Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended returns

[notorial dissent]

I would say about on par with all the others that have been complied with.

[Dezcad]

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 DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT [82]
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to vacate judgment. (Dkt.
82.)
The Court has already addressed and denied Defendants’ previous motions for reconsideration and relief from judgment as well as a prior motion to vacate judgment. (Dkt. 33, 67, 71.)
Because the Court finds the arguments in Plaintiff’s brief well-founded and has previously addressed the substance of Defendants’ claims, it DENIES Defendants’ motion to vacate judgment.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: January 26, 2011

[Famspear]

Because the Court finds the arguments in Plaintiff’s brief well-founded and has previously addressed the substance of Defendants’ claims, it DENIES Defendants’ motion to vacate judgment.
SO ORDERED.

Which of course proves to Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, the Fabulous Felon, the Pontificating Prisoner, and to AAAAALLLLLL his Feckless Followers that the Blowhard-in-Chief, the Not-So-Juvenescent Jailbird, is correct in everything he says and writes! Yes! Another stunning victory for defendant Bloviating Blowhard Hendrickson, and for Delusional Doreen, his Co-Defendant Spouse!

Just wait 'til Patrick Michael Mooney gets the word! He'll be bubbling with blather!



Maybe I should cut down on my sugar intake......

[Pottapaug1938]

Of course, you all realize that Pete and Doreen lost only because the courts are corrupt and the judges are scared of the IRS, or something....

[Gregg]

(snip)

Just wait 'til Patrick Michael Mooney gets the word! He'll be bubbling with blather!



Maybe I should cut down on my sugar intake......

Sugar? I was thinking more along the lines of purple blotter....

[wserra]

Harvey's thread hijack diverted to the usual place.

[Dezcad]

The government's latest. Doreen may be incarcerated. Check out the new development I've bolded below.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-vs.- Civil Action No. 06-11753
Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO AFFIDAVIT OF DOREEN HENDRICKSON AND RENEWED MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT

The United States responds to the Affidavit of Doreen Hendrickson, filed January 7, 2011, purportedly in accordance with the Court’s December 17, 2010 Order (docket no. 83) requiring the Defendants to file valid amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 no later than January 7, 2011. For the following reasons, the Court should impose a daily fine against Peter Hendrickson and incarcerate Doreen Hendrickson until they comply with the Court’s orders, and impose any other civil contempt remedies deemed appropriate.

Peter Hendrickson failed to comply, or even attempt to comply, with the Court’s Order, and has offered no explanation for his contemptuous action. Hendrickson is currently incarcerated and may believe that the Court has no available remedy to coerce his compliance. However, the Court may impose daily fines of $100 or more against Peter Hendrickson until he complies. Should Peter Hendrickson not comply despite the fines, the Court should order that he remain incarcerated following the completion of his current prison sentence until he fully complies with the Court’s several orders requiring the filing of valid tax returns.

Doreen Hendrickson, in response to the December 17, 2010 Order, filed an Affidavit with the Court to which she attached as Exhibit C purported amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003. (See docket no. 86.) The returns are not valid or processable because in the “Explanation of changes” section, rather than simply state that the original reported amounts were incorrect or
something to that effect, the returns cite to the Affidavit filed with the Court, to which they are attached. (See id., Ex. C, at 1 and 3, line C.) The Affidavit in turn states, in part, that Doreen “further disclaim[s] these coerced amended returns because they are wholly false and fraudulent.” (Id. at ¶ 20.) The purported returns were provided to the Government in the same
manner that they were provided to the Court; that is, as attachments to the Affidavit.
Moreover, on the purported amended returns for 2002 and 2003, Doreen Hendrickson
claimed the status of “Married filing separately” even though the amended returns specifically
state that filing status cannot be changed from “Married” (as the Hendricksons claimed on their
original returns) on an amended return where it is filed after the due date, which in this case
would have been more than 6 years ago. (See id., at 1 and 3, line A.) The deductions that she
claims are based on that change in her filing status. Doreen Hendrickson thus continues to
engage in contemptuous conduct and has not made a sincere or good faith effort to comply with
the Court’s orders. Doreen Hendrickson should, therefore, be incarcerated until she fully
complies with the Court’s Order.

