Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended returns

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

The issue is that the Crackheads will complain about ANYTHING done to Hendrickson, by the courts, other than giving him a rousing vindication and sending him home in a blaze of Crackhead glory.

[Dezcad]

Pete and Doreen's latest - another Motion to vacate - filed on same day as the Order above.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN" DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
Plaintiff, '
v
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON, Case No. 2:otcV-11753
Defendants.

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendants Peter and Doreen Hendrickson move the Court to vacate the judgment entered in the above-captioned case pursuant to the provisions of Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc., Rule 60, in light of new evidence recently come to light (Rule 6O(b)(2)), the fraud on the court which this new evidence reveals (Rule 60(b)(3) and 6O(d)(3)), that the judgment is inequitable (Rule 60(b)(5)), and the consequent or related fact that the court has been without jurisdiction in this matter from the very beginning which renders the judgment of the Court in this matter void (Rule
6O(b)(4)).

Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... allows us to grant relief when an earlier ''judgment is void." "A judgment is void under 60(b)(4) 'if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process oflaw. "' Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105,108 (6th Cir.1995) (quoting In re Edwards, 962 F.2d 641,644 (7th Cir,1992).
Doe v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Govt., 407 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2005). "A judgment.
induced by fraud is void." Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756 (Va. 1987).

In a Motion filed in this Court on October 25, 2010 (Docket #79), the Plaintiff United States overtly admits for the first time that it itself is aware and agrees that we have never owed
it any tax for the years 2002 and 2003, contrary to its fraudulent allegations in its Complaint in
this action. At the very least, it makes unambiguously clear that it is and always has been
unwilling to declare a belief that we owe it taxes for those years under oath or affitmation as is
required by statute and by the fundamental principles of due process.

In its motion, Plaintiff seeks to have this Court furnish it an "equity remedy" of commanding us to repudiate our long-since filed original tax returns, using figures, and the testimony implied thereby. dictated to us by Plaintiff and thti Court, and to do so while concealing the coerced character of these documents and their contents. The declared object of this vile and lawless request is to facilitate the fraudulent pretense that these coerced forms constitute valid, "processable" returns by which we can be deemed to be liable for taxes for 2002 and 2003 (see government Motion, pp. 1,3,5, and 6).

Actually, two frauds are thereby revealed:
1) That the purpose behind Plaintiffs prayer for injunctions is now and has always been the perpetration of a fraud upon certain agencies and actors of the United States, so as to
cause them to unwittingly participate in the "processing" of instruments which are known by
Plaintiff to be invalid, for its own financial benefit, and
2) That Plaintiffs "lawsuit" has always been an exercise in bad faith, since it is based on the premise that a tax liability had already been determined (and thus that the amounts returned to us, and sought to be recaptured by the Plaintiff, were "refunds of tax" - that is, refunds of amounts already determined to have been paid in or collected as payments of tax against established liabilities for tax), because recovery of an "erroneous refund of tax" is the
only thing allowed to be sought by the terms of the statute under which this "suit" was brought.
Since Plaintiff has now admitted that its "prayer for relief' in the lawsuit has been intended all along to coerce the generation of inslruments on the basis of which liabilities can be said to exist, rather than just for the sake of mounting Stalinist "trophies" on its wall, it thus admits that no such liabilities existed when it brought this lawsuit, and it had no basis for claiming that it had made an "erroneous refund of tax" - or was even owed a tax. Therefore, Plaintiff admits bad faith in bringing this suit, did so without the legitimate authority of the statutes it specifically purported to invoke, and failed to provide the Court with jurisdiction from the very beginning. A court cannot acquire jurisdiction by virtue of a "remedy" it orders after having moved forward without jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must exist FIRST. Knowing this full well, Plaintiff proceeded anyway, in the commission of a massive and sustained fraud.

Furthermore, rather than simply abiding in proper respect for our long~since-filed original
returns for 2002 and 2003, the Plaintiff pursues this "lawsuit" on the premise that the returns we
submitted are allegedly "false and fraudulent." However, this premise itself is false, and is, as
demonstrated by Plaintiffs Motion, a fraud upon the Court.

In its admission that it seeks the creation of "processable" returns in its October 25 motion, Plaintiff reveals that it does NOT believe our long-since-filed original returns to be "false and fraudulent," because if it really did, it would produce and execute substitute returns of
its own as required by statute as its available remedy for its alleged legitimate but unsatisfied
claims to our property.

