Rehearing the Bleedin' Obvious (Hendrickson)

[Gregg]

There is a coming cascade, which I expect shortly after Pete is tried, that will ruin most of our favorite Crackheads in quick succession. Even if Pete gets a jury to buy a cheek defense in the criminal case, the civil case is all over unless something extraordinary happens, and that means bad things.

The ones we know from their LH posts, are far along down the rabbit hole and most of them have or will soon pass a point where they can't get a mulligan and start over. Some of them have tens of thousands of dollars just in friv penalties, tens of thousands more in penalties (sadly for some the underlying tax is a small amount of what they're going to end up owing). By sending the letters they all composed together on Pete's forums, they've not only ran through a lot of deadlines that could have prevented their own personal financial disasters, they've also made themselves easy to identify and a little training will make it sure that most of them will get caught quickly where if they had not collaborated and made themselves a boilerplate scam they might have gotten lost in the system for months, years, maybe a few of them forever, just because it was such crazy gibberish that the people reading it may have been hard pressed exactly where it should go. As it is, they made it standard enough among themselves that the IRS can develop effective means to separate them out from the garden variety nuts and a boilerplate way of dealing with them can be made. Nice of them. I do think they wasted too much effort on it, I mean, why not just answer every letter with "Notice! I have read Pete's Book, I've filed just like he said, please send the friv penalty letter to (address)"
Now, when the courts drive the final stake through Pete's heart and they start going after the followers with ruthless efficiency and Hendrickson's Heroes have systematically removed most of the things they might have used to hold them at bay while they organized a defense. Several of them are already on "Final Intent to Levy" and bunches of them are going to lose their homes, savings, everything, and quick too because they've forfeited the court options that could have delayed it. Unlike Pete, they don't have a legal defense fund and aren't going to be able to fight it through layers of courts, they'll lose in tax court or district court and the IRS will start selling their stuff on the courthouse steps, just like that. Pete's own court cases will provide clear and concise citations that ensure quick decisions and well, that's that. And that's the ones who have the presence of mind to go get an attorney, which I'm sure most won't. It has to suck to be the judge in a pro se case where you order the poor guy homeless, but what can you do? This is going to be ugly.

[Nikki]

Interesting point, above.

Given that so many of the CrackHeads have collaborated on letters, petitions, and the like; there is a possibility they they could be considered not just evaders, but conspirators -- thereby ratcheting up the criminal sentencing guidelines significantly.

[Quixote]

Folks, we have a illegal activity going on by a frequent troll. My computer was twice attacked with an attempt to gain entry, while on the forum.

A hacker on a forum dedicated to a conspiricacy to defraud the government? Whoda thunk it?

[Imalawman]

There is a coming cascade, which I expect shortly after Pete is tried, that will ruin most of our favorite Crackheads in quick succession. Even if Pete gets a jury to buy a cheek defense in the criminal case, the civil case is all over unless something extraordinary happens, and that means bad things.

.....

Unlike Pete, they don't have a legal defense fund and aren't going to be able to fight it through layers of courts, they'll lose in tax court or district court and the IRS will start selling their stuff on the courthouse steps, just like that. Pete's own court cases will provide clear and concise citations that ensure quick decisions and well, that's that. And that's the ones who have the presence of mind to go get an attorney, which I'm sure most won't. It has to suck to be the judge in a pro se case where you order the poor guy homeless, but what can you do? This is going to be ugly.

You're right, but to a point, that is, the IRS and state taxing authorities are already dropping CTCer's by the handful. On the state side, where I was, there was a system in place and after I got the first one handled, it was a flurry of activity to just locate the concomitant forms for these nuts and assess them promptly. The amazing thing is even after they lost in court, they would file the next years in the CTC fashion and now they get hit with fraud penalties. (some did see the light and amend their returns).

The amazing thing is how I bent over backwards for these people, trying to get them to avoid the penalties and interest by having them file correctly. but you're right, there will be more in the coming months, but don't think that it hasn't already started.

[cynicalflyer]

databrain asked for "Online ePetition - 25K Signatures!"

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 9040#19040

291 as of Monday 07/13 AM.

