Hendrickson, Peter

[LPC]

While checking on the status of Hendrickson's appeal of the erroneous refund case, I found a couple of things:

In the appeal of the erroneous refund suit, Hendrickson's reply brief was stricken. No. 07-1510 (6th Cir.)

Hendrickson had also appealed one of the summonses filed by the IRS and, after the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his motion to quash, Hendrickson filed a petition for cert with the Supreme Court. USSC Docket No. 07-624, appealing 6th Circuit No. 06-1870. The petition has been distributed and is scheduled for a 1/4/2008 conference.

[Doktor Avalanche]

While checking on the status of Hendrickson's appeal of the erroneous refund case, I found a couple of things:

In the appeal of the erroneous refund suit, Hendrickson's reply brief was stricken. No. 07-1510 (6th Cir.)

Hendrickson had also appealed one of the summonses filed by the IRS and, after the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his motion to quash, Hendrickson filed a petition for cert with the Supreme Court. USSC Docket No. 07-624, appealing 6th Circuit No. 06-1870. The petition has been distributed and is scheduled for a 1/4/2008 conference.

Okay, I'm a little lost here. Explain "Hendrickson's reply brief was stricken".

Questions like "what for?" come to mind. Does this mean the court found his reply to be frivolous?

[Dr. Caligari]

There was a thread on Hendrickson's Reply Brief. Basically, he filed a brief that was way too long under the rules, and attached two other "memoranda of law" to it, making it even longer.

It was, in fact, frivolous, but I don't think the court addressed that.

[ASITStands]

My recollection was, "It was the two memoranda that were stricken and not the reply brief itself." Am I wrong? That was the discussion on Lost Horizons and reported by Pete.

[Imalawman]

My recollection was, "It was the two memoranda that were stricken and not the reply brief itself." Am I wrong? That was the discussion on Lost Horizons and reported by Pete.

That is what I remember Pete saying. I didn't ever check PACER so I can't say for sure. If Dan has checked that's what PACER reports, then I will by all means trust Dan's interpretation of the docket.

[LPC]

My recollection was, "It was the two memoranda that were stricken and not the reply brief itself." Am I wrong? That was the discussion on Lost Horizons and reported by Pete.

That is what I remember Pete saying. I didn't ever check PACER so I can't say for sure. If Dan has checked that's what PACER reports, then I will by all means trust Dan's interpretation of the docket.

The PACER docket entry doesn't say anything other than that the reply was stricken, and the text of the orders themselves are not accessible.

The reply brief, and the motion to strike, were discussed before at http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1371 and it wasn't clear then what was stricken (struck?) either.

[ASITStands]

Just noticed:

Hendrickson's response to the motion to strike is titled, "Response to Plaintiff-Appellee's Motion to Strike the Two Memoranda of Law Filed with our Reply Brief."

This was/is available from Lost Horizons, but I'm not sure where.

Reading the first paragraph:

We strongly object to this effort by Plaintiff-Appellee (hereinafter "Plaintiff" or "IRS") to exclude the highly substantive, relevant and responsive content of our two memorandums, the inclusion of which serves the interest of justice in this case.

Conclusion: It was the memoranda only.

[Dezcad]

In one of the District Courts cases where PH lost his attempt to quash an IRS third-party summons (and PH talks about here

SO...., I've taken the first of these to the Supreme Court.

By good fortune, this first case to have completed its run through the appellate court is also the one I would have picked to take to the high court first, if it had been a matter of choice. The one-paragraph "legal analysis" offered by the court with its decision relies upon a transparent fraud perpetrated by the DOJ in its response to my appellate brief (a fraud made necessary by the government's inability to muster even a scintilla of authority-- either in statute or even case law-- for its position).

The ruling also defies a number of extraordinarily relevant-- indeed, direct-- previous Supreme Court rulings on precisely the point of law the government is trying to evade in this contest, as well as a huge volume of additional authority from every other quarter; and impales the "ignorance tax" scheme on the horns of a dilemma as well. If this ruling stands undisturbed, the Supreme Court will have validated the unintentional, but unmistakable doctrine proceeding from the Sixth Circuit's conclusion: that beginning on August 16, 1954, natural persons-- that is, you and me-- were no longer covered by most of the language of the internal revenue laws. (This means ALL of those laws, by the way, including the ATF provisions, the "death tax", etc..) That doctrine now applies only within the Sixth Circuit; if the Supremes uphold the Sixth Circuit's ruling, or decline to consider my petition, the doctrine will then become national in application.

