Hendrickson's petition for cert. in erroneous refund case

[Famspear]

Regarding Pete Hendrickson's petition for certiorari in his erroneous refund case, Losthorizoner "badger" writes:

I printed out Pete's entire petition to the SC [U.S. Supreme Court]. It's so tight that you couldn't slip a piece of paper between the arguments. I took it with me yesterday and none of the people who read it were able to pick apart anything either. That being said, and knowing how corrupt the lower courts have been, can we expect different from SC? If not, where do we go from here? I'm almost afraid to contemplate it.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1543

These people are easily impressed. I have read much of the petition, and it's full of the usual unfocused blather from Hendrickson, evidencing (among other things) his lack of understanding of the niceties of legal procedure and the role of appellate courts.

User "Pablo Rodriguez" responds:

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Pete's request for certiori [sic] may actually be turned down or ignored for this simple reason: I was told that no Pro Se litigant has ever had a certiori [sic] approved by the Supreme Court.

I believe the petition in Gideon v. Wainwright may have been pro se, but I'm not sure. At any rate, most petitions for writ of certiorari are denied by the Court anyway.

Pablo Rodriguez continues:

And this is a very political tightrope the SC would be on. If they give Pete what he deserves, then they think he might crow to the whole "tax honesty" community about how he beat the government all the way to the SC. Also, Pete's is a tax case combined with unjust decisions. In order to fix the unjust decisions, they may also have to rule on the tax issues too - probably something they don't want to do.

On the other hand, the gravity of the federal government being able to command a witness as to what he shall and shall not be a witness to and what he/she is to write is so extremely grave to the fundamentals of law, justice, and the entire legal system that to deny his certiori [sic] would send shock waves through the entire legal system. It would also begin a reign of federal tyranny where no person's word or testimony could or would ever be worth anything any more. And if the government doesn't like your testimony, they could simply order you to change it!

The best assistance I can lend Pete and the CtC cause is to recommend his certiori [sic] to the hands of a Higher Power. For my part, unfortunately, I cannot write a brief (yet) that I could offer as an amicus curiae to help Pete's case along.

But my Higher Power is already constantly hearing from me to see that justice is achieved here on earth, whenever possible.

My Higher Power is telling me that Hendrickson and His Heroes are in for more bad times to come.

User "continentalarmy" chimes in:

The 2nd Amendment and the cartridge box is the next step! Sorry . . . but if you corner a rattlesnake . . . he has no choice but to strike! I'm prepared to die to protect my property and my rights!

Folks . . . this is what it's coming to!

Steady there, boy! Keep it up and you'll be sharing a cell with Edward Lewis Brown.

User woodone writes:

I'm afraid what you are saying continental is true.I read pete's petition and it is very tight.For anyone who has read it they will know the consequeces [sic] if pete does lose in th SC.Like he said,rule of law or no rules at all.But I look at the american people's financial situation.Loss of everything they hold dear will put them in a situation of you either back down and submit,or stand and fight.I know I have made my decision.Make no mistake,I don't want it to go that far and I remain optimistic this will come out in the favor of the american people.I pray for the best,but prepare for the worst.

Your optimism is not well founded, woodone.

[Famspear]

Pablo Rodriguez wrote:

On the other hand, the gravity of the federal government being able to command a witness as to what he shall and shall not be a witness to and what he/she is to write is so extremely grave to the fundamentals of law, justice, and the entire legal system that to deny his certiori [sic] would send shock waves through the entire legal system.

Uh, no Pablo. The denial of certiorari in this case, if that is what happens, will not send shock waves through the entire legal system. In fact, virtually no one will notice, except for people like you and me who are watching Pete Hendrickson.

