Hendrickson questioned

[Famspear]

At losthorizons.com, Peter Hendrickson's devoted follower "Richardf614" writes:

[ . . . ] I have read his stuff. I do not think he has any success in court using it. I think he even tried to take it to the Supreme Court.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 2819#12819

Oh, wait a minute! He's not talking about Peter Eric Hendrickson. He's apparently talking about David Myrland (being unsure of the spelling, he refers to Myrland as "David Millard," and is corrected by another poster).

Interesting. Richardf614 thinks it's notable that David Myrland has had no successes in court, and has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And Hendrickson has lost every case, and has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on at least one occasion as well: Hendrickson v. United States, No. 2:2006x 50394 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2006) (pet. denied), aff'd, No. 06-1870 (6th Cir. April 10, 2007), reh'g denied, Aug. 8, 2007, cert. denied, No. 07-624 (Jan. 7, 2008), reh'g denied (Feb. 25, 2008).

Many of Hendrickson's followers do not seem to want to question Hendrickson about the losses in any meaningful way. Hendrickson's Heroes lean to the Patrick Michael Mooney view, I guess: Every Hendrickson loss proves that Hendrickson is right.

[.]

Hendrickson v. United States, No. 2:2006x 50394 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2006) (pet. denied), aff'd, No. 06-1870 (6th Cir. April 10, 2007), reh'g denied, Aug. 8, 2007, cert. denied, No. 07-624 (Jan. 7, 2008), reh'g denied (Feb. 25, 2008).

It might be good to be more explicit.

Us non-lawyers may understand the abbreviations for petition denied, lower court decision affirmed, rehearing denied, etc., but the CtC morons seem to gloss over the legalese and don't get the fact that their head moron has lost at every turn. 4, maybe 5 times just in that (too) brief summary.

You might want to lay out just how many times and just how extensively their head moron has abysmally lost his sorry ass. Not to mention how many times they might lose theirs.

[Famspear]

Hendrickson v. United States, No. 2:2006x 50394 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2006) (pet. denied), aff'd, No. 06-1870 (6th Cir. April 10, 2007), reh'g denied, Aug. 8, 2007, cert. denied, No. 07-624 (Jan. 7, 2008), reh'g denied (Feb. 25, 2008).

It might be good to be more explicit.

Us non-lawyers may understand the abbreviations for petition denied, lower court decision affirmed, rehearing denied, etc., but the CtC morons seem to gloss over the legalese and don't get the fact that their head moron has lost at every turn. 4, maybe 5 times just in that (too) brief summary.

You might want to lay out just how many times and just how extensively their head moron has abysmally lost his sorry ass. Not to mention how many times they might lose theirs.

Yeah. To: All followers of Peter Hendrickson -- see above posting by "."

[Judge Roy Bean]

....their head moron has lost at every turn. 4, maybe 5 times just in that (too) brief summary.

Hey, it's a living, apparently, right?

[LPC]

Hendrickson v. United States, No. 2:2006x 50394 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2006) (pet. denied), aff'd, No. 06-1870 (6th Cir. April 10, 2007), reh'g denied, Aug. 8, 2007, cert. denied, No. 07-624 (Jan. 7, 2008), reh'g denied (Feb. 25, 2008).

It might be good to be more explicit.

Us non-lawyers may understand the abbreviations for petition denied, lower court decision affirmed, rehearing denied, etc., but the CtC morons seem to gloss over the legalese and don't get the fact that their head moron has lost at every turn. 4, maybe 5 times just in that (too) brief summary.

You might want to lay out just how many times and just how extensively their head moron has abysmally lost his sorry ass. Not to mention how many times they might lose theirs.

The citations that Famspear lists above are just to the refund suit, which Hendrickson not only lost, but on appeal was sanctioned for being so stupid as to appeal something that was perfectly obvious to everyone but him and his Crackheads.

So lets throw in his battles against the summonses:

Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 3:2006mc00008 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Va. 5/8/2006) (petition denied; Capital One Bank ordered to comply with summons); Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 8:2006cv00345 (U.S.D.C. Neb. 10/4/2006) (petition denied); Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 2:2006x 50394 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 6/2/2006) (petition denied), affirmed, No. 06-1870 (6th Cir. 4/10/2007), rehearing denied, 8/8/2007, cert. denied, No. 07-624 (1/7/2008), rehearing den. (2/25/2008); Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 2:2006x 50396 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 6/29/2006) (petition denied), affirmed, No. 07-1144 (10/2/2007 6th Cir.), rehearing denied (11/30/2007); Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 5:2006mc80094 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. 7/18/2006) (petition to quash summons directed at EBAY/PayPal denied), affirmed, No. 06-56129 (9th Cir. 8/13/2007).

That's 0-for-5: denied, denied, denied (and affirmed), denied (and affirmed), and denied (and affirmed). A total of five losses in four different District Courts (E.D. Va., Neb., E.D. Mich., N.D. Cal.), three losses in two different Circuit Courts (6th and 9th), and one denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court. And yet the Crackheads think PH "won" because the IRS withdrew all the summonses once they decided to pursue the criminal prosecution instead.

[notorial dissent]

Or to paraphrase Barnum, and to put it more succinctly and to the point, never overestimate the intelligence of your audience.......... particularly when dealing with loserheads and suies.... if it has more than two syllables, you will most likely lose them.