Main Navigation



Pete Hendrickson 


A Message from Pete Hendrickson - April 21, 2010


Dear ___ (this is going to a group of folks I consider leaders in the CtC community, of which you are one),


It is incumbent upon us all to immediately-- IMMEDIATELY-- get in front of the inevitable corrupt statist effort to milk my persecution for every possible drop of discouragement of those standing up for the truth about the tax.  I think that doing everything possible to flood the net (and MSM, if possible) with countering information which most folks simply won’t think of, is critically important.  Time is of the essence, as impressions will be taken right now, and will be hard or impossible to undo later.  Please read through the following for some inspiration and post, post, and post again!  Encouraging everyone to write “letters to the editor”, blog posts, news-group posts and so forth of their own is also important.


Subject and content and talking points are illustrated by the following utterly disjointed collection of thoughts:


  • It will help folks in the community understand the contrived nature of Monday's affair by pointing out the absurdity-- even surrealism-- of Rosen inexplicably declaring me to be "using (or clinging to) my own definitions of terms" when I have always just presented everyone with the words actually found in the statutes, and tried in this latest case to have those presented to the jury, while Rosen actually insisted on giving made-up definitions (written by the prosecution) to the jury instead.  That is, Rosen and the DoJ are the ones clinging to and relying upon their own “definitions”, not me-- I’m happy with what Congress actually says,

(There's also the issue of his "explanation" that giving the definitions as written in the statutes, as I requested, would have meant giving them pages and pages, even unto the whole IRC, I think he eventually said or implied, and it was just too much.  This is ridiculous, of course, since the statutes involved could fit on a dozen pages or so, total; and especially so when you consider that he was perfectly fine with the prosecution giving the jury a six- or seven-inch-thick stack of documents from the IRS and Michigan-- all with no testimonial backing, of course.)


  • Rosen repeatedly recited the mantra that “the courts have ruled against you, Mr. Hendrickson!”, as do and will the various shills for the state.  He (and the shills) try to confuse the listener into imagining that his having contrived to deny my various motions and successfully shepherd an evidence-free prosecution into a conviction, and the fact that a gimmicked “summary judgment” was issued in a “civil case”,  means the same as “the courts have ruled against what you say about the law, Mr. Hendrickson”.

The fact that these are the ONLY cases he can cite as having “ruled against me”, and that no evidence was ever introduced by the government-plaintiff in either of them, and he was forced to jury-rig key definitions (best use I’ve ever had for that expression!), and, in the “civil case”, no hearings were ever held, and the rules controlling summary judgments were violated, and an unconstitutional order was issued, all of which was then upheld by an appellate court that actually wrote the summary judgment rules backward in its not-for-publication “ruling” (which it subsequently refused to publish, even after the DoJ requested publication, thereby admitting that what it had done was a personal mugging not suited to the light of day and one which it didn’t dare treat as precedential at risk of review) makes this just crafty bs.


This IS pretty clever, though.  It will actually work with those who never look at the contrivances in these two cases (or evidence such as the appellate court’s published order denying the motion to publish its “ruling”) and who therefore never discover that they all involved court and prosecution evasions of what all other courts have had to say about the law and the issues in these cases, and instead imagine Rosen and Edmunds to be aboveboard and honest.  That is to say, this will work with anyone who doesn’t actually look at the evidence and the facts…



  • It’s funny to listen to or read some of the CtC-denying spin-meisters out there sonorously pontificate about this trial and its significance.  These same folks variously recognize and rail against corrupt courts which have managed to find ways to uphold illegal wiretaps, or denial of habeas corpus, or bogus property seizures, or Second Amendment violations, or who will rail against legal and juristic corruption when “Obamacare” is soon upheld by many courts (as it will be, however it ends up when all is said and done).  Yet somehow they imagine that in the handful of cases in which the very life-blood of the unlimited, overweening Leviathan state is threatened, the courts involved are suddenly paragons of virtue, and the outcomes of these trials should be viewed as solid, trustworthy reflections of the truth about the law (despite the actual words of the Constitution and the statutes, the dozens of Supreme Court cases and all the other hard authority that squarely reveal and support the actual truth about the law, none of which these folks will acknowledge-- or probably ever even read themselves).


  • The spinners in the “tax honesty” community are the worst of these mendacious prevaricators (if I may be pardoned the redundancy).  They pretend that while they don’t doubt the general corruption in the courts, the outcomes here prove that CtC has flaws, by refusing to see, study or acknowledge the contortions that these courts have had to go through in order to evade the plain fact that CtC is right, and so completely right as to force the judges and DoJ tools of the state into becoming double-jointed in order to evade its rightness.


