I don't think that the Supreme Court has ever before received a petition that so thoroughly and consistently confuses and conflates legal and factual issues. That's probably because there has never before been an idiot quite like Hendrickson who so thoroughly and consistently refuses to recognize the difference.
Consider the first three of the "questions for review" described in the petition:
Peter Hendrickson wrote:1. Does a court, or any agency of the government, possess the lawful authority to compel an American man or woman to declare to be true and correct to the
best of his or her own knowledge and belief, over his or her own signature, particular words and other explicit testimony dictated and/or specified by the court or government agency, and which he or she does not, in fact believe to be true and correct;
2. Does a court, or any agency of the government, possess the lawful authority to compel an American man or woman to stand silent in the face of testimony made by others which is about, or which affects, him or her, or to compel an American man or woman to adopt such testimony made by others as his or her own, when that American man or woman believes
that testimony made by others to be erroneous or false;
Those two items look like the same issue to me, and they are both based on the notion that Hendrickson is being compelled to swear to the truthfulness of facts that Hendrickson does not believe to be correct.
But that's not true.
The court never told Hendrickson what amounts of income to report or what amounts of deductions or credits to claim. The court only ordered that Hendrickson must file returns that correctly report the amounts he is required to report by law, and that the amounts received from Personnel Management are items of income that must be reported as a matter of law. Hendrickson doesn't like the law, but that's his problem and not the court's.
Peter Hendrickson wrote:3. Can the federal courts grant summary judgment to the United States on its own motion in a suit which it has brought seeking to assert a claim to the property of an American man or woman by unilaterally construing all material-fact-related assertions of the movant United States to be true, and by disregarding or construing to be false all of the contradictory assertions of the non-movant American man or woman;
This is where it gets truly pathetic. I've read just about every pleading Hendrickson has written, and he has never denied working for Personnel Management, he has never denied receiving money from Personnel Management, he has never denied the accuracy of the amounts of money reported by Personnel Management, and he has never alleged any fact or circumstance that would exclude his earnings from gross income. In short, he has never alleged that there is any dispute as to any material fact.
But he nevertheless insists that his "contradictory assertions," which are merely his arguments that he was not an "employee" receiving "wages" within the meaning of section 3401, or that his income is not from "certain federally privileged activities," are somehow binding on the IRS and the courts. As the 6th Circuit accurately observed:
6th Circuit wrote:First, the Hendricksons contend that the district court improperly weighted the evidence in favor of the government when it found that Peter E. Hendrickson was an “employee” who had been paid “wages,” and that Doreen M. Hendrickson had received “non-employee compensation.” However, this contention is tantamount to a typical tax protester argument that the income at issue is not taxable.
In other words, there is no factual dispute, and Hendrickson is trying to disguise a tax denier fantasy as a factual issue.
