Hendrickson Contempt Motion, thread #3

[silversopp]

I get the impression that Harvester is terrified of his own future, after seeing Pete and countless others get nailed by the IRS. That is why he is desperately hoping that some huge change will happen to save him from the long arm of the law. That is his only chance, and he's clinging to it with all his might. He doesn't have a clue what that change will be, but he still has hope for some magical event to happen.

A very sad way to live your life just to save a little bit of money on taxes.

I'm still curious why Harvester believes Pete is right about the law when he's going to prison, and that we are wrong about the law when none of us are heading to prison.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm still curious why Harvester believes Pete is right about the law when he's going to prison, and that we are wrong about the law when none of us are heading to prison.

It's basic conspiracy theory, in which facts and logic are disposable barriers to the politically acceptable predetermined conclusions of the theorist....

[wserra]

I'm still curious why Harvester believes

Well, that's your mistake. It's like division by 0.

[Parvati]

I'm still curious why Harvester believes Pete is right about the law when he's going to prison, and that we are wrong about the law when none of us are heading to prison.

What they said, with a healthy side of confirmation bias. The little spud refuses to entertain any input that doesn't fit his preconceived notions about the Big Con Job the ebil gubmint is inflicting on the unsuspecting sheepulous. (He, of course, is aware of this injustice, because he's just so smart, and perceptive, and patriotic, and godly, and *special.* I know I've left out a few. I'm sure you can fill them in yourself. )

[Dezcad]

PH has filed an Emergency Motion with the 6th Circuit. More evidence of his complete lack of understanding of legal procedure and argument.

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF A DISTRICT COURT ORDER OF INCARCERATION FOR CONTEMPT PENDING OUR APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL
OF OUR MOTION TO VACATE AND GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT

INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
We appeal to this Honorable Court for protection from an order attempting to compel us to sign documents declaring them to be reflective of our own beliefs as to the contents, which contents are being dictated to us by the government and the district court judge, and which we do not believe to be true. This order denies us even the opportunity to indicate our disbelief in the dictated content of these documents on the documents themselves, or to indicate in the vicinity of our signatures that our signatures are compelled and affIxed under duress.
The documents the district court is ordering us to fill out using its dictated testimony and sign as being true, correct and complete to the best of our knowledge and belief are amended tax returns, which the government wishes to force us to complete so that it can replace those we have already long~since completed and submitted to the Treasury Department (in 2003 and 2004), but which the government doesn't like because we didn't say on those forms things
that suit its interests.
The district court now intends to imprison us-- tomorrow or the next day-- on the basis that our refusal to declare as true over our own signatures what we don't believe to be true is a contempt of court, and that we should be punished until we comply with this order. No statutory authority for such an order has ever been cited by the government nor the court. The government argued that the court has broad authority to issue injunctions to enforce the revenue laws but cites no revenue law that would be being enforced by this order. Further, we believe that this order is flatly in conflict with our speech and conscience rights secured under
the First Amendment, and we believe that the United States Supreme Court agrees with us:

"As we stated in Board of Education v. Barnette, 3 I 9 U. S. 624, 319 U. S. 642, "If there is any fIxed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. "" First Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles,
357 U.S. 545 (1958)


The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of "individual freedom of mind." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)

In addition to the unlawfulness of the district court's effort to coerce government-preferred testimony from us, we believe that the order is issued pursuant to a judgment that is void. The judgment issued was summary, despite our having specifically and categorically disputed all assertions of fact by the Plaintiff by sworn affidavits. The district court simply made "findings of fad" adopting all Plaintiff's assertions as true without explanation, while declaring that we DIDN'T actually dispute any of those assertions. This was done without a single hearing or appearance of any kind before the court, and despite our demand for a jury trial.

We believe that the district court judgment also fatally suffers from a long list of jurisdictional infirmities, all of which have been recently presented to district court along with highly relevant new evidence only available to us within the last several months, but all of which has simply been ignored without comment or explanation.

