Hendrickson Contempt Motion, thread #2

[Dr. Caligari]

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)

Any word on whether the hearing went forward and, if so, on the outcome?

[Dezcad]

Both Motions for Contempt were granted. Daily fines are initially imposed ($100 and $50 for each non-compliance) and if no amended tax returns or discovery responses within 14 days, then incarceration until compliance.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff(s), Case No. 06-11753
v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Defendant(s).
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO FILE AMENDED TAX RETURNS FOR 2002 AND 2003 [46,
55, 61] AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY REQUESTS [60]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to hold Defendants in contempt for failing to comply with an order to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003, [Docket Text # 46, 55, 61], and Plaintiff’s motion to hold Defendants in contempt for failing to comply with an order to compel responses to post-judgment discovery requests, [Docket Text # 60]. The Court having reviewed the pleadings in this matter, being fully advised in the premises, and for the reasons set forth on the record, hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions.

I. Procedural Posture

Plaintiff filed a civil complaint on April 12, 2006 for recovery, with interest, of “erroneous refunds of federal income, social security and Medicare taxes,” for a total of $20,380.96. Plaintiff alleged that Peter Hendrickson, with his wife Doreen, filed a joint tax return which falsely stated that they received no wages or salaries for 2002 and 2003, despite the fact that Hendrickson’s W-2 Wage and Tax Statements for those years shows that he earned $58,965 and $60,608 respectively.
On February 8, 2007, a Report and Recommendation was filed, recommending that Plaintiff be granted summary judgment as to its claim for monetary relief and as to its request for injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from filing any tax return or amended return with the IRS that is based on the claim that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of income tax or subject to the withholding of federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes from their wages under the internal revenue laws. That Report and Recommendation, however, recommended that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief requiring Defendants to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 be denied as moot. [Docket #17.]
On February 26, 2007, this Court entered an order accepting, in part, the February 8, 2007 Report and Recommendation. This Court accepted the recommendation that summary judgment be granted as to monetary and prospective injunctive relief, but rejected the recommendation that Defendants not be ordered to file amended returns for 2002 and 2003. [Docket #21.] On May 2, 2007, this Court entered an Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction. [Docket #34.] Judgment was entered against Defendants jointly in the amount of $10,152.96, plus interest for the 2002 tax year, and $10,228.00, plus interest, for the 2003 tax year. This Court also made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in granting injunctive relief, including a finding that “Defendants’ contention that withholding applies only to government workers is frivolous and false,” (Am. Judgment ¶ 19), and that “Defendants will not be harmed by the entry of an injunction against them because they will only be required to obey the law, including the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the applicable Treasury Regulations,” (Id. ¶ 25). In terms of requiring Defendants to file amended returns for 2002 and 2003, this Court Ordered as follows:

ORDERED, that within 30 days of the entry of this Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction, Defendants will file amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns for the taxable years ending on December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2003 with the Internal Revenue Service. The amended tax returns to be filed by Defendants shall include, in Defendants’ gross income
for the 2002 and 2003 taxable years, the amounts that Defendant Peter Hendrickson received from his former employer, Personnel Management, Inc., during 2002 and 2003, as well the amounts that Defendant Doreen Hendrickson received from Una E. Dworkin during 2002 and 2003. (Id. at 8.)

On March 13, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, [Docket Text # 27], that was denied by this Court, in which Defendants asserted the same frivolous arguments that Plaintiff “has failed to prove, or even attempt to prove, that Defendants owe or owed Plaintiff anything” and that “Plaintiff lacks (and has lacked from the beginning) standing and statutory authorization to bring suit for any reason, and particularly under the auspices of the law reflected at 26 USC 7405.” On that same date, Defendants also filed a motion for relief from judgment, [Docket Text # 26], making similar arguments concerning subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. Both of those motions were denied by the Court. [Docket Text # 33.]
Defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On June 12, 2008, the Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment in a written order, noting that “the Hendricksons make numerous challenges to the district court’s jurisdiction and judgment which fairly can be characterized as plainly baseless tax protester arguments.” [Docket #37.] In addition, citing “the patent baselessness of the Hendricksons’ assertion on appeal,” the Sixth Circuit imposed sanctions in the amount of $4,000.00. On June 19, 2009, the United States Supreme Court denied Defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari, [Docket #41], and on August 20, 2009, the Supreme Court denied Defendants’ petition for rehearing, [Docket #42].

