2d Motion for Contempt against Pete and Doreen Hendrickson

[LPC]

Okay, after I asked the question, I recalled a case mentioned here somewhere that civil (or maybe criminal) contempt was limited to 6 months, and after that the Judge had to charge the offender...or something like...am I having flashbacks again?

In another thread, long, long ago and far away, I opined that criminal contempt (i.e., a punishment for a past action and not a civil commitment to coerce compliance with a present obligation) cannot be punished by imprisonment of more than one year without a jury trial.

And wserra agreed, so I was probably right.

But that doesn't mean you're not having flashbacks.

[wserra]

And wserra agreed, so I was probably right.

That's what they want you to think.

[grixit]

There was a case a few years back when a woman accused of non custodial kidnapping was imprisoned for contempt because she wouldn't say what she'd done with her child. She maintained her claim that her ex was abusive and said that she was prepared to stay there the rest of her life but she'd never tell. Eventually state legistlators passed a law limiting the duration of such imprisonment specifically on her behalf.

[Gregg]

But that doesn't mean you're not having flashbacks.

I don't know that I've ever come right out and said it before, but I am undergoing some medical things right now that involve drugs that sometimes make me a bit out of my head... so I'm semi serious when I say that. I think a few months ago I was writing something that aside from being a good imitation of a hunter S Thompson 1st draft also ended in 7 lines of HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH where I fell asleep at the keyboard, then later woke up, liked what I saw and hit the submit button before going to bed and back to the pretty dreams....

[Imalawman]

Okay, after I asked the question, I recalled a case mentioned here somewhere that civil (or maybe criminal) contempt was limited to 6 months, and after that the Judge had to charge the offender...or something like...am I having flashbacks again?

In another thread, long, long ago and far away, I opined that criminal contempt (i.e., a punishment for a past action and not a civil commitment to coerce compliance with a present obligation) cannot be punished by imprisonment of more than one year without a jury trial.

And wserra agreed, so I was probably right.

But that doesn't mean you're not having flashbacks.

Ah. That's what I was thinking about! I knew I didn't make it up!

[webhick]

I knew I didn't make it up!

Liar

[Dezcad]

A hearing on the first Motion for Contempt against Pete and Doreen (for failure to file amended returns) is now scheduled for Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. The Second Motion for Contempt (for failure to answer post-judgment discovery requests) is also set at that date and time.

05/28/2010 61 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Contempt; adopting 55 Report and Recommendation on 46 Motion for Contempt. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
05/28/2010 62 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Hearing set for 6/3/2010 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
05/28/2010 63 NOTICE of hearing on 60 Second MOTION for Contempt. Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2010 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No. 06-11753
v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [55]

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s April 16, 2010 Report and Recommendation. [Docket Text # 55.] Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the pleadings, including Defendants’ Objections if any, the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

It is further ordered that Defendants Peter Eric Hendrickson and Doreen M. Hendrickson appear before this Court on Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why Defendants should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts certified in the Magistrate Judge’s April 16, 2010 Report and Recommendation.

It is further ordered that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations three (3) and four (4), [Docket Text # 55 at 10], are taken under advisement to be addressed at the show cause hearing.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: May 28, 2010

[Gregg]

Does Pete own a home or any assets that can be taken?

[wserra]

Does Pete own a home or any assets that can be taken?

Do 1,472,590 unsellable copies of "Cracking the Code" count?

[Lambkin]

Isn't the biggest potential damage from incarceration of the parents likely to fall on their daughter?

[Harvester]

Thanks for publicizing The Inconvenient Truth About The Income Tax by our great American hero, Pete Hendrickson.

[Famspear]

Isn't the biggest potential damage from incarceration of the parents likely to fall on their daughter?

As if Pete and Doreen gave two sh*ts for anybody but themselves.

No, the kids will live with either the grandparents or Pete's brother (the rational attorney), either of which may actually be better than continuing to live with a cheap-jack thieving little dink like Pete.

My understanding is that the daughter is in college and the son is in 8th or 9th grade. I feel bad for both of them.

[LPC]

In what might be another example of poor timing (as well as a waste of his few remaining days of freedom), Hendrickson has released a new rant on how the ebil gubmit, together with the corrupt courts, have worked to suppress the "truth" in CtC.

He makes it clear that (a) he's still right and every judge in the history of the United States is wrong, and (b) he has no intention of complying with any court orders.

This is something that the court should take into account in deciding whether Hendrickson is in contempt, and whether coercive sanctions (including civil incarceration) are appropriate.

[LPC]

Thanks for publicizing The Inconvenient Truth About The Income Tax by our great American hero, Pete Hendrickson.

It's often said that there's no such thing as bad publicity, but I think that Hendrickson is proving that there are exceptions.

[LPC]

Does Pete own a home or any assets that can be taken?

