Talk:Peter Hendrickson

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Lost Horizons--We don't need the redirect, not something people are likely to search for. PFoster 16:01, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Moved from article[edit]

Court Convicts and Sentences Pete; Pete Releases His Book on the Web[edit]

Conviction and Sentencing[edit]

A federal court convicted Peter Hendrickson of tax crimes in October 2009 and on 19 April 2010 sentenced him to 33 months in prison for filing false tax returns, probably like the method he recommends in CtC. Most likely fearing that the DOJ will find a way to stop him from publishing or distributing CtC, Pete has made it available FREE on the world wide web.

Release of Cracking the Code Free[edit]

Peter announced the gift with the following email message to his followers.

From: Pete Hendrickson <>


The 2011 "Season of Lies" is about to begin, during which thousands of companies across America will crank out millions of "information returns" (W-2s, 1099s, K-1s and so forth). All of these will allege that the named party engaged in taxable activities. Most of these allegations will be false. These false allegations will oblige CtC-educated Americans to go through the annoyance of rebutting erroneous allegations in order to recover withheld property or keep themselves from being harassed for taxes not owed.

Worse, those false "information return" allegations will induce NON-CtC-educated Americans to improperly sign over as much as 45% of their earnings to a rapacious state who will use much of it to pay functionaries to "supervise", order about, and interfere with the very schmucks from whom it was mulcted-- and to do the same to the rest of us, too. Adding insult to injury, those functionaries will be paid enormously more for their counter-productive obnoxiousness than even the GROSS amount earned by the average schmuck from whom the huge chunks of wealth that finance all of this are extracted.

In keeping with one of the more unfortunate aspects of human nature, those who have been taken in (and thus "taken"), will afterward be enthusiastic sponges and echoes for the various sophistries used to justify it all (better that than face the fact that you're a schmuck). Further, they will be subconsciously hostile to facts that thr[<- Nonsense, or perhaps wishful thinking. No sound thinking person imagines that the income tax is "a direct tax in violation of the Constitution"]'eaten to demonstrate that they have been victimized. Thus, a huge socially- and economically-destructive, and nanny- if not police-state constructive lie gets both exploited and nourished at the same time.

I think it is important that the liberating truth get equal time!

Therefore on this, the 7th day of Christmas and the last day before the new year, I am happy to announce:


It is time that the keys to lock the rapacious state back down to the limits designed by the Founders are put into every hand. It is time the truth about the tax goes viral.

PLEASE help make this happen.

Download the book at

Send it to everyone.

Ask everyone to send it to everyone else.

The regular printed CtC remains available, of course, as do 'Upholding the Law' and 'Was Grandpa Really a Moron?', the sequel to CtC. Visit for ordering information. But while we wait for the book that furnishes the tools for the restoration of the Founders' dream of a fully-empowered, fully-in-charge American citizenry to show up in every home library, let's get it on every virtual desktop, and in front of every pair of eyes in the country RIGHT NOW.

Whether the truth rules, or is pushed aside by lies, has just been a matter of how many people come to learn it, since that truth was first put to paper seven years ago. Seven years is long enough to wait. Let's spread the liberating truth about the limits on federal taxing power the way jealous regard for all the peoples' liberties was once spread over this land.

It's up to us, as it always has been and always will be.

Regarding the Method Peter Recommended in His Book.[edit]

Peter asserted that the typical alleged taxpayer ("victim") actually owes no income tax, and the IRS imposes it because employers and others submit false third party reports like the 1099, W-9, and W2, alleging the victim earned income. He suggested that by filing a return which corrected the false third party reports, the victim could contradict the falsehoods and thereby get out of paying tax the victim did not owe.

The Argument between Pro and Anti-income-tax Advocates[edit]

Opponents of this method, such as the IRS, the DOJ, and the person who authored the information at the top of this article, disagree with the fundamental dispute many thinking, studious Americans have about the income tax: that the IRS unlawfully implements it as a direct tax in violation of the Constitution AND Title 26 USC. Sound thinking attorneys and tax experts line up on both sides of the dispute. 1 Essentially, the pro-tax position holds that the 16th amendment authorizes a direct unapportioned tax on almost everybody's incoming revenue less authorized deductions. The anti-tax position holds that the 16th amendment puts income tax in the class of an excise on an activity, event, happening, or occurrence, 2and that the tax code that seems to impose a tax on most people does not actually make them liable for paying it because the Constitution requires apportionment of direct taxes (such as a tax on property, such as income) among the states by percentage of total US population. Many anti-tax students of law hold that Internal Revenue Code (IRC) subtitle A taxes apply only to people who received income from the government (federal employees/contractors) who then must RETURN (hence the term "income tax return") a portion of it as a kickback for the privilege of holding a cushy government job. In other words, they believe Congress long ago saw working for the federal government as an activity subject to an excise tax.3

A Loss in Court Does Not Make One Wrong or Guilty[edit]

The problem America has with web sites like Wikipedia, Quatloos, and rationalwiki lies in their pro-government philosophy that anything the Circuit courts, and if challenged, the US Supreme Court, says constitutes the truth directly from God and that everybody must believe it. Barack Obama proved, as an illegal alien ascending to the presidency, that EVERYBODY has the right to interpret the Constitution according to principles of good government as THEY THEMSELVES construe such principles. If they get away with it, the law obviously means they can. If they don't, the law obviously means they cannot. In other words, the law only means what courts (even non-unanimous rulings where one less than half of the panel disagrees with the majority) say it means. Rational people reject that as nonsense and continue to hold out against it, hoping some day the courts will see it their way.

