Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact



Q.  Who are you?


A.  Here's a brief biography:


"Pete Hendrickson is possibly the most effective lawyer in history, even while never having set foot in a law school, nor ever being a card-carrying member of "the bar". He is the first American in history to secure a complete refund of Social Security and Medicare ‘contributions’ withheld from his earnings (along with all other property taken for federal taxes); further, since 2003 students of his legal analyses and arguments in ‘Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’ (CtC), and its sequel, 'Was Grandpa Really a Moron?' have been routinely retaining and recovering billions of dollars which otherwise-- wrongly, but as a matter of course-- would have gone to federal or state government treasuries. This despite concerted efforts by government to suppress his work, and in some cases vigorously oppose the claims by his students.


"Hendrickson is also a widely-read essayist on matters of politics, public policy and law; many of these works are collected in his second book, ‘Upholding the Law And Other Observations’.  He is a member of Mensa; an award-winning artist; and has paid his dues as a youth soccer coach.  He is a long-time political activist as well, and has served as co-chair and platform convention delegate of Michigan’s largest county Libertarian Party organization; as a consultant to the National Right to Work Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy; as a member of the Heartland Institute; and as a member of the International Society for Individual Liberty.  He is a frequent radio-show guest on stations across the country.


"Hendrickson's business career has included nearly a decade-and-a-half at the leading edge of the renewable-energy industry, both as Director of Purchasing and Materials Management and member of the R&D board at Starpak Energy Systems, the mid-west's then-largest solar heating and energy-recovery-and re-utilization company; and as founder and president of AFJ Inc., a high-efficiency lighting design, manufacture and installation firm.


"Beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing for the twelve years before his present full-time focus on the restoration of the rule of law in America, Hendrickson directed purchasing activities for the $84 million-a-year multi-family-housing division of the Farmington Hills, Michigan branch of Edward Rose and Sons, with responsibility for 18,000+ apartments, direct supervision of 35 technicians and agents, and incidental authority over several hundred divisional workers.  He also ran the division's 10 cable television earth-station and distribution systems in four states, and designed and administered the company's website.


"On rather the other end of the spectrum, amidst these more mundane pursuits Hendrickson co-founded and was the primary creative force behind a small board- and card-game company that enjoyed a modest success for several years.  (A short local news feature from 1990 on Hendrickson's first game can be seen here.)


"Hendrickson makes his home in southeast Michigan, with his wife and two children.  He is currently working on his next book."




Q.  Hasn't what you say in CtC been ruled "fraudulent" or "false" by the courts?


A.  Quite the contrary!  In addition to enjoying the distinction of being the first American in history to secure the return of Social Security and Medicare "contributions" (along with everything else withheld in connection with the income tax), I'm also the first to ever have the Department of Justice move a federal court to dismiss IRS efforts to enjoin the publication of material challenging the common (mis)understanding of the income tax. Those IRS efforts involved specific allegations that the information in CtC is "false" and "fraudulent"-- allegations which were themselves false and fraudulent.  While the government gets injunctions against wrong "contrarian" voices all the time, once it ran up against the actual truth about the law it realized that it was better off with the embarrassment of moving to dismiss without explanation rather than pursuing the matter and being squarely beaten on the merits in open court.


This didn't just happen once, by the way-- it happened repeatedly!  (You can learn more about these victories for CtC here.)


After its historic losses in trying to forcibly suppress the information uniquely available in CtC and on this website, the IRS began trying to simply discourage Americans learning that information.  This effort involved a combination of ad hominem attacks against me personally; carefully-inaccurate listings in things like the IRS's annual "Dirty Dozen" list (see more about that here); and a contrived "lawsuit" by which the IRS has asked the federal courts to order my wife and me to replace the testimony on our own tax returns with testimony dictated by the tax agency (on the basis of which the government could then claim that we owed it taxes for the years involved)!  Click here to learn more about THAT bizarre and outrageous effort to evade the liberating truth about the tax uniquely revealed in CtC.


All of these ploys utterly failed to stop anyone who has read the book from not only acting on what he or she learns from it, but from also vigorously spreading that knowledge as much as possible (since what is revealed in the book is not only incontrovertibly true-- as any reader of the book can, and is encouraged to, independently verify for himself or herself by a trip to any good law library-- but is also incomparably important).  The government then escalated its efforts at confusing potential readers of CtC by accusing me of not believing what I have said on my own tax filings! This was followed by a trial in which, for instance, the jury was refused sight of the words of definitional statutes central to the case, and instead instructed to deliberate using prosecution-written "interpretations" of those statutes.


In response to all of this government huffing and puffing, you're SUPPOSED to think, "The federal government, and especially the IRS, are honorable, scrupulously law-respecting institutions!  They would never do such things if Hendrickson was right..."  (By the way, you're also supposed to think that the NSA doesn't collect phone call and email data on everyone; that the Second Amendment was put in place in order to protect American's right to hunt; that federal courts are unique bastions of scrupulous impartiality; and so on and so forth...)


What you're NOT supposed to think is, "If Hendrickson was wrong, he wouldn't be able to display the tax agency admissions to the contrary which have been flowing without interruption since 2003-- including the particularly telling "Every Which Way But Loose" collections; nor his unique, repeated victories over IRS injunction efforts; nor the on-paper-and-unambiguously-deliberate mischaracterizations of what he says about the law which were deployed by the government and the courts in their "lawsuit" against him in an unambiguous acknowledgement of the fact that they couldn't even pretend to have a case to pursue without mischaracterizing what is taught in his book; etc., etc...."


