Motion for ORDER to Intervener

[Cracker]

Let’s discuss this.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Maehr, Jeffrey Thomas, Pro se, |
|
Petitioner |
|
vs. | Case No: 12-6169
| Praecipe to the Clerk
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, |
|
Respondent |
YOU WILL: Explain to the Justices and to Petitioner why the office of the Clerk made the
assumption that the United States was a party to this action. And, place on the record the Clerk’s
office’s authority to bring an unnamed party into this action, practice of law, causing trespass
upon Petitioner’s rights.
Motion for ORDER to Intervener the United States Government Solicitor General,
Counsel of Record, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
Petitioner, which hereby accepts that the obligation of the honorable Solicitor General,
Mr. Donald B. Verrilli, requires the recognition of the contract that exists between all
governments and the People. That contractual obligation is of extreme value now called due and
owing performance.
1. Petitioner, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, perfects his record in the Court with this Motion for
ORDER to intervener the United States Government, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., to clarify;

Download: https://www.scribd.com/document/1136272 ... -for-ORDER

11. The facts agreed by Solicitor General are as follows;

a. Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees the Internal Revenue Service is
taxing Petitioner, and all Americans so taxed, outside lawful constitutional taxation
means, that of direct or indirect taxes, and is unlawful and illegal.
b. Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees Internal Revenue Service is
unlawfully taxing wages, salary and compensation of private individuals as “income,”
when such wages, salary and compensation, in fact, are not lawful income.
c. Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees that lawful “income” includes a
corporate profit, and unearned wealth.
d. Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees that any such lawful “income”
must be taxed either directly (apportioned) or indirectly (uniformly) according to
constitutional parameters for taxation.

[Famspear]

We've already seen this.

If you want to "discuss" it, you can begin by telling us what you think it is.

[wserra]

Let’s discuss this.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Maehr, Jeffrey Thomas, Pro se, |
|
Petitioner |
|
Case No: 12-6169

Sure.

No. 12-6169
Title:
Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Docketed: September 11, 2012
Linked with 12A489
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (11-9019)
Decision Date: May 17, 2012
Rehearing Denied: June 8, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
Mar 18 2013 Petition DENIED.
Apr 11 2013 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Apr 23 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.
May 13 2013 Rehearing DENIED.

There. Discussed.

[Burnaby49]

After being spanked by Wes I'm not stepping into this one.

[notorial dissent]

Other than it being what 104 pages of twaddle and then the final death blow of the gov't waiving response as a hint of its impending and of so richly deserved doom, you mean???

[Cracker]

Lol!!!!!!!
No! It went through stupid! Down load it Kelly bundy.

[Cracker]

Download the case file. Are you to stupid on how to? Let me help! Do what it says to do to download! Is that helpful?

[Cpt Banjo]

Apparently saltine-for-brains doesn't understand that the Supreme Court disposed of this case over 5 years ago.

[notorial dissent]

Since whatever that piece of twaddle was DIDN'T come close to resembling a real filing and as I said is meaningless twaddle from first offensive sentence to last it is all rather pointless. There is no point in downloading it as there is nothing of value there.

For anyone who is even remotely interested Jeffrey Thomas Maehr is as you would guess a tax crackpot of long standing, starting back in the very early 2000's, 2003-2006, with a major fail in tax court and followed it up with equally illiterate and "frivolous" filings from there on all the way through the system, getting the same result with every iteration. Frivolous twaddle is frivolous twaddle regardless of which court you file it in, and when you don't actually file an appeal on a conviction and instead just file more TP twaddle it just becomes even more of a FAIL.

Oh, and for those playing along at home, he is or was a chiropractor. Filled all the bingo slots I'd say.

[Famspear]

Download the case file. Are you to stupid on how to? Let me help! Do what it says to do to download! Is that helpful?

Arracch! Download the case file! Download the case file! Polly want a cracker! Download the case file!

Lol!!!!!!!
No! It went through stupid! Down load it Kelly bundy.

Aaarach! It went through! down load the case file!

Calm down Cracker. You haven't been taking your meds. It's OK. The case file is already downloaded.

You're starting to sound like something from Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention. And, not in a good way.

[morrand]

Download the case file. Are you to stupid on how to? Let me help! Do what it says to do to download! Is that helpful?

No, it is not.

[notorial dissent]

Cracker sweetums, how do you think we ALL know it's twaddle, already been read and dismissed as twaddle, kinda like ALL the courts it has twaddle at. On top of knowing it was total abject fail for twaddliness from clear back in '03.

[wserra]

Complete the syllogism:

jamie was moderated.
Cracker is jamie.
∴ Cracker is ______.

[Cracker]

This will not hamper justice, equity or constitutional intent from being applied in any way. This
Court is sworn to uphold the law and constitution for all Americans, especially since this is the
last chance for Petitioner’s issues in this case to be properly adjudicated for the benefit of all
Americans.

Cited in case file.

I. Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States admits Tax Court cannot lawfully ignore
a Motion for Clarification as to several relevant questions regarding standing, jurisdiction,
and Rule 34(b).

