Blowhard's Petition for En Banc Re-Hearing of Appeal

[Dezcad]

I don't recall seeing this posted here yet but in a style befitting the nickname bestowed upon PH by our own Famspear, here is 30 pages of words without saying anything of substance by the Blowhard.

[Gregg]

It looks to me that the appeal is written to the people over at LH more than it is to the court, I don't see it being received very well in Cincinnati at the 6th Circuit.

[Famspear]

I don't recall seeing this posted here yet but in a style befitting the nickname bestowed upon PH by our own Famspear, here is 30 pages of words without saying anything of substance by the Blowhard.

Agreed.

What a waste of perfectly good paper by the PeterEricBlowhardMeister. Perhaps Peter's pecuniary interest in evading perfectly proper taxes has perverted his perception of the proper path for performing his tax-paying obligations to the public fisc. Had he been prescient, he possibly could have predicted his predicament.

[Imalawman]

If you did not know the facts, the brief reads somewhat sane until he finally alleges the crime that US committed - assuming that they had income after they had listed zeros on the corrected w-2s. Then it become totally devoid of any rational thought and comes across as a petulant 6 yr old.

[Famspear]

[ . . . ] totally devoid of any rational thought and comes across as a petulant 6 yr old.

Perhaps Peter's petulance is part of his perversity; nocent narcissists are known to natter nervously and nonsensically -- it's in their nature.

[notorial dissent]

I really love that he comes right out at the very start and all but calls the court stupid and corrupt, that should really endear him to them, and then just goes on from there pointing out how stupid they are not to have his immense understanding of the law.

[LPC]

I think we've talked about it before, because there was speculation that he could be sanctioned again for filing the petition for rehearing.

I don't think it'll happen, but it would be fun to see.

[Famspear]

Now, a user called "1776" at losthorizons writes:

As most of you know, Pete filed his petition for a rehearing with the 6th CCA just last week. This is a perfect opportunity for us to contact the media and remind them about this historic case.

What can you do? Easy. Just follow the steps below and send the message to every news editor in your vicinity. Remember, the press can be a powerful ally in this struggle, but only if we do our part and apply consistent and appropriate pressure.

I probably don't need to tell you, but this matter is VITAL to the general welfare of the American public. Everything in the press release is TRUE FACT, not opinion or falsehood. All of us have a First Amendment right to bring "Liberty" issues like this to the attention of our fellow citizens. Indeed it is our DUTY to do so. And I can't think of an issue more essential to our fundamental Liberties as Americans than this. This case, and the illegal actions of the judge and the DOJ, need to be shouted from the housetops. The lower court judge and the DOJ have broken the law and they must be exposed and held accountable. This would be true even if this case were about something other than taxes. And that's why it is so important we alert our fellow citizens. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CANNOT ALLOW ANYONE -- NOT EVEN A JUDGE OR THE DOJ -- TO SUBORN PERJURY OR COMMIT WITNESS TAMPERING OR EXTORTION. If we permit this to go unchecked, our nation will start to descend into the very tyranny our forefathers dreaded.

Let us be clear. It will take MANY press releases like this one, as well as MANY other good and lawful efforts to win. No single act will carry the day, and I don't think anyone here is under any delusions about that. BUT WITH PERSISTENCE AND DEDICATION WIN WE CAN, AND WIN WE WILL. Therefore, this press release is a POWERFUL volley against those who violate the law and seek to harm us. It NEEDS to be sent. We are on OFFENSE! The law and righteousness is on our side. And I believe, therefore, so is the Lord.

YOUR help is needed right now. Please don't delay. If every warrior participates, literally thousands of media outlets will be notified of this case before the weekend. So please take action TODAY!

In victory,

1776

User "1776" then posts detailed instructions for spamming a pre-written "article" all over the internet, apparently using a web site called http://www.congress.org. Here's the "article" that "1776" is trying to get fellow loserheads to send:

FEDERAL JUDGE SUBORNS PERJURY

DETROIT, Mich. -- August 7, 2008 -- Last week, a Michigan couple filed a petition with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to rehear a case in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a lower court judge have ordered the couple to commit perjury and to incriminate themselves.

The petition stems from a 2006 action in which Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of Michigan’s Eastern District Court granted the DOJ summary judgment in a lawsuit filed to force Peter and Doreen Hendrickson to change sworn testimony on their tax returns, in order to give the federal government a pretext for claiming the couple owed income taxes in 2002 and 2003.

The Hendricksons point out that ordering or forcing someone to change sworn testimony is a crime and contrary to the Constitution, even when a judge orders it.