They also seem to think "Pete's Supreme Court Petition - 07/31 Deadline !!!!!!!!!!!!!"
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1987

However, if memory serves, Pete has 30 days from the June 15 rejection (i.e. July 15). Yes?

[ASITStands]

Rules of the Supreme Court:

2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a
petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall
be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial
and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of
paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing
fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening
circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to
other substantial grounds not previously presented.

Emphasis added.

June 15, Denial of Certiorari, July 10, Petition for Rehearing. Looks like he missed it!

[Gregg]

Rules of the Supreme Court:

2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a
petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall
be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial
and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of
paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing
fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening
circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to
other substantial grounds not previously presented.

Emphasis added.

June 15, Denial of Certiorari, July 10, Petition for Rehearing. Looks like he missed it!

That's big news, I wonder if the crackheads are aware of that

[Dezcad]

In his latest newsletter, PH posts his Petition for Rehearing. It has yet to appear on the docket at SCOTUS. It's classic Blowhardy.

CASE NO. 08-1399

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Peter E. Hendrickson and Doreen M. Hendrickson, Petitioners
v.
United States, Respondent

Petition for Re-Hearing Of This Court’s Order Denying Our Petition For Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit


QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN OUR PETITION

1. Does a court, or any agency of the government, possess the lawful authority to compel an American man or woman 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;

2. Does a court, or any agency of the government, possess the lawful authority to compel an American man or woman to stand silent in the face of testimony made by others which is about, or which affects, him or her, or to compel an American man or woman to adopt such testimony made by others as his or her own, when that American man or woman believes that testimony made by others to be erroneous or false;

3. Can the federal courts grant summary judgment to the United States-- on its own motion in a suit which it has brought seeking to assert a claim to the property of an American man or woman-- by unilaterally construing all material-fact-related assertions of the movant United States to be true, and by disregarding or construing to be false all of the contradictory assertions of the non-movant American man or woman;

4. Can the federal courts issue federal tax-related injunctions despite the provisions of the Declaratory Act, permit litigation barred by the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel as enunciated in Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sanction an American man or woman for appealing judicial decisions purporting to do all of the above.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions for Review Presented in our Petition.........................................i
Table of Authorities...............................................................................ii
Statement of the Case...................................................................1
Substantial Grounds Not Previously Presented….......................................3
Conclusion……………......................................................................5
Certificate of Good Faith and Compliance with Rule 44.2.……………….7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes and Code Sections:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e).............................................................3
26 USC § 6201(d)................................................................................5
26 USC § 7491(a)(1).........................................................................5

Cases:

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).........................................3
Terry I. and Louise Major v. CIR, TC Memo. 2005-141 (2005).....……….5



STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Court-- American men and women of the Court-- we are nearly at a loss for words. The denial of our petition for the review of the lower court decisions in this case serves to facilitate a pernicious assault on the rule of law and the severe erosion of the people’s faith in the integrity of their public institutions.

After all, this case concerns, among other things, the issuance of an order by a United States court dictating the content of testimony to be made by an American man and woman-- that is, dictating the very words that the man and woman are to write down and declare to be their own testimony, over their own signatures. It is obvious to any schoolchild that no court-- indeed, no power on Earth-- has the authority to issue such an order. It is obvious to any schoolchild that such an order is inherently meaningless, since a declaration as to what one knows and believes to be true-- the contents of which are dictated by another and the signature beneath which is coerced-- is not, in fact and in law, the testimony which it otherwise might appear to be. This is true regardless of any other consideration; it is more egregiously true when the party dictating the “testimony” stands to enjoy a financial gain as a result of the dictated “testimony”, as in this case.

Further, as already comprehensively discussed in our petition to this Court, this case concerns a multitude of explicit and unambiguous due process violations by both the District Court and Circuit Court, including, among others, the grossly improper elevation of the moving party’s allegations to the status of “found facts” and corresponding disregard of the non-moving party’s rebuttals, in defiance of the core principles of due process as well as numerous explicit rulings on the subject by this Court. This case concerns a denial of our right to a trial by a jury; the preclusion of our ever making a formal answer to the complaint; the preclusion of our opportunities to engage in discovery and to make use of other procedural tools to which we are entitled; and on, and on.