In other words, the high court gets to pick its poison, although the choice should be a no-brainer. On the one hand is the complete collapse of the scheme in an embarrassing cloud of incoherence; on the other, upholding the plain words of the law (including the Fourth Amendment), at the sole price of the all-too-long-standing IRS practice of executing unconstitutional "writs of assistance", a practice which is already increasingly fruitless as more and more Americans learn the truth about the legal character of whatever it is such warrantless searches might discover, and how to deal with any subsequent allegations.

In any event, my petition for Supreme Court review has been docketed, and the United States Solicitor General has waived the government's opportunity to argue against it. The petition can be read here, and the appellate court briefs (which include a discussion of the "natural person" conundrum) can be read here.

Th petition has been denied. (see p. 22 of SCOTUS order)

[Famspear]

Peter E. "Blowhard" Hendrickson wrote:

The petition can be read here, and the appellate court briefs (which include a discussion of the "natural person" conundrum) can be read here.

Gee, the "natural person conundrum" turned out not to be a conundrum at all.

"Certioriari denied."

Problem solved!

[Famspear]

On the one hand is the complete collapse of the scheme in an embarrassing cloud of incoherence; on the other, upholding the plain words of the law [ . . . ]

How Freudian of you, Pete!

[Famspear]

However, look at this language:

If this ruling stands undisturbed, the Supreme Court will have validated the unintentional, but unmistakable doctrine proceeding from the Sixth Circuit's conclusion: that beginning on August 16, 1954, natural persons-- that is, you and me-- were no longer covered by most of the language of the internal revenue laws. (This means ALL of those laws, by the way, including the ATF provisions, the "death tax", etc..) That doctrine now applies only within the Sixth Circuit; if the Supremes uphold the Sixth Circuit's ruling, or decline to consider my petition, the doctrine will then become national in application.

(bolding added).

I have to give Pete his due; he knows that his followers are idiots, and that some of them will actually swallow his nonsense, which is, essentially: "I lost my case at the Sixth Circuit, so I 'appealed' to the Supreme Court, but of course if my appeal is rejected by the Supreme Court, my followers will believe that I have won an imaginary ruling about "natural persons", but if the Supreme Court rules in my favor then that will also mean that I have won, and my goofy half-wit followers will never notice that this contradictory nonsense is b*lls**t."

[Famspear]

L'aveugle conduit l'aveugle: Ex-con Peter E. "Blowhard" Hendrickson offers his cogent "analysis" of the Wesley Snipes case to Dave vonKleist et al.:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=2

It's long; I haven't listened to the entire thing.

[Dezcad]

L'aveugle conduit l'aveugle: Ex-con Peter E. "Blowhard" Hendrickson offers his cogent "analysis" of the Wesley Snipes case to Dave vonKleist et al.:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=2

It's long; I haven't listened to the entire thing.

The best part is near the last 1/3rd when a caller mentions his petition for cert to the SCOTUS. PH gives all the background details and says he filed a petion for cert but fails to mention that the petition was denied about a month ago (see my post above). Not that his intentional omission is surprising, though.

[Famspear]

Speaking of the Sixth Circuit, I believe we are still waiting on a ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Hendrickson's appeal of his loss at the District Court in the government's erroneous tax refund suit against him. Per Dan Evans' web page on Hendrickson, it's case number 07-1510 at the Sixth Circuit.

Does anyone have an idea on when a ruling might be coming?

[Dr. Caligari]

There is no deadline for federal appeals courts to rule. I have had cases sit for more than a year after argument before a decision comes down. (In contrast, California has a nifty provision in the state constitution: if an appeal sits for more than 90 days between submission and decision, the judges don't get paid for that quarter.)

[Imalawman]

There is no deadline for federal appeals courts to rule. I have had cases sit for more than a year after argument before a decision comes down. (In contrast, California has a nifty provision in the state constitution: if an appeal sits for more than 90 days between submission and decision, the judges don't get paid for that quarter.)