Judge Edmunds issued her ruling without the formality of a trial.

Official Treasury Department Certificates of Assessment show the Hendricksons owe no taxes for the years in question. Nowhere in the complaint does the DOJ present evidence that the Hendricksons owe anything or that their testimony is false.

The DOJ has tried and failed in three previous lawsuits to suppress Peter Hendrickson’s book, Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America. The DOJ’s efforts to silence Mr. Hendrickson appear to result from its fear of what he reveals in that book.

Cracking the Code shows that the application of the income tax is far more limited than most Americans believe. It demonstrates how key terms in the code such as “wages,” “employer,” “employee,” “trade or business,” and “self-employment” are explicitly defined in the law in order to limit the income tax to certain federally-privileged activities. Earnings unconnected with such privileged activities are not subject to the tax. Unaware of these special definitions, most Americans give the words their common meaning and mistakenly pay taxes they do not owe.

Mr. Hendrickson points out that, “The limited nature of the tax is not a matter of my opinion. In addition to the clear words of the law, dozens of United States Supreme Court rulings agree with my research and analysis, while no Supreme Court rulings support any alternative view, including the broad misunderstanding of the law the IRS likes to encourage.”

The IRS appears, at best, “conflicted.” Even while presenting a disparaging – but carefully inaccurate – summary of Cracking the Code on its website, the IRS continues to send full refunds, Social Security and Medicare “contributions” included, to all who file accurate returns based on what they learn by reading the book. Hendrickson’s website, http://www.losthorizons.com, shows copies of refund checks, credits, and corrected account statements amounting to over $3.1M received by his readers since the book was first published in 2003. This amount, which the IRS says is a mere fraction of what it has returned to readers of Hendrickson’s book so far, continues to grow every week.

While the DOJ and Judge Edmunds work to suppress Hendrickson’s book, and the IRS floods the media with disinformation and fear, the hard evidence – the words of the law, dozens of Supreme Court rulings, and the ongoing stream of complete refunds – remains on the side of the liberating revelations in Cracking the Code.

CONTACT: Peter Hendrickson
E-mail: phendrickson@losthorizons.com
Website: http://www.losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=809

User "1776" even provides instructions on which paragraphs in the article should be bolded, etc.

[Famspear]

Although it's familiar stuff, it's still funny to review the BlowhardMeister's ravings. I like this one:

In fact, EVEN IF WE HAD received specialized revenue or engaged in specialized activities--and regardless of whether either is taxable with or without apportionment--we cannot be lawfully prevented from testifying [ . . . ]

--from Page 9 of the Petition (bolding added).

Then, in the next paragraph, he says:

Further, [ . . . ] federal statutes explicitly provide for our un-coerced testimony as to these matters, and require the federal government to accept that testimony as true and dispositive as to whether, and to what degree, we are or are not beholden to [pay the federal income tax].

(bolding added).

PeterEricBlowhardMeister seems to be asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to accept the doofus proposition that even if an individual were to lie through his teeth on his own tax return, signed under penalty of perjury (i.e., his "testimony"), there is some federal statute somewhere that "explicitly" provides that the federal government must, by law, accept that individual's testimony as "true and dispositive" -- regardless of any evidence to the contrary. We've seen this before on the losthorizons web site. It's just funny to see it argued in a document filed in a court of law.

It is a testament to the immense complexity of human brains (especially the brains of both Peter and his followers) -- brains with this kind of psychopathology -- that so many people actually work themselves in the delusional state of believing these kinds of ravings.

[ASITStands]

PeterEricBlowhardMeister seems to be asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to accept the doofus proposition that even if an individual were to lie through his teeth on his own tax return, signed under penalty of perjury (i.e., his "testimony"), there is some federal statute somewhere that "explicitly" provides that the federal government must, by law, accept that individual's testimony as "true and dispositive" -- regardless of any evidence to the contrary. We've seen this before on the losthorizons web site. It's just funny to see it argued in a document filed in a court of law.

It is a testament to the immense complexity of human brains (especially the brains of both Peter and his followers) -- brains with this kind of psychopathology -- that so many people actually work themselves in the delusional state of believing these kinds of ravings.

It's his reliance on the last phrase of Section 93 of the Act of 1862.

