I'd like the panel to discuss ...

'Cracking the Code' by Pete Hendrickson

Pete Hendrickson has literally 'cracked the Internal Revenue Code' by performing exhaustive searches to discover that Private Sector receipts are not subject to Federal Income taxes - this is huge! His information has helped readers to receive over $9 million in refunds from the IRS.

8,354 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    anonymousanonymous shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    7009 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        johnthetaxist, that was funny when your persona Homie asked craneman3355 if he's paid by the word. Not trying to make nice, just saying.
        I'm pleased to announce that johnthetaxist isn't really a 7 year nontaxpayer nor a ctcwarrior.
        Legist, are you Dan Evans? To johnthetaxist everyone is Famspear.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Are these the section 61 referred to?

        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleA-chap1-subchapB-partI-sec61.pdf

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61

        I like section 62 better where it shows even the irs acknowledges a difference between "taxpayers" and "nontaxpayers". I'd like to study these cases relied upon for referencing 61. So many court cases have multiple charges from several agencies. The courts know the jury members most likely haven't studied this thing so it's fairly easy to make a case. Especially easy when a judge says "I'll instruct you on the law" then withholds the actual law for the prosecutors version. Sounds like I support criminals but I couldn't convict some well known gangster if all he or she was charged with was tax evasion, avoidance, etc. definitely no conviction if a judge tried to write the laws on the bench by suddenly including something. That's like saying the crime was allowed because the man or woman was honest in reporting and paying their taxes. Those cases stink on ice.

      • johnthetaxistjohnthetaxist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Clearly, the banksters' agents are not happy with me. They don't like the truth I'm speading. Now Famspear/BS76/JJ has invited his colleague DanEvans/legist into his fake conversation with himself. Don't buy any of it folks, it's way past its "BEST IF USED BY" date. Will they ever learn? Quatlosers can't win with statutes mixed with BS, disinfo & propaganda.

        I'm now on my seventh year as a NONTAXPAYER:
        http://jesse2012.com/SSA_E14.jpg

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Tax molesters are annoying with that 61 illegal stuff inclusion. They call others who know the laws tax protesters ,but the tax molesters are the ones who get hung up on a few misconstrued statements to justify why they're screwing others. Ugh I'm mad now. I refuse to comment on here until I calm down in a few seconds.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        And who is James R. Back? Didn't file for four years? Peter definitely doesn't say or imply to do that.

      • jesse jamesjesse james commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Bullshit legist!
        Just where do you suppose those "specific" statutes emanate from?
        Give us a list of whats excluded!

        I'll tell you right now you little twit you'll never get around statute 26usc 3101.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Legist, those cases you didn't cite, are they Supreme Court or lower court rulings? Is it maybe one case like Al Capone who was operating illegally in privileged activity? There are tax protestors (allegedly) and then there's "tax molesters". Tax molesters are the CPA's, tax attorneys or others who gain from promoting the Section 61 argument. I'll say in general that gross income can mean just about anything according to the tax molesters. But, it still has to be "income" from a "source".
        SEC. 213. That for the purposes of this title (except as otherwise provided in section 233 [gross income of corporations defined]) the term “gross income”—
        (a) Includes gains, profits, and income derived [...] from any source whatever. [...]
        (b) Does not include the following items, which shall be exempt from taxation under this title: [...]
        (c) In the case of a nonresident alien individual, gross income means only the gross income from sources within the United States, determined under the provisions of section 217.

        http://losthorizons.com/Documents/Includes.pdf

      • legistlegist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        John is no Quatloos fan. He has visited there under various names and has been exposed as a complete fool.

        It's not accurate to say that all money received is taxable. It is accurate to say that unless there's a specific statute providing otherwise, anything one receives for working is included in gross income (in fact, that's just what Section 61 says). The "federal privilege" stuff peddled by Hendrickson is complete nonsense. All one needs to do is look at cases where property acquired by embezzlers, blackmailers, and other criminals has been held to constitute gross income. Maybe you can ask Hendrickson where the federal privilege is in such crimes.

        Incidentally, it looks like one of Pete's lemmings, a Mr. James R. Back, was indicted last March for filing false tax returns for 3 years (all based on Cracking the Code) and failing to file for four years. Want to bet whether his CtC arguments will win the day?

      • johnthetaxistjohnthetaxist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Fortunately nobody believes Famspear/Brainy's con. That is no longer working. We have them beat by being prepared and recognizing the con. Each person we awaken is one more to overwhelm them.

