Doreen Trial Set for August 20, 2013

[LPC]

The indictment proposes that Doreen willfully failed to obey what is alleged to be a "lawful" court order from back in 2007 commanding her to make "amended tax returns" repudiating those she and I had filed in 2002 and 2003 (and for which we had received the first complete tax refunds in American history).

Another example of the Humpty-Dumpty way in which tax deniers redefine words to suit their own ends.

An order that has been issued by a district court and affirmed on appeal to the circuit court (with a rehearing en banc denied), and for which the Supreme Court has denied certiorari (and denied a rehearing), is by definition "lawful."

The fact that you don't like the law or don't agree with the law doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist, or that the court's order is not "lawful." You might consider the order to be immoral or irrational or offensive, but you can't consider the order to be "unlawful" for the same reason that you can't consider black to be white.

The same single count in the indictment also alleges that Doreen violated a "lawful order" intended to control her testimony on future filings.

Yes, the court "controlled" her "testimony" by ordering her to stop committing perjury.

Both commands are transparently UN-lawful. This is dramatically underscored by the government's insistence that compliance with the "amended return" command must include Doreen concealing the fact that any such instruments-- on which she is told what she must say and forced to sign it with a declaration that the content is what she herself knows and believes to be true-- are completed as such under duress, and that the content does NOT, in fact, reflect what she believes to be true.

Let's be clear: No one cares what Doreen (or you) "knows and believes to be true." All the IRS and the courts care about is what is actually true.

Anyway, I have waited to speak of this assault until a motion to dismiss this outrageous charge could be completed and filed.

I wonder why. (Really, I wonder why, because what difference does it make whether Pete makes a public rant before or after filing a motion?)

I hope all of you raise the roof over this outrageous assault on the rule of law, due process, and all that is right and decent.

Self-serving cant. One of the essential elements of both "the rule of law" and "due process" is that individuals don't get to self-legislate, self-adjudicate, or otherwise decide whether (or how) the law applies to them. Pete violates that principle with almost every sentence he writes.

[jcolvin2]

The court has granted Doreen's motion to represent herself (with standby counsel). From the docket:

07/29/2013 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts: Motion Hearing as to Doreen M. Hendrickson held on 7/29/2013 re 16 MOTION to Allow Self-Representation with the Assistance of Standby Counsel filed by Doreen M. Hendrickson, 15 MOTION To Allow Self-Representation with the Assistance of Standby Counsel filed by Doreen M. Hendrickson Disposition: granted(Court Reporter: Janice Coleman) (Defendant Attorney: Andrew Wise) (AUSA: Jeffrey Bender) (CPin) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

[Gregg]

I think that effectively means Pete is going to defend her for all intents and purposes. Who wants to be he tries to participate in the courtroom one way or another?

[notorial dissent]

Sucker bet. He'll be there right beside her lending spousal support and greasing the slides to help her on her way under the bus.

On the other hand, I'm also betting this judge already knows better and that he will get short shrift if he so much as opens his mouth. This is going to be interesting, but not necessarily fun for the participants.

[Dezcad]

Trial has been rescheduled:

08/01/2013 24 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Doreen M. Hendrickson Jury Trial reset for 10/29/2013 09:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin) (Entered: 08/01/2013)

Relevant portions of Stipulation:

4. On July 29, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion for self-representation with the assistance of standby counsel. The Court granted the defendant’s motion and ordered defendant’s appointed counsel to remain as standby counsel.

5. During the July 29, 2013 hearing, the defendant asked the Court to continue the trial to allow her additional time to prepare her defense. The Court granted the defendant’s motion to continue and the parties mutually agreed to the Court’s proposed trial date of October 29,
2013.

[Famspear]

Over at codebusters dot org, the "alternative" web site for wackadoosters who follow Blowhard Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam, user "Morgan_Edwards" writes:

While Pete was detained [serving his most recent Federal prison sentence], I exchanged emails with Doreen. I mentioned to her the IMF [Individual Master File of the Internal Revenue Service] issue and told her I would gladly decode their transcripts [transcripts of the Individual Master File on Peter and Doreen Hendrickson]. She never sent me an email back. I would love to see what manner of fraud they have in their transcripts.