And Pete's attempt to recharacterize a perfectly valid court order enforcing the legal requirement that he truthfully report his income on his federal income tax return according to law as interpreted by the courts does not fool anyone except you and the rest of Hendrickson's Heroes and others of your ilk. Witnesses are required to testify as to the truth. A witness does not have a legal right report his income on his federal income tax returns in accordance with his own nonsense theories about tax law, where he is aware that his theories do not comport with the official legal interpretations of the courts. See the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cheek and the Tenth Circuit decision in Willie, for example.

[wserra]

I believe the petition in Gideon v. Wainwright may have been pro se, but I'm not sure.

It definitely was. When the Court granted cert and appointed prominent lawyer (and future Justice) Abe Fortas to represent Gideon, it was clear that something major was about to happen.

The account of how a indigent Florida inmate, writing by hand on prison stationery, changed the face of the law is one of the great stories in American legal history. I haven't read Anthony Lewis' Gideon's Trumpet in 35 years but, after writing this, I will again soon.

[Famspear]

Clue to Hendrickson's Heroes: Pete has a very slim chance of having his case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. From the Rules of the Court:

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;

[ . . . .]

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

---from Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (eff. Oct. 1, 2007).

And no, losthorizoners, the decision of the Court of Appeals in Pete's case does not conflict with the decision of another court of appeals. Further, the Court of Appeals probably will not be deemed to have departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings. This isn't rocket science: File your federal income tax returns according to the law as interpreted by the courts, not according to your own private interpretation -- no matter how strongly you "believe" you are right.

[Famspear]

Here is a link to the page where Hendrickson talks about his petition.

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageOne

The page contains a link to a PDF copy of the petition.

[Famspear]

Another lost soul ("PeacefulKancer") talks about Pete's Petition, in another thread:

Well everyone. We are nearing a crucial point in this entire CtC history.

Pete's case is near and his SCOTUS petition has been delivered. Soon the SCOTUS will either follow in the lower court's corruption or it will have to openly and adamantly admit of what taxes are about.

I have realized for some time now that most people don't want to hear the truth. As Pete's book says very early on, we are going to have to tear down years of misconceptions and lies. Indeed.

I mention this because I know that all of my family and friends are the sheep that have gotten us into the mess America is in now. I've heard so many times, "well, what can I do" that it makes me sick. I know the newsletter gets sent out, but for someone like me, anyone I send it to is just going to delete it. And why would they not? They don't even want to talk to me in person about it. They either don't want to bother with the trouble. They don't care about the truth. They enjoy paying taxes they don't have to. They are scared. So really, it doesn't matter who I send it to, they won't read it and if they do, they won't do anything about it.

I know Pete probably gets really upset about some of the "Tax Movement" folks. I believe he mentions it a few times on LH. And you know what, I do to. I am sick and tired of hearing about Cryer and others. Kudos to him for winning his case, but I seriously think that he won on a technicality. How about $9M recovered on here? Naaaaaahhhhhh... fogetaboutit.... Pshhhh....

I am in many "truth movements" out there. And I don't know how many times I've been shut out, moderated, or muzzled when I start talking about CtC. Seriously, #$%&*!!! I don't get it.

I know there is not a lot of us on here, but I think it is time we just put forth as much effort as we can to some of these media outlets. If nothing else, put out the release.

I don't know if they will listen, but I am just going to keep sending them letters until I get some sort of response. I am writing local/state/city papers and "truth" outlets - Campaign for Liberty and Republic Magazine, etc. Maybe they will pick up on the title of the above link, "Judge orders Michigan Couple to Testify Against Themselves."

Maybe with the government spending tax dollars at a feverish pace, they will be more apt to report on something like this.

Anyways, I'd like to see ya'll join in if you have time. I intend to keep sending them the piece that I linked above until they write back and tell me to shut up and quit killing trees.

http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1548

(bolding added).

Oh, boo-hoo.

[wserra]

Clue to Hendrickson's Heroes: Pete has a very slim chance of having his case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quite generous. My estimate of his chance of getting cert granted: 0.0

[.]