Provided, That any party, in his or her own behalf, or as guardian or trustee, as aforesaid, shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that he or she was not possessed of an income of six hundred dollars, liable to be assessed according to the provisions of this act, or that he or she has been assessed elsewhere and the same year for an income duty, under authority of the United States, and shall thereupon be exempt from an income duty; or, if the list or return of any party shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, in manner as aforesaid, he or she may be permitted to declare, as aforesaid, the amount of his or her annual income, or the amount held in trust, as aforesaid, liable to be assessed, as aforesaid, and the same so declared shall be received as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected.

He claims it's never been amended or repealed when he's been shown differently.

This is the spot where he gets his theory that the amount declared on a return by a taxpayer under oath or affirmation is the final word, and any coercion by the Commissioner or a court of law to change sworn testimony results in the suborning of perjury.

While he has his own interpretations of "includes," "employee," "employer," "trade or business" and "income," his entire effort stands or falls on this final word theory.

He was shown explicitly on the forum that Section 93 of the Act of 1862 was directly amended by Section 118 of the Act of 1864, but he refused to accept it.

... or, if the list or return of any party shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, in manner as aforesaid, such party may be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the amount of annual income, or the amount held in trust, as aforesaid, liable to be assessed, and the same, so declared, shall be received by such assistant assessor as true, and as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected, except that the deductions claimed in such cases shall not be made or allowed until approved by the assistant assessor.

Just my two cents on the Hendrickson phenomena.

[notorial dissent]

It's his reliance on the last phrase of Section 93 of the Act of 1862.
Well, there you have it folks, a sure fire winner based on a long repealed law that doesn’t even apply to this case, yep, a winner for sure.

Provided, That any party, in his or her own behalf, or as guardian or trustee, as aforesaid, shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that he or she was not possessed of an income of six hundred dollars, liable to be assessed according to the provisions of this act, or that he or she has been assessed elsewhere and the same year for an income duty, under authority of the United States, and shall thereupon be exempt from an income duty; or, if the list or return of any party shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, in manner as aforesaid, he or she may be permitted to declare, as aforesaid, the amount of his or her annual income, or the amount held in trust, as aforesaid, liable to be assessed, as aforesaid, and the same so declared shall be received as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected.

And I’ll bet there was something in the old law about what happens when the so called affirmation is rebutted with competent evidence, I don’t see the Feds in that day just going away empty handed, any more than they will now, so I think he is again picking and choosing his justifications.

He claims it's never been amended or repealed when he's been shown differently.
He also claims he has never received “income” and we know how much that claim is worth, rather reminiscent of his original 1040's.

This is the spot where he gets his theory that the amount declared on a return by a taxpayer under oath or affirmation is the final word, and any coercion by the Commissioner or a court of law to change sworn testimony results in the suborning of perjury.
What is one more delusion more or less.

While he has his own interpretations of "includes," "employee," "employer," "trade or business" and "income," his entire effort stands or falls on this final word theory.
I would say falls is the correct word.

He was shown explicitly on the forum that Section 93 of the Act of 1862 was directly amended by Section 118 of the Act of 1864, but he refused to accept it.
What, and spoil a perfectly good nonsense excuse, Pete doesn’t let facts get in the way of his own little reality.

... or, if the list or return of any party shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, in manner as aforesaid, such party may be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the amount of annual income, or the amount held in trust, as aforesaid, liable to be assessed, and the same, so declared, shall be received by such assistant assessor as true, and as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected, except that the deductions claimed in such cases shall not be made or allowed until approved by the assistant assessor.

Just my two cents on the Hendrickson phenomena.

Rather on par with other TP’s who insist on taking non-related quotes out of other laws to prove a position they can’t with the law they are questioning. Not very original and never works.

[LPC]

According to the 6th Circuit docket, John A. Nolet of the Department of Justice asked the court to publish the decision against Hendrickson, which would have made the decision a citable precedent. On 08/13/2008, the court denied the request.

This suggests to me that the DoJ has plans for the Crackheads, because having the opinion published might make it easier to get civil and criminal penalties against those who continue to follow the "CtC method."

[ASITStands]

Shame on you, Dan!

"CtC is not a method. CtC is about the truth." The great 'Submarine Veteran' said so.

Remember. We still have that little thing about an injunction.

It would seem to me Hendrickson's continued refusal to comply will lead to contempt and criminal charges. Surely, that's citable somewhere in the great scheme of things.

I agree with you it's a shame the first appellate decision is not citable, but I'd guess they're angling for criminal charges against Hendrickson before taking down others.

It's not the pocketbook issue of lost tax revenues but using a source of disinformation as long as possible before taking it down when the folly's fully known. And, what of Bulten?

