A Wingnut Returns (Jeffrey Maehr)

LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

A Wingnut Returns (Jeffrey Maehr)

Post by LPC »

Jeffrey Maehr has already been bounced from District Court, and had his own thread here (not sure about what), and now his gibberish has been rejected by the 7th Circuit:

Jeffrey Thomas Maehr v. Commissioner, No. 11-9019 (10th Cir. 5/17/2012)
JEFFREY THOMAS MAEHR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT

(Tax Court. No. 10758-11)
(United States Tax Court)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, BALDOCK, and HARTZ,
Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

In February 2011, the Commissioner issued notices of deficiency to Appellant, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, for the tax years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The notices asserted income tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file, failure to pay the estimated tax, and failure to pay the tax. Maehr filed a petition with the United States Tax Court pursuant to Tax Court Rule 34, seeking redetermination of the alleged deficiencies. He supported the petition with, inter alia, assertions the Internal Revenue Service lacked standing; the Internal Revenue Code has not been enacted into "positive law"; the Internal Revenue Service is not a lawfully created agency but is, instead, an agency of the International Monetary Fund; he is not a taxpayer because wages are not income; Form 1040 is illegitimate because it is not imprinted with an OMB control number; and the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize the imposition of federal income taxes on citizens of the individual states.

The Commissioner moved to dismiss Maehr's petition, arguing it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failed to comply with Rule 34 because it did not contain "[c]lear and concise assignments of each and every error which [Maehr] alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency or liability," or "[c]lear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which [Maehr] bases the assignments of error." Tax Ct. R. 34(b)(4), (5). The Tax Court ordered Maehr to respond to the Commissioner's motion and to file an amended petition. Maehr filed an objection wherein he elected to stand on his original petition and stated it was impossible to provide specific assignments of error because "the entire assessment is in error." He also argued the Commissioner's actions interfered with his religious rights by forcing him to comply with unlawful and unconstitutional statutes against his will.

The Tax Court granted the Commissioner's motion, dismissed Maehr's petition, and found Maehr owed the deficiencies and penalties set out in the notices of deficiency. In the written order of dismissal, the court concluded Maehr's petition failed to comply with Rule 34 because it did not contain specific challenges to the Commissioner's calculations or allege any facts necessary to resolve any alleged errors. The court further noted Maehr had not availed himself of the opportunity to cure his deficient petition by filing an amendment. Maehr filed two motions to vacate, both of which were denied by the Tax Court.

Maehr now appeals the dismissal of his petition, raising essentially the same points presented in his petition. This court reviews de novo the Tax Court's dismissal of Maehr's petition for failure to state a claim, applying the same standard as the Tax Court. Fox v. Comm'r, 969 F.2d 951, 952 (10th Cir. 1992). Although we construe Maehr's pleadings liberally because he is proceeding pro se, we conclude the Tax Court did not err in dismissing his petition because the petition did not comply with the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). After review of Maehr's petition, we conclude it contains no valid challenges to the notices of deficiency and fails to specifically identify errors related to the determination of his income tax deficiencies. It, instead, raises conclusory challenges to the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code and power of the Commissioner to impose income taxes. See id. at 952-53 (holding frivolous assertions in a taxpayer's petition do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 34). The petition raises no genuine challenge to the notices of deficiency because Maehr's arguments have been repeatedly rejected by this court. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Comm'r, 528 F.3d 773, 777 (10th Cir. 2008) ("We have held that an argument that no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals is completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous." (quotations omitted)); Lewis v. Comm'r, 523 F.3d 1272, 1277 (10th Cir. 2008) (rejecting argument that IRS Form 1040 does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) ("[Taxpayer's] argument that the sixteenth amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens . . . is devoid of any arguable basis in law."); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (rejecting arguments nearly identical to the ones advanced by Maehr as meritless and "patently frivolous").

Because Maehr's petition contains no assignments of errors he alleges were committed by the Commissioner in the determination of his income tax deficiencies or any facts upon which to base an assignment of error, the Tax Court properly concluded it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of his petition. Because Maehr's motion to proceed in forma pauperis indicates he is able to pay the costs associated with pursuing this appeal, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and he is ordered to pay any remaining balance of the appellate filing fee. All additional outstanding motions are denied.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTE

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

END OF FOOTNOTE
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
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by LPC »

The highlight of the Tax Court order of dismissal is the following:
The 41 page petition in this case, filed May 9, 2011, does not conform to Rule 34,[footnote omitted] and the statements, assertions and allegations made in the petition do not give rise to any justiciable issue with respect to any adjustment or determination made in either of the two notices of deficiency to which the petition relates. Petitioner's 98 page response to
respondent's motion does nothing to cure the defective petition.
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.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by The Observer »

What I gather at this point is that 98 pages of gibberish isn't going to qualify. What if he had revised his manifesto down to 75 pages of gibberish?
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by LPC »

Petition for certiorari filed. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 12-6169 (9/11/2012).

Warning, the link below crashed my computer, could be a coincidence, could be the site...Gregg

Wing Nut Daily headline: "Supremes Docket Income Tax Challenge." The article asks, "The result? Who knows...."

