Hendrickson indicted

[Imalawman]

Wow, I remember that my first post on here was about Mr. Hendrickson. I was asking about if he'd been indicted yet. Just over 2 years later it finally happens. Someone at that point said that the champagne is on ice. Getting closer to uncorking....

[Dr. Caligari]

LostHoper "continentalarmy" whistles past the graveyard:

The Federal Prosecutors better bring their A-Game. There's not a jury around that won't see through this BS. This is the same old rehashed garbage they spewed in their previous press release. It doesn't even address the issue. Pathetic. In the meantime, I've turned lots of people on to this information and they all "see it." Sorry dirtbags . . . the cat's out of the bag.

[LPC]

My nominee for Lame Rationalization of the Year:

We really need for those who are successful to organize and speak out. I sense they just keep quiet so as not to jinx their own good fortune.

It's one of those times when sarcasm seems inadequate.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

I think the most significant result of this indictment is that Demo will now have another excuse as to why her "book" is not done.

"But I need to put in a chapter about Blow-Hard. . . ."

[Famspear]

According to the documents at entry 01 on the docket, the indictment and arrest warrant had been sealed because:

the USA was "apprehensive that the defendant may flee the jurisdiction upon becoming aware that an indictment has been returned"

and

that the USA was "apprehensive that there is danger of harm to potential government witnesses if the defendant become[s] aware of the indictment prior to arrest."

The documents were unsealed when the government notified the Court that the government was no longer apprehensive. See entry 02 on the docket.

USA v. Hendrickson
case no. 2:08-cr-20585-DML-DAS
US Dist Ct, E.D. Michigan (Southern Div.)

[Famspear]

So, if eventually convicted, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson would be facing up to 30 years in prison and fines of over $1,000,000, if my math is correct.

[wserra]

So, if eventually convicted, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson would be facing up to 30 years in prison and fines of over $1,000,000, if my math is correct.

Yeah, that's the statutory max. The Guideline would be much less, depending on the tax loss.

BTW, indictments are always sealed until the first defendant is arrested.

[Demosthenes]

His prior criminal record will result in a higher guideline range.

[Famspear]

So, if eventually convicted, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson would be facing up to 30 years in prison and fines of over $1,000,000, if my math is correct.

Yeah, that's the statutory max. The Guideline would be much less, depending on the tax loss.

BTW, indictments are always sealed until the first defendant is arrested.

I was wondering about that.

Regarding 18 USC 3571(b)(3), the fine could actually be up to a maximum of $2,500,000 in this case (10 counts times $250,000). How often is that provision used? (And I would assume that the Sentencing Guidelines would still apply.)

His prior criminal record will result in a higher guideline range.

Gosh. Darn. Gee willikers.

[wserra]

His prior criminal record will result in a higher guideline range.

What did he get for the mail bombing? If it wasn't more than 13 months, it's probably outside the envelope. (Unintentional - that's what the Guideline time period is called. Really.)

[Dr. Caligari]

Hendrickson speaks:

Six years or so ago, some IRS flunky made the mistake of his or her life in refusing to accept the return filed by my wife and me, leading to my uncovering the liberating truth about the income tax. A year later, some higher-level IRS stooge did it again, taking me into court with allegations of "promoting an abusive tax shelter" by way of CtC, and promptly losing three quick cases and killing that issue permanently.



Two-and-a-half years ago, a higher-level thug still pushed the agency and the DoJ to try a "lawsuit" in a face-saving, CtC-juggernaut slowing maneuver. This has proven to be a sustained, still-ongoing embarrassment to the agency, the DoJ, and the courts; and a definitive affirmation of the accuracy of what is revealed in CtC.



Now, as I got word on Wednesday, another batch of these folks is daring another, and more significant, embarrassment, by charging me with allegedly having "Willfully [made] and [subscribed] any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter." (The details can be seen here.)



I look forward with great interest to the government's attempts to carry its burden of proving that I didn't believe what I said in my filings to be true and correct as to every material matter...



The realities of both fact and law that are involved here mean that merely competent management of this trial will result in a just outcome, and another bloody nose for a couple of agencies whose efforts the evade the law are increasingly desperate, and erratic. However, more than simply competent management can result in more prominence than attends a simple victory, and that can make this otherwise obnoxious episode a significant step forward for the truth.



That kind of management requires some specialized skills, though, and getting them will cost money. I hope all of you will participate. Donations for that purpose can be made here, or by mail to Pete Hendrickson, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382



***

[webhick]

Six years or so ago, some IRS flunky made the mistake of his or her life in refusing to accept the return filed by my wife and me, leading to my uncovering the liberating truth about the income tax. A year later, some higher-level IRS stooge did it again, taking me into court with allegations of "promoting an abusive tax shelter" by way of CtC, and promptly losing three quick cases and killing that issue permanently.

Could someone enlighten me on the bold part?

[Cpt Banjo]

That kind of management requires some specialized skills, though, and getting them will cost money. I hope all of you will participate. Donations for that purpose can be made here, or by mail to Pete Hendrickson, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382

The true test of the utter stupidity of the Lost Horizons rubes will be how many of them actually send PH money.

"Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump." W. C. Fields

[The Observer]

That kind of management requires some specialized skills, though, and getting them will cost money. I hope all of you will participate. Donations for that purpose can be made here, or by mail to Pete Hendrickson, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382

Wait a minute - is Hendrickson really telling us that even though the IRS is allegedly risking losing another case to him, he doesn't think he is competent enough to embarass them in court again? That he actually has a good chance of losing this case?

