Mailbomber's Appeal Described as Heroic

[Joey Smith]

Of course, Pete's appeal will shortly be thrown out on a 3-0 decision with the usual language about bogus tax protestor theories. But "heroic"? Hell, there is not an issue in Pete's appeal that has the slightest amount of merit. "Heroic" is simply TP-speak for what the rest of the world calls "Frivolous".

John J. Bulten


407 Posts
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 01:17:21 AM
----------------------

http://www.losthorizons.com/PostAppellateBrief.pdf lists ten grounds for error (emphasis in original):
quote:
----------------------ISSUES ON APPEAL

The District Court erred in at least the following respects:

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IMMEDIATELY DUE TO LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IMMEDIATELY DUE TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S LACK OF STANDING, AND/OR ITS FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IMMEDIATELY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECLARATORY ACT

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IMMEDIATELY DUE TO ITS LACK OF JURISDCITION TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS OF INCOME TAX LIABILITY

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IMMEDIATELY DUE TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAVING VIOLATED THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 12988(1)(a)

Furthermore,

Having improperly entertained the complaint despite its lack of jurisdiction (and despite the several other reasons for which the complaint should have immediately been dismissed), the District Court obliged Defendant-Appellants to bear the burden of responding to a series of filings by Plaintiff-Appellee and a magistrate for ten months before finally ruling for the first time on Defendant-Appellants' initial Motions to Dismiss on various grounds. AT THE VERY SAME MOMENT, the District Court granted Plaintiff-Appellee's untimely Motion for Summary Judgment and issued its various other initial orders, judgments and rulings.

In so doing, and/or in its final rulings, the District Court made at least the following series of errors even within the context attendant upon its erroneous assumption of jurisdiction:

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN MAKING, AND RELYING UPON, "FINDINGS OF FACT" NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND NOT RELEVANT TO ITS SUBSEQUENT CONCLUSIONS AND DECISIONS

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ISSUING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON IMPROPERLY CONSTRUING THE RECORD UNFAVORABLY AGAINST THE NON-MOVING PARTY, AND IN FAVOR OF THE MOVING PARTY.

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE TO LITIGATE AND TO SEEK REMEDIES BY REFERENCE OR IN REGARD TO THE CONTENT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PETER HENDRICKSON'S BOOK, AND IN MAKING RELATED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RULINGS, ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ISSUING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A CASE WHICH, WERE IT NOT ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, WOULD BE ONE OF COMMON-LAW IN WHICH THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS TWENTY DOLLARS

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ISSUING ORDERS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ITS JURISDICTION, DIRECTLY PROHIBITED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS, AND UTTERLY ABHORRENT TO ALL STANDARDS OF DECENCY AND PROPRIETY

ARGUMENT

....

PRAYER

WHEREFORE DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS PRAY THIS HONORABLE COURT:

1. Vacate, reverse or otherwise undo all rulings, orders and judgments of the District Court.
2. Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee's complaint with prejudice.
3. Grant Defendant-Appellants such other relief, including the costs of this action, as is just and equitable.
----------------------

Trolls, be advised that I will moderately relax forum standards for your frivolous arguments for this thread only. Now's your chance to give Pete your best shot. The remainder of this is instant commentary and JMNSHO.

Of course, as always Pete's hard work and determination is indescribably heroic, but a dozen refrains of "Bravo!" would be immoderate.

1 and 2 are the crux of the jurisdiction argument, and FRCP 12(h)(3) is very strong: DC cannot determine or rule on income under 26 USC 6201(a)(1) and 26 CFR 301.6203-1; and even if so, DC cannot proceed under 26 USC 7405 without filer admission of tax. Period.

3 is a nice judo move of the sort more litigants should pursue. The IRS routinely construes statutes that might cut both ways in whichever light is most favorable at the moment, which gets them in trouble later if they want to argue the opposite light against YOU. Since the IRS in BJU v Simon, 416 US 725, argues injunctions are barred from DC under 28 USC 2201, seems they can't argue for injunction now and must defend the double standard.

4 and 5 are further wonders (which surely must've had some good precedents by now): DC cannot have jurisdiction to determine liability, which is granted only to TC; and EO 12988 requires precomplaint attempts for settlement and constructive notice of dispute, which were not only ignored by IRS but also effectively ignored by Judge Nancy in dismissing the Motion for More Definite Statement. These seem like further excellent administrative default arguments.

6 is a bit more difficult to read, but appears to hold that since DC cannot assess tax itself, its erroneous findings of fact do not create the assessment (or finding) of tax, which is necessary for erroneous tax refund to proceed. At this point the incompetence and invalidity of Kim Halbrook's testimony (apparently obtained in bad faith, because one month after the complaint had been filed) is also repeated; and Pete's proof that he did in fact request correction of his W-2s (just as he swore to doing) also enters the record.

7 and 8 seem to go together for me, because the presumable reason for rejecting ALL nonmovant evidence in a single brush of the robed sleeve is the single out-of-context CtC sentence relied on so heavily. It appears to me both that nonmovant evidence was wrongly ignored in the MSJ grant, and that additionally there is good evidence that CtC's nonfraudulence is res adjudicata due to the 3 suits Pete's already won. Argument 7 closes with an excellent quote from the instant court (!) which I will close with as well.

