Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended returns

.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by . »

Thule wrote:ConvictCam
Hey, TRU-TV (formerly Court-TV) may be interested in this. It would be right up their alley. Reality, or actuality or whatever they call it. Very blows up in your face, which is their soup de jure. Very PH, as he can well testify. Ka-boom! So to speak, although that was the previous case.

It's too bad that the federal courts never granted access to cameras. Michigan state courts did, many trials have been televised from Oakland County. Had the Feds cooperated, TRU-TV could have made an ongoing mini-series out of PH and his decades of total idiocy.

Harvester could have been famous, crouching in his usual cowardly manner way, way, way in the back, next to nearest exit yelling "Stand tall, stand tall, all ye warriors!" as he sneaks out the door to reassume his usual posture as an inconsequential tax cheat.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Harvester

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by Harvester »

Fame is overrated. It's enough for me that the truth is revealed and the baddies go down.

I will enjoy your response when Hendrickson is proved correct.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by notorial dissent »

LPC wrote:Or (even worse), is it possible that Applegate forwarded the returns to the IRS for processing without really looking at them, and that the IRS had to kick the returns back to the DOJ because the IRS decided that the returns could not be processed?

Either way, the mind boggles.

I have to agree. I think the DOJ lawyers "assumed" they had beaten Prattlin' Pete into submission, and never bothered to check to see if he had really complied. I wonder now if they even bothered to check to see if he had actually signed them, this leads me to suspect not, since they would then have seen what they did. it is assumptions like that that cost lawyers cases.

Round two should be entertaining, I particularly want to see what excuses the gov't comes up with for missing that teeny little detail, and just how irritated the judge gets over it, and more importantly how they are going to proceed now that the obvious stick and carrot haven't worked. I mean, they can't jail Petey anymore than they already have, although this should generate a whole new round of fines since this too is a frivolous return, maybe they'll go for the maximum this time, and it looks like maybe it is time for Doreen to have some "quiet time" of her own. I just can't see this ending well for anyone.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Nikki

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by Nikki »

No one in DoJ is authorized to determine if a tax return is valid or not. That determination must be made by an appropriately delegated employee of the IRS.

Realistically, it is highly likely that the DoJ staff involved in processing P&D's return through to the IRS did so while wearing rubber gloves and burned them afterwards.

In addition, given the various privacy laws concerning tax returns and taxpayer (or tax evader/protester/denier) information, it is entirely possible that the alleged returns were passed to the IRS in their original sealed envelopes.

IMHO, there are still open questions regarding the alleged returns being entered into non-sealed evidence. Absent specific authorization by P&D or some overriding law, those documents should never have been published.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by Gregg »

Absent specific authorization by P&D or some overriding law, those documents should never have been published.
I suspect that a determination that they were not valid returns was made before they were entered into public records.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by LPC »

Nikki wrote:No one in DoJ is authorized to determine if a tax return is valid or not. That determination must be made by an appropriately delegated employee of the IRS.
Actually, the determination of whether or not a return is valid is ultimately going to be made by Judge Edmunds.

And the determination of whether or not the Hendricksons have complied with a court order seems to be more of a decision for the DoJ than the IRS. I would expect the DoJ to consult with the IRS and allow the IRS to make the *initial* determination, but the way you've phrased it makes it sound as though the DoJ has no say in the matter, which doesn't seem possible.
Nikki wrote:In addition, given the various privacy laws concerning tax returns and taxpayer (or tax evader/protester/denier) information, it is entirely possible that the alleged returns were passed to the IRS in their original sealed envelopes.
If that were the case, the affidavit of DoJ attorney Applegate would be inaccurate, if not false, because he stated that he received the returns, not that he received an envelope in which he was told that there were returns. If he didn't open the envelope and look at the contents, then he wouldn't have any personal knowledge of what was in the envelope and couldn't affirm whether or not he had received any returns. (Cf., "only the sides of the sheep facing us are shorn.")
Nikki wrote:IMHO, there are still open questions regarding the alleged returns being entered into non-sealed evidence. Absent specific authorization by P&D or some overriding law, those documents should never have been published.
I had similar concerns, which is why I wondered whether the returns had been given to the DoJ or the IRS. But 26 USC §6103(h) would seem to allow the disclosure to both the DoJ and the court (and by necessity the public).

