Docketed - PH's petition for cert. in erroneous refund

[Dezcad]

PH's petition for cert in the erroneous refund case has been docketed.

No. 08-1399
Title:
Peter E. Hendrickson, et ux., Petitioners
v.
United States
Docketed: May 14, 2009
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case Nos.: (07-1510)
Decision Date: June 11, 2008
Rehearing Denied: December 16, 2008

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 11 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 15, 2009)
Mar 11 2009 Supplemental Appendix of Peter E. Hendrickson, et ux. filed.

[cynicalflyer]

And now for a taste of things to come.

References to case distribution schedule here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/casedistr ... le2008.pdf

As the docket notes, the response is due 6/15/09.

Scenario 1: The U.S. takes its full time (6/15/09) AND waives the response. The Court gets the petition, according to the case distribution schedule, June 17 for a Conference in September and a ruling denying cert in early October. Pete files motion to rehear in October which is denied in late October to November.

Scenario 2: Whether quick or slow, the U.S. decides to contest cert with a response. Pete will inevitably file a reply. That again puts the entire process well into October for a denial of cert and denial of the inevitable motion to rehear in late October to November.

Scenario 3: The U.S. moves very quickly (i.e. two weeks, May 28) AND waives the response. The Court gets the petition, according to the case distribution schedule, June 2 or June 9 for a June 18 or June 25 Conference and a ruling denying cert around June 22 or 29. Pete files his rehearing, which would be in mid-July and THAT wouldn't/couldn't be denied until October.

As I suspected in my original postings on this, Pete stalled, stalled, stalled this so he could get through the summer and his criminal trial and still have the phrase "pending before the Supreme Court" operative.

[Dezcad]

And now for a taste of things to come.

References to case distribution schedule here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/casedistr ... le2008.pdf

As the docket notes, the response is due 6/15/09.

Scenario 1: The U.S. takes its full time (6/15/09) AND waives the response. The Court gets the petition, according to the case distribution schedule, June 17 for a Conference in September and a ruling denying cert in early October. Pete files motion to rehear in October which is denied in late October to November.

Scenario 2: Whether quick or slow, the U.S. decides to contest cert with a response. Pete will inevitably file a reply. That again puts the entire process well into October for a denial of cert and denial of the inevitable motion to rehear in late October to November.

Scenario 3: The U.S. moves very quickly (i.e. two weeks, May 28) AND waives the response. The Court gets the petition, according to the case distribution schedule, June 2 or June 9 for a June 18 or June 25 Conference and a ruling denying cert around June 22 or 29. Pete files his rehearing, which would be in mid-July and THAT wouldn't/couldn't be denied until October.

As I suspected in my original postings on this, Pete stalled, stalled, stalled this so he could get through the summer and his criminal trial and still have the phrase "pending before the Supreme Court" operative.

Scenario 3 is right as the US filed its waiver to respond:

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 11 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 15, 2009)
Mar 11 2009 Supplemental Appendix of Peter E. Hendrickson, et ux. filed.
May 19 2009 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.

[Joey Smith]

Maybe also why there is no trial date setting in Pete's case -- judge is more savvy than Pete hoped, and Pete will have to go to trial with "Cert. Denied" draped over his arguments.

[Unknown Named Agent]

May 19 2009 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.

The United States has no answer to Pete's petition!

[Famspear]

May 19 2009 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.

The United States has no answer to Pete's petition!

If you believe that, I would like to talk to you about a fantastic real estate deal in Florida and a great Egyptian investment strategy.

Yeah, but Unknown Named Agent's comment might have been of the tongue in cheek variety.

The United States has an answer all right. The United States just isn't bothering to file it with the Court.

[Demosthenes]

Yeah, but Unknown Named Agent's comment might have been of the tongue in cheek variety.

That.

[Pottapaug1938]

As in the case of the Berg vs. Obama lawsuits and other such lunacies, the government does not want to waste scare time and money responding to something that will fall of its own weight and failings when reviewed in open court.

[Nikki]

Inflicting such a document on chronologically-advantaged Justices could be rationally construed as attempted murder.