Cited in case file.

k. Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees that similar challenges by any
citizen are not (and have not been) “frivolous,” and are valid under constitutional redress
of grievance and due process of law.

m. Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees that all presumptions and
hearsay arguments made against Petitioner in inferior courts throughout are frivolous, and
void by law, and no evidence in fact of “frivolous” on the part of Petitioner was ever of
record in any inferior court cases cited.

You bring brain farts to the table. Boo hooo!

u. Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees that the Internal Revenue
Service, its agents, assigns and co-venture party administration of alleged, never proven
powers, have been acting outside its lawful capacity in all similar actions, challenging
Internal Revenue Service illegalities, and the Internal Revenue Service has committed
fraud, especially and particularly where it has been NOTICED of this fraud by Americans
attempting to obtain redress under the people’s Constitution through Courts required to
provide neutral due process and simple justice.

Cited in case file.

Wherefore, the Honorable Court is moved to craft its own ORDER to the Government
addressing the facts and law enclosed in this case file as settled by your Petitioner and the
Solicitor General of the United States, settling the facts and law and controversy between the
Petitioner and all other parties before the Honorable court, now and forevermore.

Cited in case file

[wserra]

...
Cited in case file.
...
Cited in case file.
...
Cited in case file.
...
Cited in case file.

There is no "case file". These nonsensical quotes come from Maehr's twice-denied cert petition. Which, in turn, came from a Tenth Circuit affirmance, which came from a Tax Court judgment against him. Your precious "case file" lost at every turn.

This guy's got a head the density of plutonium.

[notorial dissent]

The original case was made up entirely of TP copypasta and was shot down by the numbers. Having lost there he went to the District Court, as was his right, and then proceeded to repeat the same errors all over again, with the inevitable same end. He then went to the Appellate Court and rather than actually appeal any of the decisions he repeated the same losing material(s) and inevitably lost which is to say the Appeals Court upheld the District Court and the Supreme Court cert was no different and they sustained the Appellate Court, so losses all around. This, in three sentences summarizes the entire case history. So in effect there was no case to respond to.

[wserra]

Having lost there he went to the District Court

Actually, Maehr filed first in Tax Court, so any appeal was to the appropriate Circuit (here the Tenth). The DC isn't in that loop.

[notorial dissent]

I wasn't clear, he started in Tax Court, they nailed him for three years I think it was, lost big time, then went to Dist and so on, but FAIL all the way.

[Cracker]

He was dienied on reviewing the lower court decision. That is stated in the court file. He posted his case file online with the Docket number. “Falsifying documents” is a type of white collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document for the purpose of deceiving another person. It can also involve the passing along of copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Posting this false documents on Scribd is a crime. Stop being a stupid! The case file documents the income laws and the corruption taking place. It is well detailed and presented in high level of intelligence. Everything in the case file is logical, everything you say Isn’t.

[Cracker]

No he didn’t fail. This is cited in his case file;

U.S. v. Balard, 535, 575 F. 2D 400 (1976), (See also Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86
S.E. Rep. 2D 858): "Gross income and not 'gross receipts' is the foundation of income
tax liability... The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code...
'gross income' means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from
investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. 575 There is a clear
distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or 'compensation for labor.' Compensation for
labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law...The word profit is a
different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor...The claim that salaries,
wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore
must be returned by the individual who performed the services which produced the gain
is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts
construing it and is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to Regulations of the
Treasury Department..."

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1976935535f2d4001852

Cited herein above case.
In each of the years in question, Ballard filed an individual income tax return on Form 1040 without attaching any Schedule C — Profit or (Loss) From Business or Profession. In his 1969 return, Ballard disclosed as income only wages received from City Leasing & Drayage Co., Inc. in the sum of $10,407. In 1970, he disclosed wages totaling $20,730, from City Leasing & Drayage Co., Inc. and from a second employer, Metropolitan Towing Co. He supported these amounts by employers' wage and tax (withholding) statements.

Clearly it is talking about profit or loss From Business of Profession. I know some idiot is going to say that I am misunderstanding Profit or loss. Funny....

Moreover;
U.S.C.A. Const. Am 16. "There must be gain before there is 'income' within the 16th Amendment.

I am sure someone with say that I am miss understanding that as well.

Cited in case file;
Recent wins by Joseph Bannister, Tommy Cryer, Vernice Kuglin (case information available) and
others against Respondent shows the fraud, and the fact that Respondent cannot prove its position
in criminal court, and must rely on disinformation still entrenched in our courts and society to
continue the scam and harm to our citizens.
Unless these basic questions are addressed, based on well settled case precedent, and this court is
willing to look at its own rulings that invalidate Respondent’s taxation scheme, this wrong will
continue to destroy families, wealth and the economic future of 330+ million people in our country. Millions of man-hours are spent each year on complying with this scheme, (with no
compensation), and millions are walking away from it after researching the mound of evidence
now available via computers and law research. It is a jigsaw puzzle that has been purposefully
scattered and obfuscated, but which is now coming together.

“and this court is
willing to look at its own rulings”

The case file is about the above!

But there is no case file. Funny.....