26 USC §6103(h)(2) provides that:
In a matter involving tax administration, a return or return information shall be open to inspection by or disclosure to officers and employees of the Department of Justice (including United States attorneys) personally and directly engaged in, and solely for their use in, any proceeding before a Federal grand jury or preparation for any proceeding (or investigation which may result in such a proceeding) before a Federal grand jury or any Federal or State court, but only if—

(A) the taxpayer is or may be a party to the proceeding, or the proceeding arose out of, or in connection with, determining the taxpayer’s civil or criminal liability, or the collection of such civil liability in respect of any tax imposed under this title;

(B) the treatment of an item reflected on such return is or may be related to the resolution of an issue in the proceeding or investigation; or

(C) such return or return information relates or may relate to a transactional relationship between a person who is or may be a party to the proceeding and the taxpayer which affects, or may affect, the resolution of an issue in such proceeding or investigation.
26 USC §6103(h)(4) provides that:
A return or return information may be disclosed in a Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to tax administration, but only—

(A) if the taxpayer is a party to the proceeding, or the proceeding arose out of, or in connection with, determining the taxpayer’s civil or criminal liability, or the collection of such civil liability, in respect of any tax imposed under this title;

(B) if the treatment of an item reflected on such return is directly related to the resolution of an issue in the proceeding;

(C) if such return or return information directly relates to a transactional relationship between a person who is a party to the proceeding and the taxpayer which directly affects the resolution of an issue in the proceeding; or

(D) to the extent required by order of a court pursuant to section 3500 of title 18, United States Code, or rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, such court being authorized in the issuance of such order to give due consideration to congressional policy favoring the confidentiality of returns and return information as set forth in this title.
That said, I think I would have erred on the side of confidentiality and redacted all information regarding the Hendrickson's income, because only the "under duress" written over their signatures, and the attachments to the returns, seem to be material to the issue of whether or not the Hendricksons have violated the court's order.
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.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by LPC »

Gregg wrote:
Absent specific authorization by P&D or some overriding law, those documents should never have been published.
I suspect that a determination that they were not valid returns was made before they were entered into public records.
I think that it's possible for a document to be a "return" for purposes of section 6103, and therefore protected from disclosure, even if it is not a "return" for purposes of other sections of the IRC.
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.
Cathulhu
Order of the Quatloos, Brevet First Class
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by Cathulhu »

Nobody here's had a lot of experience processing an amended return. There are required steps; first and foremost, the prior tax return has to be retrieved from the archives, and since the Hendricksons hadn't filed valid returns, this means the technician assigned to process the return had to pull the phony CTC documents plus all the legitimate assessment data. Just getting all the records to work from usually takes longest. Then a technician with the proper training for whatever is in the return has to actually sit down and work through the whole thing, which cannot be done by computer; a human has to figure out and process the changes. The fact that it took four months, considering this is a liason case with DOJ and IRS and they both have to follow disclosure law, is totally unsurprising to me.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by LPC »

The Hendricksons filed a response to the motion on 11/12, and a hearing is now scheduled for 12/15/2010.

In their response, the Hendricksons began with the usual nonsense about how the government had not introduced any evidence that they owed any tax (which the government wasn't actually required to do, because all the government had to do was show that the refund was erroneous, which is different), they then presented the following "argument":
Mr. and Mrs. Blowhard wrote:We strongly object to the Plaintiffs motion.

First of all, the motion seeks an action from the Court that is psychotic in its character, and no more possible as a practical matter than having your cake and eating it, too. No one can be threatened into amending existing, freely-made testimony with new words or numbers or expressions dictated by others, or subject to their approval, which can be valid as testimony, or capable of being "processed." Coerced testimony is INHERENTLY and INESCAPABLY INVALID. [Emphasis in original] No power on earth can change this fact.

