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

[wserra]

Lost Horizon user 'Richard614' now offers spiritual advice:

The proverbial Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

[Nikki]

But we can be pretty sure what the meeting was like:

Chief Justice: "No. 08-1399. United States versus Hendrickson. Anyone want to grant cert?

"Anyone?

"All right, No. 08-1400 ...."

When I read that, for some reason the following image popped into my head:

Ben Stein teaching Economics in Ferris Bueller's Day Off

[cynicalflyer]

No shock, Pete's filing a motion to rehear the denial of cert. And they still, honest to goodness, think their ex parte letters are going to get to the justices.

And, P.S., the denial of cert is a "victory" (see bolded section)

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

The Supreme Court Kicks The Can Down The Road

On Monday, the US Supreme Court shamefully declined to hear the petition filed for its review of a blatantly unlawful series of acts by both a district and an appellate court as described in detail here (and which is discussed concisely in the film 'Are You Ready?). A petition for re-hearing will be filed. I hope that all of you and your uncles, cousins and sainted grandmas will get involved in flooding the justices with letters before July 10 urging them to not slink away from this hot-potato a second time.

Many good folks participated in a multi-signature letter effort organized by the virtuous Tim Whitney over the last couple of weeks prior to the initial consideration of the petition, and a number of others acted independently, as well. These efforts were great, but clearly not enough. Hundreds of citizens expressing concern about this affair apparently don't mean much to the court-- perhaps thousands will.

That said, it's important to recognize the significance of the court's decision to avoid this case. The issues in this petition are simple, straightforward, inescapable and profoundly important-- and completely independent of the income tax. For instance, no one can lawfully be told what to put on ANY statement over his or her own signature. Period. It doesn't matter whether its a tax form or a birth certificate or a statement to the police or ANYTHING. No court can accept the movant's allegations as fact and disregard the non-movant's rebuttals in issuing summary judgment. Period. It doesn't matter what the case is about.

In ANY other case in which these issues arose, the court would unquestionably just overrule or remand the case with appropriate instructions, as a matter of course and without a second thought. That it did not do so emphasizes the fact that the spread of the information revealed in CtC is understood at all levels of the state as the catalyst for the transformational shift of power away from those in whose hands it is now concentrated (amongst whom are those on the federal benches, and those to whom they are beholden) and back to the hands of the people, to whom it really belongs.

Indeed, these issues NEVER HAVE arisen before, and thus the court's effort to dodge them is all the more telling. That is, the lower courts' behavior is not in keeping with "settled law", such that the high court could be expected to take no special interest-- it is exactly the contrary. The lower courts' behavior is directly in violation of numerous Constitutional and statutory provisions and well-settled doctrine pursuant to those provisions, including many Supreme Court precedential rulings. Thus, the case is a prime one for the high court's consideration-- and yet the court declines to take it up. This can only be out of recognition of the significance of the outcome if the issues should actually get the hearing that they merit.

Of course, the Supremes may also be engaging in a little gamesmanship in this evasion of its responsibilities in order to protect the PR value of these bogus "rulings" to the ignorance-tax schemers (which, you will recall, were rendered as "not for citation as precedent"-- even after a specific DoJ request to the contrary) . For instance, the court may be silently invoking some legal gimmickry concerning "standing" or "ripeness" as a pretext for passing on the case at this point, since no effort has actually ever been made to enforce the "rulings".

Or, the court may be taking one step further back, and its declining to take the case may be in silent recognition of the fact that these rulings are simply and plainly void on their face:

Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. Black's dictionary of Law, Sixth Edition.

(Indeed, one or the other of these principles may be the rationale exploited throughout the entire charade, both as conducted in the lower courts as well as now in the Supreme Court...)

But this is a distinction without a difference, because again, in any other case in which the same bad behavior had taken place in the lower courts-- but in which the continuity of the "ignorance tax" scheme was not at risk--, the court would certainly have accepted the petition just on the basis of the due process and other procedural violations alone.

Make no mistake. You CtC warriors are the force that stands on the verge of restoring the Constitutional republic designed by the Founders. Those who oppose that design understand that, and you must understand it, too.

[wserra]

The Supreme Court Kicks The Can Down The Road

YM "Pete's Ass".
HTH.
HAND.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

The Supreme Court Kicks The Can Down The Road
...I hope that all of you and your uncles, cousins and sainted grandmas will get involved in flooding the justices with letters before July 10 urging them to not slink away from this hot-potato a second time.

Hot potato?

[LPC]

The Supreme Court Kicks The Can Down The Road

Down the road? Doesn't Hendrickson understand that the Supreme Court is the *end* of the road?