We do.
Last edited by Gregg on Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: posted malware warning
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
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by LPC »

Maehr's own web site, the Foundation for Truth in Law, has his own euphoric blatherings on the filing.
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.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by grixit »

LPC wrote:Maehr's own web site, the Foundation for Truth in Law, has his own euphoric blatherings on the filing.
Maehr wrote:If you know of anyone who would like to fund this venture, for the benefit of all Americans, please have them contact us at the email address below!
Better register it on Kookstarter.com.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by Kestrel »

Foundation for Truth in Law is not yet up and running, pending funding and hiring of our Constitutional attorneys and legal experts.
Too bad Cryer has gone to his reward. He'd have been perfect for this gig.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by notorial dissent »

He can still take the case, the end result will be the same, and Tommy's win loss record won't change.

Considering that he is going for the "wages aren't income", "the mean old courts won't listen to his evidence", the PRA argument, and the ever tried "no law" argument, he has a trifecta of guaranteed losers for the court to gag over.

Somehow the fact that all his previous efforts have gotten him frivolous filing citations doesn't seem to register that it is all nonsense.

I can just see the SCT just jumping right on this burning issue.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by Kestrel »

notorial dissent wrote:He can still take the case, the end result will be the same, and Tommy's win loss record won't change.

Considering that he is going for the "wages aren't income", "the mean old courts won't listen to his evidence", the PRA argument, and the ever tried "no law" argument, he has a trifecta of guaranteed losers for the court to gag over.

Somehow the fact that all his previous efforts have gotten him frivolous filing citations doesn't seem to register that it is all nonsense.
All very true. However, when one's attorney returns from The Great Beyond to make oral arguments in court, the shock value alone may sway the court in his favor. (You do remember Tommy died this past June?)
notorial dissent wrote:I can just see the SCT just jumping right on this burning issue.
If there's any justice in heaven or hell, "burning" should be an apt description of Tommy's present status.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by notorial dissent »

And they say sarcasm is wasted on the young.

Dead or alive, I still don't think it will change his win loss record, and it might even be an improvement on his court demeanor.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by Gregg »

When I clicked on the link above, my computer took a pretty serious dive. It DELETED my Norton 360 froze the box up so that it took me over an hour just to get it restarted and I had a little bar at the bottom that told me "Downloading information from Chinavendors.....something or other that I couldn't freeze long enough to read, and that's when I went full gonzo abort and cut the lines to the power and modem.

I dunno if the site did it or not, but first wanted to put up some warning, and second, find out if anyone had seen something like this before?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
David Merrill

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by David Merrill »

Jeffrey Thomas MAEHR has his cause docketed with the Supreme Court. I am certain that the Supremes will opine!

The Tenth Circuit justices were so eager to opine they did so even though they rejected his in forma pauperis and billed him for their rejection. He Refused for Cause.
David Merrill

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by David Merrill »

Gregg wrote:When I clicked on the link above, my computer took a pretty serious dive. It DELETED my Norton 360 froze the box up so that it took me over an hour just to get it restarted and I had a little bar at the bottom that told me "Downloading information from Chinavendors.....something or other that I couldn't freeze long enough to read, and that's when I went full gonzo abort and cut the lines to the power and modem.

I dunno if the site did it or not, but first wanted to put up some warning, and second, find out if anyone had seen something like this before?

I have seen something similar with conspiracy theory as a market. It is an advertisement if you hold on then you can find the solution to your security problems, usually for less than $50. I recall such annoyance-ware was attached to an Ohio Supreme Court Seminar about Sovereign Citizens from 2004, but only for a day or two.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by . »

Here's a handy-dandy USSC one-size-fits-all definition for you and your TP buddies, Van Pelt:

Opine: o·pine ōˈpīn o·pined, o·pin·ing, o·pines v. Cert denied.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by Famspear »

. wrote:Here's a handy-dandy USSC one-size-fits-all definition for you and your TP buddies, Van Pelt:

Opine: o·pine ōˈpīn o·pined, o·pin·ing, o·pines v. Cert denied.
(....sigh.....) Yeah, unfortunately, it's unlikely that the United States Supreme Court would indulge the Insatiable, Sadistic Quatloosian Desire for Even More and More Humiliation and Degradation of Tax Protester Refused for Cause Federal Reserve System Evil International Bankster Hating Wackadoosters.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by The Observer »

But we need ISQDFEMAMHADOTPRFCFRSEIBHW every day!
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by . »

Van Pelt wrote:I have seen something similar with conspiracy theory as a market. It is an advertisement if you hold on then you can find the solution to your security problems, usually for less than $50. I recall such annoyance-ware was attached to an Ohio Supreme Court Seminar about Sovereign Citizens from 2004, but only for a day or two.
See? If you give him enough time and a long enough leash, he never fails to provide very fine new word-salad exemplars.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
David Merrill

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by David Merrill »

You guys are killing me here! - 6 guests...
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by LPC »

LPC wrote:Petition for certiorari filed. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 12-6169 (9/11/2012).
New docket entry for Oct 4 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.

Which means we can look for "cert. den." on October 29.
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.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: A Wingnut Returns

Post by . »

LPC wrote:Which means we can look for "cert. den." on October 29.
So, does that mean that in about 3 weeks we can look forward to no more Van Pelt on this thread?

You know, because the case will have crashed and burned beyond recognition?

If so, well, that'll be too bad. Reading the TP logic in this thread was almost as much fun as hitting myself in the face with a porcupine.

Normally, Webhick is in charge of that sort of stuff, but I got carried away.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.