We will point the Court's attention to the fact that the Plaintiff reveals in its Motion that it has already tried to fraudulently treat as valid the coerced documents we furnished in June 2010 in response to previous extortionate threats by the Court intended to force us to sign our property over to Plaintiff. This is an obviously criminal act, but one which has happily been frustrated from completion by our having indicated clearly that the coerced testimonial documents were, in fact, created, inscribed, and subscribed under duress, and with dictated testimony, rather than our own. As a result of these clear expressions of the plain truth, Plaintiff has been unable to successfully dupe, co-opt or conspire with anyone at the IRS to treat the testimony as though it were actually ours, despite admittedly having tried for months to do so! It now wishes the Court to relieve it of its frustration and coerce the production of UNMARKED documents, so that its evil scheme can be successfully carried out by the concealment of the invalidity of the newly coerced documents.

Plaintiff's efforts in this regard reveal that even its initial request for "relief' in this suit, and its motion for contempt previously granted by this Court, have from the beginning been in pursuit of a legal impossibility - our creation of coerced "amending returns" containing testimony dictated by others and which we do not believe to be true, which are yet valid and "processable" instruments. Orders pursuant to this request cannot be complied with, and "[w]here compliance is impossible, neither the moving party nor the court has any reason to proceed with civil contempt action." United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 (1983), quoted in Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union #58 v. Gary's Elec. Servo Co., 340 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2003). See also Robertson v. Jackson, 972 F,2d 529 (4th Cir. 1992). Since the order sought by Plaintiffs Motion is both impossible as a practical matter and pursuant to an attempted fraud, the Motion should be denied.

Secondly, Plaintiffs material misrepresentations in its Motion merit its denial, even while underscoring its impropriety. Plaintiff claims that we failed to comply with the Court's previous order regarding the production of the documents, because we made meaningfully clear that they were created under duress and did not constitute our own testimony. This is a flat falsehood. In the hearing on this matter conducted June 10, 2010, Judge Edmunds plainly made the following statements:
"If you want to file something along with your return that states that you disagree with having to file it and that you disagree that they're wages and you disagree that there are taxes owed on it, append whatever you want to your return ... "
(Hearing Transcript, p. 7, L 3-6);
''I'm giving you the option of filing these amended returns with an explanatory statement that you disagree with it. You may do that."
(Hearing Transcript, p. 8, L 12-14);
"I am giving you the option of filing an affidavit, or anything you want with your tax return ... "
(Hearing Transcript, p. 9 L 10-11).

Obviously, the order already made by the Court in response to the Plaintiffs previous motion and pursuant to its original request for "relief' (as though it suffered harm to which it was entitled to relief from our not having testified to its preferences), however obnoxious an affront to our dignity, involved some effort to remain within the limits of civilized behavior (even while exploring the very edge of those limits), and obviously, we complied with that order. The fact that the fraudulent claims and allegations informing the Plaintiff's "lawsuit" ab initio call for the violation of those limits, and its desires cannot be satisfied, since a coerced yet valid testimonial document is an impossibility, mean that the order for which it pleads in this new motion would be one that cannot be met, and thus should not be made.

Thirdly, in addition to the fact that the new order sought is, as described by Plaintiff, an impossibility; and the fact that all that could be ordered that would approach Plaintiff's wish is no more than what was previously ordered, and which has already been fully complied with; and the fact that the Plaintiff s new Motion reveals that its purpose is the perpetuation and consummation of a fraud, and underscores that this has always been the true nature of its "complaint", there is the fact that this new Motion concerns, and is subordinate to, an underlying matter currently being appealed in a higher Court. Therefore, the Motion is inappropriate and should be denied accordingly.

Finally, Plaintiff seeks this order under a theory of "equitable relief" However, we have
no relationship with the Plaintiff under which it has any claim to such relief Nor can any be
properly found to exist based merely on Plaintiff's self-serving and unsupported allegations, all of which we have repeatedly and comprehensively rebutted in a variety of sworn affidavits
introduced throughout the course of the proceedings in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff s Motion
should be denied.
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
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by grixit »

Still claiming victory. In the paytriot world that's just as good as actual victory.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by notorial dissent »

Well, it is certainly as close as they are likely to come all things considered.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by Imalawman »

I still think its odd that the gov't is working so hard to get signed returns in this case. Maybe they simply don't want to go through the audit process? Its clear that Petey still doesn't get it and never will. The law will always be what he says it is - no matter who tells him otherwise. No one is forcing him to make a false statement. Merely, that his tax return is truthful so far as it complies with the law given him. Of course, this just makes Pete throw a temper tantrum.
"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
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by LPC »

I have mainly thought that what Petey has been spouting is just posturing, but I'm now beginning to think it's really what he believes. Which means that he really doesn't understand how courts work and what powers judges have.

