Hendrickson, Peter

The purpose of this board is to track the status of activity, cases, and ultimately the incarceration or fines against TP promoters and certain high-profile TPs.
User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Hendrickson, Peter

Postby LPC » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:48 pm

While checking on the status of Hendrickson's appeal of the erroneous refund case, I found a couple of things:

In the appeal of the erroneous refund suit, Hendrickson's reply brief was stricken. No. 07-1510 (6th Cir.)

Hendrickson had also appealed one of the summonses filed by the IRS and, after the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his motion to quash, Hendrickson filed a petition for cert with the Supreme Court. USSC Docket No. 07-624, appealing 6th Circuit No. 06-1870. The petition has been distributed and is scheduled for a 1/4/2008 conference.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Re: Hendrickson, Peter

Postby Doktor Avalanche » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:18 pm

LPC wrote:While checking on the status of Hendrickson's appeal of the erroneous refund case, I found a couple of things:

In the appeal of the erroneous refund suit, Hendrickson's reply brief was stricken. No. 07-1510 (6th Cir.)

Hendrickson had also appealed one of the summonses filed by the IRS and, after the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his motion to quash, Hendrickson filed a petition for cert with the Supreme Court. USSC Docket No. 07-624, appealing 6th Circuit No. 06-1870. The petition has been distributed and is scheduled for a 1/4/2008 conference.


Okay, I'm a little lost here. Explain "Hendrickson's reply brief was stricken".

Questions like "what for?" come to mind. Does this mean the court found his reply to be :shock: frivolous?
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Postby Dr. Caligari » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:02 pm

There was a thread on Hendrickson's Reply Brief. Basically, he filed a brief that was way too long under the rules, and attached two other "memoranda of law" to it, making it even longer.

It was, in fact, frivolous, but I don't think the court addressed that.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:15 pm

Postby ASITStands » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:47 pm

My recollection was, "It was the two memoranda that were stricken and not the reply brief itself." Am I wrong? That was the discussion on Lost Horizons and reported by Pete.

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Postby Imalawman » Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:09 pm

ASITStands wrote:My recollection was, "It was the two memoranda that were stricken and not the reply brief itself." Am I wrong? That was the discussion on Lost Horizons and reported by Pete.


That is what I remember Pete saying. I didn't ever check PACER so I can't say for sure. If Dan has checked that's what PACER reports, then I will by all means trust Dan's interpretation of the docket.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Postby LPC » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:52 pm

Imalawman wrote:
ASITStands wrote:My recollection was, "It was the two memoranda that were stricken and not the reply brief itself." Am I wrong? That was the discussion on Lost Horizons and reported by Pete.


That is what I remember Pete saying. I didn't ever check PACER so I can't say for sure. If Dan has checked that's what PACER reports, then I will by all means trust Dan's interpretation of the docket.

The PACER docket entry doesn't say anything other than that the reply was stricken, and the text of the orders themselves are not accessible.

The reply brief, and the motion to strike, were discussed before at http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1371 and it wasn't clear then what was stricken (struck?) either.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:15 pm

Postby ASITStands » Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:56 pm

Just noticed:

Hendrickson's response to the motion to strike is titled, "Response to Plaintiff-Appellee's Motion to Strike the Two Memoranda of Law Filed with our Reply Brief."

This was/is available from Lost Horizons, but I'm not sure where.

Reading the first paragraph:

We strongly object to this effort by Plaintiff-Appellee (hereinafter "Plaintiff" or "IRS") to exclude the highly substantive, relevant and responsive content of our two memorandums, the inclusion of which serves the interest of justice in this case.


Conclusion: It was the memoranda only.
Last edited by ASITStands on Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:19 pm

Postby Dezcad » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:07 pm

In one of the District Courts cases where PH lost his attempt to quash an IRS third-party summons (and PH talks about here

SO...., I've taken the first of these to the Supreme Court.

By good fortune, this first case to have completed its run through the appellate court is also the one I would have picked to take to the high court first, if it had been a matter of choice. The one-paragraph "legal analysis" offered by the court with its decision relies upon a transparent fraud perpetrated by the DOJ in its response to my appellate brief (a fraud made necessary by the government's inability to muster even a scintilla of authority-- either in statute or even case law-- for its position).

