Hendrickson's petition for rehearing of cert denial- DENIED

[Dezcad]

Hot off the presses - Pete loses again!

No. 08-1399
Title:
Peter E. Hendrickson, et ux., Petitioners
v.
United States
Docketed: May 14, 2009
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case Nos.: (07-1510)
Decision Date: June 11, 2008
Rehearing Denied: December 16, 2008

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 11 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 15, 2009)
Mar 11 2009 Supplemental Appendix of Peter E. Hendrickson, et ux. filed.
May 19 2009 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
May 26 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 11, 2009.
Jun 15 2009 Petition DENIED.
Jul 9 2009 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Jul 23 2009 DISTRIBUTED.
Aug 17 2009 Rehearing DENIED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

[Pottapaug1938]

[Pottapaug1938]

I wonder what grand new scheme Mark Lame -- er, Lane, will concoct now?

[Dezcad]

For clarification purposes, this is the erroneous refund suit case against PH and his wife. More of the background and lower court proceedings are summarized in TPGurus wiki.

In 2006, the government also filed a civil action against Hendrickson and his wife, requesting a judgment against them for the erroneous refunds issued to them and an injunction requiring them to file correct tax returns.

[Imalawman]

YES. Now the champagne can be taken off the ice and poured forth. I have been waiting for this since my very first post on this forum. The Supremes have spoken and it is not good news for those in CTC land. I would like to take this moment to say:

[LPC]

Wonder how long it will be before the owls catch on.

Or do they even care anymore? Is it possible to become numb to cognitive dissonance?

[Lambkin]

Aug 17 2009 Rehearing DENIED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

PH just needs a wise latina. Send the petition with 320 signatures to Justice Sotomayor and surely she will right this terrible injustice.

[cynicalflyer]

Hot off the presses - Pete loses again!

Wow. I did not think they were going to do this until they came back in October. That might be a message.

[Famspear]

Ah but the PeterEricBlowhardMeister might say that the fact that the Supreme Court simply denied his petition -- AGAIN -- without addressing the "merits" of his position -- only shows that the Court was AFRAID to address his Blowhardiness' position, thus affirming once again the perfect correctness of his Pontificating Peterness. So, the district court decision is, in Preposterous Peter's eyes, still "void."

Every defeat is a victory!

And please buy more copies of his book, of course.

[webhick]

And please buy more copies of his book, of course.

Well, duh...that's the only way to read about how Pete is right and everyone else is wrong. But don't take my word for it, check out the forum first. There, you can read about Pete's rightness in-between his tongue-baths and if you don't pop an Altoid before you turn comes to pass, then he'll jettison you out the airlock for being too rough on his sensitive skin.

And if after all that you still don't by the book then even the love of Sherry's balls won't make you a real patriot.

[Joey Smith]

Lane did such a good job for Bob Schulz!

[notorial dissent]

But will it play in Peoria????

Isn't that kind of a record, two spot on denials in a row, in the same term, over the same issue?

They must have been very bored that week and wanted to weed out the chaff before going on break, so they wouldn't have to come back to the same old rehashed nonsense for the new term.

[Noah]

Such a feeding frenzy ! Hey, he is trying, have a little empathy and give him a little credit for what he did discover pertainng to income taxes withheld at the source. His income was not subject to withholding at the source, BUT it was income within the meaning of 26 IRC 61 . He and his followers are failing to grasp that. I believe that the IRS is concerned that his book may end income tax withheld at the source, as it is now, the current erroneous practice on most wages. He did a good job as far as he went. He thinks the wages referred to in Chapter 24 is a end all and therefore a silver bullet. WRONG !

I hope I find my flack jacket in time for the incoming..

[notorial dissent]

Haven’t been paying much attention have you? The only thing Pete the windbag has discovered is another way of sending himself to jail.

[Thule]

How mean. They didn't give databrain enough time to collect his 25000 signatures, he only made 320.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... c&start=15

[Thule]

Haven’t been paying much attention have you? The only thing Pete the windbag has discovered is another way of sending himself to jail.

Ahhh, such endless possibilities.

Q: What did Petey discover?
A: - A fool and his money are easily separated
- Greed makes people do stupid things
- People wille believe anything they read in a book
- Cult-mentality is nice, if you are the head cultee
- The IRS can be rather nasty if you piss them off long enough
- SCOTUS don't operate the way Petey thought
- Law is hard
- Taxes are real

But of course;
Q: What did Petey learn?
A: Nuffin'

[LPC]

Hey, he is trying,

Very trying.

have a little empathy and give him a little credit for what he did discover pertainng to income taxes withheld at the source. His income was not subject to withholding at the source,

Nonsense.

You're really buying into his 3401(c) crap? And you really don't understand the meaning of "includes"?

What Hendrickson "discovered" has been squarely and soundly rejected by every court that has heard it, beginning at least as far back as 1981, which is more than 20 years before Hendrickson's "discovery." See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#government for citations.

[LPC]

The idea that Hendrickson was not an "employee" subject to withholding was rejected by the court in his own case:

"Defendant Peter Hendrickson was an employee of Personnel Management, Inc. in 2002 and 2003 within the meaning of IRC § 3401(c).” United States v. Peter Eric Hendrickson, No. 06-11753, Docket #34, page 6 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 5/2/2007), affirmed, No. 07-1510 (6th Cir. 6/11/2008) (sanctions of $4,000 imposed for frivolous appeal), cert. den., No. 08-1399 (6/15/2009), reh. den. (8/17/2009).

[wserra]

The "order list" with the Hendrickson denial (top half of page 2):

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 1709zr.pdf

[Pottapaug1938]

Ah but the PeterEricBlowhardMeister might say that the fact that the Supreme Court simply denied his petition -- AGAIN -- without addressing the "merits" of his position -- only shows that the Court was AFRAID to address his Blowhardiness' position, thus affirming once again the perfect correctness of his Pontificating Peterness. So, the district court decision is, in Preposterous Peter's eyes, still "void."

Every defeat is a victory!

And please buy more copies of his book, of course.

And, he'll completely gloss over the fact that when the Supreme Court denies your petition, they are saying that your petition HAS NO MERITS WORTH ADDRESSING.