Among the jurisdictional issues which we believe invalidate the judgment the district court seeks to enforce by coercing dictated testimony from us, and which we wish an opportunity to fully present to this Honorable Court, are the following selections (briefly presented without full support, due to the necessity for haste in malting this motion):

1. Plaintiff failed to substantiate its assertion of jurisdiction pursuant to 26 USC 7401, and the district court was therefore without jurisdiction ab initio.
In our Motion for More Definite Statement Doc. 4, 16(b), we challenged Plaintiffs claim to have secured authorization for this suit pursuant to the requirements of 26 USC 7401. Plaintiff never produced any evidence to substantiate its claim or in response to our challenge. Its sole response was to suggest to the district court that this infirmity in its pleading could be ameliorated by our availing ourselves of discovery opportunities (see Plaintiffs Brief in
Opposition, Doc. 6-1, '4).
However, we were denied the discovery opportunities to which Plaintiff blithely refers. Further, jurisdictional challenges of this sort must be answered with evidence before an action can proceed, not during proceedings which are allowed to go forward regardless.

"Plaintiffs allegation that the civil action "has been authorized, sanctioned and directed in accordance with the provisions of Section 7401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954" may be construed liberally to be sufficient, Rule 8(a) F.R.C.P., but the mere allegation of facts necessary for jurisdiction without supporting proof is fatally defective. Under Rule 12(h)(3) the Court is directed to dismiss an action when it appears the Court lacks jurisdiction
over the subject matter.

"This Court holds that 26 U.S.C. § 7401 requirements constitute facts essential to jurisdiction. The failure to prove jurisdictional facts when specifically denied is fatal to the maintenance of this action." United States v. One 1972 Cadillac, 355 F.Supp. 513, 514·15 (E.D.Ky.1973). See also
United States v. Isaac, 968 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1992)


Because the district court proceeded to judgment in the matter while this jurisdictional challenge remained unresolved, we believe the judgment rendered is void.

"[Jurisdiction] must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction." State of Rhode Island v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 37 US 657, (1838). (Emphasis added.)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3): Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. (Emphasis added.)

2. By entertaining the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment before ruling on our various Motions in response to the Complaint, and then granting the Plaintffrs Motion and denying ours the very same day, without any hearing at any time, the district court violated our right to due process of law.

Before ruling on the Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief May be Granted, Motions for a More Definite Statement and to Strike, and the Notice of Violation of FRCP Rule 11 we had immediately filed in response to Plaintiff s complaint, the district court allowed Plaintiff to Move for Summary Judgment. The district court then granted the Plaintiffs Motion on the same day that it finally denied our Motions, some 9 1/2 months after they were filed, and without so much as a single hearing.

By so doing, the district court denied us our rights to formulate and make an Answer to the Complaint, to conduct Discovery, to file additional Motions, and to otherwise conduct ourselves in light of the decision on our initial Motions. This, we believe, was a violation of our fundamental due process rights, and rendered the subsequent judgment void.

"Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process." Klugh v. U.s., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). Also see FRCP Rule 60(b)(4).

3. The Plaintiff has never introduced any evidence in support of its claims and therefore failed to carry its burden of proof; and the "information return" hearsay upon which it and the district court exclusively relied is specifically declared by statute[/u] to require additional fact evidence to support findings and judgment in its favor, in any event.

Fundamental "due process" requires that any Plaintiff must actually prove its allegations, rather than merely make them (or submit allegations of others) and have them taken as true. As noted above, Plaintiff never introduced any evidence at all, but has relied on mere hearsay from "third-parties" unsupported by any testimony or other authority. 26 USC §§6201(d) and 7491 require the introduction of additional fact evidence in support of such hearsay documents once challenged. See Portillo v. GER .. 932 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir., 1991); Mason ·v. Barnhart, 406 F.3d
962 (8th Cir. 2005); Rendall v. CIR, 535 FJd 1221 (lOth Circ., 2008) and cases cited.

Further, even without these statutory requirements. it is elementary that allegations must be supported by facts:

The failure to prove jurisdictional facts when specifically denied is fatal to the maintenance of this action." United States v. One /972 Cadillac, 355 F.Supp. 513, 514-15 (ED.Ky.l973). See also United States v. Isaac, 968 F.2d 1216 ((6th Cir. 1992)

We do not believe that the district court's simple declaration that what the Plaintiff alleges are "found facts", rather than mere allegations until supported by actual fact evidence, meets the standard of "proof'. As we only just had an opportunity to learn two weeks ago, during the first actual hearing before the judge ever conducted in this case, the judge somehow has presumed our dispute of the Plaintiffs allegations to constitute affirmation of the Plaintiff's allegations. We
believe this presumption to be not only incomprehensible, but a fundemental violation of Federal Rules of Evidence 301, which prohibits presumptions of this sort in the absence of previously proven supporting facts. As the Advisory Committee to the Federal Rules Of Evidence put it:
"Presumptions governed by this rule are given the effect of placing upon the opposing party the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, once the party invoking the presumption establishes the basic facts giving rise to it." Notes of Advisory Committee to FRE Rule 301 (emphasis added.)