The bottom line of the dispute between anti and pro tax factions boils down to physical force. If you can muster sufficient physical force (as in an army or militia) or the implication thereof (such as in a million man march on Washington) you can get your way. And that way, right or wrong, will become "law."

This article begins with an pro-tax position and ends with a relatively neutral position. The pro-tax proponents will and do argue court decisions for support. They will pretend that anyone who disagrees does so foolishly and wrongly. Obviously a hard-core disagreement will probably result in jail time and a fine, such as with Peter Hendrickson and many others. In that context one could rightly describe it as foolish. That, however, does not make it wrong. On that point, many Americans wait for courts that will adhere to principles of taxation envisioned by the nation's founders.

Essentially those principles include the rejection of the notion that government should tax the people directly ONLY by collecting the tax from the states. They hated the idea of the king's tax collectors demanding money and goods directly from the people because the people could never stand up against the tax collector without direly risking prison and death. At least they might have some sway over the method of taxation at the state government level, and therefore the Constitution I.2.3 and I.9.4 prescribe (twice) apportionment of direct taxes among the states. The 16th Amendment contains no language that repeals or revokes those provisions, so, the anti-tax proponents argue, those provisions stand, and Congress and the tax collectors MUST obey them. They believe Congress did obey them, albeit causing profound confusion in the tax code, but that the IRS does not.

Many anti-tax advocates have suggested simply not filing and not paying anything. The new automated collection system has wreaked havoc on those so-called tax protesters. By the way that constitutes a misnomer intended to disparage those who disagree with the IRS, DOJ, and courts on the nature of the income tax. The anti-tax folks actually protest against the wrongful implementation of the tax code and constitution by the IRS. Thus they protest against criminal behavior by government employees and contractors, not against a lawful, and lawfully implemented, tax.

True, a court convicted Peter Hendrickson and sentenced him to prison. That does not make Peter Hendrickson either guilty or wrong. 4 It simply means the political climate in today's federal courts presents a grave danger to people to refuse to pay income tax they don't believe they owe. Hundreds, if not thousands of people have used the technique he recommended (of rebutting third party reports of income) with impunity, and have received tax refunds as a result. That means, more than anything else that the government applies the law unevenly, it singled out Peter Hendrickson because of the high-profile nature of the case, and it made Peter Hendrickson into a POLITICAL PRISONER.

Bobhurt (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Following inserted unsigned by Jg

  1. [<- Nonsense, or perhaps wishful thinking. No sound thinking person imagines that the income tax is "a direct tax in violation of the Constitution"]'
  2. [<-Indeed, and that event is the receipt of income (aka "any undeniable accession to wealth,; which is clearly realized by the taxpayer,; over which the taxpayer has complete dominion" according to the US Supreme Court in [1] Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)]
  3. .[And, many children believe in Santa Claus.]
  4. [Sorry, but when the judge or jury says that you are guilty that DOES make you guilty (at least in the legal sense)]

moved by Him (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Heading text (moved from technical support)[edit]

Someone moved my contributions for the Peter Hendrickson page to the talk area. I consider that totally idiotic, for my comments have as much or more merit than the present article. I want my stuff moved back or I want a pragmatic explanation as to how I must modify it to keep it on the main page and NOT in the talk area. I expect some jackass to move my text at Wikipedia, but not here. I consider the main theme of the existing article nonsense because it just echoes the DOJ position on the case, and gives no RATIONAL presentation of the merits of Peter Hendrickson's position. — Unsigned, by: Bobhurt / talk / contribs 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the first section titled "Herein goeth anything regarding the technicalities of the wiki", and please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). -- Nx / talk 21:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue is of course that RationalWiki is not a site dedicated to espousing tax protester rhetoric and pseudolaw. Some of text might be parsed and included with significant alterations in its editorial style and removal of biased and false claims. For now the talk page is best. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC) (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)MM192.35.79.70 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Who put out this trash-the IRS? Perhaps these federal judges and the IRS,who always state that the 16th Amendment gave them the power to tax personal earnings,would like to explain a few things. How come the 16th Amendment states that Congress(legislative)collects taxes and the tax code(sec.6301)states that the "Secretary shall collect taxes imposed under the internal revenue laws." The "Secretary" refers to the Secretary of the Treasury(executive branch). The Constitution does not, under any circumstances, allow for the collection of taxes by the executive branch. This would be a direct violation of the constitutional doctrine of "separation of powers" which prohibits one branch of the government from exercising the powers of another branch (Black's Law Dictionary). In other words,the IRS doesn't have jurisdiction to begin with and the tax code cannot apply to most Americans under the U.S. Constitutiion. Anyone who writes books trying to tell the truth about income taxes is jailed and attempts are made to ban their books. If these people are wrong then what is the big deal? Just show us the law that imposes a tax on personal earnings(not wages as defined in the code and not income as defined at the time the 16th Amendment was written)and show us the law that requires us to do all these other things without using smoke and mirrors! Michael Shaver (, 28 January 2011 (UTC)02:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)~~

Have you read the Tax denial article? Or is that just IRS propaganda? Majintahu (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)