Dickstein's PQI Phone Mob of SCOTUS

[Nikki]

When Dickstein runs out of legal arguments to support a request for cert. (Hirmer v. United States, Case No. 09-651 -- members of the PQI family), he resorts to:

If you've ever attended a freedom rally, a conference call, received an email, visited a website or even spoke openly against government abuse you may be affected!

The Supreme Court has a case that MUST BE HEARD and they are deciding on Thursday if it is important enough to hear. YOUR VOICE MATTERS NOW!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:: ACTION: 3 DAY PHONE MOB ::
We must light up the swithcboard and jam the phones of the Supreme Court so they know this case is MUST BE HEARD.

Clerk's Office: 202-redacted

Deliver this message:

"The First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are too important to lose. Freedom in America depends on the courts enforcing these fundamental protections. The Supreme Court must hear the case of Hirmer v. United States, Case No. 09-651."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find out how this case will affect you today at 3pm! We are bringing on the Attorney in an EMERGENCY WEBINAR!

Phone # to Dial: <except it has already passed> Or Listen Via the Web at: Webinar :: REPUBLIC MAGAZINE | VOICE OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT

I can't stress how IMPORTANT it is that you listen and participate!

In Freedom,
Gary Franchi
National Director
Restore the Republic
P.S. Please post this message everywhere and forward on to your lists!

[bmielke]

Will this even do anything?

I mean in the perfect world it would get your name on a list of "To Be Watched" but I doubt that will happen, and really from what I have seen these guys seem to be all talk no action even if they try to "jam the switch boards" whats 10 calls going to do?

[Pottapaug1938]

When this buffoon's classmates were studying how our government works, and the separation of powers, he must have had a Mickey Mouse comic book hidden in his textbook....

[bmielke]

Will this even do anything?

I mean in the perfect world it would get your name on a list of "To Be Watched" but I doubt that will happen, and really from what I have seen these guys seem to be all talk no action even if they try to "jam the switch boards" whats 10 calls going to do?

I will take, "P*ssing off the judges" for 500 Alex.

Oh yes there is that...Hey if they send the case back for stiffer penalities would my civil liberities be in danger?

[Pottapaug1938]

I'd also LOVE to be in the courtroom when Dickstein's attorney is standing before the justices (or judges) explaining why the "F" he lent his prestige, as an officer of the court, to this idiotic "Webinar" which advocates people gumming up the SCOTUS switchboard, post office, etc.

[bmielke]

I'd also LOVE to be in the courtroom when Dickstein's attorney is standing before the justices (or judges) explaining why the "F" he lent his prestige, as an officer of the court, to this idiotic "Webinar" which advocates people gumming up the SCOTUS switchboard, post office, etc.

Maybe their going to ambush him? He's expecting call his client and his client puts him on the webinar? I can't imagine any sane lawyer willing getting involved in something like that.

[notorial dissent]

Well, he seems to think Benson is right, so that more or less answers your question right there. Doesn't understand constitutional law, apparently has no concept of how the courts work, or else has run out of anything else to try and is resorting to this to keep his meal tickets / marks entranced, since they sure as anything don't know how the courts work or that he is selling them hot air disguised as snake oil. Or the more simple and obvious explanation, he is just an idiot who somehow got through law school and passed a bar exam by sheer luck. I've read enough of his stuff to vote for the idiot option.

At this point, I think he is just another promoter like Schultz who will saw whatever he thinks will get him the next batch of money. Unlike Schultz, I think his sell by date is rapidly approaching and he will fairly soon be out of the game altogether.

[LPC]

I'd also LOVE to be in the courtroom when Dickstein's attorney is standing before the justices (or judges) explaining why the "F" he lent his prestige,

Dickstein is the lawyer, not the client, and I don't think he has any prestige to lend out.

See http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/jeffrey-dickstein for details.

[fortinbras]

I suspect that instructing people to overload the Court's telephone system may fall under the law criminalizing the obstruction of the administration of the courts.

It may well be true that the Supreme Court reads the election returns, but it's not operating a popularity contest.

[notorial dissent]

When Dickstein runs out of legal arguments to support a request for cert. (Hirmer v. United States, Case No. 09-651 -- members of the PQI family), ....

The problem being, that he ran out of argument a long while back and is doing the shuck and jive at this point to keep it looking anything but like the already capsized garbage scow it is.

Dickybird lost this one before opening arguments ever began. His clients are more than guilty, and bone stupid on top of it. He is trying the same trick his buddy Springer et al have been trying, of arguing one thing when the case is about something entirely unrelated, since there is nothing about the actual case he can argue that isn't already DOA. He lost this case out the door, and isn't going to get anywhere with his current dog and pony show, and I quite frankly hope he gets socked with sanctions for wasting the court's time, as he so rightly deserves.

[Pottapaug1938]

When Dickstein runs out of legal arguments to support a request for cert. (Hirmer v. United States, Case No. 09-651 -- members of the PQI family), ....

The problem being, that he ran out of argument a long while back and is doing the shuck and jive at this point to keep it looking anything but like the already capsized garbage scow it is.

Dickybird lost this one before opening arguments ever began. His clients are more than guilty, and bone stupid on top of it. He is trying the same trick his buddy Springer et al have been trying, of arguing one thing when the case is about something entirely unrelated, since there is nothing about the actual case he can argue that isn't already DOA. He lost this case out the door, and isn't going to get anywhere with his current dog and pony show, and I quite frankly hope he gets socked with sanctions for wasting the court's time, as he so rightly deserves.

And then, he'll reach into the stable of tired TP/TD arguments for excuses as to why the SCOTUS shot him down -- probably something about how they are scared to rule "correctly", or something like that.

[notorial dissent]

Well, you certainly don't expect him to come out and admit the whole thing was a loser from the start with no legal basis do you?

Of course, he'll go on to the "they're afraid to review it" nonsense, because he will by that time have run out of anything else he can sell. And his audience is too dumb to know they've been had yet again.

[Demosthenes]

Court Denies Certiorari Where Couple Claimed 16th Amendment Was Not Ratified
Posted January 19, 2010, 5:51 P.M. ET
The U.S. Supreme Court Jan. 19 denied review in a tax case where petitioners Claudia Constance Hirmer and Mark Steven Hirmer claimed that the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not properly ratified (Hirmer v. United States, U.S., No. 09-651, cert. denied 1/19/10).
In August 2008, the United States filed an indictment against the Hirmers and 11 other defendants charging them with conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and various other fraud and criminal charges.
The government said that the 13 individuals were involved with the Panamanian business entity Pinnacle Quest International (PQI), which promoted the use of offshore trust and foreign bank accounts to avoid the payment of taxes. The indictment said that PQI sold products promoting anti-tax theories, offshore corporate structures, debt elimination tactics, and offshore investment opportunities.

[Nikki]

Not to cast any aspersions on Demosthenes' timely and accurate reporting, but ...

Well DUH

[LPC]

Not to cast any aspersions on Demosthenes' timely and accurate reporting, but ...

Well DUH

I think that it's the Supreme Court that gets the "DUH."