4. The Plaintiff never had standing to bring this suit, and thus, the district court has lacked jurisdiction.
In order to have standing, a party must have a legally protected interest-- not a mere wish, preference, or desire-- which is in jeopardy of being adversely affected. Solomon v. Lewis, 184 Mich App 819, 822; 459 NW2d 505 (1989), Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 u.s. 555, 560 (1992). As the Supreme Court of Michigan has noted:

"[Olne cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court to enforce private rights, or maintain a civil action for the enforcement of such rights, unless one has in an individual or representative capacity some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy. This interest is generally spoken of as
'standing' ... " Bowie v. Arder. 441 Mich 23,42.43; 490 NW2d 568 (1992)

The Plaintiffs mere assertion of a legally-protected interest in its Complaint is explicitly belied by its own Department of Treasury Certificates of Assessment, which indicate that even as recently as this past September, well over three years since the Plaintiff initiated it lawsuit to recover what it alleged to be taxes due, no such tax liability has ever been assessed. Earlier such certificates, including those dated just prior to the initiation of this suit showed the same. The Plaintiff's persistent and consistent declarations that we DO NOT owe it anything, make clear that it had no legally-protected interest underlying its suit, and thus the district
court has never had jurisdiction in this matter.

For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer or one procedurally proper by the IRS. Because this country's income tax system is based on voluntary self-assessment, rather than distraint, Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176,80 S.Ct 630,646·47,4 L.Ed2d 623 (1960), the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures. " Bothke v. Terry, 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983).

A lack of jurisdiction renders a judgment void and this judgment should be
vacated accordingly.

"A "void" judgment, as we all know, grants no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereWlder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack." Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N. W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (1958).

5. The Plaintiff invoked the district court's jurisdiction under false pretenses.

The Plaintiff's Complaint is predicated on the existence of a tax debt it alleges to be owed by us to it. As is demonstrated by the Plaintiffs own current Department of the Treasury Certificates of Assessment, no such debt exists. When the Plaintiff brought suit in the district court implicitly asserting a good-faith belief in the existence of such a debt, and alleging the court's jurisdiction under a statute only operable when such debts exist (26 USC 7405), it was committing a fraud upon the court. Judgments induced by fraud are void (see Long v. Shore bank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999)).

6. There has never been a case or controversy to adjudicate, as the Plaintiff agrees that we owe it no tax.

Plaintiff itself apparently believes in the accuracy and correctness of our positions on all matters involved in this suit. This is evident by its failure to controvert our positions in a legally-meaningful manner, as it is required to do by statute if it believes our positions on these matters to be incorrect, pursuant to 26 USC 6020(b), which says, in pertinent part:
Sec. 6020. - Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary
(b) Execution of return by Secretary
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed there/or, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise. (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff has persistently and consistently declined to subscribe to any claim that our returns were false, fraudulent, or invalid (and thus effectively never made), as required to do by 26 USC 6020(b) if it believes any of these things to be true (even while gratuitously suggesting to the district court that our returns were false or fraudulent in its filings in this suit). Its silence is its admission of the accuracy of our returns:

"Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen, 64 U.S. 932 (1906)

Silence equates to agreement by estoppel (estoppel by acquiescence). Blacks Law Dict. 4th Ed, page 1554

" 'Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading ... We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement
and collection activities ... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should be corrected immediately.' U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970); see also Carmine v. Bowen, 64 U.S. 932 (1906)." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977).

The Plaintiffs effort to seduce the district court into compelling us to change the testimony on our returns to its specifications, while failing to produce any returns of its own expressing disagreement with those we have already made, dramatically highlights this aspect of the sordid bad-faith of Plaintiff's "Complaint". Plaintiff declines to dispute our returns under penalties of perjury itself, but hopes to coerce us into changing them. This is a transparent effort to
create a pretext for claims in its favor which the Plaintiff knows do not actually exist.

