Doreen Filed

[notorial dissent]

Oh well, poor Harvey, once more delusion dashed all to pieces.

[Imalawman]

Oh well, poor Harvey, once more delusion dashed all to pieces.

When have facts ever gotten in the way of Harvey's delusions?

[Famspear]

Oh well, poor Harvey, once more delusion dashed all to pieces.

Yeah, maybe Pete and Doreen Hendrickson wouldn't have caved in -- if Harvester had just screamed "STAND TALL, WARRIORS!" a little more loudly, and a little more often.

[Famspear]

Hey, kids, it's time for another one.....

A blowhardy con-man called Pete
Thought his fraudulent theories were neat.
When he saw he’d be jailed,
All his tax theories failed;
Yes, he bailed -- when he felt enough heat!

[LPC]

Why only Doreen? The motion was clearly directed to both Pete and Doreen, so why no notice to Pete and judgment against Pete?

Probably because he has a right to be present, but is incarcerated.

That's the most likely inference, but it's contrary to my understanding of civil practice, which normally requires a hearing only if there is a conflict. If a party files a motion, and there is no opposition, the court simply grants the motion by default.

I did find an unpublished order in which a district court judge entered a judgment against a party for accumulated daily fines for civil contempt after the party had failed to respond to the motion, and the judge cited a local rule in support of the order. That lead me to look at the local rules of the Eastern District of Michigan, where I found that hearings on motions seems to be the rule and not the exception. (See E.D. Mich. Local Rule Civ. Proc. 7.1(f).)

It therefore appears to me that the judge was inclined to order a hearing on the motion, but Hendrickson is pro se and the judge didn't want the delay and expense of moving Hendrickson out of jail and into a courtroom, so she ordered the hearing as to Doreen only.

[Imalawman]

Why only Doreen? The motion was clearly directed to both Pete and Doreen, so why no notice to Pete and judgment against Pete?

Probably because he has a right to be present, but is incarcerated.

That's the most likely inference, but it's contrary to my understanding of civil practice, which normally requires a hearing only if there is a conflict. If a party files a motion, and there is no opposition, the court simply grants the motion by default.

I did find an unpublished order in which a district court judge entered a judgment against a party for accumulated daily fines for civil contempt after the party had failed to respond to the motion, and the judge cited a local rule in support of the order. That lead me to look at the local rules of the Eastern District of Michigan, where I found that hearings on motions seems to be the rule and not the exception. (See E.D. Mich. Local Rule Civ. Proc. 7.1(f).)

It therefore appears to me that the judge was inclined to order a hearing on the motion, but Hendrickson is pro se and the judge didn't want the delay and expense of moving Hendrickson out of jail and into a courtroom, so she ordered the hearing as to Doreen only.

Ah, thanks. That makes sense.

[Dezcad]

An Opposition to the gov't's Motion has been filed. Note that the Opposition was only signed by Doreen, although ostensibly filed for both of them

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:06-CV-11753
Judge Nancy G. Edmunds

V.

PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Defendants.

OPPOSITION TO UNITED STATES' MOTION TO REDUCE TO JUDGMENT
CONTEMPT FINE IMPOSED AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT

Peter E. Hendrickson and Doreen M. Hendrickson hereby oppose the United States'
Motion to Reduce to Judgment the contempt fine that was imposed against us for delay in submitting the amended returns and "post-judgment discovery" demanded of us by this court on June 10, 2010.

The government seeks to add injury to insult. These fines were imposed in order to coerce our compliance with an order that was, itself, an unholy violation of our Constitutional rights,
but regardless of whether this court recognizes the error in her judgment, the fact remains
that this motion is premature, as the issue has been appealed and that appeal is still pending. See Docket No. 70.

The fines themselves were improperly imposed and excessive, and should not be
enforced. Further, this court has discretion to act with leniency in this matter, as the end result,
that of forcing us to swear to something we believed to be untrue, has been accomplished. This
court and the government have not been injured by us in any way such that these fines could be
justified.

In any event, the government seeks 18 days' worth of fines, but we were only required to
file them within 14 and they were postmarked within that time. Therefore, at the most the
fines imposed should only be for 14 days ,not 18. Mr. Hendrickson called the office to tell the U.S. Attorney's office on that 14th day verifying they were in the mail, which Mr. Applegate acknowledges in his Affidavit. Thus, the record shows our compliance.

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of August, 2010.



/s/______________________
Peter Eric Hendrickson


Doreen M. Hendrickson
232 Oriole Rd.
Commerce Twp, Michigan 48382
(248) 366..6858
feedback@losthorizons.com

[Pottapaug1938]

Way to go, Doreen. You just painted a Day-Glo target on your backside, and then you dared the government to plant a Size 14 right in the bullseye....

[bmielke]

Way to go, Doreen. You just painted a Day-Glo target on your backside, and then you dared the government to plant a Size 14 right in the bullseye....

What am I missing? It doesn't seem that bad to me. Ok, it is nothing I could ever submit to my boss, and certainly nothing that my boss would ever allow to be filed, but she may have some good points.