  • Plain, unambiguous evidence of DoJ malfeasance and evasion, like the deliberate misrepresentation of the jury instructions given and other prevarications discussed at, the fact that no assessments of any tax owed have been made of me for any years for which I have filed CtC-based rebuttals and refund claims as is discussed and proven at, and other such on-paper, impossible-to-deny-or-spin counter-weights to the lies should be deployed and discussed, as well.  In other words, we can prove who’s lying, and need to do so.  I have posted an enormous amount of information and evidence regarding this in the civil and criminal assaults, not to mention the EWWBL and victory highlights, as well as the routine victories and so forth.  All should be used.

Here is a post Doreen made to the Michigan CtC group forum touching on a few other good and important points, and incorporating some of the above, as well, that is a good example of what I’m talking about here:


“The DoJ(sic) ensured that the result of the sentencing hearing was made public as quickly as possible.  The Detroit News had it posted before we got home, WJR had it on their 3:00 newscast, and the Oakland Press was induced to make it their front page headline on Tuesday.  We've all seen little one-paragraph blurbs somewhere in Section A when the government gets a real tax conviction, but nothing like this.


It's telling that the government is so threatened by the truth that they find it necessary to persecute the messenger, hoping that everyone else will return to blindly doing as they're told.  After all, it'd be awfully difficult to explain why they to this day continue refunding property in more than 10,000 filings, if any news organization were to look into it.  After all, it would be big news if the government were to attack >10,000 Americans for upholding the law.  The fact is they had no case, never proved it, and found a willing participant in Rosen.  He declined the opportunity to show integrity and honor that he expects from people in his courtroom when moved to acquit when the prosecution rested. 


Rosen entered the courtroom appearing a bit under the weather, perhaps suffering from the last vestiges of conscience.  Rambling on from his (likely DoJ prepared) notes for the first 45 minutes or so, he proceeded to let the lawyers speak, a wholly unnecessary gesture, since he already had "his" notes.  He chastised Peter for defining words, forgetting that it was he who defined words in the jury instructions (denying the jury's request to see the statutes), while Peter simply asked for the jury to be given the statutes.  Playing to the audience, he engaged in a pretense of some armchair psychology in his efforts to explain why Peter wouldn't just do what he's told, in order to divert the packed courtroom's attention from his own confused and self-contradictory ramblings intended to justify his rulings.


[On another note, in ruminating about my response here, I've been thinking about some of the CtC-deniers out there who have been pontificating about Peter's trial and its significance.  They rail about the general corruption of the courts in many other matters, but claim that this outcome somehow proves that CtC has flaws.  They refuse to look at and acknowledge the contortions the courts have undertaken in order to evade the truth that CtC is right and that, as Peter put it so eloquently in his allocution, "If the DoJ had even one SC ruling to prove CtC wrong, Mark Daly would have it tattooed on his forehead so he could see it every morning."  The fact is, there is no such ruling.  All these folks who rant about the corrupt courts upholding illegal wire taps, denial of habeas corpus, illegal property seizures, 2nd Amendment violations, and, probably, Obamacare in the near future now believe that the courts involved in suppressing CtC are suddenly paragons of virtue?  The outcomes of these cases should be viewed as solid, trustworthy reflections about the law, despite the words of the statutes, the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and all the evidence presented?  Please!!!  I'm not that naive.]




PS. The sentence is based on the fact that Rosen decided that Peter obstructed justice by "perjuring" himself on the stand and on theoretical intended tax loss, though, to this day, no tax has ever been assessed (I'm sure everyone reads the newsletters, but in case someone missed it, see and read it carefully).  Therefore, the guidelines called for 27-33 months, Rosen sentenced the top with 6 years probation.  The conviction and sentence are being immediately appealed.”


Needless to say, one of the main points of the big splash the DoJ saw to it was made of this sentencing event (I don’t know how it got played elsewhere, but as Doreen says, it had an enormous amount of play in our local big-city media market-- the entire top half of the front page and a half a page further in, with 150 pt. type headlines in the only daily-delivery papers here)  is to defuse the CtC community and the threat it and it alone poses to the pernicious evil that is the misapplied “income” tax.  This must not be allowed to happen.  Please do all that you can to help by posting, posting and posting again, RIGHT NOW.  Post in every forum, state group, newsgroup, etc..


Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, though, and realize that speed is the immediate thing.  Depth can come with follow-ups and more follow-ups.


Thank you.




P.S. Please share with me anything you can think of as “talking points” to add to this list (or good renderings of these), so that I can share them with others.  Don’t wait for my approval before using anything that strikes you as productive-- you have been selected to receive this because I trust your judgment and skills.  But please share as well.





The Power Hour:
(7-10am CST)
···Listen Live

Listen FREE thru Global Star Satellite Feed





All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

Copyright © 2007. The Power Hour. All rights reserved.