We understand that the inherently void character of the rulings issued might serve as a technically valid pretext for denying our petition due to its being apparently moot:

Void judgment. One which 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.

But we urge this Honorable Court to recognize that to so treat our petition is to allow the unfortunate impression to take root in the minds of those who are not familiar with such nuances of the law that United States courts now claim authority which every schoolchild knows they do not and cannot lawfully have, and that the rule of law has thus been overthrown and in its place has been erected a corrupt rule of force, with the collusion of this Court.

SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AS TO WHY OUR PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED


1. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.” (FRCP 8(e)). This Court has recognized that the purpose of this rule is to preclude gamesmanship by the courts in which errors or oversights by a litigant are exploited by the court in arriving at a decision:

“The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome, and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).

It is inescapable that a decision which grants summary judgment to a moving party by elevating the moving party’s allegations to gospel while disregarding controverting evidence and testimony presented by the non-moving party; which denies us the procedural opportunities to which we are entitled as defendants; which commands us to testify to the benefit of our adversary (and in a fashion that would force us to apparently declare our original testimony to have been perjurious); and which involves and relies upon the numerous other violations and offenses detailed in our petition is patently unjust. If the decisions of the District and/or Appellate Court in this case are somehow deemed to be other than inherently void, they could only be so by virtue of the callous exploitation of some failure on our part to “cross some “t” or “dot some “i” in the course of our pro se management of this litigation. Those decisions, if somehow deemed to be other than inherently void, are thus in violation of this plain rule and doctrine and merit review and relief accordingly.

More substantively (in light of their character), allowing these inherently void judgments to remain undenounced as such IS ITSELF a manifest injustice. Undenounced, these void judgments give the superficial appearance to all made aware of them that we have been ruled against in a controversy involving matters about which we testified under oath, and after a proper, honest and fair judicial proceeding. Nothing could be further from the truth in every particular, but most of those who become aware of this case will never look past the mendacious and self-serving press releases touting these bogus rulings which the government has been trumpeting throughout the land in a deliberate disinformation campaign intended to help perpetuate public acquiescence to the systematic misapplication of the income tax.

Thus, even though we have suffered no harm in the sense of any effort to enforce these void judgments we are harmed by them nonetheless. We have brought this appeal in a proper manner, and we ask again that we be afforded justice by this Honorable Court.


2. Congress has specifically provided that once disputed, “information returns”, such as those relied upon by the plaintiff in this case as its sole, exclusive and unsupported evidence, are presumptively invalid, and the government bears the burden of proof as to the assertions made thereon as a matter of statutory specification above and beyond any considerations of routine and fundamental due process and the rules and doctrine regarding summary judgments. See 26 USC § 7491(a)(1); 26 USC § 6201(d); and Terry I. and Louise Major v. CIR, TC Memo. 2005-141 (2005).

The granting of summary judgment to the government/plaintiff by the courts below despite its failure to carry this burden stands among the many egregious and systematic violations of due process involved in the rulings issued in this case. If those rulings are somehow not deemed void, this violation merits review and relief by this Court accordingly.

But even if the clearly void character of these rulings serves as a pretext for otherwise treating the case as moot, and thus declining to grant our petition, we urge the Court to nonetheless take this opportunity to denounce these rulings based on this plain error (if not all the others discussed here and in our original petition as well). To persist in declining to do so leaves the American public with the disquieting sense that rather than acting as the constraint on the other co-equal branches of the federal government for which we established the federal judiciary as the third such branch, the federal courts have become co-conspirators in the ambitions of those in the executive branch who chafe at the bonds of the rule of law, and wish to simply have their way, for good or for ill.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, we respectfully and sincerely urge this Honorable Court to reconsider its prior decision to decline our petition. We are well aware of the political pressure bearing in opposition to forthright acknowledgment of the truth about the income tax, the suppression of which truth is the actual subject of this case. But we urge this Honorable Court to agree with us that the sustenance of the rule of law merits disregarding that pressure. We urge this Honorable Court to recognize that that pressure is, in fact, brought in deliberate defiance of the rule of law, by its mortal enemies; and to honor the sentiment that we understand adorns a portrait of John Marshall hanging in a conference room in which this Honorable Court deliberates: “Let justice be done.”