One of the myths believed by these hapless souls is that the Individual Master File at the IRS for a given individual should be carefully studied, "decoded," in a sort of talmudic fashion, for clues as to how the evil IRS oppresses the people by making fraudulent entries in the person's Individual Master File.

User "TDL" (ironically, the initials apparently standing for "transcripts don't lie") responds:

My heart -- and prayers -- go out to Doreen. I, too, have offered my assistance to DH [Doreen Hendrickson] whilst Pete force-"vacationed" @ ClubFed. Alas, my offers went nowhere. Even when their forum went down, DH would never respond to my offers of supporting/admin'ing their forum. I am convinced that there's lots of "auntie-scat" buried in the Hendricksen's [sic] transcripts, the very dirt Doreen's trial court would (imho) be horrified to learn about.

Regrettably, PH & devotees have poo-poo'd transcript-related matters/facts/research by and large, so there's no point now of suggesting that course of action again ... As Denzel Washington's character boasted in the movie Training Day: "... It's not what you know -- it's what you can prove ..." Upshot: after reading DH's papers, i'm afraid that this will go down as a "turkey shoot" in favor of GovCo.

http://www.codebusters.org/post1865.html#p1865

[notorial dissent]

And yet all that super duper arcane knowledge has done so well for TDL and his fellow fools, and yet they keep falling back on it and Pete's piddlings.

[jg]

Depending on how many others join to see the contents of their site perhaps they are doing not so bad.
"Costs Associated with Being a Member
$180. That's it. NO other fees or costs associated with TRT membership.
You will have unlimited access to—
IMF Decoding self-help training

the private, dedicated forum

all weekly recorded WebEx Webinars

all member's resources

all research materials

all case law

all case law research

books

publications

pamphlets

letters our own members have written

FOIA and PA requests our members have written

and much, more more.


OTHER RESOURCES AND HELPS

Some of our members offer private arrangements to help other members. As a member, you are free to choose to make a private arrangement or contract with another member. We do not manage or monitor your private affairs."

[LPC]

The ED Michigan District Court has only recently published the transcript of the civil contempt hearing held on June 10, 2010.

Nothing very surprising, but you have to remember when you read the transcript that this was *before* Peter and Doreen filed "amended returns" that were rejected because of the attachments that undermined the jurats.

I may post some excerpts later, but I've got to go sip some bourbon and grill some chicken wings now. (Life is tough in the north country this time of year.)

[AndyK]

Transcript of the civil contempt hearing held on June 10, 2010.

Pathetic. Pete has totally closed his mind to any possibility that either he has misinterpreted the law, that he is obligated to comply with the law as specifically stated to him, or that he needs to heed the court's instructions.

Somehow, his several years in prison haven't made any impression on him.

I feel sorry for his wife and children. He has done them a major disservice for which they all will pay a heavy price for the rest of their lives.

[LPC]

The beginning of the transcript puzzles me:

DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON: Peter Hendrickson and
Doreen Hendrickson.

THE COURT: Representing yourselves?

DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Been a long time, Mr. Hendrickson.

DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON: Indeed.

THE COURT: What, about 15 years?

DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON: Closer to 20, I think.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, this -- we have two motions for contempt....

What happened 15-20 years before that Judge Edmunds would have encountered Peter Hendrickson?

Hendrickson's conviction for mailing the smoke bomb to the IRS was in 1992, which was 18 years before, and Edmunds was appointed to the federal bench in 1992, but she had nothing to do with the case as far as I can tell from the docket.

Hendrickson filed for bankruptcy in 1996, which would be 14 years before, but I don't seem to be able to check the docket online to see if Edmunds had anything to do with that case.

So it's a bit of a puzzle.

[Red Cedar PM]

The beginning of the transcript puzzles me:

DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON: Peter Hendrickson and
Doreen Hendrickson.

THE COURT: Representing yourselves?

DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Been a long time, Mr. Hendrickson.

DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON: Indeed.

THE COURT: What, about 15 years?

DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON: Closer to 20, I think.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, this -- we have two motions for contempt....

What happened 15-20 years before that Judge Edmunds would have encountered Peter Hendrickson?

Hendrickson's conviction for mailing the smoke bomb to the IRS was in 1992, which was 18 years before, and Edmunds was appointed to the federal bench in 1992, but she had nothing to do with the case as far as I can tell from the docket.

Hendrickson filed for bankruptcy in 1996, which would be 14 years before, but I don't seem to be able to check the docket online to see if Edmunds had anything to do with that case.

So it's a bit of a puzzle.

Judge Edmunds was in private practice in the Detroit area prior to being appointed to the bench. Since Pete lives in Commerce Township it is possible they crossed paths while she was a practicing attorney.

As an aside, Nancy Edmunds just finished a very high profile, complex case recently - the public corruption RICO trial of former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. She did a fantastic job of keeping such a huge, complex trial on track and dealing with the oversized egos of the high profile defendants and their attorneys.

[Dezcad]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs Case No: 13-20371
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
DOREEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT
Ms. Hendrickson filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment against her, which charges her with criminal contempt in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). In her motion, Hendrickson challenges the Government's assertion that she wilfully violated a legitimate court order. She also challenges the jurisdiction of the court which issued the underlying order.

The charge Hendrickson now faces, stems from a May 2, 2007 Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction issued against Hendrickson by the Honorable Nancy Edmunds in the case of United States v Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, 06-11753 involving tax obligations of Hendrickson and her husband. In the case before Judge Edmunds, Hendrickson unsuccessfully argued that the district court had no jurisdiction to issue and enforce its orders. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals took up numerous challenges to Judge Edmunds' jurisdiction and orders. See id., docket #37 (United States v Peter and Doreen Hendickson, No. 07-1510, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 27988, slip op. At 2-3 (6th Cir. June 12, 2008) (unpublished) (characterizing the defendant’s arguments “as plainly baseless tax protestor arguments” and “patently meritless”)).

Hendrickson and her husband filed petitions for certiorari and rehearing with the United States Supreme Court. These were denied. Then, Hendrickson returned to Judge Edmunds and the Sixth Circuit with the same iteration of arguments. See No. 2:06-cv-11753, docket #47 (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery); id., docket #51 (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Render Dictated Testimony); id., docket #56 (Defendant’s Response to Magistrate’s “Report and Recommendation”); id., docket #58 (Motion to Vacate Judgment); id., docket #66 (Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Hold Defendant’s in Contempt); id., docket #69 (Motion for Reconsideration); id docket #82 (Motion to Vacate Judgment). See id., docket #91 (United States v Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, No. 10-1824, slip op. At 3-5 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2011) (unpublished)).

It is an understatement to say that Hendrickson exhausted all avenues for relief in the underlying case. Now, she attempts to collaterally attack the jurisdiction of Judge Edmunds.
Underlying court orders cannot be challenged in a contempt proceeding unless the court which issued the underlying order lacked jurisdiction to issue the orders. United States v United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 294 (1947); Petition of Green, 369 U.S. 689, 692 (1962); Walker v City of Birmingham, 388 US 307, 315(1967); Cherokee Exp., Inc. v Cherokee Exp., Inc., 924 F.2d 603, 607 (6th Cir. 1991). The Sixth Circuit has already heard and rejected Hendrickson's jurisdictional challenges; this Court has no authority to consider them again, under these circumstances.

Finally, to the extent Hendrickson challenges the substance of the charge against her, she presents issues of fact which cannot be disposed of in her Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure motion to dismiss. See. e.g., United States v Ali, 557 F.3d 715, 719 (6th Cir. 2009) ("A motion under Rule 12 is therefore appropriate when it raises questions of law rather than fact.").

Hendrickson's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in its entirety.

IT IS ORDERED.
/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge

[Famspear]

...It is an understatement to say that Hendrickson exhausted all avenues for relief in the underlying case.....

