And the CtC crowd again strives mightily to make 1+1=3. Forget how dumb it is to believe that the Supreme Court should consider a "petition". Perhaps someone should ask "databrain" whether, if he was litigating a case, the presiding judge should stop proceedings to hear the opinion of someone who wandered in off the street. This is, of course, exactly why the law contains a procedure for filing amicus briefs.
In any event, though, it is difficult to see how anyone could believe that the "petition" makes any sense at all:
Pete apparently believes that no one can tell him what "income" means. In other words, that police report in which I accused my elderly neighbor of trying to kill me is not false, because I define "kill" as "give chocolate chip cookies", that's what she tried to do, and that should end the matter.An agency of the federal government is seeking authority (power) from the courts to compel individuals to change their sworn testimony, both now and in the future. Such testimony is to be made under penalty of perjury, yet as government dictated testimony, it would not be their belief and would, in fact, be perjury.
It truly is a cult.