I haven't tried to search public records (I'll leave the heavy lifting to Demo), but I expect that the answer is yes, and that Pete and Doreen own a home and other assets.

According to Hendrickson, there's never been an assessment of tax, in which case there are no tax liens, but the civil judgment acts as a lien against any real estate that they own, and the criminal fines and restitution imposed against Hendrickson should also be a lien against property that he owns, but should not be a lien against property in joint names.

I make that distinction because Michigan recognizes that real property owned by a husband and wife is held as a "tenancy by the entireties" and is subject to claims of creditors on joint debts, but is not subject to the claims of the creditors of an individual debt of one spouse. This rule would not apply to tax liens (see United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002) (Michigan law does not prevent attachment of federal tax lien to one taxpayer's interest in property held with spouse as tenants by entireties)), but should still apply to judgment liens. The civil action was against both Pete and Doreen on jointly filed returns, and so the judgment is a joint obligation and should be a lien on their home. The criminal fines and restitution were against Pete alone, and should not attach to jointly owned property.

Judgments do not affect ownership of banks accounts and other "personal property" until there has been an actual garnishment or attachment. Pennsylvania applies the rules of tenancy by the entireties to personal property as well as real property, but I don't know if Michigan goes that far.

[Gregg]

Does Pete own a home or any assets that can be taken?

I haven't tried to search public records (I'll leave the heavy lifting to Demo), but I expect that the answer is yes, and that Pete and Doreen own a home and other assets.

According to Hendrickson, there's never been an assessment of tax, in which case there are no tax liens, but the civil judgment acts as a lien against any real estate that they own, and the criminal fines and restitution imposed against Hendrickson should also be a lien against property that he owns, but should not be a lien against property in joint names.

I make that distinction because Michigan recognizes that real property owned by a husband and wife is held as a "tenancy by the entireties" and is subject to claims of creditors on joint debts, but is not subject to the claims of the creditors of an individual debt of one spouse. This rule would not apply to tax liens (see United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002) (Michigan law does not prevent attachment of federal tax lien to one taxpayer's interest in property held with spouse as tenants by entireties)), but should still apply to judgment liens. The civil action was against both Pete and Doreen on jointly filed returns, and so the judgment is a joint obligation and should be a lien on their home. The criminal fines and restitution were against Pete alone, and should not attach to jointly owned property.

Judgments do not affect ownership of banks accounts and other "personal property" until there has been an actual garnishment or attachment. Pennsylvania applies the rules of tenancy by the entireties to personal property as well as real property, but I don't know if Michigan goes that far.

So, if she times it right, Doreen may be getting a prison cell to stay in just about the time she loses her home, and can avoid actually being homeless per se?

[Duke2Earl]

I do not think this citation can even begin to adequately express the contempt that I have for the Hendricksons for the lives they have ruined and continue to ruin, the contempt that they express for this country, its laws and its courts and our constitution, and most infuriating of all their ridiculous and insane assertions that somehow they are patriots.

[Imalawman]

In what might be another example of poor timing (as well as a waste of his few remaining days of freedom), Hendrickson has released a new rant on how the ebil gubmit, together with the corrupt courts, have worked to suppress the "truth" in CtC.

He makes it clear that (a) he's still right and every judge in the history of the United States is wrong, and (b) he has no intention of complying with any court orders.

This is something that the court should take into account in deciding whether Hendrickson is in contempt, and whether coercive sanctions (including civil incarceration) are appropriate.

Pete writes that it is ridiculous for him to conclude that he is wrong about what the law is simply because a judge ruled against him. That illustrates his ineptitude. The fact that a judge rules against is the very proof that you are in fact wrong about what the law is. The judge's ruling is the law. You may still feel that your interpretation is the correct one, and that the judge did not come to the correct conclusion, however, you may not correctly assert that the judge's ruling isn't the law. It is the law until the legislature or a higher court set forth different law. Why can't TPs understand this!? They cannot distinguish between moral "rightness" and what the law is. Two very different things.

[Dr. Caligari]

A hearing on the first Motion for Contempt against Pete and Doreen (for failure to file amended returns) is now scheduled for Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. The Second Motion for Contempt (for failure to answer post-judgment discovery requests) is also set at that date and time.

Did the hearing go forward? Was there a ruling?

[Dezcad]

A hearing on the first Motion for Contempt against Pete and Doreen (for failure to file amended returns) is now scheduled for Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. The Second Motion for Contempt (for failure to answer post-judgment discovery requests) is also set at that date and time.

Did the hearing go forward? Was there a ruling?

It appears from the docket that it has been rescheduled to next week:

Date Filed # Docket Text
06/03/2010 64 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Hearing set for 6/10/2010 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
06/03/2010 65 NOTICE of hearing on 60 Second MOTION for Contempt. Motion Hearing set for 6/10/2010 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 06/03/2010)