I guess I was wrong, Famspear, you don't want to be at this trial. All that bombastic behavior appears to be starting to shut down. By the trial date, we may actually see his attorney agreeing to enter a plea of guilty and Hendrickson going away quietly in exchange for a lighter sentence; you would have wasted airfare and hotel expenses for nothing.

Man, they don't make TPs like they used to.

[Red Cedar PM]

Hendrickson speaks:

(snip ultra-arrogant blather)

Bye bye, cheek defense.

[jkeeb]

it's probably outside the envelope. (Unintentional - that's what the Guideline time period is called. Really.)

I thought there was a rule about keyboard warnings.

[Demosthenes]

What did he get for the mail bombing? If it wasn't more than 13 months, it's probably outside the envelope. (Unintentional - that's what the Guideline time period is called. Really.)

The sentencing from his last criminal conviction:

Defendant to be imprisoned for a term of twenty-one (21) months on Count S1 and twelve (12) months on Count S2 which is to run concurrently with sentence imposed on Count S1. Defendant to pay a special assessment of $75.00. Defendant to surrende r for service of sentence before 2:00 p.m. on 6/3/92. 9/15/95 - AMENDED JUDGMENT - Twelve (12) months imprisonment as to count 1 and twelve (12) months imprisonment as to count 2 to run concurrent and three (3) years supervised release with condition s on count 1 and one (1) year on count 2 to run concurrent. Defendant shall pay a special assessment of $75.00

[Dr. Caligari]

Six years or so ago, some IRS flunky made the mistake of his or her life in refusing to accept the return filed by my wife and me, leading to my uncovering the liberating truth about the income tax. A year later, some higher-level IRS stooge did it again, taking me into court with allegations of "promoting an abusive tax shelter" by way of CtC, and promptly losing three quick cases and killing that issue permanently.

Could someone enlighten me on the bold part?

There never was any "abusive tax shelter" case filed against Hendrickson. There were 3 IRS summonses served on him, and the government filed, but then dropped, a case trying to compel compliance with those summonses. It was speculated here at the time (not by me) that the DOJ had decided to open a criminal investigation instead. That was apparently true.

[Imalawman]

Hendrickson speaks:

(snip ultra-arrogant blather)

Bye bye, cheek defense.

How so? If he wasn't the head of the scheme I think he might have a decent chance at the Cheek defense.

[Famspear]

Richardf614 at losthorizons (with bolding added by me) writes:

This is not a surprise and is only the next link in the chain. The good news is that it will be in front of a jury.

I agree with Richard to the extent that if there is any good news for Pete, it is that Pete will get a jury trial if he wants one. That may or may not turn out well for him, of course.

I am surprised that the DOJ would attempt this now[,] with the current state of affairs within the country. By the time this trial comes about[,] the country will be further down the tubes and the so called bailout will have given more of the citizen's tax money to the banker's bonuses. Any person on the jury will already be highly pissed off, maybe unemployed or in foreclosure.

This will be interesting[,] as the tax rate will surely be raised to replenish the treasury as the revenue stream is drying up as we speak. In the next few months it will be hard to find a person in Michigan that has a job let alone paying taxes. Good timing for Pete, bad timing for the DOJ.

These are interesting observations as well.

I find it interesting that they have not indicted Doreen, she had a 1099-MISC. They have focused on the W-2 wages argument. The entire case will be around "Wages". Interesting.

It ain't over til the fat lady sings! Squaters [sic] had better wait to dance until the verdict is in, they misread Cryer's outcome. 12 jurors and it only takes one, I'll take those odds.

In my opinion, this analysis by Richardf614 is actually a cut above the normal drivel we see from him, and from the other loserheads.

Hendrickson can at least hope that he can confuse the jury about the meaning of "willfulness." Maybe get the jury to take their eyes off the ball, by confusing the jury about what kind of "belief" the U.S. Supreme Court was talking about in the Cheek case.

I think I may have said this before, but I believe the courts (including the Supreme Court in Cheek) have muddied the waters on the element of willfulness by using the word "belief" instead of retaining the original formulation: the voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty.

If you were to wave a magic wand and name me as the sole federal court in the land, I would clarify Cheek by rejecting the "belief" language, and by focusing instead on the defendant's awareness of the government's position. In other words, if the jury concludes that the defendant is aware of the government's position about what the law is, the defendant's conduct is willful -- and the defendant's belief that the government's position is wrong should not be a defense -- no matter how fervently that belief is held.

The Supreme Court's Cheek formulation is not (or, at least in my view should not be) merely "a belief," or even "an actual belief." An "actual belief" should not be sufficient to negate willfulness. The actual belief should also have to be (1) in good faith, and (2) based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law.

A Hendrickson-style, idiosyncratic "self-study" of the law -- and Hendrickson's resulting preposterous conclusions (his "beliefs") -- are not based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the law. Hendrickson is not really confused. He is willfully, obstinately refusing to accept the government's interpretation of what the law is. And that is really a disagreement with the law, not a misunderstanding. And under the interpretation laid out by the Supreme Court in Cheek, Hendrickson's kind of "belief" is not the kind of belief that Congress was trying to excuse when Congress used the term "willfully" in the statutes. Hendrickson's "belief" is not in good faith, and Hendrickson's belief is not based on an honest misunderstanding.

The tendency among tax protesters is to focus on the word "belief" and to ignore the rest of the formula ("good faith" and "misunderstanding cause by the complexity of the law"). I wonder whether some jury members might be confused enough to make this mistake.