Peter Hendrickson Petition

[ashlynne39]

Not sure if this has been posted but I wanted to give everyone a chance to sign a petition for Peter Hendrickson to the Supreme Court. They're looking for 25,000 signatures but sadly only have 321 so far. I guess that gives us an idea of how many followers he might have . . . and how smart they are. One guy asks the "twelve supreme court justices" for help. Another calls them "spineless cowards" - - not exactly a way to inspire help.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Help-Pete-Now/

[notorial dissent]

I'm impressed they got that many, but more entertainingly, it is now closed, guess they ran out of concerned warriors, or maybe the library was closed that day.

[Pottapaug1938]

What I find especially hilarious about this (ahahaha) petition is that the idiots who sign it think that the Supreme Court can be influenced by such things, just like elected officials theoretically can be -- especially when the signers are pushing an interpretation of the law which has been rejected by every court that has ever considered it.

[Thule]

We have laughed at this before, but some jokes never get old:)

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4451

[LPC]

Some of those who "signed" the petition also submitted comments, and the prize for the longest "comment" goes to Mark Phillips (who has been discussed here before):

The People of the United States of America are, both individually and collectively, are the ultimate SOVEREIGNS. Agents of the federal government--including Supreme Court Justices--are no more and no less servant-agents of said SOVEREIGNS. The lower courts in Pete Hendrickson's case (Case No. 08-1399) have outrageously overstepped their authority and jurisdiction, and are clearly guilty of malfeasant misconduct. SCOTUS, qua judicial body, has a clear Constitutional DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to recognize and declare said misconduct both malfeasant and thereby (and therefore) VOID, and to remand the case back to District court with strict admonition that it follow the LAW. The lower courts in this case posit the jurisprudentially-ABSURD notion that a court and/or government agency can lawfully DICTATE an American individual's sworn testimony and/or *compel* said American individual adopt 3rd-party testimony as his own sworn testimony. This is so far BEYOND RIDICULOUS that we don't have a word for it! It is AXIOMATIC that NO ONE can lawfully DICTATE or COMPEL a specific content of sworn testimony over, above and against the testifier's own personal belief and knowledge!! Countenancing such a position as the lower courts seek to promulgate--so fundamental and imperative is this jurisprudential/legal AXIOM--is clearly tantamount to the complete destruction of even the semblance of DUE PROCESS and the RULE OF LAW. For if an individual can be COMPELLED to adopt-as-his-own-sworn-testimony particular statements DICTATED by a court and/or prosecuting attorney, and/or that of a 3rd-party, and CONTRARY TO his own knowledge and belief, the entire legal process simply degenerates into nothing more or other than a KANGAROO COURT: "...a sham legal proceeding in which a person's rights are totally disregarded and in which the result is a foregone conclusion because of the bias of the court..." *Black's Law Dictionary*. Interestingly enough, the same Appellate court--the 6th Circuit--that is so egregiously and outrageously MALFEASANT in Pete Hendrickson's case had this rather eloquently to say a few years back: “A central tenet of our republic—a characteristic that separates us from totalitarian regimes throughout the world—is that the government and private citizens resolve disputes on an equal playing field in the courts. When citizens face the government in the federal courts, the job of the judge is to apply the law, not to bolster the government’s case.” Beaty v. United States, 937 F.2d 288 (6th Cir., 1991) "The prohibition against ex parte communications, rules of procedure, principles of law - all of these are not trinkets that judges may discard whenever they become a nuisance. Rather, they are the mainstays of our judicial system, our guarantee to every litigant that we will administer justice, as our oath requires, `without respect to person'. . ." U.S. Vs. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th. Cir. 1985) Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). "Certiorari is an APPROPRIATE REMEDY to get rid of a VOID judgment, one which there is no evidence to sustain [it]." Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich 469 "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it...[The Constitution] is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office, participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." United States Supreme Court, U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882), accord BUTZ v. ECONOMOU, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) Acts in excess of judicial authority constitute misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374, Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694 When a judge knows--or has constructive knowledge--that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, [this constitutes judicial misconduct and] judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." United States Supreme Court, Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859). This Honorable Court has, so far, shamefully SHIRKED its clear Constituional DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to SEE TO IT that lower courts in this instant case FOLLOW THE LAW, engage in meaningful and proper DUE PROCESS, and uphold the LAW and the RULE OF LAW. Peter Hendrickson's UNCOERCED original testimony is statutorily DISPOSITIVE. The U.S. Attorney's Office lacked standing, jurisdiction and authority to even initiate the civil suit. The District lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, as the initiation of the suit itself was/is utterly UNLAWFUL and FRIVOLOUS. And the lower courts, however, have more than just ERRED: They have egaged in systematic, malicious malfeasance and misconduct and merit at the very least severe censure. The lower court judges arguably should be recommended by SCOTUS (to the House of Representatives) to be impeached. Any further lollygagging inaction on the part of SCOTUS regarding this case would itself arguably be an impeachable offence, so clearly IMPERATIVE is its Constitutional DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to ACT. In ANY OTHER case in which these issues arose, the Court would unquestionably just overrule or remand the case with appropriate instructions, as a matter of course and without a second thought. The lower courts' behavior is directly in violation of numerous Constitutional and statutory provisions and well-settled doctrine pursuant to those provisions, including many Supreme Court precedential rulings. Thus, the case is a prime one for the high court's consideration. I pray that this Honorable SCOTUS will do its DUTY and uphold one of the most FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS of DUE PROCESS and the RULE OF LAW: That NO ONEcan lawfully be told what to put on ANY statement over his or her own signature. Period. It doesn't matter whether its a tax form or a birth certificate or a statement to the police or ANYTHING. No court can accept the movant's allegations as fact and disregard the non-movant's rebuttals in issuing summary judgment. Period. It doesn't matter what the case is about. In summation and closing, I remind this Court that it has already clearly articulated the following: “…a statute which imposes a tax upon an assumption of fact which the [presumed, purported] taxpayer is forbidden to controvert is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it cannot stand under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932) “…irrebuttable presumptions have long been disfavored under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973) “[a] fundamental requirement of due process is ‘the opportunity to be heard.’ Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394. It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) This "opportunity to be heard" OBVIOUSLY (indeed, AXIOMATICALLY) means the right to enter one's OWN, UNCOERCED testimony--based on one's OWN BELIEF and/or PERSONAL, FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE--into the proceeding(s) and onto the record. This Honorable Court MUST recognize the lower courts' behavior as (1) VOID, and (2) evincing WILLFUL MALFEASANCE and MISCONDUCT. It must remand the case back to the District court with strict instructions for that court to enter recognize Hendrickson's ORIGINAL testimony as legally DISPOSITIVE, pursuant both to upholding the general and fundamental principles of DUE PROCESS and, more specifically, to the clear and explicit CONTROLLING statutory and regulatory provisions.

(All emphasis--and lack of paragraphs--in original.)

[Imalawman]

Mark Phillips summarized response:

The lower courts are corrupt and in violation of their sworn duty, they are a kangaroo court. As evidence of their unlawful activity, I'm going to cite to you legal precedent from those same courts. Moreover, all courts are corrupt and your court will be as well unless you do exactly as I say. Once again, I'll cite to the very courts I now impugn to support my thesis.

[Pottapaug1938]

Mark Phillips summarized response:

The lower courts are corrupt and in violation of their sworn duty, they are a kangaroo court. As evidence of their unlawful activity, I'm going to cite to you legal precedent from those same courts. Moreover, all courts are corrupt and your court will be as well unless you do exactly as I say. Once again, I'll cite to the very courts I now impugn to support my thesis.

...and I will be certain to take my carefully-mined quotes out of context.