II. Contempt Motions

A. First Contempt Motion: 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 On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a contempt motion, [Docket #46], to which was attached the declaration of Shauna Henline, an Internal Revenue Service Senior Technical
Coordinator for the Frivolous Return Program. As such, Henline has access to the IRS account records of Defendants Peter Hendrickson and Doreen Hendrickson. Henline states that she accessed those records, and determined that neither Defendant filed amended returns for the tax years ending December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2003. Defendants filed a response to that contempt motion, [Docket #51], arguing, inter alia, that: (1) compelling them to file amended returns would require them to perjure themselves, since they do not believe that the income reported by their employers constitute taxable wages; (2) reporting said income on an amended return “would necessarily amount to a declaration that the Defendants previously-made testimony was false and perjurious,” thereby violating the Fifth Amendment proscription against compelled testimony; and (3) compelling them to report income as taxable wages, contrary to their belief that their income was not taxable, violates the First Amendment.

At the April 14, 2010 hearing on that contempt motion, both Defendants “made it clear that they d[id] not intend to file amended returns as ordered by this Court. Rather, they expressed their intention to appeal any order of contempt entered by this Court.” [Docket Text # 55 at 5.]
On April 16, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s contempt motion. [Docket Text # 55.] Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended:

(1) That Defendants bo ordered to appear before the Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds upon a day certain to be set by the Court, to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts certified in this Report and Recommendation;
(2) That if, by the date of the show cause hearing, Defendants have not filed amended tax returns for the tax years 2002 and 2003, as ordered by this Court, they be found in contempt of court and subject to sanctions for civil contempt;
(3) That as part of these sanctions, the Court impose a conditional fine of $100.00 per day on each Defendant, until they comply with this Court’s order to file amended returns;
(4) That if the Defendants have not filed amended returns within 14 days of the imposition of per diem fines, they be ordered incarcerated until they comply with this Court’s Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction of May 2, 2007.
[Docket Text # 55.]

On April 30, 2010, Defendants filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, [Docket Text # 56], and Plaintiff replied on May 7, 2010, [Docket Text # 57]. On May 28, 2010, this Court issued an Order, [Docket Text # 61], adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, [Docket Text # 55], recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for contempt, [Docket Text # 46], be granted, and that Defendants be ordered to appear before this Court upon a day certain to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts certified in the Report and Recommendation. This Court’s May 28, 2010 Order provided:

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. [Docket Text # 61.]

B. Second Contempt Motion: Show cause why Defendants should not be adjudged in contempt for failing to comply with an order to compel responses to discovery requests As Defendants have not yet satisfied the monetary judgment issued against them, on January 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to post-judgment discovery requests. [Docket Text # 44.] On April 13, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiff’s motion to compel financial discovery, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2), within 30 days of that order. [Docket Text # 54.] The April 13, 2010 order advised Defendants “that failure to comply with this Order will subject them to sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), including treating their non-compliance as contempt of court.”

As of May 24, 2010, more than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not received any response to those discovery requests. (Pl.’s Mot., Ex. 1, Daniel Applegate Decl. ¶ 2.)
Because judgment has already been entered against Defendants and the discovery requests are post-judgment requests by a judgment creditor to ascertain the financial status of the debtors, Plaintiff filed its motion requesting that the Court sanction Defendants under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) by holding them in contempt and imposing a daily fine until Defendants provide Plaintiff complete and accurate responses to its discovery requests as previously ordered.

III. Show Cause Hearing

On June 10, 2010, a show cause hearing was held on Plaintiff’s motions to hold Defendants in contempt for failing to comply with an order to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 and Plaintiff’s motion to hold Defendants in contempt for failing to comply with an order to compel responses to post-judgment discovery requests.

The Court having reviewed the pleadings in this matter, being fully advised in the premises, and for the reasons set forth on the record, hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions.

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants are in contempt for failing to comply with orders of this Court.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that a conditional fine of $100.00 per day is hereby imposed for each Defendant, until such time that Defendants comply with this Order to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 as ordered by this Court.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that a conditional fine of $50.00 per day is hereby imposed for each Defendant, until such time that Defendants comply with this Order to submit complete and accurate responses to the post-judgment discovery requests as ordered by this Court.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants have not filed the amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 and submitted complete and accurate responses to the post-judgment discovery requests within 14 days of the imposition of per diem fines, Defendants are hereby ordered to be incarcerated until they comply with this Order.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: June 10, 2010
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on June 10, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol A. Hemeyer
Case Manager

[Pottapaug1938]

Gee whiz -- I just went to the Lost Horizons web site; and would you believe that there isn't a word about today's events? There aren't even any "the courts are corrupt" or "send money quick to help keep Pete and Doreen out of prison" whines....