As declared in 26 U.S.c. §6020(b):
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return.
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made there under at the time prescribed therefore, or makes, willfully or otherwise; a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.
(2) Status of returns.
Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.

This, then, is the statutorily-mandated mechanism for the government to acquire "processable
returns" when it sincerely believes "false or fraudulent" returns have been filed (or that none
have been, but should have been). "[T]he purpose of section 6020(b(1) is to provide the Internal
Revenue Service with a mechanism for assessing the civil liability of a taxpayer who has failed
to file a retum, ... " United Stales v, Lac.y, 658 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing Uniied States v.
Harrison, 30 A.F.T.R.2d P 72-5104 (E.D.N.Y.). affd. 486 F.2d 1397 (2d Cir. 1972). Plaintiff has never created and signed substitute returns pursuant to this statutory mandate, and therefore
makes clear that it does NOT believe our returns to be anything but proper and legitimate, and
recognizes itself therefore under a plain obligation to honor them and otherwise hold its peace.
This being so, the bringing of the "lawsuit" is a plain fraud upon the Court.

On the other hand, if Plaintiff DOES believe our return are "false or fraudulent" or if the Court chooses to imagine that this is so despite the point made above, then the "lawsuit" remains
invalid nonetheless, since there IS, in fact, a statutory remedy to PlaintiIff's complained-of,
distress, and it is therefore the only mechanism which the Plaintiff may legitimately pursue.

An "equity remedy" can only be pursued by the government and considered by a court when no statutory remedy exists:
[A] common-law [suit] "may be entertained only in the absence of a statutory remedy" (and) "where statutory relief is afforded and clearly applies to the circumstances giving rise to the action, the statute constitutes the exclusive avenue for seeking redress."
Aarti Hospitality, LLC v. City of Grove City, 2009 US. App LEXIS 20883 (6th Cir. 2009). quoting Westbrook v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 37 Ohio St. 3d 166,524 N.E.2d 485,488-89 (Ohio 1988) (emphasis added).

Tax cases do not lend themselves to an equitable solution. The Tax Code and regulations are technical and must be interpreted accordingly, like a game which must be played strictly in accordance with the rules. Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499, 501 . (4th Cir. 1990). Blatt v. United States, 830 F. Supp 882,88& (W.D.N.C.1993), affd, 34 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 1994)
(emphasis added).

Our analysis is governed by the well-established principle that, in most contexts, "a precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts more general remedies.'" EC Term of Years Trust v. United States, 550 US. --' _, 127 S.Ct. 1763, 1764, 167 L.Ed.2d 729 . (2007) (quoting Brown v. GSA, .25 US. 820,834,96 S.Ct. 1961,48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976»~ see also Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ, and School Lands, 461 US. 273,284-286, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983). We are also guided by our past recognition that when Congress enacts a specific remedy when no remedy was previously recognized, or when previous remedies were "prob1ematic," the remedy
provided isgeneraUy regarded as exclusive. Id, at 285, 103 S.Ct. 1811; Brown, supra,; at 826-829, 96 S. Ct. 1961.
Hinck v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2011 (2007) (emphasis added).


There IS no statutory basis for commanding the "amendment" of a return, much less for
ordering an "amended return" with content DICTATED by the government or the Court. There
IS a statutory requirement that when Plaintiff feels aggrieved by a filed return it has one option
regarding the creation of an alternative: to create and execute one itself. Therefore, this "lawsuit," based as it is upon the evasion of the existing statutory requirement while utterly lacking any legitimate statutory and factual basis, is inherently invalid, seeks a remedy outside the lawful power of the Court to provide, fails to provide the Court with jurisdiction, and should be promptly dismissed.

We request an immediate- hearing on this Motion.

PRAYER

In light of the foregoing new evidence, arguments and points of law, the Court should vacate its previous judgment and orders and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, and the Hendricksons so pray.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of December, 2010.
Peter Hendrickson
Doreen M. Hendrickson
232 Oriole Rd.
Commerce Twp, Michigan 48382
(248) 366-6858
feedback@losthorizons.com

[LaVidaRoja]

Post removed. I goofed on what I wrote

[LPC]

Pete and Doreen's latest - another Motion to vacate - filed on same day as the Order above.