The government seeks to add injury to insult. These fines were imposed in order to coerce our compliance with an order that was, itself, an unholy violation of our Constitutional rights, but regardless of whether this court recognizes the error in her judgment, the fact remains that this motion is premature, as the issue has been appealed and that appeal is still pending. See Docket No. 70.

Ok the constitutional language I could do without and I believe she needs a stay, but it's not as bad as it could have been.

The fines themselves were improperly imposed and excessive, and should not be enforced. Further, this court has discretion to act with leniency in this matter, as the end result, that of forcing us to swear to something we believed to be untrue, has been accomplished. This court and the government have not been injured by us in any way such that these fines could be justified.

How is this different from the "Cheek" Defense. I thought the "Cheek" Defense was that we really honestly believed it and we lived it but now that we have seen the light we won't do it any more and we'll pay up sorry...

In any event, the government seeks 18 days' worth of fines, but we were only required to file them within 14 and they were postmarked within that time. Therefore, at the most the fines imposed should only be for 14 days ,not 18. Mr. Hendrickson called the office to tell the U.S. Attorney's office on that 14th day verifying they were in the mail, which Mr. Applegate acknowledges in his Affidavit. Thus, the record shows our compliance.

This might be a vaild point. I am unsure how sanctions work in Federal Court.

I could be very wrong, because I am far outside of anything I regularly do, but upon reading the motion my first response wasn't "would you look at this crazy bullshit" which is my normal reaction to this kind of stuff.

[The Observer]

If anything, it is the tone of the filing that sets one's teeth on edge. This is not the way that you want to ask for relief from the court. If you recall, this is the same arrogant and demanding format that Pete filed in all of his briefs - and look where that got him. If Doreen was going to sign anything, it should be a filing that is free from the highhorse language that we see here. She should be coming across as chastened, cooperative and appealing to the court's better nature with her requests couched in language that is going to secure some, even it is little, sympathy from the judge.

But who are we kidding? You can tell this pleading was prepared by Pete.

[LPC]

The government seeks to add injury to insult.

The government seeks to collect fines that are owed.

If you want to make yourself unhappy by believing that the fines are an injury or an insult, you are free to do so, but that doesn't relieve you of the obligation to pay the fines.

These fines were imposed in order to coerce our compliance with an order that was, itself, an unholy violation of our Constitutional rights,

Sorry, but you can't keep litigating the same crap over and over again.

You've already appealed the district court order that you claimed violated your constitutional rights and the order was affirmed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 07-1510 (6/11/2008), which also imposed sanctions of $4,000 because your appeal was deemed to be so lacking in merit as to be frivolous. A rehearing en banc was denied on 12/16/2008, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in No. 08-1399 (6/15/2009), and the Supreme Court denied any rehearing on 8/17/2009.

You lost, and you lost because you're wrong. Continuing to whine and rant and gnash your teeth gets you nothing and nowhere.

but regardless of whether this court recognizes the error in her judgment, the fact remains that this motion is premature, as the issue has been appealed and that appeal is still pending. See Docket No. 70.

Great. Another appeal.

Re-read what I wrote above. Do you really think that the court of appeals is going to question a contempt order when you clearly violated the order that the court of appeals has already held was valid?

Google "law of the case" and see what you get.

The fines themselves were improperly imposed and excessive, and should not be enforced.

Why? Because you say so?

Further, this court has discretion to act with leniency in this matter,

And the court should be lenient because you are so obviously humbled and contrite.

as the end result, that of forcing us to swear to something we believed to be untrue, has been accomplished. This court and the government have not been injured by us in any way such that these fines could be justified.

And you weren't going to comply with the court order until the court imposed the fines.

Actions have consequences. Think about that the next time you decide not to comply with a court order.

You see, the court is not punishing you for the sake of punishment. The court is making you smarter.

In any event, the government seeks 18 days' worth of fines, but we were only required to file them within 14 and they were postmarked within that time.

Sorry, but you're wrong again.

The judge's order stated that the fines would accrue "until such time that Defendants comply with this Order to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 as ordered by this Court."

"Timely mailed is timely filed" is a statutory rule that only applies to returns mailed on or before the due date. See IRC section 7502. An amended return is "filed" when it is received, not when it is mailed.

You lose.

[Gregg]

You see, the court is not punishing you for the sake of punishment. The court is making you smarter.

I myself think the court should be interested in making you pay it to uphold their credibility. Think about what happens if they just let it pass...

First, a few hundred other nutbags quit paying any attention to court orders, and why not, they don't really enforce them, right?

Then, being who you are, you'll go on the internet and start beating the drums and bragging about how you "beat" the court and obviously your case demonstrates that being an asshole about it is an effective strategy.

Sorry, pay the fine and STFU......and I don't care if doing so leaves you homeless and begging on exit ramps. As someone else said, actions have consequences. Thanks for playing!

