- What I'm most surprised by is that the Quatloos forum has NOTHING to answer this with. They dismiss it as obviously wrong, incomprehensible, and/or too boring to read, but haven't posted a single substantive objection to any point. Not that they have to, but you'd think they'd at least try.
John, the problem is that Pete's brief does not raise even a SINGLE issue that has not been thoroughly rejected by the courts before. Pete's brief is capable of being broad-brushed with the statement that it is the same old tired and worn TP drivel -- nothing new there. Pete's arguments are not substantially different than those raised over the years by Lynne Meredith, Irwin Schiff, or any number of others who thought that they had "slam dunk" reversals on appeals but instead went down in flames. Some of Pete's arguments are just bizarre, like suggesting that the court does not have jurisdiction (something sure to draw some snickers by the judges' clerks who will write the draft responses for the judges to review).
But to assuage your concerns, let's take Pete's arguments point-by-point. Give us what you think is Pete's single best argument for reversal and we can discuss that and then move on to any others that you believe might have merit.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
What I'm most surprised by is that the Quatloos forum has NOTHING to answer this with. They dismiss it as obviously wrong, incomprehensible, and/or too boring to read, but haven't posted a single substantive objection to any point. Not that they have to, but you'd think they'd at least try
Yyyaaawwwn. John, I'm sure if it's Pete's work, it's just gonna blow those silly government lawyers away some day. Yeah, Pete will win his case! He's gonna make history! He'll probably the Nobel Prize in literature or something. Why should we here in Quotloss even TRY to come up with a single substantive objection?
Oh, if you wanna try to throw something at us, go ahead I guess. I just don't know how we'll manage, though.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Joey Smith wrote:Give us what you think is Pete's single best argument for reversal and we can discuss that....
That's the kind of question/challenge that got me banned from Lost Horizons.
If tax protesters could identify a "single best argument," then they would be tax protesters, now would they?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
But my answer to the poll question is that I don't really know. I couldn't get past the first sentence of the "Introduction" without concluding that he was pathetic and hopeless.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC wrote:But my answer to the poll question is that I don't really know. I couldn't get past the first sentence of the "Introduction" without concluding that he was pathetic and hopeless.
OK, I've read it now, and cast my vote, and the votes are still unanimous.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Is it possible to retract my vote and change it to a YES?
Upon reflection, there are many issues raised in the brief worthy of serious discussion.
However, the discussion would not focus on their legal merits, but on the likelihood on incurring sanctions, on what kind of drugs he was taking when he wrote it, and on if it is just another stall tactic so he can line up enough followers for him to have a good offering to the feds to save his own ass.
Actually, the brief doesn't raise anything that is even remotely discussable, other than the poor writing, since it presents neither valid issues or points to review.
- What I'm most surprised by is that the Quatloos forum has NOTHING to answer this with. They dismiss it as obviously wrong, incomprehensible, and/or too boring to read, but haven't posted a single substantive objection to any point. Not that they have to, but you'd think they'd at least try.
Well first, John, let’s start off with the main problem of it being a very poorly written piece of very old and rank tripe. That is the brief’s chief fault, it was written by an idiot in defense of a fraud who is also an idiot. The word frivolous pops immediately to mind for some reason, as in frivolous appeal. That simple enough for you?
Second, the very first five statements are a crock, they are all discredited and bogus from the get go. They have no validity as to an appeal since they are all false.
The next two paragraphs are just more mouth running of no real value.
Third, the following five statements are equally fallacious, vague, and in general wishful thinking on someone’s part. They are unsupported statements with nothing backing them up and therefore of no value in an appeal.
And lastly, the prayer is equally amusing, if only for its level of hubris. It does have the benefit of actually being the only thing correctly done in this whole piece of tripe, but it does not alter the fact that there is nothing in the brief to alter the original verdict.
Is that simple enough for you?