[Lambkin]

Gee whiz -- I just went to the Lost Horizons web site; and would you believe that there isn't a word about today's events? There aren't even any "the courts are corrupt" or "send money quick to help keep Pete and Doreen out of prison" whines....

Don't worry, the monkeys will be gibbering and throwing feces soon, they are just a little slow on the uptake.

[Dr. Caligari]

Hendrickson has just posted his "June 11" edition of the LH newsletter and, while it continues to spout his nonsense about the judgment being "void," he doesn't mention that he and Doreen were just held in contempt.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Out of simple curiosity, who will be Hendrickson's stand-in on the LH site when he's in custody?

[Cathulhu]

I'm more hooked on this than my Aunt Lucile was on soap operas, but these have serious entertainment value. I can't make this stuff up!

[jg]

Hendrickson has just posted his "June 11" edition of the LH newsletter and, while it continues to spout his nonsense about the judgment being "void," he doesn't mention that he and Doreen were just held in contempt.

There was also a post by Forum Admin:

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:58 pm Post subject: I hope that everyone has made a point of reading...
...the articles 'Looking Behind The Curtain' and '"Information Returns Are NEVER Sufficient Evidence of "Income" Payments' in the current newsletter. You will all find them both very rewarding.

From "Information Returns Are NEVER Sufficient Evidence of "Income" Payments'

...
As a consequence, whether any payments are “wages” is ALWAYS a “fact” question, and NEVER a “matter of law”, and a mere declaration that “wages” were paid is NEVER sufficient in-and-of-itself, no matter who makes it, or how, or how it is answered (unless the answer is an acknowledgement). By the same token, a simple rebuttal, no matter how made, is ALWAYS sufficient to overcome ANY AND ALL presumptions in favor of the “information return” allegation.

Further, of course, merely establishing that amounts have been paid is NEVER sufficient to establish that those amounts constitute “wages” or “income” NO MATTER WHAT ELSE MAY BE TRUE OR PRESUMED TRUE-- for precisely the same reasons. Any amount paid even under circumstances in which payments otherwise COULD qualify as “wages” or “income” doesn’t necessarily qualify as such, never does “as a matter of law”, and again, a simple rebuttal, no matter how made, is ALWAYS sufficient to overcome ANY AND ALL presumptions in favor of the “information return” allegation.

Further still, these statutory provisions and their regulatory clarifications make clear that no one can be deemed an “employee” or in “employment” relative to the tax “as a matter of law” just because he or she works for someone else in a common relationship of employer-employee, NO MATTER WHAT ELSE MAY BE TRUE OR PRESUMED TRUE. As the regulations cited above plainly say, whether one’s activities qualify as those of an “employee” or one in “employment” depends on WHAT THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE, not on the mere fact of working for someone else, even if other activities for that very same someone might qualify, and therefore be those of a “legal relationship of employeremployee”.
The reciprocal is that anyone NOT doing the things that qualify ISN’T an “employee” or
in “employment” as those terms are meant in the tax law, even though they do, in fact, work for another at the other’s direction and control.
...

Some people are incapable of learning not due to a lack of intelligence; but due to a lack of humility.

[LOBO]

Even Fonzi has an easier time saying "I was wrong".

[LPC]

The contempt order has shown up on the "Leagle" web site, which will make it more difficult for the Lost Heads to ignore (although they remain successfully oblivious so far).

[Famspear]

The contempt order has shown up on the "Leagle" web site, which will make it more difficult for the Lost Heads to ignore (although they remain successfully oblivious so far).

I suppose that our current resident troll, Harvester (who posts at losthorizons as "Nationwide") could build up his courage (hey, come on -- Stand Tall, Warrior!) and go over to losthorizons and inform all those other Crackhead Wackadoosters -- oops, I mean all those other brave, brave Warriors -- of Pete's latest defeat.

But wait -- if he did that, Harvester/Nationwide would be running the risk of being branded as a troll over there as well.

Oh, brave, brave Warrior, I pray thee, engorge thyself with courage and sally forth! Stand Tall, Warrior!

[Gregg]

Even when making fun of him, it just sticks in my throat to call that loser "Warrior". Come to Gettysburg and I'll show you some people worthy of the term.

[Cathulhu]

He's not a warrior, he's wormier.

[Harvester]

Some people are incapable of learning not due to a lack of intelligence; but due to a lack of humility.

Yes, I can see that; which are you?

Can none of you see the evil you're caught up in; or you do thrive on it?
Regardless, we're bringing it all down. And I've got a front row seat!