But, it will provide some good belly laughs to the clerks who do the culling of absolutely worthless petitions that are completely unworthy of any further scrutiny by anyone, never mind any Justice on the court.

[cynicalflyer]

Just in under the wire.

According to Pete's scree, denial of rehearing by the Sixth Circuit was 12/16/2008. 90 days from that is 3/16/2009.

Assuming he filed Friday (3/13) the US has until 4/13 (really 4/12, but that is a Sunday) to file a brief in opposition. They opted not to do so last time. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-624.htm
Let's assume they opt to skip it this time, too.

Pete's petition would be distributed to the justices April 8 or 9 (for an April 24 conference) OR April 15 or 16 (for a May 1 conference).

It will get denied that Monday (4/13 or 5/4).
He will have 30 days for a motion for rehearing (5/13 or 6/3).
The rehearing gets distributed for either 5/28, 6/4, or 6/11 conference.
The rehearing gets denied 6/1, 6/8 or 6/15.

So, assuming the US takes a pass on formally fighting the petition, Pete's probably toast by Flag Day.

Now, if the US does opt to file a brief in opposition, the time frame will be extended out so that the petition for cert will get denied in June before the summer recess but the denial of the inevitable rehearing motion will not be handed down until October.

[ASITStands]

I am still of the opinion the font is incorrect.

Looking at the PDF (unless he printed something different than what we see), it's obvious he used a Times New Roman font when the rules specify a font from the Century family.

Looking also at the spacing, it may be he's used the wrong paper format.

If either of those defects appear in the final petition, it will be returned, and all the time frames specified above will be increased by thirty days for Hendrickson to cure the defect.

It will also cost him another $450-500 to print and mail fifty booklets.

[Famspear]

I am still of the opinion the font is incorrect.

Looking at the PDF (unless he printed something different than what we see), it's obvious he used a Times New Roman font when the rules specify a font from the Century family.

Looking also at the spacing, it may be he's used the wrong paper format.

If either of those defects appear in the final petition, it will be returned, and all the time frames specified above will be increased by thirty days for Hendrickson to cure the defect.

It will also cost him another $450-500 to print and mail fifty booklets.

Interesting. I wonder how Pete would go about analyzing the risk-return/cost-benefit for that -- considering that he has other, uh, pressing legal matters which require his attention and resources.

[cynicalflyer]

Regarding the font and other similar issues, I wonder if because he is pro se he'll get a pass.

[ASITStands]

Regarding the font and other similar issues, I wonder if because he is pro se he'll get a pass.

No. I am aware of several petitions for certiorari submitted by pro se litigants in October, 2008, returned for font issues, which the petitioner resubmitted after reprinting. So, no.

If I am right about his final petition, we'll be seeing Hendrickson go through the motion and resubmitting his petition for certiorari, whether he admits it or not in his newsletter.

We'll be able to tell by the docket by seeing a delay in the government's response.

[jg]

Regarding Pete Hendrickson's petition for certiorari in his erroneous refund case, ...
Pablo Rodriguez continues:

...
On the other hand, the gravity of the federal government being able to command a witness as to what he shall and shall not be a witness to and what he/she is to write is so extremely grave to the fundamentals of law, justice, and the entire legal system that to deny his certiori [sic] would send shock waves through the entire legal system. It would also begin a reign of federal tyranny where no person's word or testimony could or would ever be worth anything any more. And if the government doesn't like your testimony, they could simply order you to change it! ...

Hendrickson is not just any person. There would not be a new reign. It will continue to be the same reign. Testimony that is demonstrably false, fictitious or frivolous will be, at best, ignored or may be used against you when signed under penalty of perjury.
The lower court has ruled that Hendrickson's testimony as to the amount and type of his income was not correct- factually or legally. So, it is business as usual to require correction of the record when the original testimony was erroneous.

It is not that "no person's word or testimony could or would ever be worth anything any more." It is, and will remain, that some people's word or testimony could or would ever be worth anything; as it is in the proven case with Hendrickson.