Assuming that the clerks actually turn the pleading over to the Justices for review, I predict several deaths from heart attacks caused by irrepressable laughter.

[Pottapaug1938]

It could also result in a court opinion that hanging by one's thumbs is a constitutionally-acceptable penalty in cases of unhinged, hall-of-shame-worthy frivolous filings.

[Gregg]

Ah, but wouldn't you just love Pete being told by SCOTUS that he is a person, the point being that until them he denied it.

[cynicalflyer]

Maybe also why there is no trial date setting in Pete's case -- judge is more savvy than Pete hoped, and Pete will have to go to trial with "Cert. Denied" draped over his arguments.

Maybe. But even if he says "Cert. Denied" Pete will still argue (thanks to his inevitable motion to rehear the denial of cert.) it is "still pending" until the rehearing is denied this fall.

[The Operative]

Maybe also why there is no trial date setting in Pete's case -- judge is more savvy than Pete hoped, and Pete will have to go to trial with "Cert. Denied" draped over his arguments.

Maybe. But even if he says "Cert. Denied" Pete will still argue (thanks to his inevitable motion to rehear the denial of cert.) it is "still pending" until the rehearing is denied this fall.

Even if the rehearing is denied, Pete will still argue that the Supreme Court is wrong.

[notorial dissent]

Well, Pete certainly couldn’t be wrong, why that would that all his nonsense was just well nonsense and he really hadn’t found the super secret magic words to make it all go away .

[wserra]

Has anyone read this piece of ... epic? Well, I know I haven't. In fact, I didn't get past the first "question presented":

1. Does a court, or any agency of the government, possess the lawful authority to compel an American man or women to declare to be true and correct to the best of his or her own knowledge and belief, over his or her own signature, particular words and other explicit testimony dictated and/or specified by the court or government agency, and which he or she does not, in fact believe to be true and correct?

Well, gee, Pete, I don't know. Did you enjoy molesting that six-year-old?

[Pottapaug1938]

Has anyone read this piece of ... epic? Well, I know I haven't. In fact, I didn't get past the first "question presented":

1. Does a court, or any agency of the government, possess the lawful authority to compel an American man or women to declare to be true and correct to the best of his or her own knowledge and belief, over his or her own signature, particular words and other explicit testimony dictated and/or specified by the court or government agency, and which he or she does not, in fact believe to be true and correct?

Wow. Reading this piece of gibberish, I felt as if I had stepped through a looking-glass and entered into an alternate-reality universe. I can only conclude that the Hendricksons have concluded that their only hope is to go ahead with their idiocies, fuul-throttle, and hope that the Court will consider, Cheek-style, that these people are so terminally clueless and mentally unhinged that they should at least escape penalty for the wilfulness charges.

Either that... or I want some of what they are smoking.

[notorial dissent]

Amazing, 68 pages of unrelenting drivel and delusion.

One question that keeps coming back to mind, mine at least, is his blowhardness’s insistence that he is giving “testimony” and being forced to change that “testimony”, when he signs an affidavit, my understanding is that rather than testimony, it is certification or verification of the correctness. An affidavit is a certification or recitation, but testimony is what you would give in court.

This is of course what he is building his whole tissue of nonsense on, and I am truly hoping that the if the court looks at it, they shut him down on that part as much as anything else, not that I expect them to even waste any real amount of time on it at all once anyone has looked at it.

The thing he won’t be able to around is that his affidavit was in fact refuted by the affidavit of the payer, and that he was informed that his interpretation was WRONG and that he had to resubmit according to the prevailing law.

At this point in the game Pete the Prevaricator has nothing left to fall back on, the trial court and the appeals court have both ruled that his nonsense is just that, and so he is left trying to play word games, just like always, and since he really doesn’t have anyone to sell out this time, his coterie already having done it on their own, and since his ego won’t let him accept admitting he was wrong, so the charade will continue to the final inevitable end.

[jg]

When twelve people that do not know each other are assembled in a room it does not seem to me that anything is inevitable.

Just one man's opinion, yours may vary significantly.

[Nikki]

And now for something completely diffetent ...