[Joey Smith]

I look forward to Patrick Mooney's tax court decision. That should be a hoot.

"Therefore, in conclusion we find that Petition is not only totally bassackwards wrong on the law, but is also a blithering idiot in general."

[notorial dissent]

And let's not forget, really poorly written and generally incomprehensible.

[Doktor Avalanche]

One thing I have noticed is how flat and stale things have become since Petey got thrown in the klink.

I'm about ready to bust Irwin Schiff out of prison just to make things interesting again.

[bmielke]

One thing I have noticed is how flat and stale things have become since Petey got thrown in the klink.

I'm about ready to bust Irwin Schiff out of prison just to make things interesting again.

My response to the press, "The Doktor Avalanche I know would never do that, it is all a Masonic, Zionist, Illimanti conspiracy to place shape shifting lizards in power...You want my name? John Travis: Harvester, with a colon..."--

[Famspear]

Mark Phillips wrote:

The People of the United States of America are, both individually and collectively, are the ultimate SOVEREIGNS. Agents of the federal government--including Supreme Court Justices--are no more and no less servant-agents of said SOVEREIGNS. The lower courts in Pete Hendrickson's case (Case No. 08-1399) have outrageously overstepped their authority and jurisdiction, and are clearly guilty of malfeasant misconduct. SCOTUS, qua judicial body, has a clear Constitutional DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to recognize and declare said misconduct both malfeasant and thereby (and therefore) VOID, and to remand the case back to District court with strict admonition that it follow the LAW. The lower courts in this case posit the jurisprudentially-ABSURD notion that a court and/or government agency can lawfully DICTATE an American individual's sworn testimony and/or *compel* said American individual adopt 3rd-party testimony as his own sworn testimony. This is so far BEYOND RIDICULOUS that we don't have a word for it! It is AXIOMATIC that NO ONE can lawfully DICTATE or COMPEL a specific content of sworn testimony over, above and against the testifier's own personal belief and knowledge!! Countenancing such a position as the lower courts seek to promulgate--so fundamental and imperative is this jurisprudential/legal AXIOM--is clearly tantamount to the complete destruction of even the semblance of DUE PROCESS and the RULE OF LAW. For if an individual can be COMPELLED to adopt-as-his-own-sworn-testimony particular statements DICTATED by a court and/or prosecuting attorney, and/or that of a 3rd-party, and CONTRARY TO his own knowledge and belief, the entire legal process simply degenerates into nothing more or other than a KANGAROO COURT: "...a sham legal proceeding in which a person's rights are totally disregarded and in which the result is a foregone conclusion because of the bias of the court..." *Black's Law Dictionary*. Interestingly enough, the same Appellate court--the 6th Circuit--that is so egregiously and outrageously MALFEASANT in Pete Hendrickson's case had this rather eloquently to say a few years back: “A central tenet of our republic—a characteristic that separates us from totalitarian regimes throughout the world—is that the government and private citizens resolve disputes on an equal playing field in the courts. When citizens face the government in the federal courts, the job of the judge is to apply the law, not to bolster the government’s case.” Beaty v. United States, 937 F.2d 288 (6th Cir., 1991) "The prohibition against ex parte communications, rules of procedure, principles of law - all of these are not trinkets that judges may discard whenever they become a nuisance. Rather, they are the mainstays of our judicial system, our guarantee to every litigant that we will administer justice, as our oath requires, `without respect to person'. . ." U.S. Vs. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th. Cir. 1985) Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). "Certiorari is an APPROPRIATE REMEDY to get rid of a VOID judgment, one which there is no evidence to sustain [it]." Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich 469 "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it...[The Constitution] is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office, participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." United States Supreme Court, U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882), accord BUTZ v. ECONOMOU, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) Acts in excess of judicial authority constitute misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374, Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694 When a judge knows--or has constructive knowledge--that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts.....

Yaaawwwwnnnnn.......

