Most of the newsletter is more whining about being ordered to file reality-based (instead of CtC-based) tax returns, which is apparently a continuing dispute. There is a pending motion in District Court for another order directing the Hendricksons to file correct returns, and the court's refusal to vacate the earlier order, and the resulting contempt finding, is the subject of a pending appeal to the 6th Circuit (No. 10-1824).
Looking at the docket for the ongoing civil proceeding, I found the transcript for the 12/15/2010 arguments on the government's motion, which is somewhat interesting.
The government's lawyer stated the case quite clearly:
Doreen Hendrickson then argued pro se.Daniel Applegate wrote:MR. APPLEGATE: Your Honor, the United States brought this motion basically as a successor to the motion for contempt because the Hendricksons filed purported tax returns in response to the motion for contempt. However, these returns violated the Court's order in that, rather than including a separate statement discussing their disagreement with the government's position, they attach a statement into the return that disavowed their signatures and the amounts reported on the return. This posed two problems. Not only did it violate the Court's order, but the IRS is unable to process these returns because they're not valid.
So we're asking the Court to give the Hendricksons a second chance, and more time to file proper amended returns in which they can include a separate statement, but that statement needs to be separate from the return, and cannot be used to invalidate their signatures or the return itself.
After about five pages of typical Hendricksonian blather, the following exchange occurred:
Doreen continues, and then slightly less than a page later, the court interrupts her in mid-sentence:THE COURT: Are you done?
MRS. HENDRICKSON: No.
THE COURT: Finish up please.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Finish up please.
Doreen then continues with the sentence she started and, a little more than two pages later:THE COURT: Excuse me, Mrs. Hendrickson. How much more do you have of this?
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Not much.
THE COURT: Finish up please.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Thank you.
Two more paragraphs, then:THE COURT: I'll give you about ten seconds to finish up. I've asked you three times now to finish up.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: You just asked me once.
THE COURT: No, I've asked you several times. Finish up.
On 2/9/2011, the government filed a renewed motion for contempt, and the Hendricksons filed a response on 2/28. Nothing since then.THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may sit down.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Do you want the rest of this? I have a copy for you.
THE COURT: I already have your written response, which --
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Well, you don't have all of my testimony in the case.
THE COURT: -- which you appear to be just reading from. So please sit down. I've heard enough. Thank you.
Anything further, Mr. Applegate?
MR. APPLEGATE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Hendrickson, there was a motion for contempt filed in this case. As part of the decision, the Court's decision in the motion for contempt, you were ordered to file tax returns, and you were ordered that if you were unhappy with being, as you call it, coerced into filing tax returns, you could file a separate statement stating your objection. Instead of doing that, when you were explicitly told that you could not file a return that had markings and notations on it undermining the return itself, that's exactly what you did.
The government is 100 percent correct in this case that you have filed something that does not comply with the Court's ruling on the motion for contempt, nor does it comply with the IRS requirement that it be a usable tax return.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Can I quote you from our hearing before? You said, hearing transcript, Page 7, Line 3 through 6, "If you want to file something along with your return that states 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 to it whatever you want to your return."
THE COURT: Yes. Do you not understand --
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Append is --
THE COURT: Excuse me. Be quiet when I'm speaking. Do you not understand what the word "append" to it means?
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Actually, I looked it up last night.
THE COURT: Excuse me. That means a separate filing, and that's what I said, a separate filing.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: "I'm giving you the option of filing these amended returns with an explanatory statement that you disagree with it. You may do that."
THE COURT: Yes, with a separate --
MRS. HENDRICKSON: "-- filing an affidavit."
THE COURT: -- filing.
Mrs. Hendrickson, I am giving you until January 7th to file your tax returns for 2002 and 2003. If you do not file those tax returns in usable form, without any notations on them that undermine the verity of what you are filing or your signature, you will be held in contempt and you will go to jail.
Now, you have pushed me to the end of my patience on this. You were weeping in my office, you didn't have the money, could we give you extra time, please do this, please do that. We bent over backwards to try to accommodate you.
Now, you do what you're ordered, or you're going to jail. Is that clear?
MRS. HENDRICKSON: I think I did what I was ordered.
THE COURT: You did not.
You file a clean tax return with your signature on it and no additional notations, just the information requested on the tax return, and that's it. And if you don't, you are going to jail.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: But I'm being coerced to say something.
THE COURT: I don't care.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: But you're asking me to perjure --
THE COURT: Done.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: -- myself. That doesn't matter?
THE COURT: This hearing is done. You may leave.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: That's a felony, you know.
THE COURT: You may leave.
