2d Motion for Contempt against Pete and Doreen Hendrickson

[Dezcad]

In addition to not filing amended returns pursuant to the District Court's judgment in the erroneous tax refund case, Pete and Doreen have also failed to abide by a DC order to respond to post-judgment discovery. Keep in mind that that this applies to Doreen as well as Pete.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-vs.- Civil Action No. 06-11753
Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
UNITED STATES’ SECOND MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS
IN CONTEMPT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
The United States moves to hold Defendants, Peter Eric Hendrickson and Doreen M. Hendrickson, in civil contempt because they have not complied with the Court’s April 13, 2010 Order Granting Motion to Compel Discovery (docket no. 54). On January 15, 2010, the United States filed a motion to compel responses to post-judgment discovery requests (docket no. 44).
On April 13, 2010, the Court held a hearing on the United States’ motion, as well as on the United States’ motion for contempt related to the Defendants’ failure to file amended returns as ordered in the Court’s May 2, 2007 amended judgment (docket no. 46). On April 13, 2010, the
Court entered its Order granting the United States’ motion to compel, requiring that the Defendants respond to the United States’ discovery requests, served on the Defendants on or
about November 18, 2009 and which were also attached to the United States’ reply in support of
its motion to compel (docket no. 50), within 30 days of the Order. As of May 24, 2010, more
than thirty days have passed and counsel for the United States has not received any responses to the discovery requests. (Declaration of Daniel Applegate ¶ 2.)

The Order advised the 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.” Because judgment has already been entered against the Defendants and the discovery requests are post-judgment requests by the judgment creditor to ascertain the financial status of the debtors, the United States requests that the Court sanction the Defendants under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) by holding the Defendants in contempt and imposing a daily fine until the Defendants provide to counsel for the United States complete and accurate responses to the United States’ discovery requests as ordered by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,
BARBARA L. MCQUADE
United States Attorney
s/ Daniel A. Applegate
DANIEL A. APPLEGATE (P70452)
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U. S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7238, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 353-8180
Fax: (202) 514-6770
Daniel.A.Applegate@usdoj.gov

[bmielke]

Can you go to jail for civil contempt?

[Famspear]

Well, here's another fine mess for Family: Blowhard to deal with.

And, yes, you can go to jail for civil contempt. In civil contempt incarceration, the recalcitrant, stubborn BlowhardMeister (or Mrs. BlowhardMeister, or both as the case may be) would hold the keys to the jail cell:

Comply with the court order, and you can get out of jail.

EDIT: My request for the sleeping arrangements for the Fabulous Felon and his Feminine Follower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Prison

Well, I can dream, can't I?

[bmielke]

Well, here's another fine mess for Family: Blowhard to deal with.

And, yes, you can go to jail for civil contempt. In civil contempt incarceration, the recalcitrant, stubborn BlowhardMeister (or Mrs. BlowhardMeister, or both as the case may be) would hold the keys to the jail cell:

Comply with the court order, and you can get out of jail.

I feel bad for the kids if Mrs. Blowhardmeister goes to jail, she'll scream about being a political prisoner and refuse to cooperate for a while, if ever, (i imagine) I wonder if Uncle Jack will take them in?

[LPC]

And, yes, you can go to jail for civil contempt. In civil contempt incarceration, the recalcitrant, stubborn BlowhardMeister (or Mrs. BlowhardMeister, or both as the case may be) would hold the keys to the jail cell:

Comply with the court order, and you can get out of jail.

At this stage, it looks like the government is only asking for a daily fine, and not incarceration, but when (not if) the fine fails to achieve the desired result, the next step will be imprisonment.

So it looks like both Doreen and Peter will be going to jail, but Doreen will be able to get out.

In some ways, Doreen is more likely to be incarcerated for civil contempt than Peter, for the simple reason that Peter is already going to jail for his criminal conviction and so coercive incarceration is unlikely to be effective. But I think that Peter will eventually comply in order to get Doreen out of jail.

[Pottapaug1938]

And, yes, you can go to jail for civil contempt. In civil contempt incarceration, the recalcitrant, stubborn BlowhardMeister (or Mrs. BlowhardMeister, or both as the case may be) would hold the keys to the jail cell:

Comply with the court order, and you can get out of jail.

At this stage, it looks like the government is only asking for a daily fine, and not incarceration, but when (not if) the fine fails to achieve the desired result, the next step will be imprisonment.

So it looks like both Doreen and Peter will be going to jail, but Doreen will be able to get out.

In some ways, Doreen is more likely to be incarcerated for civil contempt than Peter, for the simple reason that Peter is already going to jail for his criminal conviction and so coercive incarceration is unlikely to be effective. But I think that Peter will eventually comply in order to get Doreen out of jail.

Do you really think so; or is it more likely that Petey is so convinced of the Righteousness Of [His] Beliefs that any compliance with the court orders will trigger application of the statutes that hold Americans in slavery to the IRS, or something like that? After all, he has never wavered from contention that his interpretations of the relevant facts and laws are correct; and it only remains for the right court (aided, I suspect, by the Righteous Wrath of We, The People) to provide legal recognition of this... "fact".

[Dezcad]

Can you go to jail for civil contempt?

