George Warner, and of course Hendrickson himself) -– is almost touching. We can almost feel Peter's Pain as he tries to step slowly and carefully around this mess, while he pretends to hold his nose and avert his eyes from......

the Horror.....

the Horror.....

:twisted:

Blowhard Pete senses that he cannot safely, categorically DENY that Boyd used the scam for the tax returns for which Boyd was found guilty, but Pete does his best to try to convince himself that somehow, MAYBE Mr. Boyd just didn't follow Pete's method (oh, excuse me, Pete's "non-method") correctly.

Pete wants everyone to believe that although Greg Boyd and his legal team went to all the trouble of bringing the Haughty Hendrickson Himself all the way from Michigan down to Texas to try to help extricate Boyd from the danger of federal prison, Boyd somehow must not have used Hendrickson's scam on the very tax returns that were at issue in the case.

8)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet