0 votes

Pete Hendrickson Found Guilty of Tax Evasion

I know Pete's theory have been discussed here many times. I read his Cracking the Code book and really believe he has the truth, but yet again the system designed to protect us is so corrupt.

The jury was instructed by the Judge as to what the law was... so in a case where the definition of the law was truly on trial the case was over before it even got started. If the judge defined wages and instructed the jury as to what that definition was, Pete really never stood a chance. Those not familiar with his work can read most of what his book says at www.losthorizons.com He lays it all out there very plainly really no need to buy the book. I only bought it as a means of financially supporting his cause.

None the less he was found guilty of 10 Felony counts each carrying a maximum 10 yr sentence. He intends to appeal and could probably use a donation if any feel inclined. Hats off to a patriot, who is trying anyway and willing to go to jail to fight the system.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20091026/METRO/910260410/1361...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is Pete deluded?

why does he focus on the idea that taxation is unconstitutional? Who cares whether it's constitutional or not. Even if it was "constitutional", it wouldn't suddenly make it good.

He should be against taxation because it is a criminal activity (ie. theft).

I hope someday

someone cracks this wide open and brings down that corrupt system. I wonder if there was a big group of people sue the government, somehow, exposing the corruption. Maybe, I'm wishful thinking.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Pete

What did you expect when he tries to redefine what 'income' is, when the law already defines 'income'?

It's like going on trial for murder and argueing that you didn't 'murder' someone you just made their life functions cease.

That's how simple this case was.

Pete was NOT redefining

Pete was NOT redefining income. The judge in this case redefined income. As Pete has pointed out on his site and in his book, the definition of income is already clear. The judge broke the law in this case.

my post below is not for

my post below is not for your comment:)

Yeah we're on the same page.

Yeah we're on the same page. It ruffles my feathers to see people jump into this topic without any real knowlege of the issue at hand (squid). Pete is a real patriot standing up for the truth but they are making an example of him again.

thanks for posting

you obviously know, so please help me understand:
what is the definition of income? Im assuming you read all of USC title 26 and CFR, and the IRC...

and when did the "law" in Title 26 go into effect and by which act of congress?

Actually its like going on trial for "murder" while knowing the definition of murder is "Murder includes only the killing of a kangaroo", but the judge doesnt let the jurors look up the definition or law, and the jurors are ignorant to the facts. its called railroaded.
case law:
"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from the term's ordinary meaning." Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)

Pete made some mistakes by filing contracts with the govt. but the definition of 'income' was not the issue.

Are "tips" income? Supreme court says no.
"Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable." Olk vs. U.S., February 18,1975,Las Vegas, Nevada. (Wendell Olk) Judge Thomas W. Clary.
yet if you call the IRS they will tell you to include them.

so what IS income?
Truth is Title 26 doesnt define income
http://www.afreecountry.com/tpcs/irs/income.php

sorry for all the sarcasm, but too many people are trusting the Govt. to tell them the truth without researching for themselves. Also many of us are relying on 'common' knowledge to define words in law.

law dictionary

"many of us are relying on 'common' knowledge to define words in law."

I need a law dictionary when reading anything legal, as their definitions are not common.

Actually, you dont need a

Actually, you dont need a "LAW" dictionary, because EVERY law uses its OWN definitions. example:
here is the California Vehicle Code.
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/index.html
scroll down to about 102 through 680, these are the definitions that MUST be used for this code, UNLESS something else in the code says otherwise.

And to make it more difficult, some laws will say things like at 257 of CVC:
A "clean fuel vehicle" means any passenger or commercial
vehicle or pickup truck that is fueled by alternative fuels, as
defined in Section 301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992

so NOW, you have to go look up 301 of the EPA of 1992 for the true meaning.

Here is just one example of a definition that could easily trick someone:
"intimate partner" as defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968:
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
"(32) The term "intimate partner" means, with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person."

so without reading this code, you would never know that your roomate from college, your cousin you lived with out of high school, or your grandpa you lived with a few years back, is considered your "Intimate Partner", this allows you to give false information.

This example is just one of MILLIONS of 'definitions' in acts, statutes, codes, etc. that would be considered misleading.

I use definitions of the law, to correct tickets often. I received several citations on my 6x8 cargo trailer for being left "standing in the road", I sent a letter agreeing to pay the citation upon their proof of claim that my 'trailer' met the requirements of the definition of 'trailer' in the CVC. The definition in the California Vehicle Code of "Trailer" says "...and so constructed that no part of its weight rests upon any other vehicle."
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/630.html
This is because the "trailer' the CVC is referring to is a four wheeled hay wagon type, pulled with a drawbar.
They of course dismissed the citation, and it has been in the road ever since.
http://www.afewrandomphotos.com/rural_album/slides/Hay%20wag...
this is a "trailer" by definition.

hope this helps.

The solution to stop overzealous prosecuters and judges

Join and support the Fully Informed Jury Association.

www.fija.org

Self Bumping I know...

but it's been like 10 hours, wanted to make sure the night shift saw this. Pete is a patriot and I hope we can all admire his attempt.

Don't ban me, I think we're allowed one self bump. Can't believe I'm saying this on the paul but atleast I didn't start it out...

LETUSHOPE: Pete Hendrickson... you get the picture - sorry RHINO! You had it coming.

" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho

" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho

Hypocrisy

OK, so you're upset that someone couldn't present what you feel is the lawful definition of "income." You want the law followed.

So how do you express this? You admit to "self bumping," which you know is wrong, because you're so self-important that you think violating the rules is OK so you can reach "the night shift?"

Hmm.

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995

Wow... just saw this.... response!

What an ass you are! There is a difference between a law and a rule. You obviously dont understand the hiarchy of law so I'll give you a break but seriously to call me a hypocrit is beyond what I imagined from someone here over 2 yrs.. I figured you for a 2 week troll but WOW you've been hore more than 2 yrs.

I tracked some of your most recent comments and there are many I agree with but Lord God you are over the top FULL of yourself with judgement, condemenation and opinion. I really hope you find some peace within your journey becuase you are quite frankly the ANTI PAUL! Good Luck with the approach you've adopted... hope you can find a way to win people to LIBERTY with your approach, however I doubt it.

" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho

" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho

unbelievable isnt it? It is

unbelievable isnt it? It is AMAZING to me, when someone who has never opened a law book makes a comment like that. To make the connection of a "self bump', and the supreme courts NUMEROUS rulings on the definition of "Income", which by the way is VERY specific, is absurd.

Mostly, it saddens me that people like that think the government is above obfuscation, and that EVERYONE earns "income" and "everyone" is liable...Still, no one has answered WHY there is 60,000 pages of text if everyone owes income tax except churches? Seems like that would be about a page and a half...

Anyone?

Same thing happened

to us. We were not even allowed to present our side, as all our pre-trial motions were denied & all of the prosecution's accepted.

The only way to get around this is to own nothing that they would want. Make your living in cash & do no banking. Slip out of the system as if you had lost your job & were making nothing. Thousands of people are not paying the extortionists by using this method. Many of us cannot live & operate a business in this manner, so we sued the federal gov't. We were squished like ants.

This lends support to the

This lends support to the argument that we win when we get due process and lose when due process is denied by corrupt judges or are they simply black mailed (terrorized) into implementing a fraudulent system?

Hendrickson lost for a few

Hendrickson lost for a few different reasons, but the most important was that he filed as a citizen and resident using a SSN, aka a government employee. His information is correct about most aspects of the IRS, but his method of filing leaves those who follow it as tax resisters and not non-taxpayers. The courts have said that tax law does not pertain to non-tax payers. All Hendrickson needed to do was to correct his illegal 1099s and W2s with a rebuttal that they did not apply as a non-resident alien and demand proof of engagement in a "trade or business." Instead he used forms which testified that he was liable for the tax and he was therefor unable to argue the authority and jurisdiction of the tax court. The tax court's presumption of taxpayer was not disputed and therefore only the measure of the tax was relevant to the case at hand.

How to correct 1099s and W2s illegally filed against non-resident aliens who are non-taxpayers:
http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/CorrErrInfoRtns/Form1099/Correctin...

More background on the positives and shortcomings to Hendrickson's approach:
http://sedm.org/Forms/PolicyDocs/PeteHendrickson.pdf

What is the non-resident alien position and what advantages does it have from a jurisdictional standpoint:
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf

I feel terrible for Hendrickson and his family, but if you want to fight the IRS, you can not provide them with evidence which limits your avenues for obtaining relief. Furthermore, it is inadvisable to be seen to be profiting from commercial speech regarding tax-protesting. I hope that this does not discourage those who have learned many important facts and aspects of the IRC and its enforcement through Pete's efforts. I hope that it serves as a catalyst for a shelving of pride and hubris and an examination of jurisdiction and domicile/residency. I do not see Pete winning on an appeal if he does not come out from the resident status.

republic

interesting

I read the book and like you say, not much in it that's not on the web at his site...but he needs our support....poor guy.
I will be looking into the links you posted, I took a glance and can't wait to read more. Favorited!

correct! this is THE issue

correct!

this is THE issue with income tax. It is OUR lack of understanding, and unintentional declarations and contracts that place us in the Federal jurisdiction. The truth is, CONGRESS does and CAN NOT legislate over the states of the union. This whole "swine flu" vaccine issue, for example, can ONLY apply to those in the Federal zone, either literally, or by presumption.