It's tempting to think that the judge might impose Rule 11 sanctions for filing yet *another* motion to vacate, or might find that the filing of the motion itself is contemptuous, but I suspect that the judge will simply deny the motion and confirm that the 1/7 date still holds for the filing of the corrected tax returns.

Having already found the Hendricksons in contempt (twice), can the judge issue an arrest warrant if the returns are not filed by 1/7? Or must there some other procedure first?

[Gregg]

All that "fraud upon the court" and common law gibberish makes it look almost like Skankbeat has found someone stupid enough to listen to his legal theories.

How long until someone gets tired of this and just burns their so called life to the ground?

[Thule]

All that "fraud upon the court" and common law gibberish makes it look almost like Skankbeat has found someone stupid enough to listen to his legal theories.

So after getting all kinds of people into all kinds of trouble with his pseudo-legal gibberish, Petemeister is himself fooled by Skankys pseudo-legal gibberish.

I like that. I really really like that.

[Quixote]

I'm still confused by the government's insistence that the Hendricksons file a corrected return. They don't need one to assess the tax. The corrected return is required by the court's order, but I can't help thinking that there are probably any number of more important defaulted court orders that the DoJ could be spending its time on.

[Dr. Caligari]

I'm still confused by the government's insistence that the Hendricksons file a corrected return. They don't need one to assess the tax.

Quite right; they can just issue a Notice of Deficiency. Had I been the judge, I would have denied that part of the Government's request for relief because they have an adequate remedy at law.

The corrected return is required by the court's order, but I can't help thinking that there are probably any number of more important defaulted court orders that the DoJ could be spending its time on.

I think at this point, they are just trying to rub the Hendricksons' noses in it.

[Imalawman]

I'm still confused by the government's insistence that the Hendricksons file a corrected return. They don't need one to assess the tax.

Quite right; they can just issue a Notice of Deficiency. Had I been the judge, I would have denied that part of the Government's request for relief because they have an adequate remedy at law.

The corrected return is required by the court's order, but I can't help thinking that there are probably any number of more important defaulted court orders that the DoJ could be spending its time on.

I think at this point, they are just trying to rub the Hendricksons' noses in it.

You know that's what I've been saying too. It just seems like a wasted exercise to me. A court order requiring returns to be filed in general compliance going forward is useful. Going back over the same material just seems pointless and stupid. Move on.

[Harvester]

So after getting all kinds of people into all kinds of trouble with his pseudo-legal gibberish, Petemeister is .....

Well I'm in no trouble. Guess you forgot about that. Thanks for sharing the motion Dezcad, hadn't seen that. Sorry it's been awhile since I logged-in, busy time for the Harvester. Not to worry though, we're winning this one and you can't even see it can ya? HA! Yes, it's shaping up for an extraordinary holiday in the Harvester household this year now that we're off the debt & tax slavery farm. Merry Christmas!!

[notorial dissent]

But why would they comply going forward if they won't comply to begin with? I don't see that as happening, as Pete will simply fall back on the same old cant that he is being forced to say something he doesn't believe. After all, Pete is right and the gov't / court is wrong!!!

[Harvester]

. . . After all, Pete is right and the gov't / court is wrong!!!

Great to hear! I knew you'd come around eventually. I'll mark you down as
"national descent - 1st Quatloser to admit Pete's right (12-22-10)." Can we expect an apology forthcoming too?

[ArthurWankspittle]

I'll mark you down as "too stupid to understand sarcasm".

[silversopp]

Well I'm in no trouble.

You've stopped using Pete's CTC method. Had you continued to file CTC returns year after year, the chance of being caught goes up dramatically. You filed one CTC return and you're now laying low. That's a better strategy than the losers that actually believe the CTC return is legit and do it year after year.

we're winning this one and you can't even see it can ya?

Scamming the government one time and going into hiding by taking "cash only" jobs isn't much of a victory. Constantly looking over your shoulder for the IRS isn't much of a victory. A life that revolves around fear (hence why you hide behind anonymous proxies) isn't much of a victory.

What happened to "Stand Tall Warriors"? Hiding around in the underground economy barely making ends meet isn't "standing tall". It's a sad life, and too high of a price to pay for the small amount of money you scammed from the government.

[Pottapaug1938]

Stand Tall, Warriors!