I really like that actually (although 90 days might be a little too small a time) In my state, I have a state supreme court decision that has been submitted since Spring of 2005, argued in fall of 2006. Still waiting on the decision....ridiculous and shameful.

[Famspear]

Dr. Caligari wrote:

There is no deadline for federal appeals courts to rule. I have had cases sit for more than a year after argument before a decision comes down.

Yes, but I want to know now! WWWaaaaaahhhhhh! It's not faaairrrrrr! I don't wanna wait! I want instant gratification, and I want it nowWWW!

Woah! Temporary insanity, emotional outburst, brought out by reading too much tax protester crap from narcissistic ex-con blowhards.

[ASITStands]

Is there any reason to believe when there's more than one case addressing an issue (or, in this case, more than one case per litigant), one case may wait on another until appeals are exhausted?

And, if there are different cases addressing the same issue in different circuits, is there any reason to believe one circuit will wait on another to make its decision before making its own?

I've noticed how one circuit follows another in reaching its decision even when there are divisions.

Currently, Hendrickson has a motion for rehearing before the Supreme Court on the summons issue. Is there any reason to believe the Sixth may be holding its decision until appeals are exhausted?

Knowing Hendrickson, he's likely to appeal the decision. I'll admit I'm getting impatient.

[LPC]

Currently, Hendrickson has a motion for rehearing before the Supreme Court on the summons issue. Is there any reason to believe the Sixth may be holding its decision until appeals are exhausted?

That seems to me to be unlikely, given that the two issues (whether Hendrickson should be order to return the refund and file correct returns, and whether the IRS should be able to obtain access to Hendrickson's records by administrative summons) are almost completely independent of each other and have little in common (other than the constitutionality and validity of the federal income tax, of course).

[Dezcad]

In one of the District Courts cases where PH lost his attempt to quash an IRS third-party summons (and PH talks about here

SO...., I've taken the first of these to the Supreme Court.

By good fortune, this first case to have completed its run through the appellate court is also the one I would have picked to take to the high court first, if it had been a matter of choice. The one-paragraph "legal analysis" offered by the court with its decision relies upon a transparent fraud perpetrated by the DOJ in its response to my appellate brief (a fraud made necessary by the government's inability to muster even a scintilla of authority-- either in statute or even case law-- for its position).

The ruling also defies a number of extraordinarily relevant-- indeed, direct-- previous Supreme Court rulings on precisely the point of law the government is trying to evade in this contest, as well as a huge volume of additional authority from every other quarter; and impales the "ignorance tax" scheme on the horns of a dilemma as well. If this ruling stands undisturbed, the Supreme Court will have validated the unintentional, but unmistakable doctrine proceeding from the Sixth Circuit's conclusion: that beginning on August 16, 1954, natural persons-- that is, you and me-- were no longer covered by most of the language of the internal revenue laws. (This means ALL of those laws, by the way, including the ATF provisions, the "death tax", etc..) That doctrine now applies only within the Sixth Circuit; if the Supremes uphold the Sixth Circuit's ruling, or decline to consider my petition, the doctrine will then become national in application.

In other words, the high court gets to pick its poison, although the choice should be a no-brainer. On the one hand is the complete collapse of the scheme in an embarrassing cloud of incoherence; on the other, upholding the plain words of the law (including the Fourth Amendment), at the sole price of the all-too-long-standing IRS practice of executing unconstitutional "writs of assistance", a practice which is already increasingly fruitless as more and more Americans learn the truth about the legal character of whatever it is such warrantless searches might discover, and how to deal with any subsequent allegations.

In any event, my petition for Supreme Court review has been docketed, and the United States Solicitor General has waived the government's opportunity to argue against it. The petition can be read here, and the appellate court briefs (which include a discussion of the "natural person" conundrum) can be read here.

Th petition has been denied. (see p. 22 of SCOTUS order)

On Feb. 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denies the petition for rehearing in Hendrickson v. United States, no. 07-624. See Order, Mon., Feb. 25, 2008, page 10:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 508pzr.pdf