It'd be tempting to keep Hendrickson strung out a bit longer to catch a few others.

[LPC]

Remember. We still have that little thing about an injunction.

The injunction against Hendrickson only requires him to file correct (i.e., non-CtC) returns. It does not prevent him from continuing to promote his fantasy.

[Nikki]

Remember. We still have that little thing about an injunction.

The injunction against Hendrickson only requires him to file correct (i.e., non-CtC) returns. It does not prevent him from continuing to promote his fantasy.

yet.

One cut at a time.

[grixit]

What happened to the Savage Submariner anyway?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Shame on you, Dan!

"CtC is not a method. CtC is about the truth." The great 'Submarine Veteran' said so.

And I will leave it to your imaginations, dear readers, as to which is the DoJ and which is SubVet.

[SteveSy]

Although it's familiar stuff, it's still funny to review the BlowhardMeister's ravings. I like this one:

In fact, EVEN IF WE HAD received specialized revenue or engaged in specialized activities--and regardless of whether either is taxable with or without apportionment--we cannot be lawfully prevented from testifying [ . . . ]

--from Page 9 of the Petition (bolding added).

Then, in the next paragraph, he says:

Further, [ . . . ] federal statutes explicitly provide for our un-coerced testimony as to these matters, and require the federal government to accept that testimony as true and dispositive as to whether, and to what degree, we are or are not beholden to [pay the federal income tax].

(bolding added).

PeterEricBlowhardMeister seems to be asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to accept the doofus proposition that even if an individual were to lie through his teeth on his own tax return, signed under penalty of perjury (i.e., his "testimony"), there is some federal statute somewhere that "explicitly" provides that the federal government must, by law, accept that individual's testimony as "true and dispositive" -- regardless of any evidence to the contrary. We've seen this before on the losthorizons web site. It's just funny to see it argued in a document filed in a court of law.

That's not what he's saying at all and only a doofus would make such a conclusion.

He's saying if he doesn't believe he has the "income" the government suggests he should place on a form he shouldn't be required to say under penalties of perjury (forced testimony) he has that income. The government doesn't have to accept that amount as "true" but only as his sworn testimony that it is true. He's complaining, rightfully so in my opinion, that the government shouldn't be able to force someone to say something they don't believe and then force them to pay or punish them based on that false testimony. They're requiring him to file returns according to their beliefs not his and then forcing him to sign them saying its his belief its true. You can't even modify the jurat saying the income reported is based on what the IRS told you to write. If you do they'll claim it isn't a return and you're liable for the fail to file charge. It doesn't matter what you, the judge or the IRS believes to be true when someone signs the following:

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.

Notice the very important "I" in there, not "judge", "Famspear", "IRS" or anyone else. I don't believe in the CtC stuff but I certainly believe he's right on this. This kind of forced testimony is crap and its not compatible with a government formed around protecting the liberties of its citizens. If congress wants to make a law allowing the government to prosecute people based on returns created by the IRS then fine. However don't charge people with failure to file by claiming the form they filed isn't a "return" and hasn't been filed because it doesn't reflect the amounts the government wants you to stick on there with you attesting that its accurate. He filed, it may not be accurate in the government's eyes but he still filed none the less. They can't one the one hand charge you criminally for not filling the way they want you to, even if you don't believe its correct, and then on the other hand force you to sign a statement attesting to the best of your beliefs its true and correct under penalties of perjury. Well, I guess they can, but then they certainly can't claim we're a free country if they do.

[grixit]

So it would be ok for someone to kill you, as long as they could swear they truly believe you aren't a person?

[LPC]

Then, in the next paragraph, he says:

Further, [ . . . ] federal statutes explicitly provide for our un-coerced testimony as to these matters, and require the federal government to accept that testimony as true and dispositive as to whether, and to what degree, we are or are not beholden to [pay the federal income tax].

(bolding added).

PeterEricBlowhardMeister seems to be asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to accept the doofus proposition that even if an individual were to lie through his teeth on his own tax return, signed under penalty of perjury (i.e., his "testimony"), there is some federal statute somewhere that "explicitly" provides that the federal government must, by law, accept that individual's testimony as "true and dispositive" -- regardless of any evidence to the contrary. We've seen this before on the losthorizons web site. It's just funny to see it argued in a document filed in a court of law.

That's not what he's saying at all

We've seen instances of your reading disabilities before, but this is ridiculous. Famspear even bolded the important words and you still can't understand.

It's probably a good thing you're delusional, because it stops you from understanding how really, truly stupid you are.