Finally, attached is the Declaration of Warren Rose, vice president of Peter Hendrickson’s
former employer, Personnel Management, Inc. The Declaration details an affidavit prepared for
Sheldon Rose, Warren’s father and the president of Personnel Management, Inc. The affidavit
falsely claims that Peter Hendrickson did not receive income in 2002 and 2003 (as well as 2000,
2004, 2005, and 2006) and that the Forms W-2 reporting his income were issued in error. The
United States expects to show that Doreen Hendrickson, with the assistance of an individual
named Sarah Waltner, prepared the affidavit and/or attempted to have Sheldon Rose sign the
affidavit. This further shows the Hendricksons’ intent to disobey and undermine this Court’s
orders.

Therefore, the United States requests that the Court find Peter Hendrickson to be in contempt and impose a daily fine of $100 or more against Hendrickson until he complies, find Doreen Hendrickson in contempt and order her incarceration until she fully complies, and take any other action that the Court deems appropriate.

Dated: February 9, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
BARBARA L. MCQUADE
United States Attorney
s/ Daniel A. Applegate
DANIEL A. APPLEGATE (P70452)
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U. S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7238, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 353-8180
Fax: (202) 514-6770
Daniel.A.Applegate@usdoj.gov

[Famspear]

So, the allegation is that Doreen Hendrickson, with the assistance of someone named Sarah Waltner, tried (unsuccessfully) to get the president of Pete's former employer to sign a false affidavit -- in a clumsy, stupid, idiotic attempt to provide "evidence" that the income Pete received from the employer wasn't "income" for purposes of the federal income tax law?

Ummmm......

Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 USC section 1622.

Would successfully inducing someone to sign a false affidavit be a subornation of perjury? Would the government have to show that Doreen's intent was to use the false affidavit in federal court in Hubby Hendrickson's tax case(s)?

Is an attempt (even an unsuccessful attempt) to get someone to sign a false affidavit an attempted subornation of perjury?

Is an unsuccessful attempt included in the definition of "procures" under section 1622?

If not, is there a separate federal "attempt" statute that would cover this?

What about 18 USC 371 (conspiracy) -- with Doreen and this other lady that was mentioned?

It's too darn cold in south Texas right now. I just can't think.....

[notorial dissent]

I said originally that Doreen turning in the tax forms with that affidavit was contempt, and it looks like the gov't is going for it for that.

It sounds like Doreen has just gotten herself into a whole more trouble than when she started, and that this is going to turn into a family incarceration plan after all.

[wserra]

Would successfully inducing someone to sign a false affidavit be a subornation of perjury?

Assuming the materiality of the information in the affidavit, and that the affidavit is actually used in a proceeding, yes.

Would the government have to show that Doreen's intent was to use the false affidavit in federal court in Hubby Hendrickson's tax case(s)?

Probably, but that doesn't seem to be much of an issue. What else was she going to do with it, line her shelves?

Is an attempt (even an unsuccessful attempt) to get someone to sign a false affidavit an attempted subornation of perjury?

No such thing. There is no general federal attempt statute (unlike every state I know of). If an attempt is not built into the statute defining a federal crime, it doesn't exist.

Is an unsuccessful attempt included in the definition of "procures" under section 1622?

No. There must in fact be perjury.

If not, is there a separate federal "attempt" statute that would cover this?

As I wrote above, there is no general federal attempt statute.

What about 18 USC 371 (conspiracy) -- with Doreen and this other lady that was mentioned?

According to no less an authority than the Supreme Court, two or more persons can conspire to suborn, even if the attempt (used non-legally) is unsuccessful. Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425 (1908). If you wake up in the morning, the odds are you've conspired to do something. Why do you think prosecutors like the charge so much?

[webhick]

What about conspiring to scam the elderly? Sheldon is the elder Rose and the Declaration is coming from his son. If Sheldon didn't have all his marbles nicely polished, they could have succeeded in getting him to say that his company filed false documents with the government which could lead to an unjustified shitstorm for the company.

Yeah, that would probably fly just as well as the suborning perjury. A girl can dream.

[webhick]

I googled this Sarah Waltner person and found a PDF's email concerning the Hendricksons from Mark Lane to Mark Daly in September 2009 and she appears on the prospective witness list as a "paralegal." Sheldon Rose is also on the list and on the previous page, Lane says "Regarding Mr. Rose, he will testify that his response to the IRS in the matter related to this case, was given due to his fear of retaliation from the IRS."

[ashlynne39]

I googled this Sarah Waltner person and found a PDF's email concerning the Hendricksons from Mark Lane to Mark Daly in September 2009 and she appears on the prospective witness list as a "paralegal." Sheldon Rose is also on the list and on the previous page, Lane says "Regarding Mr. Rose, he will testify that his response to the IRS in the matter related to this case, was given due to his fear of retaliation from the IRS."