It appears that the LoserHeads are writing, and submitting, amicus "briefs" to the Supreme Court on Pete's behalf.

Beverages down:

No. 08-1399

In The Supreme Court of the United States

Peter E. Hendrickson and Doreen M.
Hendrickson, Petitioners

v.

United States, Respondent

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF TIMOTHY F. WHITNEY,
PRIVATE CITIZEN OF VIRGINIA, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS

I pray for a few moments of time from the Honorable U.S. Supreme Court Justices to hear the Petitioners and further support the rule of law - the very foundation of our Republic.

The Petitioners and I are loyal hardworking Americans, struggling to understand and support the laws of our great & noble country. We believe in the United States Constitution and hold dear our inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness – rights bestowed upon us by our Creator.

In my humble opinion, Authority is the key concern for all parties in this petition – and especially for the individual or natural born 200+ million Americans faced with uncertainty on so many fronts in today’s complex legal world.

The Petitioners are asking for your help in bringing back to them some sense of “certainty” with respect to Authority, the rule of law, and our inalienable rights. Amicus agrees with and supports the arguments in the Petitioner’s case, and will not repeat them here.

BRIEF INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case involves “authority” – specifically how a government agency can gain lawful authority over a private citizen to dictate their sworn testimony.

An agency of the federal government is seeking authority (power) from the courts – to compel private citizens to change their sworn testimony, both now and in the future.

This same agency is also seeking the authority to force private citizens to stand silent when other entities testify, thus eliminating the right of the private citizens to challenge such testimony and prove same to be false or erroneous.

SIMPLE ARGUMENT

When the government is allowed to dictate testimony under oath, then one could easily conclude that private citizens have no justice nor any means to seek justice, as the very courts needed to uphold justice will be blinded with false/compelled “dictated” testimony.

By allowing the government to dictate sworn testimony, the courts will trample our Bill of Rights - by attacking seven of the first ten Amendments to grant authority never given to the government by “We the People.” Amicus believes, compelled dictated testimony will:

• Destroy First Amendment right of free speech
• Attack Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our papers
• Shatter Fifth Amendment right to due process
• Eliminate Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury with witnesses
• Prohibit Seventh Amendment right to a Civil trial by jury
• Ignore Ninth Amendment right to restrict government power
• Crush Tenth Amendment right of sovereignty

When an agency of the government can dictate the information provided on any official form, then the outcome of any activity and/or testimony becomes preordained. In this case, the government is trying to compel first hand testimony to support their third party position, resulting in a gain or profit the government is simply not entitled to.

Decrees fly in the face of sovereignty and individual inalienable rights, as proven by the rule of tyrants – not rule of law. Decrees by government simply make us slaves with no rights, no justice, and no means to challenge our public servants, their policies, or rules they wish to impose upon the people they are sworn to serve.

CONCLUSION

I fear greatly, what will become of our country and future generations, if the government can simply dictate testimony under oath and force us to stand silent. This authority/power would negate the need for any real rights or rule of law, as the government could simply have whatever they wish testified to by anyone at any time – regardless of the facts and the rights of those being assaulted.

Court granted authority/power of dictated testimony would bypass the need for the rule of law and would become a crime against the very foundation of country, our Bill of Rights, and our U.S. Constitution. If such crime is permitted, I believe Trials, Judges, and Juries would soon become extinct, as there would no longer be any truthful facts or testimony – only dictated testimony - approved and/or compelled by the government.

Amicus begs the court to take this case and rule in favor of the Petitioners, thus saying there is certainty with the rule of law, our Bill of Rights, our sovereignty, and our Republic.

Respectfully submitted,

Timothy F. Whitney
Private Citizen of Virginia

May 22, 2009

Isn't it traditional for an amicus brief to have at least one fully-cited reference to a legal issue relevant to the case?

[Famspear]

Isn't it traditional for an amicus brief to have at least one fully-cited reference to a legal issue relevant to the case?

Yes, and of course this one contains a complete list of all the citations that support Hendrickson's point of view.

Namely: Zero citations.

EDIT: Just a guess: Author Timothy Whitney might be user "databrain" at losthorizons.

See the first post at:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1820