Highlights:
Footnote 9 of the Memo:On June 10, 2010, more than four years after commencement of the instant action, we
had actuaJeyecontact with the judge in the case for the very first time. During that brief 15 minutes of contact, it was revealed that the judgment in this case was predicated on at least two fundamental misunderstandings of fact and law - each of which appear to have led the judge to imagine her Court to have jurisdiction in this case, when in fact, it never has. Because the final judgment issued in this case on May 2,2007 was actually written by the Plaintiff word-for-word and merely signed by the judge, with no judicial reasoning or explanation of any kind, it was impossible for us to be aware of these errors, or to respond to them directly until now. However, in the hearing conducted Thursday, June 10, Judge Edmunds finally revealed at
least two fundamental errors on which her judgment in this action was based. On page 6 of the
excerpt of the proceedings transcript we ordered (Exhibit 1), we see the following exchange:
Peter Hendrickson: ''I'm being told to say over my own signature that I do believe my
earnings qualify as "wages"[as that term is defined in the law], and I don't believe that,
Your Honor. "
Judge Edmunds: "Simply by filing the tax return, you admit that, you acknowledge that. "
On page 7 ofthat transcript (Exhibit 2), Judge Edmunds makes the statement:
"[E]very American citizen is required to accurately report their wages and their
earnings to the United States government because they owe federal taxes on it.. .. "
Judge Edmunds' statements reveal that she has been harboring errant notions that our completion of 1040s saying we DIDN'T receive taxable "wages" and/or "non-employee compensation" somehow constitutes evidence that we DID (and in particular amounts, as well),
or constitutes validation of the very "information returns" we used the forms to rebut; and that
the mere earning of money by any American automatically and invariably causes a tax debt to
arise. Since the Plaintiff itself failed to produce any evidence in the case in support of its naked
allegations, these frivolous notions must be the sole basis for the judgment rendered. Because
these notions ARE frivolous (that is, not supported by law), and, now that they are known, are
easily and directly contradicted by incontrovertible authority, the judgment rendered in this case, and all subsequent and related orders, judgments and rulings by Judge Edmunds and others are revealed as invalid and a manifest injustice, and should be ordered vacated and void, and Plaintiff s suit should be dismissed with prejudice.
And the following further exemplifies how ignorant he is of the law:This Court may take judicial notice of the fact that it is not information returns that give rise to tax liability, but privileged activity. "The income tax ...... is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce." F. Morse Hubbard, legislative draftsman for the U.S. Treasury Department, in testimony before Congress, House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580. Judicial notice may also be taken of the fact that companies reporting payments as ''wages,'' for example, are not infallible and can make mistakes both in amounts paid and also in the character of the payments themselves.
Check out the Certificate of Service list:Further, since the issue is a fact-issue, not an issue of law, and thus is the province of a jury, the Court would be unable to make such a determination in any event, absent our agreement to waive our right to a jury trial.
and from the partial transcript attached to the Motion:Copies are also being served on:
Paul Egan
c/o The Detroit News
615 W. Lafayette
Detroit, MI 48226
Nolan Finley
c/o The Detroit News
615 W. Lafayette
Detroit, MI 48226
Carol Hopkins
c/o The Oakland Press
48W. Huron
Pontiac, MI 48343
Julie Jacobson-Hines, Local News Editor
c/o The Oakland Press
48W. Huron
Pontiac, MI 48343
Glenn Gilbert, Executive Editor
c/o The Oakland Press
48 W. Huron
Pontiac, MI 48343
Case 2:06-cv-11753-NGE-RSW Document 69 Filed 06/21/10 Page 21 of 25
Lew Rockwell
518 W. Magnolia Ave.
Auburn, AL 36832
Paul Craig Roberts
11475 Big Canoe
Jasper, GA 30143
Jacob Hornberger
The Future of Freedom Foundation
11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 800
Fairfax, VA 22030
Thaddeus McCotter
17197 N. Laurel Park Dr., Suite 216
Livonia, MI 48152
Debbie Stabenow
243 W. Congress, Suite 550
Detroit, MI 48226
Carl Levin
269 Russell Office Building, US Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2202
Lisa Brown
S 0888 House Office Bldg.
P.G. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909
Nancy Cassis
905 Farnum
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-2536
John Stossel
1211 Ave. ofthe Americas, Fl. 17
New York, NY 10036
... and to millions of other Americans via the internet.
THE COURT: Well, you have lost on that argument at every possible stage, and by continuing to refuse to file your amended return, you are in fact in contempt of court. You leave
me no choice, Mr. Hendrickson. If you do not file your amended returns for those two taxable years and acknowledge your income, acknowledge that you owe taxes on it, then, I mean, you can affix something to it that says, you know, filed under protest, or anything you want that says that, you know, I disagree with the statement that this is taxable income. I don't care what
you affix to it, but you've got to file your amended returns, and if you don't file your amended returns, I'm going to fine each of you $100 a day until those returns are filed, and if they are not filed within two weeks of this date, then I am going to incarcerate you. If you want to file something along with your return that states that you disagree with having to file it and that you disagree that they're wages and you disagree that there are taxes owed on it, append whatever you want to your return, but it must be filed. They must be filed.