I found the e-mail pdf too and noticed that on Pete's witness list for his trial they had listed Patrick Mooney and Tim Whitney as witnesses that Pete's filings weren't false. Gave me a giggle especially conidering Mooney's recent court decisions. I know the court can't allow itself to turn into a circus but this is one of those times that I think it would have been sort of fun to hear Patrick and Tim testify. If I remember right they weren't allowed to though.

[Famspear]

I found the e-mail pdf too and noticed that on Pete's witness list for his trial they had listed Patrick Mooney and Tim Whitney as witnesses that Pete's filings weren't false.......

That's funny when we recall that Blowhard Hendrickson had previously claimed:

ANYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT WILL BE FOUND ACCURATELY AND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED IN CtC [Cracking the Code] AND/OR ON THIS [lost horizons dot com] WEBSITE. ANYTHING NOT FOUND ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THE WEBSITE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT, AND WILL INTERFERE WITH YOUR ACCURATE COMPREHENSION OF THE SUBJECT.

(emphasis in original).

You would think that Blowhard Hendrickson would have considered the need to defend his view of the "income tax subject" in court as being part of the "universe" of "things" that would be "relevant" to the "income tax subject." Yet, he apparently may have contemplated asking two of his followers to "vouch" for the "fact" that he "actually believed" the theory which was the basis for what he reported as income (or didn't report as income) on his tax returns.

To do that, Mooney and Whitney would have to have had some sort of personal knowledge of Pete's mind, I guess. (I mean, I hope he wasn't planning on calling them as expert witnesses.) Was Pete so clueless that he really thought he could call these guys to testify about his state of mind?

Or, was Pete so clueless that he thought that the supposed "correctness" of CtC was a question of fact? Did he intend to call Mooney and Whitney to testify to the supposed "fact" that CtC is "correct" (as opposed to having them testify about Pete's "belief")?

I'm glad Pete had some lawyers to assist him in his trial. Otherwise, he could have made an even bigger fool of himself.



EDIT: I suppose that if Blowhard Hendrickson had had numerous conversations with Mooney and Whitney, they might have had some "personal knowledge," and could have been called to testify about what Hendrickson said -- not as hearsay evidence, but as evidence of what Hendrickson "believed." Was this Hendrickson's way of contemplating the Cheek defense?

[LPC]

Or, was Pete so clueless that he thought that the supposed "correctness" of CtC was a question of fact?

I would call that a "yes."

[Dezcad]

Pete and Doreen have filed a Defendants' Reply Brief In Opposition To United States' Response to Affidavit of Doreen Hendrickson and Renewed Motion for Contempt.

They continue to argue the merits of the underlying case despite the affirmance on appeal and denial of cert by the SCOTUS. They also take a "case or controversy" approach (sound familiar?).

Here are some excerpts of the 35 page brief:

We oppose this latest effort to invoke the Court's violence against us. This motion asks the Court to violate our rights by forcing us to speak as though we are Plaintiff's puppets, disavow our own legal claims and interests, repudiate our own freely-made testimony, and create bogus evidence in support of allegations against us which Plaintiff, in contemptuous defiance of plain, statutory obligations to "put up or shut up," has never validated with evidence. Further, this motion is grounded on a judgment made without jurisdiction and in violation of due process (including denial of our right to be heard, an improper denial of our motion for summary judgment, and a denial of our right to challenge and impeach evidence). Further still, the Court is incapable of acquiring jurisdiction in regard to the particular subject of the motion.

A. There Has Never Been A Case Or Controversy Involved In Plaintiff's Lawsuit.
Fact evidence to support the third-party allegations upon which Plaintiffs suit relies, the production of which is mandatory per 26 U.S.C. §6201(d) and §7491 due to our having rebutted
those allegations, was never produced (see Washington ex reI. Shaw v. Comm'r (2001, WD
Wash) 2001-1 USTC para. 50389, 87 AFTR 2d 2191 and Steffen v. United States (In re Steffen)
(2206 MD Fla.) 349 BR 734); nor did anyone independently establish Plaintiffs standing for this
action through a sworn statement by an officer of the government, as is required per 26 U.S.C.
§6020(b). See United States v. Lacy, 658 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981) citing United States v. Harrison, 486 F.2d 1397 (2d Cir. 1972). Similarly, those acting on Plaintiffs behalf never produced evidence that this suit was authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury, as required per 26 U.S.C. §7401. See United States v. One 1972 Cadillac, 355 F.Supp 513, 514-15 (E.n. Ky. 1973) and see also United States v. Isaac, 968 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1992). By virtue of all these failures, jurisdiction was never conferred on the Court, since without these requirements being met, there is no cognizable case or controversy.
The Court does not acquire jurisdiction merely because Plaintiff makes a complaint. There must actually BE a case or controversy, and in the face of our filed returns, it is only by fulfilling the specific statntory requirements listed above that Plaintiff can cognizably allege that a tax-related case or controversy exists. NONE of these requirements have been met, and the Court has always been without jurisdiction and obliged to dismiss. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998); FRCP Rule 12(h)(3). Therefore, this latest motion filed by
Barbara McQuade on behalf of Plaintiff is grounded in an invalid judgment and must be denied.