Or, as a famous man once said:

[notorial dissent]

not withstanding, I'm betting the judge sees this same motion at least one or two more times in slightly different variation of form, as that seems to be the Hendrickson method of practicing law, if at first you don't succeed with your pointless motion, file, file again, until really slapped down.

[Unknown Named Agent]

Over at codebusters dot org, the "alternative" web site for wackadoosters who follow Blowhard Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam, user "Morgan_Edwards" writes:

While Pete was detained [serving his most recent Federal prison sentence], I exchanged emails with Doreen. I mentioned to her the IMF [Individual Master File of the Internal Revenue Service] issue and told her I would gladly decode their transcripts [transcripts of the Individual Master File on Peter and Doreen Hendrickson]. She never sent me an email back. I would love to see what manner of fraud they have in their transcripts.

No doubt they have engaged in all manner of fraud.

[Cathulhu]

Over at codebusters dot org, the "alternative" web site for wackadoosters who follow Blowhard Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam, user "Morgan_Edwards" writes:

While Pete was detained [serving his most recent Federal prison sentence], I exchanged emails with Doreen. I mentioned to her the IMF [Individual Master File of the Internal Revenue Service] issue and told her I would gladly decode their transcripts [transcripts of the Individual Master File on Peter and Doreen Hendrickson]. She never sent me an email back. I would love to see what manner of fraud they have in their transcripts.

No doubt they have engaged in all manner of fraud.

And you are basing this statement on what, exactly? A feeling in your little toesies?

[The Observer]

With apologies to Dolly Parton and her recording of "Joleen:"

Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
I’m begging you don't listen to your man
Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
Please don't follow his stupid plan

His stupidity is beyond supreme,
With nothing to show but a lien,
And he drags you down with him.
You’ve been laughed right out of town
You are on the final round
And it looks real bad for you, Doreen

He has thrown you under the bus
While stirring up this legal fuss
And it’s you who will cry in pain, Doreen

It really hard to understand
Why you’d listen to this man
But you don't care how far you fall , Doreen

Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
I’m begging you don't listen to your man.
Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
Please don't follow his stupid plan.

You could have your choice of men
But you picked him from the bottom ten
He’s the one you’re stuck with, Doreen

Others have talked to you
How freedom depends on you
But you’ve decided what do, Doreen.

Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
You are listenin’ to your lying’ man
Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
Now you are heading for the can

[Famspear]

With apologies to Dolly Parton and her recording of "Joleen:"

Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
I’m begging you don't listen to your man
Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
Please don't follow his stupid plan

His stupidity is beyond supreme,
With nothing to show but a lien,
And he drags you down with him.
You’ve been laughed right out of town
You are on the final round
And it looks real bad for you, Doreen

He has thrown you under the bus
While stirring up this legal fuss
And it’s you who will cry in pain, Doreen

It really hard to understand
Why you’d listen to this man
But you don't care how far you fall , Doreen

Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
I’m begging you don't listen to your man.
Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
Please don't follow his stupid plan.

You could have your choice of men
But you picked him from the bottom ten
He’s the one you’re stuck with, Doreen

Others have talked to you
How freedom depends on you
But you’ve decided what do, Doreen.

Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
You are listenin’ to your lying’ man
Doreen, Doreen, Doreen, Doreen
Now you are heading for the can

Good 'un!

[Unknown Named Agent]

Over at codebusters dot org, the "alternative" web site for wackadoosters who follow Blowhard Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam, user "Morgan_Edwards" writes:

While Pete was detained [serving his most recent Federal prison sentence], I exchanged emails with Doreen. I mentioned to her the IMF [Individual Master File of the Internal Revenue Service] issue and told her I would gladly decode their transcripts [transcripts of the Individual Master File on Peter and Doreen Hendrickson]. She never sent me an email back. I would love to see what manner of fraud they have in their transcripts.

No doubt they have engaged in all manner of fraud.

And you are basing this statement on what, exactly? A feeling in your little toesies?

A wild guess.
You think Pete and Doreen have only engaged in negligence?