[ASITStands]

Factually, neither the Court nor government are denying Pete Hendrickson the right to say whatever he wants to say, or denying his right to rebut the testimony of others about him.

All that's being said is, "If you proceed to hold the testimony you've made, or proceed to rebut the testimony of others about you, be ready to pay the price for your behavior."

Free speech has its price. Anyone exercising free speech must be ready to pay it. Here, it's penalties for making false statements and filing false documents under IRC § 7206(1).

[ASITStands]

Ooh! Ooh!

'Richard614' is now suggesting Pete Hendrickson go on 'The Daily Show' with Jon Stewart.

Like that will really help? Do these guys understand the importance of remaining silent?

The man's under criminal indictment, and he goes on 'PalTalk' every month. Now, they want him to go on 'The Daily Show,' so Jon Stewart can unveil the "truth about the income tax."

Of course, it fits the whole ego thing that's so much a part of 'Cracking the Code.'

[LPC]

On the other hand, the gravity of the federal government being able to command a witness as to what he shall and shall not be a witness to and what he/she is to write is so extremely grave to the fundamentals of law, justice, and the entire legal system that to deny his certiori [sic] would send shock waves through the entire legal system.

Except that the federal rules of evidence "command" what people may and may not be witnesses to, and those kinds of evidentiary rulings, made every day, hardly send "shock waves through the entire legal system."

It would also begin a reign of federal tyranny where no person's word or testimony could or would ever be worth anything any more.

Once again, the testimony of witnesses is often considered to be "worthless" when the trier of fact finds that the testimony is not credible.

A system in which a person's testimony must be considered absolute, and could never be questioned, would be a form of tyranny, and that is what Hendrickson is demanding.

And if the government doesn't like your testimony, they could simply order you to change it! ...

As others have pointed out, no one is ordering Hendrickson to change any "testimony." He is being order to report his income in accordance with what the law really is, and not what he imagines it to be.

No one is ordering him to report an amount of money that is more (or less) than what he actually received. He is being ordered to report the money that he actually received in a way that is legally correct, instead of evasive and illegal.

[grixit]

Ooh! Ooh!

'Richard614' is now suggesting Pete Hendrickson go on 'The Daily Show' with Jon Stewart.

Like that will really help? Do these guys understand the importance of remaining silent?

The man's under criminal indictment, and he goes on 'PalTalk' every month. Now, they want him to go on 'The Daily Show,' so Jon Stewart can unveil the "truth about the income tax."

Of course, it fits the whole ego thing that's so much a part of 'Cracking the Code.'

Oh? Is Hendrickson tougher, more self controlled, better at thinking on his feet than some of the other people that Stewart has shredded?

[notorial dissent]

I know this is probably being too logical about this whole thing, but the plain fact of the matter is that in signing the jurat at the bottom of the tax form, the filer is not a witness, and is not testifying about anything. They, are however, certifying under oath that they believe the document above to be true and correct. Which in Pete’s and CTC case(s) was/is a lie/perjury.

Having been told “authoritatively” by the civil court that the form was a not true and correct return, and having been told how to properly respond, his excuse of it being his sworn testimony, which it never was in the first place, ceased to exist. He was never testifying, but was certifying that the information was true and correct, and he lied. A document can be certified, or it can be evidence, but it can not be testimony unless my knowledge of such is that badly flawed.

[ASITStands]

Several LH posters have just discovered that "anyone" can edit 'The Daily Show' post.

Tried it myself and found that just clicking on 'Vote Up' or 'Vote Down' will register a vote. So, I deleted the browser cookies and voted it down. Wonder how that affects the poll?

Apparently, anyone could form a 'Vote Down' campaign and negatively affect his chances.

I was thinking of suggesting Quatloosians 'help' Pete Hendrickson get accepted as a guest on 'The Daily Show,' so Jon Stewart could work his magic, but now, I'm conflicted, up or down.