9 and 10 affirm Pete's 7th Amendment right to jury trial and his charges of witness tampering and intimidation (subornation of perjury is only hinted at).

Many other fireworks can be noted later. In an inexact summary, for the government to escape unscathed, the Appeals Panel must find that Judge Nancy had power to:
- determine Pete's income (instead of Pete)
- determine Pete's tax (instead of Pete)
- make declaratory judgment in tax cases (instead of state court)
- determine Pete's liability (instead of Pete or TC)
- serve constructive notice (instead of IRS)
- formalize the assessment (instead of Pete or IRS)
- determine the meaning of Pete's evidence (instead of Pete)
- find CtC fraudulent (instead of DOJ finding it nonfraudulent)
- judge the case (instead of a jury)
- tamper with witnesses (instead of, I guess, someone who lives outside of any jurisdiction where witness-tampering is a felony)

Under this standard it should not be hard to throw in two free proofs that Judge Nancy also has power to heal the demon-possessed and to walk on water during a rainstorm.
quote:
--------------------------"A central tenet of our republic--a characteristic that separates us from totalitarian regimes throughout the world--is that the government and private citizens resolve disputes on an equal playing field in the courts. When citizens face the government in the federal courts, the job of the judge is to apply the law, not to bolster the government's case." Beaty v. United States, 937 F.2d 288 (6th Cir. 1991).
----------------------

quote:
-------------------------
"Wormwood, wormwood." --Hamlet, III.ii.172

[wserra]

John J. Bulten


I will moderately relax forum standards for your frivolous arguments for this thread only.

What a guy.

Maybe he can censor the prison newspaper.

[Joey Smith]

Having read Pete's brief thoroughly, it is just so much random word salad attempting to pass as legal argument. Not only is it written at a level that one would expect from a high school freshman attempting to debate the law, but at many points Pete's arguments are simply incomprehensible. Where Pete's arguments are comprehensible, it is obvious that he is totally wrong.

The only thing about the brief in Pete's favor is that it is so bad that the court is unlikely to hit him with sanctions for a frivolous appeal, noting the court's general reluctance to sanction pro se litigants no matter how off-center their arguments are. And Pete's argument are so far off center that he's long departed the highway and gone off into the woods.

But I'm sure that certain passages will generate some substantial laughter among the court clerks.

[Nikki]

<begin swell of background music>

You are privileged to be a witness to the life-or-death struggle between a patriotic American citizen, who wants nothing more than to expose the unlawful evils of the tax collection establishment, against the evil government minions who will stop at nothing to silence him and prevent him from spreading the TRUTH about the unlawful activities of the government.

Pete Hendrickson {or insert your favorite TP du jour} is a heroic patriot who is risking all to uncover the illegal activities of the government and to free YOU from their unlawful acts.

<continue with 15 minutes of blather and fade to black with an American flag (sans fringe) waving>

[LPC]

"Heroic" is simply TP-speak for what the rest of the world calls "Frivolous".

Or self-centered. Don't forget self-centered.

[LPC]

Participial clauses I never finished reading.

From the first sentence of the introduction to Hendrickson's brief to the 6th Circuit:

"In 2003, recognizing that widespread knowledge of the actual words and substance of the federal internal revenue laws will end an exploitation of ignorance about the true nature of the income tax with which the executive branch of the federal government has grown very comfortable, ...."

I also like the fact that the same first sentence of the brief posted on the Internet included a link to a web page promoting the sale of Hendrickson's book. If the same link is included in the brief filed with the Circuit Court of Appeals, it is almost certain to make an impression. (Not necessarily favorable.)

[Nikki]

Does that mean Pete is introducing into evidence his entire web site including all the pretty pictures of refund checks?

Perhaps someone should bring these trivial details to the attention of the Court so it can preserve them for the record.

Also, they should capture the contents of the forum, including (in the expansive sense) Mr Bulton's commentary.

Once a part of the court record, there is no need for CI to issue subpoenae.

Thank you Pete and John.

[notorial dissent]

"Heroic" is simply TP-speak for what the rest of the world calls "Frivolous".

Or self-centered. Don't forget self-centered.

Mustn’t forget self aggrandizing.

[The Dog]

"Heroic" is simply TP-speak for what the rest of the world calls "Frivolous".

Or self-centered. Don't forget self-centered.

Mustn’t forget self aggrandizing.

I'm not sure I agree with this..
Heroic is a term used by the British media to mean "doomed to failure" e.g "Tim Henman bowed out of Wimbledon after an heroic second-round struggle against Spaniard Feliciano Lopez ended in defeat". (It is therefore commonly used of British tennis players).

Accordingly, the adjective heroic seems very appropriate in this case.

[Disilloosianed]

Maybe it's "heroic" in the same sense as Pickett's charge?

[Nikki]

What about heroic as in: pertaining to the main male character in a work of fiction?

[Disilloosianed]

Love it.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Maybe it's "heroic" in the same sense as Pickett's charge?

Nah, it's more of the re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic sort of thing.