[grixit]

databrain asked for "Online ePetition - 25K Signatures!"

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 9040#19040

291 as of Monday 07/13 AM.

They also seem to think "Pete's Supreme Court Petition - 07/31 Deadline !!!!!!!!!!!!!"
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1987

However, if memory serves, Pete has 30 days from the June 15 rejection (i.e. July 15). Yes?

That should be a cause for celebration, right? After all, by paytriot theory, if the Supreme Court misses the deadline, it means Hendrikson wins

[cynicalflyer]

We understand that the inherently void character of the rulings issued might serve as a technically valid pretext for denying our petition due to its being apparently moot:

Void judgment. One which 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.

...

If the decisions of the District and/or Appellate Court in this case are somehow deemed to be other than inherently void, they could only be so by virtue of the callous exploitation of some failure on our part to “cross some “t” or “dot some “i” in the course of our pro se management of this litigation.

And here we see Pete setting up for the inevitable "victory" of having his motion for rehearing denied. You see, it is a "victory" because the court couldn't bother with a VOID JUDGMENT! Or, it must be because poor pro se Pete made some tiny technical error. Why, that MUST be why cert was denied and the motion to rehear will be denied.

Yeah, that's it.

[grixit]

Once again, a soverun tries to teach the judge the law. I don't think judges like that.

[wserra]

Still no further blather on the Supreme Court docket.

[cynicalflyer]

Still no further blather on the Supreme Court docket.

He had his petition for cert initially rejected by the clerk of court for failure to obey type/font/format requirements.

Same mistake again?

[Dezcad]

Still no further blather on the Supreme Court docket.

PH could have mailed it on June 10th and it would be timely even if not received yet.

Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special Notifications; Corporate Listing

1. Any document required or permitted to be presented to the Court or to a Justice shall be filed with the Clerk.
2. A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk within the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerk through the United States Postal Service by first-class mail
(including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, and bears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meter label, showing that the document was mailed on or before
the last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before the last day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days.

[LPC]

Previously quoted Supreme Court rule:

2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari ... shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented.

And Hendrickson's petition for rehearing states:

SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AS TO WHY OUR PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED

Does Hendrickson's marks realize that he is admitting that he screwed up the first time and neglected to present the "substantial grounds" that he is now relying on to get a grant of cert.?

[notorial dissent]

SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AS TO WHY OUR PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED

And yet this new and improved petition reads almost exactly like the previous non-starter, so I am hard pressed to find any “substantial” anything, or “grounds” for why it too should not be round filed. To my eyes it looks like everything else he has filed to date, only reworded and possible reorganized a little. I quite honestly don’t see anything that makes this petition any different from all the rest that would merit it any further attention.

I also wonder if his not paying his attorneys might have something to do with it unless he has been filing the appeals pro se.

I personally think is officially toast at this point.

[Quixote]

Does Hendrickson's marks realize that he is admitting that he screwed up the first time and neglected to present the "substantial grounds" that he is now relying on to get a grant of cert.?

His new "substantial grounds" are a reaction to the first denial of cert for what PH assumes were technical reasons. The grounds he provided in his first petition were, in PH's fevered brain, so compelling that only some hyper-technical error on his part could have resulted in a denial of cert.

The LostHeads won't notice anyway. The hot topic of discussion on LH is how to oppose a frivolous return penalty without actually taking an opposing position.

[jcolvin2]

Rehearing filed early (July 9)

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1399.htm


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.
May 19 2009 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
May 26 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 11, 2009.
Jun 15 2009 Petition DENIED.
Jul 9 2009 Petition for Rehearing filed.

[notorial dissent]

His new "substantial grounds" are a reaction to the first denial of cert for what PH assumes were technical reasons. The grounds he provided in his first petition were, in PH's fevered brain, so compelling that only some hyper-technical error on his part could have resulted in a denial of cert.

Right, he put a comma in the wrong place and forgot to dot an I, and then used the wrong font, really big technical reasons for ignoring the "substantial grounds" of the petition - NOT!!!!

More likely it was so bleeding painful to read they gave up in disgust.

[Joey Smith]

Pete is just desperately trying to keep the *possibility* (no matter how remote) of a Supreme Court appeal alive for his criminal case.

Not that it will help him that much.