Somewhere in eternal torment for, among other things, their own crimes against liberty of conscience and the obligations of strict obedience to procedural fairness, wherever it may lead, the damned souls of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler are finding a moment's respite and are
smirking at each other. Somewhere much more congenial, the souls of America's founders, and
every patriot who ever suffered in defense of freedom under the rule of law, are weeping.

You can read the rest for more of Hendricksons' nonsense.

[wserra]

the damned souls of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler are finding a moment's respite and are smirking at each other.

Weren't Hitler and Stalin enemies?

Quiet, he's on a roll.

[LPC]

Here are some excerpts of the 35 page brief:

It looks like they made the mistake of putting the first and last pages too far apart.

[LPC]

Fact evidence to support the third-party allegations upon which Plaintiffs suit relies, the production of which is mandatory per 26 U.S.C. §6201(d) and §7491 due to our having rebutted those allegations, was never produced (see Washington ex reI. Shaw v. Comm'r (2001, WD Wash) 2001-1 USTC para. 50389, 87 AFTR 2d 2191 and Steffen v. United States (In re Steffen) (2206 MD Fla.) 349 BR 734);

Section 6201(d) says:

In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return filed with the Secretary under subpart B or C of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary (including providing, within a reasonable period of time, access to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and documents within the control of the taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary), the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information return.

(Emphasis added.)

As I've pointed out several times, Hendrickson never actually denied being paid by Personnel Management, so it's not even clear that there was a dispute, much less a "reasonable dispute."

More importantly, though, is that the US had a sworn declaration from an employee in the payroll department of Personnel Management who verified the accuracy of the W-2s issued to Hendrickson.

The US won the motion for summary judgment because there wasn't any dispute as to any material fact.

nor did anyone independently establish Plaintiffs standing for this action through a sworn statement by an officer of the government, as is required per 26 U.S.C. §6020(b). See United States v. Lacy, 658 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981) citing United States v. Harrison, 486 F.2d 1397 (2d Cir. 1972).

This one is incomprehensible to me, because section 6020(b) has to do with signing substitutes for returns, but there was no substitute for return involved in Hendrickson's case.

Similarly, those acting on Plaintiffs behalf never produced evidence that this suit was authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury, as required per 26 U.S.C. §7401. See United States v. One 1972 Cadillac, 355 F.Supp 513, 514-15 (E.n. Ky. 1973) and see also United States v. Isaac, 968 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1992).

The original complaint filed by the government alleges that "2. This civil action has been authorized by the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, and commenced at the direction of a delegate of the Attorney General of the United States."

The "One 1972 Cadillac" decision is not helpful, because the opinion admits that there is a presumption that such an allegation is sufficient, but if the allegation is challenged then the US must produce additional proof. But the Hendricksons never disputed the allegation.

The Isaac case undermines the Hendricksons because it clearly holds that the issue of authorization can be waived if not raised with the trial court.

[Gregg]

Wouldn't it be nice to see one day this...

Mr. Hendrickson, the question of facts are things for the jury to decide, on questions of law, I, the Judge decide. The only question of fact is did you receive these payments? Whether or not you call them compensation for service, wages, salaries or anything else is not material. Your theory of only being liable for taxes on certain acts or privileges is not material, those are questions of law and you may believe what you want but those are questions the Judge decides and I have decided or will decide those things when the time is right, but for now, all I'm going to let the jury hear, is you admit you got possession of the money or you deny you got the money. The only FACT a jury decides is whether you got the money. Understand?

I know, I know, if God himself spoke in the clouds with the voices of thousands of chiors of angels saying "Yes, Peter Eric Hendrickson, of Clermont Township Michigan, who got paid $xx,000 dollars working for Pig Stupid Vending Machines, Inc., a non federally connected private company, have to pay taxes" Pete and the lost squad would find a loophole. But to most people I think the above might clear a few things up.