"Thus, there never was any case or controversy of which the district court could take cognizance, since all parties are in agreement that no tax is' due and owing, as indicated by the Plaintiffs failure to assert any contrary claim (and as the Plaintiff has plainly and consistently reported on its Treasury Dept. Certificates of Assessment), and the district court has lacked jurisdiction; further, the Plaintiff' s complaint was manifestly brought in bad faith, and its "claim" is a fraud upon the court, Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d, 338, 348 (6th Circuit, 1993). Judgments where jurisdiction is lacking or which are induced by fraud are void:

"A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties Of the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally ... " Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (CA 7 Ill. 1999)

This rule was set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States as long ago as
1828:
"But if [a court] act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversaL They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers." Elliott v.
Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340,7 L. Ed. 164 (1828)

CONCLUSION

The foregoing is only a brief introduction to some of the issues we believe this Honorable Court will find persuasive in its consideration of this matter in suitable depth, including the examination of relevant evidence newly available and never, we believe, properly considered by the district court, even though presented to that court over the last month. Certainly the district court has made not a single reference to any of it in issuing its subsequent decisions denying our motions, nor offered any comment or explanation concerning its reasoning. Further, and in any event, the main issue of this Motion is to stay the government's effort to coerce us into attesting to things we don't believe to be true.

PRAYER
We respectfully pray this Honorable Court to stay the execution of the district Court's orders holding us in contempt until such time as all issues in this matter, including evidence relevant to the original contest and judgment which has only recently become available to us, can be fully briefed and considered by this Honorable Court. Further, the Plaintiff in this case will suffer no harm if this prayer is granted, whereas we (and our children) will suffer irremediable harm if it is not.
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010.

[Famspear]

This is a bit tangential, but earlier in this thread we were talking about Pete Hendrickson's financial situation. In one of his filings with the Court, Pete included a notice from the Charter Township of Commerce, Michigan, that included a revision of the valuation on his residence. It seems the valuation was changed from $71,290 (for 2009) down to $59,350 (for 2010). See Exhibit B (document 92-3), attached to Hendrickson's sentencing memorandum at docket entry 92 on April 15, 2010; United States v. Hendrickson, case no. 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

That's good for the family in that it would tend to lower the property taxes, but ouch! I hope they don't end up having to sell the house in this economic climate.

[Gregg]

I have a feeling that the IRS is going to end up selling it for him.

[Pottapaug1938]

I have a feeling that the IRS is going to end up selling it for him.

... and tough luck for Petey and Doreen if the place doesn't bring a good price at auction.

[Famspear]

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF A DISTRICT COURT ORDER OF INCARCERATION FOR CONTEMPT PENDING OUR APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL
OF OUR MOTION TO VACATE AND GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT

[. . . . ]

PRAYER
We respectfully pray this Honorable Court to stay the execution of the district Court's orders holding us in contempt until such time as all issues in this matter, including evidence relevant to the original contest and judgment which has only recently become available to us, can be fully briefed and considered by this Honorable Court. Further, the Plaintiff in this case will suffer no harm if this prayer is granted, whereas we (and our children) will suffer irremediable harm if it is not.
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has entered an order rejecting the motion for a stay pending appeal. June 24, 2010. Case no. 10-1824.

Oh, boo-hoo!



EDIT: From the aforementioned June 24th order by the Sixth Circuit:

.....Upon review, we conclude that the defendants have not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to support the issuance of a stay.

The motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

[Dr. Caligari]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has entered an order rejecting the motion for a stay pending appeal. June 24, 2010. Case no. 10-1824.

That didn't take them long!

Any word on the district court actually ordering the Hendricksons off to jail? Today was the deadline for them to avoid that, wasn't it?

[Famspear]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has entered an order rejecting the motion for a stay pending appeal. June 24, 2010. Case no. 10-1824.

That didn't take them long!

Any word on the district court actually ordering the Hendricksons off to jail? Today was the deadline for them to avoid that, wasn't it?

I see nothing new on the docket at the District Court, as of about 5:23 pm Central time (6:23 pm Eastern time) on Thursday, June 24.