What you're ESPECIALLY not supposed to think is, "There've been an awful lot of strange and manifestly corrupt efforts undertaken by an obviously self-interested, gravy-train-riding political machine to discourage me from reading this guy's book; and there's an awful lot of steadily-accumulating, historically unique evidence that what he reveals in the book is not only accurate but really worth knowing!"


Here's What Attorneys Who Have Actually Studied CtC Have To Say About The Book


"[Y]ou really need to familiarize yourself with Pete Hendrickson's absolutely magnificent work at his website and in his book(s).  He has, brilliantly and lucidly, "cracked the code" regarding the federal income EXCISE tax(es)."

Mark C. Phillips, JD


"Based on the information in CtC and your website, I have amended my federal filings for four years for which the IRS claimed that I owed them money." 

Elias Aoun, JD


"...I find your work fascinatingly simple to understand."

Jerry Arnowitz, JD


"Your book is a masterpiece!"

Michael Carver, JD


"Received your book yesterday.  Started reading at 11 PM, finished at 4 AM."  "I have 16 feet (literally 16' 4.5") of documents supporting just about everything in your book." "Your book should be required reading for every lawyer before being admitted to any Bar."  "I hope you sell a million of them." 

John O'Neil Green, JD


“Thanks again for your efforts, Pete. They mean an awful lot to a lot of people.” “…as an attorney, I am humbled by your knowledge and ability in navigating the law.  THANK YOU for your hard work and sacrifice.”

Eric Smithers, JD


I am an attorney and want to give a testimonial to your book, which I find to be compelling. I am exercising these rights for myself and my adult children. I'm even considering making this my new avenue of law practice."

Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD


Here's a good, brief summary of what the courts actually have to say about the nature of the "income tax"


By the way, it's important to understand that what is revealed in CtC is unique.  While many folks have struggled to understand the income tax for decades now, and some have mistakenly claimed to have done so, no one prior to CtC had access to the resources needed to accomplish this complex task.


Even since CtC, many of those who had become invested in prior misunderstandings have refused to abandon them.  This may be due to issues of personal pride, or because until the truth revealed in CtC becomes universally-known, there is money to be made selling "silver bullets" and snake oil to the uneducated.


Thus, the records are full of "challenges" to the conventional understanding of the income tax that HAVE been "ruled against", and properly so.  Don't make the mistake of confusing these misunderstandings or their consequences with CtC, or be misled by the pronouncements of those who conflate the two, as many so-called "tax experts" whose livelihoods depend on the maintenance of the status quo (and who either haven't ever actually read CtC, or don't want you to) are wont to do.  The actual evidence is presented above for you to examine for yourself-- trust your own eyes.




Q.  Wouldn't stopping the broad misapplication of the income tax starve governments of necessary revenue?


A.  Not at all.  For one thing, while the tax doesn't apply to the earnings and economic activities of most Americans, it DOES legitimately apply to a lot of activity.  Even after the revival of the tax in 1913 there was never more than a tiny percentage of the American population having occasion to file a tax return prior to the re-introduction of "withholding" in the mid-1940s (for instance, in 1936, only 3.9% of the entire American population filed returns, according to the Treasury Department’s Division of Tax Research 9 January, 1941 Staff Memo: “Collection at Source of the Individual Normal Income Tax”).  Nonetheless, the United States still managed just fine during those years, even despite the extraordinary exigencies of World War I and the worst years of the last Great Depression. It would do so again-- the difference would be that you'd have a great deal more of your own wealth back in your pocket.


Furthermore, even leaving the income tax entirely out of the picture, the federal government has been provided with fully functional mechanisms for raising any amount of revenue that the American people want it to have.  Except during the initial income tax period of 1862 to 1873, the feds operated for the first 137 years of our history pretty much exclusively by means of a modest across-the-board (non-protectionist) revenue tariff on imports, with the occasional imposition of an apportioned direct tax for the purpose of debt retirement after a calamitous, unexpected revenue demand (such as a war).  These mechanisms can easily carry the load today as well, even if we feel the need to transfer $3.1 trillion from our pockets into the hands of Washington bureaucrats and political hacks in order to build bridges to nowhere, make bombs, bullets and Wall Street "bailouts", pay for congressional junkets, and so on.


The only difference between a tariff and/or apportioned direct tax and the income tax as sources of operating revenues is the degree of practical political accountability that attends their use.  For instance, when a revenue tariff is relied upon to finance boondoggles, Americans have the option of choosing American-made goods instead of taxed imports.


An apportioned direct tax is similarly subject to the people's authority.  Each such tax is a one-time-imposition, requiring a stand-up vote by members of the legislature, and a renewal each time Congress wants additional or ongoing funding.  Nothing hard about that, of course, as long as the budget really meets with popular approval, but not too convenient for legislators wanting to finance pork and boondoggles while also wanting to be re-elected.


The income tax, on the other hand, is an open spigot pouring money out of the hands of those subject to the tax and into Washington's, once the tap has been turned.  Congress could abstain from ever re-visiting the existing income tax again and that tax would continue seizing its currently-specified percentages of wealth from affected producers for untold years to come.  All that Washington need do to keep HUGE amounts of money pouring into its hands by way of the income tax-- in perpetuity, and with no meaningful accountability or restraint-- is keep Americans from learning the truth about what legally qualifies as "income" for purposes of the tax, and what doesn't.


For more on this issue, please see 'Regarding Tax Reform'.