And where people get offended, for whatever reason, is when you point out the FACT that a "citizen of the United States" under USC 's own statutes means "a person who is domiciled or resides in" the district of Columbia, where the Bill of Rights does not apply.

This is so clear to see if one takes the time to notice the trick. For example, in many sections of the USC and the term "State" is defined as "any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, America Samoa..."

see it here:
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=1...
§102-37.5—What does this part cover?
"...For purposes of this part, the term State includes any of the 50 States, as well as the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands."

and:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002----...
(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

and:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode23/usc_sec_23_000001...
(32) State.— The term “State” means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico.

and:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00007442----0...
(18) State
The term “State” means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

and HUNDREDS MORE, BUT when it comes to Income tax, or ANY OTHER codes that would be unconstitutional if applied to americans living in the states, THEN the definition changes.

see:
(e) As used in this section, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

and

(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

what happened to "any of the 50 states"? They removed it, so the average person would assume that "includes" means also...By the way, it use to say "means" instead of includes....look what it goes on to say about "citizens of the united States"

"An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States. "

So, once again, this proves, that "citizen of the United States" has a specific meaning, especially since someone from Puerto Rico is considered a "Citizen of the U.S."

AND, we, who study law, know that a definition in a statute MUST be used, here is case law to prove that:

"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from the term's ordinary meaning." Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)

this means that, even if the term "skateboard" was defined as "Skateboard means any orange vegetable", we would HAVE to use that definition....what is the importance of this?
Well, if there was a 'law' that said "no one shall have a skateboard on the sidewalk at any time" this definition would greatly change the applicability of this code!!

U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly has admitted, on House
stationery transmitted through the United States Postal Service
("USPS"), that the term "State" at IRC 3121(e) is restricted to
the named territories and possessions, and does not include the
several states of the Union.

http://www.supremelaw.org/library/usa_v_knudson/memorand.html

So, what do we do?

-I favor extending to Israel the same honest friendship that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers urged us to offer to all nations. ...This means I also favor discontinuing foreign aid to governments that are actual or potential enemies of Israel,--Ron Paul

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

either NOTHING or

either NOTHING or everything.

sounds vague, but either remain a "citizen of the U.S.", which means a "federal citizen" by doing nothing,
or slowly start correcting the contracts, 1 at a time. the easiest to start with is your voter registration, it takes 2 minutes.

fax it to the appropriate office:

ATTN: Voter Registration

On this date, January 27, 2004, I, Name, at address wish to cancel my voter registration.
Thank You

then check to make sure they canceled it.

start here:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/3.13ChangeUSC...

THEN, if you want to re-register to vote, do it the right way:
http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/VoterRegAttachment.pdf

If you are going to attack the system...

attack the system. You won't get justice in our "kangaroo courts". Rather than lose $100K or so, educate the unemployed in how they have been cheated by the IRS and their state departments of revenues. Organize them into throwing up picket lines around every one of these buildings in the country. If you want to bring these criminal institutions to their knees, that is how to do it, and it is all perfectly legal.

meekandmild's picture

Citizens Rule book

"The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."

U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/rulebook.html

There have been a few of us here . . .

. . . that have pleaded with those would would go down this path to NOT do it. I did it and almost lost everything. It doesn't work. It will never work. You simply can't fight City Hall. It doesn't matter if all the facts are true or not. You're gonna lose.

So if you think you're smarter than the last guy who lost his case, think again.

I am very saddened by that news

I do not see a way to use our system to fix this system.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

So am I ! Bump For a true patriot!

-I favor extending to Israel the same honest friendship that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers urged us to offer to all nations. ...This means I also favor discontinuing foreign aid to governments that are actual or potential enemies of Israel,--Ron Paul

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I think that

when a judge "instructs" a jury, that is jury-tampering.

I'd put that judge in prison, along with every other judge that "instructs juries".

I agree, and the case should be thrown out on that fact alone!

-I favor extending to Israel the same honest friendship that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers urged us to offer to all nations. ...This means I also favor discontinuing foreign aid to governments that are actual or potential enemies of Israel,--Ron Paul

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

This is why FIJA outreach is so important.

So long as 'the rules' are being followed, any and every juror and jury has both the right and obligation to judge not only the complaint but the law itself.

http://fija.org/