[Gregg]

I have a feeling that the IRS is going to end up selling it for him.

... and tough luck for Petey and Doreen if the place doesn't bring a good price at auction.

Suburban Detroit Real Estate is hardly what I'd call a hot market these days. They have a really active Sheriff Sale up there already, so my guess is if it goes on the courthouse steps Pete and Doreen are gonna get hosed.

[Dr. Caligari]

Can anyone explain why the details of Pete and Doreen's contempt of court battle has not even been mentioned over at Lost Horizons?

Because Pete doesn't want to talk about it, and his accolytes either don't know about it or are afraid to bring it up.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Can anyone explain why the details of Pete and Doreen's contempt of court battle has not even been mentioned over at Lost Horizons?

Because it doesn't matter. I think if you could really delve into the reality of the community you'd find 99% of them are not "warriors" in any real sense other than playing in their fantasy world online.

Mob behavior is fairly well understood. In the physical realm you can disperse a mob simply because when it comes to a choice between life or death, safety vs. injury, or at the simplest and lowest participant level, temporary incarceration vs. walking away, the participants will make those instinctive 'fight or flee' decisions based on their immediate personal circumstances.

In the Internet realm, the ramifications of engaging in what would be physically destructive behavior don't hold sway with the rabble-rousers in the mob; the consequences aren't the same and their risks are minimized and they are easily emboldened.

Hence the ludicrous call to the tiny audience to "stand tall."

By now, if the few hundred lunatics in the CTC mob were in one place, the first nimrod to yell out "stand tall warriors" would be trampled by the terrified former 'warriors'.

[Harvester]

HA! Is there anything worse than a true believer? Some sacrifices are worth the outcome. Heady times patriots. Now is the time to heed the call, rise up and throw off the Federal yoke! Some never forget. STAND TALL WARRIORS!

http://www.panamalaw.org/psychological_ ... f_rap.html

[LOBO]

Can anyone explain why the details of Pete and Doreen's contempt of court battle has not even been mentioned over at Lost Horizons?

Because Pete doesn't want to talk about it, and his accolytes either don't know about it or are afraid to bring it up.

If only there were someone who posted on both boards who could let the LostHeads know what's going on.

Someone who's not a coward.

Oh yeah, those two things take everyone out of the game.

[Famspear]

HA!......Heady times patriots.......rise up and throw off the Federal yoke! Some never forget. STAND TALL WARRIORS!

What a cornball. I'm curious: do you actually talk this way in real life?



EDIT: Oops, I just noticed that I copied that quote from a post that's still pending approval.....

EDIT 2: Since I quoted from Harvey's post, I went ahead and approved it.

(I think that's the first time I've ever used my moderator function.)

[Famspear]

.......(I think that's the first time I've ever used my moderator function.)

Would you like a cigarette big boy?

Power! I will rule the world! Bwahh-hahhhhhhh!

[LPC]

Hendrickson has also filed a notice of appeal from the contempt order:

06/21/2010 | 70 | NOTICE OF APPEAL by Doreen M. Hendrickson, Peter Eric Hendrickson re 68 Order on Motion for Contempt, 67 Order on Motion to Vacate. Receipt No: DET020686 - Fee: $ 455 - Fee Status: Paid. (NHol) (Entered: 06/22/2010)

According to the District Court docket, the 6th Circuit has denied any stay of the contempt order pending appeal.

06/24/2010 | 72 | ORDER from U.S. Court of Appeals - Sixth Circuit re 70 Notice of Appeal filed by Peter Eric Hendrickson, Doreen M. Hendrickson - Disposition: The motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. [Appeal Case Number 10-1824]. (CGre) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

Which makes sense, given that the order that the court is enforcing by the contempt proceeding has already been affirmed on appeal.

Next comes the motion for reconsideration of the denial of the stay.

Each motion that Hendrickson files, and that is denied, seems to propagate additional motions for reconsideration, as well as appeals and motions for stays, so that Hendrickson seems to be generating an exponentially increasing volume of motions and appeals that will end only when he is imprisoned. (At least, we hope it ends then.)

[LPC]

Still nothing on the civil court docket about incarceration for civil contempt.

I ask again: Is it possible that Perseverating Pete has caved in and complied with the court order to file a correct, non-CtC return.