The ruling also defies a number of extraordinarily relevant-- indeed, direct-- previous Supreme Court rulings on precisely the point of law the government is trying to evade in this contest, as well as a huge volume of additional authority from every other quarter; and impales the "ignorance tax" scheme on the horns of a dilemma as well. If this ruling stands undisturbed, the Supreme Court will have validated the unintentional, but unmistakable doctrine proceeding from the Sixth Circuit's conclusion: that beginning on August 16, 1954, natural persons-- that is, you and me-- were no longer covered by most of the language of the internal revenue laws. (This means ALL of those laws, by the way, including the ATF provisions, the "death tax", etc..) That doctrine now applies only within the Sixth Circuit; if the Supremes uphold the Sixth Circuit's ruling, or decline to consider my petition, the doctrine will then become national in application.

In other words, the high court gets to pick its poison, although the choice should be a no-brainer. On the one hand is the complete collapse of the scheme in an embarrassing cloud of incoherence; on the other, upholding the plain words of the law (including the Fourth Amendment), at the sole price of the all-too-long-standing IRS practice of executing unconstitutional "writs of assistance", a practice which is already increasingly fruitless as more and more Americans learn the truth about the legal character of whatever it is such warrantless searches might discover, and how to deal with any subsequent allegations.

In any event, my petition for Supreme Court review has been docketed, and the United States Solicitor General has waived the government's opportunity to argue against it. The petition can be read here, and the appellate court briefs (which include a discussion of the "natural person" conundrum) can be read here.


Th petition has been denied. (see p. 22 of SCOTUS order)

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Famspear » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:29 am

Peter E. "Blowhard" Hendrickson wrote:

The petition can be read here, and the appellate court briefs (which include a discussion of the "natural person" conundrum) can be read here.


Gee, the "natural person conundrum" turned out not to be a conundrum at all.

"Certioriari denied."

Problem solved!
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Famspear » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:31 am

On the one hand is the complete collapse of the scheme in an embarrassing cloud of incoherence; on the other, upholding the plain words of the law [ . . . ]


How Freudian of you, Pete!
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Famspear » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:57 am

However, look at this language:

If this ruling stands undisturbed, the Supreme Court will have validated the unintentional, but unmistakable doctrine proceeding from the Sixth Circuit's conclusion: that beginning on August 16, 1954, natural persons-- that is, you and me-- were no longer covered by most of the language of the internal revenue laws. (This means ALL of those laws, by the way, including the ATF provisions, the "death tax", etc..) That doctrine now applies only within the Sixth Circuit; if the Supremes uphold the Sixth Circuit's ruling, or decline to consider my petition, the doctrine will then become national in application.


(bolding added).

I have to give Pete his due; he knows that his followers are idiots, and that some of them will actually swallow his nonsense, which is, essentially: "I lost my case at the Sixth Circuit, so I 'appealed' to the Supreme Court, but of course if my appeal is rejected by the Supreme Court, my followers will believe that I have won an imaginary ruling about "natural persons", but if the Supreme Court rules in my favor then that will also mean that I have won, and my goofy half-wit followers will never notice that this contradictory nonsense is b*lls**t."
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Famspear » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:27 am

L'aveugle conduit l'aveugle: Ex-con Peter E. "Blowhard" Hendrickson offers his cogent "analysis" of the Wesley Snipes case to Dave vonKleist et al.:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=2

It's long; I haven't listened to the entire thing.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:19 pm

Postby Dezcad » Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:38 pm

Famspear wrote:L'aveugle conduit l'aveugle: Ex-con Peter E. "Blowhard" Hendrickson offers his cogent "analysis" of the Wesley Snipes case to Dave vonKleist et al.:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=2

It's long; I haven't listened to the entire thing.


The best part is near the last 1/3rd when a caller mentions his petition for cert to the SCOTUS. PH gives all the background details and says he filed a petion for cert but fails to mention that the petition was denied about a month ago (see my post above). Not that his intentional omission is surprising, though.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Famspear » Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:51 pm

Speaking of the Sixth Circuit, I believe we are still waiting on a ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Hendrickson's appeal of his loss at the District Court in the government's erroneous tax refund suit against him. Per Dan Evans' web page on Hendrickson, it's case number 07-1510 at the Sixth Circuit.

Does anyone have an idea on when a ruling might be coming?
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Postby Dr. Caligari » Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:53 pm

There is no deadline for federal appeals courts to rule. I have had cases sit for more than a year after argument before a decision comes down. (In contrast, California has a nifty provision in the state constitution: if an appeal sits for more than 90 days between submission and decision, the judges don't get paid for that quarter.)
Dr. Caligari

(Du musst Caligari werden!)