[ashlynne39]

If anything, it is the tone of the filing that sets one's teeth on edge. This is not the way that you want to ask for relief from the court. If you recall, this is the same arrogant and demanding format that Pete filed in all of his briefs - and look where that got him. If Doreen was going to sign anything, it should be a filing that is free from the highhorse language that we see here. She should be coming across as chastened, cooperative and appealing to the court's better nature with her requests couched in language that is going to secure some, even it is little, sympathy from the judge.

But who are we kidding? You can tell this pleading was prepared by Pete.

I agree. Begging and contrition usually go much further with most judges.

[Joey Smith]

Pete really believes he is going to win his appeal. Of course, he doesn't have the snowball's chance in hell of winning because he's just flat wrong, but that is not stopping him and Doreen from deluding themselves that victory is imminent.

But I think that even Pete would be surprised at how quickly his "warriors" have disappeared. Not a single one has even visited him in prison, unlike Irwin Schiff who his followers visited for a couple of weeks before forgetting about him.

[notorial dissent]

Of course Pete is filing an appeal and thinks he is going to win. His overblown ego won’t let him do anything else, and I am quite sure that at this point he believes he is right and no amount of smacking him up the side of the head with a reality stick will change that.

I would suspect that Pete is so far in to denial at this point that he is refusing to see what is happening. As to the faithful actually following their messiah, I seriously doubt if at this point after following his hallowed advice that most if any of them can scrape together the bus fare to get to the welfare office. Most if not all are dead broke by now, unemployed or soon to be unemployed, and having been sanctioned or liened to the point they don’t have anything liquid. I would bet they have more pressing things on their little minds than how their ascended master is faring, and they have always struck me as a fairly feckless flock at the best of times.

At this point none of them are going to come out of this unscathed thanks to Pete’s enlightened teachings. The lucky ones are only going to lose what little they have, and a good number of them are probably going to end up in jail.

[LPC]

In any event, the government seeks 18 days' worth of fines, but we were only required to file them within 14 and they were postmarked within that time. Therefore, at the most the fines imposed should only be for 14 days, not 18.

Doreen seems to believe that there would be no sanctions if they complied within 14 days, but in this belief (as in many other beliefs) Doreen is wrong.

The full text of the contempt order can be found here, and it's quite clear that the daily fines began from the date that the contempt order was entered. The 14 days was the time within which they had to comply or be incarcerated.

[LPC]

These fines were imposed in order to coerce our compliance with an order that was, itself, an unholy violation of our Constitutional rights,

Sorry, but you can't keep litigating the same crap over and over again.

You've already appealed the district court order that you claimed violated your constitutional rights and the order was affirmed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 07-1510 (6/11/2008), which also imposed sanctions of $4,000 because your appeal was deemed to be so lacking in merit as to be frivolous. A rehearing en banc was denied on 12/16/2008, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in No. 08-1399 (6/15/2009), and the Supreme Court denied any rehearing on 8/17/2009.

[...]

but regardless of whether this court recognizes the error in her judgment, the fact remains that this motion is premature, as the issue has been appealed and that appeal is still pending. See Docket No. 70.

Great. Another appeal.

Re-read what I wrote above. Do you really think that the court of appeals is going to question a contempt order when you clearly violated the order that the court of appeals has already held was valid?

I should have also pointed out that the court of appeals has already denied an application for a stay of the contempt order.

So Doreen thinks it would be "premature" for the court to enter a judgment while the appeal of the contempt order is pending, even though the court of appeals has already refused to stay the contempt order, and has already affirmed the original order being enforced?

There's optimistic, and there's delusional, but I think Doreen is now beyond delusional and into the realm of the psychotic.

[.]

Doreen seems to believe that there would be no sanctions if they complied within 14 days

Natürlich. All TPs "read," "research," "understand" and "comprehend" everything in such a manner that the end result is that they owe nothing, or little, but always less than is the case.

We should expect no less from them.

[Gregg]

Of course Pete is filing an appeal and thinks he is going to win. His overblown ego won’t let him do anything else, and I am quite sure that at this point he believes he is right and no amount of smacking him up the side of the head with a reality stick will change that.

I would suspect that Pete is so far in to denial at this point that he is refusing to see what is happening.

I have this mental picture of Pete, his few belongings in a pile that he refuses to unpack or organize because, he tells everyone every day at every meal, he'll be "getting released any day now, as soon as they read the last motion I filed" and even the pathetic inmates around him thinking to themselves what a loser he is....

[Pottapaug1938]

Of course Pete is filing an appeal and thinks he is going to win. His overblown ego won’t let him do anything else, and I am quite sure that at this point he believes he is right and no amount of smacking him up the side of the head with a reality stick will change that.

I would suspect that Pete is so far in to denial at this point that he is refusing to see what is happening.

I have this mental picture of Pete, his few belongings in a pile that he refuses to unpack or organize because, he tells everyone every day at every meal, he'll be "getting released any day now, as soon as they read the last motion I filed" and even the pathetic inmates around him thinking to themselves what a loser he is....

And then, when he keeps on showing up at meals and the other inmates keep asking him why he hasn't been released yet, Petey will whine about how corrupt the courts are... and soon, he will have a table all to himself.