STAND TALL WARRIORS!

________________________________________
http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/US-His ... ATION.aspx

[Gregg]

Some people are incapable of learning not due to a lack of intelligence; but due to a lack of humility.

Yes, I can see that; which are you?

Can none of you see the evil you're caught up in; or you do thrive on it?
Regardless, we're bringing it all down. And I've got a front row seat!

STAND TALL WARRIORS!

________________________________________
http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/US-His ... ATION.aspx

Just out of idle curiosity, idgit, tell me why I, not some theoretical rich person, but me personally would pay the income tax if I don't have to? I have a BSBA in accounting, an MBA, a PhD in International Business and I am worth more than you'll ever see in one place, and make just under 7 figures annually, a good part of which is in fact tax free, it's in a muni bond fund. But still, given my education and resources, as well as having listened to you, Pete and dozens of other idiots with the revealed truth, surely I'd know better than to send the IRS something like $50,000 every 3 months.....I assure you I'm greedy enough that if I knew how, I'd keep it....

[Harvester]

Gregg, you pay it because you believe you owe it. I did too. I couldn't see beyond the Matrix. The illusion that ThePowersThatBe have created. The illusion that Famspire, LPC, etc. try so hard to protect. Take a look at the other side - outside the Matrix. Research it.

All will be revealed soon. Oh, and congrats on your success. Hopefully your stash is not all paper assets - we're bringing that house of fiat down too.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mind_Your_Twe ... nce_System

____________________
Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. ~ The Matrix (1999)

[Harvester]

PS. We did visit Gettysburg not too long ago. Sobering yet awesome. Unfortunately the panoramic painting was closed for renovations. In my opinion, it was more a war of Northern/Industrialist oppression of the South, and states' rights, than a war over slavery. And say what you will about Lincoln, this remains one of my favorite coins:
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/com ... hamLincoln

[Pottapaug1938]

PS. We did visit Gettysburg not too long ago. Sobering yet awesome. Unfortunately the panoramic painting was closed for renovations. In my opinion, it was more a war of Northern/Industrialist oppression of the South, and states' rights, than a war over slavery. And say what you will about Lincoln, this remains one of my favorite coins:
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/com ... hamLincoln

On the Civil War, in 1861, I'd say wrong on the first point, partially right on the second point (think of why we scrapped the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution, for starters), and somewhat right on the third point -- while the war didn't begin as a drive to end slavery, that's what it became, because if the issue wasn't settled, one way or another, it would be bound to resurface again and again.

I disagree with you about the Lincoln dollar. Here's an opinion from Numismatic News, via http://www.coinflation.com:

http://numismaticnews.net/article/Poor_ ... _lamented/

I eagerly purchased the two Boy Scout dollars, earlier this year, and I found the quality of the designs almost cartoonish, especially the proof version. The relief was much too flat. The Lincoln dollar looks like some cheap medallion issued by one of those "mints" you see advertising in the back of supermarket tabloids. Comare these coins to older commemoratives, or to older circulating coin issues,and you'll see what I mean.

As for the Cyclorama, I've only seen it once; but in Boston's South End, the building originally built to house the painting still exists today, as an art gallery and exhibition and performance space.

[Paul]

In my opinion, it was more a war of Northern/Industrialist oppression of the South,

Absolutely right. The southern states hated the high tariffs imposed by the feds to protect the northern industries. There were even some proposals to secede over them.

So why exactly do you object to the income tax, which was imposed to allow lower tariffs?

[Lorax]

In my opinion, it was more a war of Northern/Industrialist oppression of the South,

Absolutely right. The southern states hated the high tariffs imposed by the feds to protect the northern industries. There were even some proposals to secede over them.

So why exactly do you object to the income tax, which was imposed to allow lower tariffs?

I respectfully disagree. The idea that the struggle over slavery was not the sine qua non of the Civil War is an attempt at historical revisionism by people that remain sympathetic to the Confederate cause. For a primary source that exemplifies the attitudes of the Southern elites that decided to secede, see the historic "Cornerstone" speech by Alexander Stephens, who became the Vice President of the Confederacy:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ocument=76
I'm aware that Lincoln preferred peace with slavery to a war to end slavery, but in my opinion, it's incorrect to argue that disputes over tariffs, or any other dispute were any where near as important as the divide over slavery. If the southern states had decided to make slavery illegal on their own, or if the northern states had supported slavery and the expansion of slavery to the western states the Civil War never would have happened.

Why's that your favorite Lincoln coin Harvester? Is it the Under God bit?