Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by martin earl View Post
    As posted in the other thread, I am attempting contact with the good Dr. now, lets all hope he will be receptive to a "Demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411 and a fraud by omission" in his future filings.

    It cannot hurt, right?

    Indeed! Untoast?

    That would be great if he can frame it properly for a SCOTUS opinion. Well, maybe not come to think of it. When I suggested that it was before I realized this fellow has already tainted his cause with a bunch of junk. If he throws Redeeming Lawful Money into the mix now, he will likely cause a bad precedent to American remedy.

    I would greatly prefer you not try getting remedy and this guy in the same room!

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    On the land known as Kansas
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Processing...

    I am trying to decide why I should delete that post. Please don't tell me/us. I will get it... Sometimes I am a little slow.

    P.S. Maybe rather than a two-party contract you can describe to him a naked contact?

    I found this:

    naked contract:
    "From the Latin term nudum pactum, or "bare promise" An agreement between two parties that is without any legal effect because no consideration has been exchanged between the parties. A naked contract is unenforceable.

    In Roman Law, a nudum pactum was an informal agreement that was not legally enforceable, because it did not fall within the specific classes of agreements that could support a legal action.A pactum could, however, create an exception to or modification of an existing obligation." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...Naked+Contract

    Could a living wo/man's unrestricted endorsements be considered to create "pactum" and/or an exception to or modification of existing obligation(s) of the United States onto ourselves?

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    On the land known as Kansas
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Indeed! Untoast?

    That would be great if he can frame it properly for a SCOTUS opinion. Well, maybe not come to think of it. When I suggested that it was before I realized this fellow has already tainted his cause with a bunch of junk. If he throws Redeeming Lawful Money into the mix now, he will likely cause a bad precedent to American remedy.

    I would greatly prefer you not try getting remedy and this guy in the same room!
    You got it! Also, after reading the high notes of his case, the court will deny to hear it soon enough anyway, nothing new there that I have not seen in other cases already lost.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Indeed! Untoast?

    That would be great if he can frame it properly for a SCOTUS opinion. Well, maybe not come to think of it. When I suggested that it was before I realized this fellow has already tainted his cause with a bunch of junk. If he throws Redeeming Lawful Money into the mix now, he will likely cause a bad precedent to American remedy.

    I would greatly prefer you not try getting remedy and this guy in the same room!
    Good call, David, I totally agree.
    Introducing remedy into this guy's mess could be disastrous.

    martin earl and David:
    I merged our two threads into the original one and cleaned up the posts a little bit to avoid reader confusion.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  5. #15

  6. #16
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Indeed! Untoast?

    That would be great if he can frame it properly for a SCOTUS opinion. Well, maybe not come to think of it. When I suggested that it was before I realized this fellow has already tainted his cause with a bunch of junk. If he throws Redeeming Lawful Money into the mix now, he will likely cause a bad precedent to American remedy.

    I would greatly prefer you not try getting remedy and this guy in the same room!
    I've seen this before. HENDRICKSON attempted to get his case heard by the SCOTUS after gettting spanked. They looked at it and promptly tossed it. I suspect it could be the same here. Unless they find some kind of improper technicality (I doubt that), his arguments are the same protestor based garbage that confused me for quite a long time. Sorting through them, none of them seemed to pass the smell test, or have any solid basis that I could find. Lawful Money of the U.S. pursuant to USCA 12 section 411 was the puzzle piece that made it all harmonious.

    He is still toast

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian View Post
    I've seen this before. HENDRICKSON attempted to get his case heard by the SCOTUS after gettting spanked. They looked at it and promptly tossed it. I suspect it could be the same here. Unless they find some kind of improper technicality (I doubt that), his arguments are the same protestor based garbage that confused me for quite a long time. Sorting through them, none of them seemed to pass the smell test, or have any solid basis that I could find. Lawful Money of the U.S. pursuant to USCA 12 section 411 was the puzzle piece that made it all harmonious.

    He is still toast
    My thought is still all the more reason to hear it again and confirm all the patriot mythology be toasted.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    My thought is still all the more reason to hear it again and confirm all the patriot mythology be toasted.
    I took a fresh look and still think the clerks are allowing this so the justices can keep themselves entertained frying patriot mythology. It seems cruel to refuse to allow the cause to proceed by disallowing the in forma pauperis request, and then charge him the filing fee after he has already lost his cause!

    They refused to hear his petition and then opined about it; then they charged him the filing fee! Something is just not right about those "justices"!!

    General DocketTenth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-9019 Docketed: 12/14/2011Termed: 05/17/2012
    Maehr v. CIR
    Appeal From: Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    Fee Status: fee due

    Case Type Information:
    1) Tax Court (agency)
    2) petition for review
    3) -


    Originating Court Information:
    District: CIR-1 : 10758-11
    Date Filed: 05/09/2011
    Date Rec'd COA:
    12/14/2011

    05/17/2012 [9968016] Enforced/Affirmed.Terminated on the merits after submissions without oral hearing. Written, signed, unpublished. Judges Murphy (authoring judge), Baldock, and Hartz. Mandate to issue. [11-9019]

    05/29/2012 [9970713] Response filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr to Order and Judgment. Served on

    05/29/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019] --[Edited

    05/29/2012 by BV - To remove the PDF as corrected response filed.] JTM

    05/29/2012 [9970727] Response filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr to Response to Order and Judgement. Served on 05/29/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019] --[Edited 05/29/2012 by BV - To remove the PDF from the docket entry and re-docket as a petition for panel rehearing.] JTM

    05/29/2012 [9970909] "Response to Order and Judgment" construed as a Petition for rehearing filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr. Served on 05/24/2012. Manner of Service: US mail. [11-9019]

    06/08/2012 [9973818] Order filed by Judges Murphy, Baldock and Hartz - All relief requested in Appellant's "Response to U.S. Appeals Court, 10th Circuit's 'ORDER AND JUDGMENT' NOTICE OF JURISDICTION CONFLICT, NOTICE TO RECUSE" is denied including but not limited to panel rehearing. [11-9019]

    06/15/2012 [9975994] Petition for rehearing, for rehearing en banc filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr received, but not filed. Response sent to Appellant. --[Edited 06/18/2012 by AT to show pleading received, but not filed. ] JTM

    06/15/2012 [9975999] Motion filed by Appellant Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr for findings of fact and conclusions of law received, but not filed. Response sent to Appellant. Served on: 06/15/2012. Manner of service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019]--[Edited 06/15/2012 by KLP to correct the relief code and docket text.] --[Edited 06/18/2012 by AT to show pleading as received but not filed.] JTM

    06/18/2012 [9976107] Mandate issued. [11-9019]

    10/29/2012 [10014457] Supreme Court order giving Appellant until 11/19/12 to pay filing fee.

    11/23/2012 [10021778] Supreme Court order extending time to comply with the 10/29/12 order. [11-9019]


    P.S.

    Petitioner is somewhat confused regarding the “Order and Judgment” in that he was waiting for the decision on the in forma pauperis application, but it appears the judges have made a decision at the same time as denying Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application. Petitioner was NOT agreeing to move forward with this appeal if he was denied his application, and was waiting to make that decision, and even requested that decision much earlier in this case.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 11-30-12 at 11:09 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •