Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

[Brian]

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

[David Merrill]

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.

[David Merrill]

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.