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Postby Imalawman » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:08 pm

Dr. Caligari wrote:There is no deadline for federal appeals courts to rule. I have had cases sit for more than a year after argument before a decision comes down. (In contrast, California has a nifty provision in the state constitution: if an appeal sits for more than 90 days between submission and decision, the judges don't get paid for that quarter.)


I really like that actually (although 90 days might be a little too small a time) In my state, I have a state supreme court decision that has been submitted since Spring of 2005, argued in fall of 2006. Still waiting on the decision....ridiculous and shameful.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Famspear » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:08 pm

Dr. Caligari wrote:

There is no deadline for federal appeals courts to rule. I have had cases sit for more than a year after argument before a decision comes down.


Yes, but I want to know now! WWWaaaaaahhhhhh! It's not faaairrrrrr! I don't wanna wait! I want instant gratification, and I want it nowWWW!

Woah! Temporary insanity, emotional outburst, brought out by reading too much tax protester crap from narcissistic ex-con blowhards.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:15 pm

Postby ASITStands » Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:41 am

Is there any reason to believe when there's more than one case addressing an issue (or, in this case, more than one case per litigant), one case may wait on another until appeals are exhausted?

And, if there are different cases addressing the same issue in different circuits, is there any reason to believe one circuit will wait on another to make its decision before making its own?

I've noticed how one circuit follows another in reaching its decision even when there are divisions.

Currently, Hendrickson has a motion for rehearing before the Supreme Court on the summons issue. Is there any reason to believe the Sixth may be holding its decision until appeals are exhausted?

Knowing Hendrickson, he's likely to appeal the decision. I'll admit I'm getting impatient.

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Postby LPC » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:31 am

ASITStands wrote:Currently, Hendrickson has a motion for rehearing before the Supreme Court on the summons issue. Is there any reason to believe the Sixth may be holding its decision until appeals are exhausted?

That seems to me to be unlikely, given that the two issues (whether Hendrickson should be order to return the refund and file correct returns, and whether the IRS should be able to obtain access to Hendrickson's records by administrative summons) are almost completely independent of each other and have little in common (other than the constitutionality and validity of the federal income tax, of course).
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:19 pm

Re:

Postby Dezcad » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:14 pm

Dezcad wrote:In one of the District Courts cases where PH lost his attempt to quash an IRS third-party summons (and PH talks about here

SO...., I've taken the first of these to the Supreme Court.

By good fortune, this first case to have completed its run through the appellate court is also the one I would have picked to take to the high court first, if it had been a matter of choice. The one-paragraph "legal analysis" offered by the court with its decision relies upon a transparent fraud perpetrated by the DOJ in its response to my appellate brief (a fraud made necessary by the government's inability to muster even a scintilla of authority-- either in statute or even case law-- for its position).

The ruling also defies a number of extraordinarily relevant-- indeed, direct-- previous Supreme Court rulings on precisely the point of law the government is trying to evade in this contest, as well as a huge volume of additional authority from every other quarter; and impales the "ignorance tax" scheme on the horns of a dilemma as well. If this ruling stands undisturbed, the Supreme Court will have validated the unintentional, but unmistakable doctrine proceeding from the Sixth Circuit's conclusion: that beginning on August 16, 1954, natural persons-- that is, you and me-- were no longer covered by most of the language of the internal revenue laws. (This means ALL of those laws, by the way, including the ATF provisions, the "death tax", etc..) That doctrine now applies only within the Sixth Circuit; if the Supremes uphold the Sixth Circuit's ruling, or decline to consider my petition, the doctrine will then become national in application.

In other words, the high court gets to pick its poison, although the choice should be a no-brainer. On the one hand is the complete collapse of the scheme in an embarrassing cloud of incoherence; on the other, upholding the plain words of the law (including the Fourth Amendment), at the sole price of the all-too-long-standing IRS practice of executing unconstitutional "writs of assistance", a practice which is already increasingly fruitless as more and more Americans learn the truth about the legal character of whatever it is such warrantless searches might discover, and how to deal with any subsequent allegations.

In any event, my petition for Supreme Court review has been docketed, and the United States Solicitor General has waived the government's opportunity to argue against it. The petition can be read here, and the appellate court briefs (which include a discussion of the "natural person" conundrum) can be read here.


Th petition has been denied. (see p. 22 of SCOTUS order)


On Feb. 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denies the petition for rehearing in Hendrickson v. United States, no. 07-624. See Order, Mon., Feb. 25, 2008, page 10:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 508pzr.pdf


Return to “TP Status Board: Tracking Promoters and High-Profile TPs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 1 guest