[jcolvin2]

In the original order Judge Edmunds wrote:
If [the Hendricksons’] intransigence is based on a matter of conscience–that they fear they would somehow be conceding the correctness of the government’s position–then they may submit with their returns a separate written statement expressing their disagreement. However, the amended returns themselves must be completely executed and signed, with no extraneous material or comments contained on the Form 1040 or any pertinent schedules.

I am not sure that Judge Edmunds understood that the jurat on an executed return affirms that the returns were "true, correct and complete." I do not know how the Hendricksons could execute such returns without absolutely "conceding the correctness of the government's position" - under penalty of perjury no less. It seems like a violation of fundamental rights (First Amendment) and somewhat Orwellian to use contempt to force a person to affirm something that he doesn't agree with simply in order to make tax returns administratively processable by an agency.

The IRS of course can proceed civilly against the Hendricksons by issuing notices of deficiency. In the event of a court challenge, collateral estoppel (the same arguments were made in the erroneous refund suit) will work in the government's favor.

[Nikki]

we're winning this one and you can't even see it can ya?

I have read of similar quotes made by people in the past - the defenders at Masada, Josef Goebbels, the Imperial Japanese high command (circa 1945), to name a few.

You shouldn't have included the defenders at Masada.

After all, we do own everything today.

[Thule]

"We are winning this one. Stand tall, warriors."

[Famspear]

......It seems like a violation of fundamental rights (First Amendment) and somewhat Orwellian to use contempt to force a person to affirm something that he doesn't agree with simply in order to make tax returns administratively processable by an agency.

I respectfully disagree. There is no First Amendment right to disagree with the government's interpretation of the law as an excuse for avoiding the filing a return that complies with the government's interpretation. The problem for Hendrickson is that the government's interpretation happens to be the correct one.

This means that Hendrickson is aware (in the LEGAL sense) that his own interpretation is incorrect, even though he does not "believe" (in the sense that HE uses the word "believe") that his own interpretation is incorrect. This can be confusing -- in part because of the multiple meanings of the word "believe."

What is Orwellian is for Hendrickson to do what he does -- to argue that the government is impermissibly forcing him to testify to something he doesn't believe.

To digress a bit, I note that Hendrickson has latched on to the confusion over the word "belief" -- a confusion that could have been avoided if the Supreme Court and other courts had stayed away from that term and had remained focused on the "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty." A known legal duty is a duty, the EXISTENCE of which you are AWARE. You can be aware of the EXISTENCE of the duty without "believing" (in the sense in which Hendrickson uses that term) that it is a legal duty. Disagreement about an important aspect of something is not the same as lack of awareness of the existence of that "something."

Hendrickson cannot validly argue that he is not aware of the existence of the law that imposes the federal income tax on his private sector income. After all, he has made a career out of arguing that this very law is not the law. You can't talk about, and write about, and pontificate about, and operate a web site about, something of which you are "unaware." You cannot affirmatively disagree with something without being aware of it.

Hendrickson loves to focus on the term "belief," which appears in the text of the Supreme Court decision in Cheek, and he ignores the rest of the text of that case. The key to a successful Cheek defense should not be belief, or even "actual belief." The key is an actual GOOD FAITH belief that is based on a MISUNDERSTANDING. And not just any old misunderstanding. The misunderstanding must be caused by the "complexity of the tax law," not by obdurate recalcitrance or perseverant refusal to accept the interpretations found in the rulings of the courts.

[Famspear]

.....I am not sure that Judge Edmunds understood that the jurat on an executed return affirms that the returns were "true, correct and complete."

I think there is a fair chance the Judge was aware of that -- and issued the order knowing that.

......It seems like a violation of fundamental rights (First Amendment) and somewhat Orwellian to use contempt to force a person to affirm something that he doesn't agree with simply in order to make tax returns administratively processable by an agency.

Actually, it's more than that. Under the law, a person is required to file a legally valid return. A return in which the jurat is significantly altered or repudiated often is not a legally valid return. So, the court order wasn't made "simply" in order to make the returns "administratively processable" by the IRS. The IRS probably does not have the legal authority to knowingly process a document as though it were a legally valid return if the document is not a legally valid return. The IRS has to follow the law. The Court "simply" ordered the Hendricksons to comply with the law -- to comply with a duty imposed by a statute.