.......in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, [this constitutes judicial misconduct and] judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." United States Supreme Court, Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859). This Honorable Court has, so far, shamefully SHIRKED its clear Constituional DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to SEE TO IT that lower courts in this instant case FOLLOW THE LAW, engage in meaningful and proper DUE PROCESS, and uphold the LAW and the RULE OF LAW. Peter Hendrickson's UNCOERCED original testimony is statutorily DISPOSITIVE. The U.S. Attorney's Office lacked standing, jurisdiction and authority to even initiate the civil suit. The District lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, as the initiation of the suit itself was/is utterly UNLAWFUL and FRIVOLOUS. And the lower courts, however, have more than just ERRED: They have egaged in systematic, malicious malfeasance and misconduct and merit at the very least severe censure. The lower court judges arguably should be recommended by SCOTUS (to the House of Representatives) to be impeached. Any further lollygagging inaction on the part of SCOTUS regarding this case would itself arguably be an impeachable offence, so clearly IMPERATIVE is its Constitutional DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to ACT. In ANY OTHER case in which these issues arose, the Court would unquestionably just overrule or remand the case with appropriate instructions, as a matter of course and without a second thought. The lower courts' behavior is directly in violation of numerous Constitutional and statutory provisions and well-settled doctrine pursuant to those provisions, including many Supreme Court precedential rulings. Thus, the case is a prime one for the high court's consideration. I pray that this Honorable SCOTUS will do its DUTY and uphold one of the most FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS of DUE PROCESS and the RULE OF LAW: That NO ONEcan lawfully be told what to put on ANY statement over his or her own signature. Period. It doesn't matter whether its a tax form or a birth certificate or a statement to the police or ANYTHING. No court can accept the movant's allegations as fact and disregard the non-movant's rebuttals in issuing summary judgment. Period. It doesn't matter what the case is about. In summation and closing, I remind this Court that it has already clearly articulated the following: “…a statute which imposes a tax upon an assumption of fact which the [presumed, purported] taxpayer is forbidden to controvert is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it cannot stand under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932) “…irrebuttable presumptions have long been disfavored under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973) “[a] fundamental requirement of due process is ‘the opportunity to be heard.’ Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394. It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) This "opportunity to be heard" OBVIOUSLY (indeed, AXIOMATICALLY) means the right to enter one's OWN, UNCOERCED testimony--based on one's OWN BELIEF and/or PERSONAL, FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE--into the proceeding(s) and onto the record. This Honorable Court MUST recognize the lower courts' behavior as (1) VOID, and (2) evincing WILLFUL MALFEASANCE and MISCONDUCT. It must remand the case back to the District court with strict instructions for that court to enter recognize Hendrickson's ORIGINAL testimony as legally DISPOSITIVE, pursuant both to upholding the general and fundamental principles of DUE PROCESS and, more specifically, to the clear and explicit CONTROLLING statutory and regulatory provisions.

Yawwwnnn........

I'm sorry.... could you repeat that?



Mark is obviously now seriously in contention -- along with legal scholars like SkankBeat and Patrick Mooney -- for the title of "Successor" to the Formerly One and Only, the Jailbird-in-Chief, the Fabulous Felon, the Pontificating Prisoner, the Cracking-the-Code-Con-Man, His Imperially Narcissistic Blowhardiness, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson.

[grixit]

Here's a thought, maybe the people who are so insistant on their colons are being influenced by repressed memories of alien probing.

[grixit]

Mark is obviously now seriously in contention -- along with legal scholars like SkankBeat and Patrick Mooney -- for the title of "Successor" to the Formerly One and Only, the Jailbird-in-Chief, the Fabulous Felon, the Pontificating Prisoner, the Cracking-the-Code-Con-Man, His Imperially Narcissistic Blowhardiness, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson.

He remember the western, "Avenging Angel"? As the elderly Brigham Young shows signs of physical decline, other mormon leaders practice being unexpectedly called by God to be the next prophet.