The Supreme Court didn't "kick" the can, they smashed it flat and tossed it into the recycling bin as scrap to be shredded and melted down.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg, because there is some SERIOUS denial (and delusion) going on here:

it's important to recognize the significance of the court's decision to avoid this case. ...
That it did not [just overrule or remand] emphasizes the fact that the spread of the information revealed in CtC is understood at all levels of the state as the catalyst for the transformational shift of power .... these issues NEVER HAVE arisen before, and thus the court's effort to dodge them is all the more telling. .... This [failure to grant cert.] can only be out of recognition of the significance of the outcome if the issues should actually get the hearing that they merit. ... the Supremes may also be engaging in a little gamesmanship in this evasion of its responsibilities in order to protect the PR value of these bogus "rulings" .... the court may be silently invoking some legal gimmickry concerning "standing" or "ripeness" as a pretext for passing on the case at this point.... its declining to take the case may be in silent recognition of the fact that these rulings are simply and plainly void on their face.... You CtC warriors are the force that stands on the verge of restoring the Constitutional republic designed by the Founders.

While Pete stands on the verge of restoring his rightful place in the federal prison system.

[Demosthenes]

05/14/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Gerald E Rosen: Motion Hearing held on 5/14/2009 re 29 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment, 16 Renewed MOTION for Discovery Renewed and Clarified Motion for Notice of 404(b) Evidence, 27 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment for Violation of Rule 7 and Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 18 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Indictment, 28 MOTION for Disclosure of Grand Jury Material Pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i)and(ii), 30 MOTION for Discovery filed by Peter Hendrickson. Disposition: Taken Under Advisement(Court Reporter: Rene Twedt) (Defendant Attorney: Lyle D. Russell, Jr, M. Ellen Dennis) (AUSA: Michael Leibson) (RBri) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

5+ weeks and counting.

[Pottapaug1938]

PotatoHead also seems to be unable to understand what any first year law student knows: that when the Supreme Court doesn't want to hear a case, they don't take ANY action on it other than to simply deny certiorari. Of course, what PH doesn't understand could fill volumes....

[ASITStands]

PotatoHead also seems to be unable to understand what any first year law student knows: that when the Supreme Court doesn't want to hear a case, they don't take ANY action on it other than to simply deny certiorari. Of course, what PH doesn't understand could fill volumes....

Another example of Dan's diagnosis:

Most tax protesters really don't understand what goes on in courts, or court opinions. They don't understand "due process" or "jurisdiction" or "burden of proof." To them, what goes on in court is just moving words around. It's incomprehensible and nonsensical to them, which makes it the same as magic.

Not only is their view of Law (i.e., Declaration, Constitution, Statutes, Regulations, etc.) twisted but their view of reality in terms of "what happens in courts." Sad that of affairs.

We've talked before about whether it's a mental disease or just ignorance. It probably starts as ignorance and a tendency to be swayed by someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about, but sooner rather than later, it degenerates into a stubborn confusion.

If that ain't a mental condition, it's certainly irrationality! And, when you try to turn these People's heads around, you have to begin by getting into their head and understanding, then work from the meanings of words they understand. Look for eye-openers.

Those little things that are inexplicable under their legal theory, and even then, it doesn't always work (i.e., Weston White is a good example - Where is he, by the way?).

Reason just doesn't come easy to the unreasonable.

[The Operative]

Those little things that are inexplicable under their legal theory, and even then, it doesn't always work (i.e., Weston White is a good example - Where is he, by the way?).

Weston declared himself victorious and wandered off never realizing that he never actually won an argument.

[ASITStands]

User 'databrain' is now sponsoring an online petition which can be sent to mailing lists.

I haven't quite figured out what he's trying to accomplish with the petition.

It doesn't appear to be going anywhere but to whomever you send it. Makes no sense to me, but who am I to say they won't successfully overturn the Supreme Court's reluctance. Not!

[Gregg]

Has the Supreme Court ever changed their mind on Certiori denied?

[Lambkin]

Even if they have, I'm sure they won't for Pete. This is already part of the impact phase of the slow-motion train wreck.

[LPC]

Has the Supreme Court ever changed their mind on Certiori denied?

I raised that question myself, a few threads back, and I suspect that the answer is "no."

I suspect that, in the history of the United States, the number of times that the Supreme Court has reversed itself and granted cert., having previously denied cert., is....

Zero.

Which means that Hendrickson is either about to become the answer to a very famous trivia question, or he is about to become the answer to a very, very obscure trivia question.

[wserra]

Locked due to length. Continued here.