        We, as a species, are learning. Gaza lost 1,500 people this past month to teach us genocide and Apartheid. Since WWII millions have died to teach us the global banking con we are now witnessing. If millions of Americans die in the near future from that con then lets hope that our species will learn from that as well. Sooner or later our species must right itself – that is my hope. Keep the faith baby.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I think johnthetaxist is a Quatloos disinformation agent. Here's my theory: he promotes Lawful Money as if everyone paid FRN's are endorsing debt notes. He makes it seem that's the link to the tax scheme. On the Qautloos site, they don't listen to logic, they don't care about the laws unless it pays them. Those so called laws they promote is the concept that all earnings are "income". Basically they say all money received is taxable. Now that's the same as johnthetaxist trying to lure us away from the truth. Johnthetaxist thinks the way out is by changing the name of all earnings to lawful money. JohnTT has been exposed now, safe to ignore.

      • johnthetaxistjohnthetaxist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        ANSWER: because the deposits to that account were restricted to LAWFUL MONEY deposits. http://jesse2012.com/slavefree.jpg Restricted endorsement. No federal privilege. No federal activity. No taxable income. No requirement for a return of income.

        Famspear's multiple personas (ei. Brainy, jessejames, etc) cannot show any victory docs because they're not Warriors. They're disinfo agents bringing deception & distraction.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        "W9's arent a form for withholding and deduction from labor earnings.
        I W9 is an identification form to identify a person eligability to participate in SS.....its not an exemption certificate (W4)."

        jj, in a bank situation, aren't they just getting the forms filled in case they do actually pay "taxable income" in the form of interest payments?

      • jesse jamesjesse james commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        W9's arent a form for withholding and deduction from labor earnings.
        I W9 is an identification form to identify a person eligability to participate in SS.....its not an exemption certificate (W4).
        You dont report your earnigns you have control of nor do you file any of the 1099's you receive.
        You havent filed a 1040 sice 2008.
        SO how is it again that you are a success when you dont file?

        You play stupid games little boy wonder....little childish games.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        BUT, the main thing to do is to stop that W4 mess. Don't sign up for Social Security. Thank you jesse james for that knowledge.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Well, johnthetaxist, guess it's you and me now. Soon it'll be only you. Think jesse james no longer wishes to discuss the matter and seems burned out debating you. I have no "Hendrickson spell" as jj mentioned, I just don't instantly believe all I read. Anyway...........I was reading posts way back and saw jesse james on another site mention he was researching the SS nexus. He showed he was on 1215.org reading the Senate hearing. http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/notice-irs-ftb-exhibit-3.pdf

        Mr. Hardy. It seems to me the essential difference is that the withholding tax plan applies at the point of receipt of income, and this applies at the point of expenditure of income.
        Sen. Danaher. Of course, (withholding) agents withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers

        In my (brainysmurf76) thinking, that is showing how even a signing up for SS makes ones payer a withholding agent and thus will withhold from the private workers. So you filed a W4 and received a W2, you look like a taxpayer or gross receipts look like "wages", what do you do? Well let's look at what follows on that link.

        Sen. Danaher. I have only one other thought on that point. In the event of withholding from the owner of stock and no taxes due ultimately, where does he get his refund?
        Mr. Friedman. You thinking of a corporation or an individual?
        Sen. Danaher. I am talking about an individual.
        Mr. Friedman. An individual will file an income tax return, and that income tax return will constitute an automatic claim for refund.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Exerts from LH: http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/tax_connections.htm
        (Withholding is to be applied only to receipts of a particular kind, which kind is spelled out in 3401(a) and (c) and FICA deductions only apply to receipts of a particular kind, which kind is spelled out in 3121(a), (b), (e) and (h)).
        Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 24, Sec. 3402 provides for withholding by employers from the wages of their employees. In the definitions of the terms used in that law, found in Chapter 24, Subchapter C, Sec. 3401 of Subtitle C, one finds that "wages" are defined as remuneration for services performed by an "employee" (3401(a)), and an "employee" is defined thusly :

        "For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation" (3401(c)). Period.

        If you are a federal or U.S. possessions government worker, or the officer of a U.S. government corporation being remunerated for "services" performed as such (" ...a corporate agency or instrumentality, is one (a) a majority of the stock of which is owned by or on behalf of the United States, or (b) the power to appoint or select a majority of the board of directors of which is exercisable by or on behalf of the United States,..."; the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939), your compensation for work is both taxable and subject to mandatory withholding. If you are not one of these things, it is not.

        In the FICA portion of the law, Chapter 21 of Subtitle C, "wages" upon which the tax is based are defined in section 3121 as remuneration from "employment" (3121(a)).

        "Employment" is defined as "services" performed for an employer within "the United States" (3121(b)(A)(i)), or performed outside the "United States" if by a citizen or resident of the "United States" and if for an "American employer, as defined in subsection (h)" (3121(b)(B)).

        In subsection (h), "American employers" are confined to persons who are residents of "the United States", corporations organized under the laws of "the United States" or a "State", as well as the United States government itself (3121(h)).

        "State" is defined thusly:

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws." United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972)

      ← Previous 1 3 4 5 337 338

      Feedback and Knowledge Base