With any luck at all they will hit Pete for filing a frivolous appeal and find him in criminal contempt for not complying with the original court orders.
let’s start off with the main problem of it being a very poorly written piece of very old and rank tripe.
That was my first impression on reading it, plus it read like a typical pro se brief of the quality that one would expect from a prisoner complaining that his constitutional rights were violated because tacos were no longer served on Tuesdays.
If TPs would just focus on one or two issues they might better their chances, but like Pete they insist on loading up their briefs with so many obviously wrong arguments that the reader within the first couple of pages comes to the irrefutable conclusion that "Hey, this guy really is nuts!"
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
let’s start off with the main problem of it being a very poorly written piece of very old and rank tripe.
That was my first impression on reading it, plus it read like a typical pro se brief of the quality that one would expect from a prisoner complaining that his constitutional rights were violated because tacos were no longer served on Tuesdays.
If TPs would just focus on one or two issues they might better their chances, but like Pete they insist on loading up their briefs with so many obviously wrong arguments that the reader within the first couple of pages comes to the irrefutable conclusion that "Hey, this guy really is nuts!"
I wonder what Bulten's gonna do when it turns out we were right all along.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
I will say one thing positive about Pete's brief, it will make the appeal denial so much easier. I can't imagine it would warrant more than a page to send it on its way to oblivion.
Y'know, John, I really think you next ought to remark on how the Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union doesn't comment on sun sign astrology.
What a maroon.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Watch the maroon disappear from all boards when it finally sinks in that serious trouble is afoot, even though the maroon will probably never realize that the damage is already insurmountable and fatal to the maroon's "case."
Many moons hence, the maroon will resurface in court proceedings and frivolous appeals and be widely laughed at.
Which won't discourage the next maroon, just as it didn't discourage the last maroon. Which is the essence of being a maroon.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
One has to remember the real purpose of such things is not to actually move the court. It is for his own agrandizement and edification among an audience who will always believe he's right even when he's behind bars.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy. The Devil Makes Three
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.
Postby Imalawman »
As I read it, the words "inane", "drivel", and "insipid" ran through my mind. I thought he might raise one point worthy discussion but its just really bad. I mean REALLY bad.
I wonder when Hendrickson goes down whether those persons in the legal pipeline following his lead will back off and come to their senses and start working their way out of the mess they've gotten themselves into.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
My guess is no. There is just no way to convince a certain set of tax protesters that whatever ruling that just came out wasn't the result of a conspiracy among the courts, the IRS, and the Free Masons. I have a couple of these right now. No matter what you show them, they will contend that it only happened because of the conspiracy to take their money. I keep trying to explain that isn't called a conspiracy, that's called "the government."
Judge Roy Bean wrote:One has to remember the real purpose of such things is not to actually move the court. It is for his own agrandizement and edification among an audience who will always believe he's right even when he's behind bars.
Right--the real point of this whole exercise is not to win in court, but to get the neurotic satisfaction of setting oneself up as a martyr.
Disilloosianed wrote:My guess is no. There is just no way to convince a certain set of tax protesters that whatever ruling that just came out wasn't the result of a conspiracy among the courts, the IRS, and the Free Masons. I have a couple of these right now. No matter what you show them, they will contend that it only happened because of the conspiracy to take their money. I keep trying to explain that isn't called a conspiracy, that's called "the government."
You are never going to convince Bulten that he owes taxes. And, it is not about the truth, honesty, or the law. It is about greed. What I don't get is that if spent the same amount of time improving himself that he does on this TP crap - he could probably earn a lot more money. I tried to argue and reason for a while at LH - but they are not interested in any argument that doesn't support their conclusion that they don't owe taxes.
I get terrific satisfaction from knowing that JB had to be burning while I enjoyed the bottle of Cristal I consumed upon the district court's PH ruling. I'm going to enjoy my meal at Pro Se even more knowing it will just be killing him that I'm there celebrating PH's loss on appeal.