As already mentioned, the answer is "yes". Keep in mind that the other Motion for Contempt (dealing with the failure to file amended returns) was ruled on by the Magistrate, with the following recommendation:

I THEREFORE RECOMMEND as follows:
(1) That Defendants be 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.

And don't forget about H. Beatty Chadwick, who was incarcerated for 14 years for civil contempt.

[Gregg]

Just wondering, am I correct in thinking that IF Pete is jailed on the contempt, his regular criminal sentence is not begun until he clears the contempt?

[Pottapaug1938]

Just wondering, am I correct in thinking that IF Pete is jailed on the contempt, his regular criminal sentence is not begun until he clears the contempt?

Let us hope so. I don't know if anyone will ever break his arrogance; but a nice long stretch in civil confinement may be the judicial system's only hope of doing so....

[Famspear]

Just wondering, am I correct in thinking that IF Pete is jailed on the contempt, his regular criminal sentence is not begun until he clears the contempt?

Let us hope so. I don't know if anyone will ever break his arrogance; but a nice long stretch in civil confinement may be the judicial system's only hope of doing so....

I second that. It would not make sense to have the criminal sentence run concurrently with a confinement for civil contempt; concurrency would provide no incentive at all for the Fabulous Felon to comply with the court's order.

[bmielke]

Just wondering, am I correct in thinking that IF Pete is jailed on the contempt, his regular criminal sentence is not begun until he clears the contempt?

Let us hope so. I don't know if anyone will ever break his arrogance; but a nice long stretch in civil confinement may be the judicial system's only hope of doing so....

Let's see the current record is 14 years? Anyone else hoping Petey goes for the gold?

[LPC]

Just wondering, am I correct in thinking that IF Pete is jailed on the contempt, his regular criminal sentence is not begun until he clears the contempt?

j
I don't know, but I suspect not, and that the criminal sentence may supersede the civil contempt.

[Imalawman]

Just wondering, am I correct in thinking that IF Pete is jailed on the contempt, his regular criminal sentence is not begun until he clears the contempt?

j
I don't know, but I suspect not, and that the criminal sentence may supersede the civil contempt.

That would be my suspicion as well. BTW - isn't there a one year limit on civil contempt incarceration? I thought there were some constitutional limitations on civil contempt incarceration. Am I imagining this?

[Dezcad]

That would be my suspicion as well. BTW - isn't there a one year limit on civil contempt incarceration? I thought there were some constitutional limitations on civil contempt incarceration. Am I imagining this?

Yes, you are. As I referenced earlier:

H. Beatty Chadwick, who was incarcerated for 14 years for civil contempt.

[Lambkin]

That would be my suspicion as well. BTW - isn't there a one year limit on civil contempt incarceration? I thought there were some constitutional limitations on civil contempt incarceration. Am I imagining this?

Yes, you are. As I referenced earlier:

H. Beatty Chadwick, who was incarcerated for 14 years for civil contempt.

Richard Fine (14 months and counting) has been in the news lately as well.

[wserra]

I don't know, but I suspect not, and that the criminal sentence may supersede the civil contempt.

Actually, Dan, it's the other way around.

Although the statute says nothing as to the effect of this confinement upon the service of a prior criminal sentence, a concurrent service of both terms would obviously frustrate the purpose of the statute and provide no motivation for the cooperation of the witness. Although no case in this circuit has held that a district court has the power to stay the prior federal criminal sentence, there is ample authority, including decisions by seven other circuit courts, supporting a finding of such power in the district court.[FN1] Indeed, no circuit which has addressed the issue has held otherwise.

United States v. Dien, 598 F.2d 743 (2d Cir. 1979) (and the cases cited in ftnt 1).

[wserra]

isn't there a one year limit on civil contempt incarceration? I thought there were some constitutional limitations on civil contempt incarceration. Am I imagining this?

There is an eighteen month limit on civil contempt incarceration for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury, but only because that is the term of the grand jury. There is a line of cases adopting that rationale in holding that one cannot be incarcerated for civil contempt once circumstances show that the coercion (for whatever reason) will not be effective. Other than that - no, there is no specific limit. I don't have time right now to look up the cases, but I'm pretty sure that's the law.

I think Pete should be a test case.

[Imalawman]

isn't there a one year limit on civil contempt incarceration? I thought there were some constitutional limitations on civil contempt incarceration. Am I imagining this?

There is an eighteen month limit on civil contempt incarceration for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury, but only because that is the term of the grand jury. There is a line of cases adopting that rationale in holding that one cannot be incarcerated for civil contempt once circumstances show that the coercion (for whatever reason) will not be effective. Other than that - no, there is no specific limit. I don't have time right now to look up the cases, but I'm pretty sure that's the law.

I think Pete should be a test case.

Maybe that's what I was thinking about. But in any event, thanks for the info!

[Gregg]

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?

[LPC]

I don't know, but I suspect not, and that the criminal sentence may supersede the civil contempt.

Actually, Dan, it's the other way around.

Glad to hear it. I'd like to see Hendrickson (et ux) spend time in jail for civil contempt, finally comply (maybe), and *then* start to serve his criminal sentence.