The remaining mystery to me is why he bothers to file motions and appeals and continues to argue with the courts at all. If he declares a court order to be invalid, shouldn't that be enough?

He doesn't care what the courts have said in other cases about other people, why should he care what the courts say about his own case? He knows he's right and the courts are wrong, why isn't that good enough?

I guess what I'm saying is that he hasn't quite reached the level of narcissism where he believes that he's omnipotent. In that sense, I feel sorry for him, because it must be awful to be omniscient and not have the omnipotence to do anything about it.
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
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7521
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by The Observer »

LPC wrote:The remaining mystery to me is why he bothers to file motions and appeals and continues to argue with the courts at all. If he declares a court order to be invalid, shouldn't that be enough?

He doesn't care what the courts have said in other cases about other people, why should he care what the courts say about his own case? He knows he's right and the courts are wrong, why isn't that good enough?
Because deep down Peter, like every other narcissist, needs to hear his opponents admit that he is right. Sycophants' praise can only go so far.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by notorial dissent »

LPC, I think you have finally hit it on the head. I have been saying all along that Pete has moved from merely spouting his fantasy to actually believing in it. I won’t hazard a guess as to whether he actually believed his nonsense when he first started, but he has since managed to convince himself, and his ego has gotten so bound up in his fantasy that there is no way he can or will for that matter deny it now. The other part of it is not only that he is “right” but he has to convince the rest of the world that only he is “right” which is why he keeps filing the nonsense he does, because he is convinced that if only his opponents will just listen to him they eventually come around to his view point, which of course they never will.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by Dezcad »

District Court has ruled and now Pete and Doreen have until January 7, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Defendant(s).
/
Case No. 06-11753
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO FILE VALID AMENDED TAX RETURNS FOR 2002 AND 2003

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to require Defendants to file valid amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003. [Docket Text #79.] The Court has twice previously ordered Defendants to file amended tax returns. [Docket Text ## 34, 68.] When Defendants eventually filed the tax returns, they invalidated the returns by repudiating their signatures by writing "UNDER DURESS" over their signatures. This repudiation resulted in the Internal Revenue Service's inability to process the returns.
The Court, having reviewed the pleadings in this matter and being fully advised in the premises, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
The Court therefore ORDERS Defendants to file valid tax returns, in usable form, that in no way undermine the verity of the returns, by January 7, 2011. The Court has already found Defendants in contempt in this matter. [Docket Text #68.] If Defendants fail to file their valid tax returns by January 7, 2011, the Court will find Defendants in further contempt.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: December 17, 2010
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by Imalawman »

Then after this, they'll be in triple contempt!!! Sheesh...
"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
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7521
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by The Observer »

No, no, no - any Illimunati worth his or her salt knows that it's time for double secret contempt.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

If memory serves, the judge could order the BOP to not credit days against their sentences while they're in contempt.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7580
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended retur

Post by wserra »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:If memory serves, the judge could order the BOP to not credit days against their sentences while they're in contempt.
Once sentenced for the contempt, absolutely right.
Although the statute says nothing as to the effect of this confinement upon the service of a prior criminal sentence, a concurrent service of both terms would obviously frustrate the purpose of the statute and provide no motivation for the cooperation of the witness. Although no case in this circuit has held that a district court has the power to stay the prior federal criminal sentence, there is ample authority, including decisions by seven other circuit courts, supporting a finding of such power in the district court.[FN1] Indeed, no circuit which has addressed the issue has held otherwise.
United States v. Dien, 598 F.2d 743 (2d Cir. 1979) (and the cases cited in ftnt 1). Held, the District Court has the power to stay the prior sentence to serve the contempt.

How many times do these guys need to be ordered to do something? It's kinda ironic that the Crackheads complain about the way the courts treat Hendrickson. There are plenty of judges who wouldn't give him two chances, let alone three. Double secret contempt, indeed.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume