Sentencing for Doreen Hendrickson

[notorial dissent]

I've got five quatloos that say that she will file the returns, but will modify the jurat to indicate that they are being filed under duress. IANAL, but I believe that such a modification renders the return invalid, so she STILL won't be in compliance with the judge's order.

Any takers?

BTW, a little off-topic, but last weekend, the ME-TV cable channel aired the Star Trek episode, "The Gamesters of Triskellion".

She's already tried that, it didn't work, the judge wasn't amused, that's how she got here in the first place.

[The Observer]

She's already tried that, it didn't work, the judge wasn't amused, that's how she got here in the first place.

That doesn't mean she won't try it again. After all, you are the one who pointed out that the stupid ran deep in her and Peter. My take is that Doreen is going to try to get the last word in on this fiasco (of her own making) so she can declare a moral victory. Maybe she won't alter the jurat, but I would not be surprised to see her do something equally stupid that will get her into more Dutch with the law.

[notorial dissent]

See my previous comment on the subject below.

I think I have visions of Doreen going to prison 30 days early. I don't know if she'll blink or not, but the stupid runs wide and deep in that pair.

[noblepa]

If she stands her ground, refuses to file legally correct returns and goes to prison 30 days early, can her refusal be used as a factor in calculating any potential time off for good behavior?

After all, the order didn't reduce the length of her sentence if she filed. It simply gave her another month of freedom at the front end. She might be willing to trade that front-end month for a back-end month. If she reports a month early, she'll get out a month early.

And, can the court still insist that she file the correct returns, even after she reports to prison?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
And, can the court still insist that she file the correct returns, even after she reports to prison?

If she fails to comply, she obviously remains in contempt while serving her sentence for that one instance. A condition of her release may hinge on compliance, but there are sentencing limits - you can't put someone away forever.

Wes would have a better idea of the outcome scenarios.

[LPC]

My take is that Doreen is going to try to get the last word in on this fiasco (of her own making) so she can declare a moral victory.

You could be right.

And, as a general rule, if your strategic goal in a criminal proceeding is to "get the last word in," you're pretty much a pathetic loser.

(Although it occurs to me that Martin Luther King Jr. was able to effectively get the last word in with his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." But Doreen is no MLK.)

[noblepa]

...
And, can the court still insist that she file the correct returns, even after she reports to prison?

If she fails to comply, she obviously remains in contempt while serving her sentence for that one instance. A condition of her release may hinge on compliance, but there are sentencing limits - you can't put someone away forever.

Wes would have a better idea of the outcome scenarios.

I wasn't implying that they could lock her up indefinitely, but since there is no parole in the federal prison system, the only way to get out early is to behave yourself while incarcerated. If she does, I think she could get out a few months before completing her sentence. Could the Bureau of Prisons conclude that, because she was still in contempt for not filing, she had not behaved herself and make her serve out the entire sentence?

I guess my point is that, if her refusal makes no difference in how long she is incarcerated, she has little to lose by not complying. She simply trades a month of freedom at the front-end for a month of freedom at the back-end. OTOH, if it increases her time away from home, she might decide to comply.

[wserra]

(Although it occurs to me that Martin Luther King Jr. was able to effectively get the last word in with his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." But Doreen is no MLK.)

Not to mention that she is her cause.

[.]

Wait a minute.

She's ordered to file accurate returns. She refuses and evidences that by filing more non-compliant junk.

She's indicted, tried and convicted of contempt of court and is again ordered to file accurate returns when she is sentenced.

If, three days (or 34 days) hence she hasn't filed said accurate returns (and all parties know what the accurate numbers are) with unaltered jurats and unaccompanied by any extraneous hooey, what will the jeopardy and possible penalty be?

Another contempt indictment for violation of a court order subsequent to the order that was the basis of the first contempt indictment?

While there seems to be a limit to how long one can be imprisoned for a single instance of contempt that one refuses to cure, she seems to have set up the possibility of an unending series of contempt convictions. Each with a longer sentencing guideline because her criminal history category would increase as the convictions piled up.

She could then write a book: How I went to Prison for Life in Small, but Increasingly Larger Chunks of Time for refusing to file a simple tax return on which there was little or no tax liability. It would be the crowning glory of CtC.

[Mider]

I'm actually a little sad about this, the drama is coming to a close with her sentencing and Pete's closing of the forum. I have for the last 7 years logged into my computer at work and gone to first Quatloos followed by Lost Horizons, to see what the latest daily idea or stupid ploy was going to be. Is there any other whack-a-do-dals out there on the horizon? Maybe Smudge or one of the other posters at LH might come out with a new plan to attack the evil IRS>?

[notorial dissent]

My take is that Doreen is going to try to get the last word in on this fiasco (of her own making) so she can declare a moral victory.

You could be right.

And, as a general rule, if your strategic goal in a criminal proceeding is to "get the last word in," you're pretty much a pathetic loser.

I think that pretty well sums up Doreen, and Pete for that matter, in a nut shell.

[Famspear]

I'm actually a little sad about this, the drama is coming to a close with her sentencing and Pete's closing of the forum.....

At least we can look forward to the Hendricksons' case in U.S. Tax Court (docket no. 006863-14). The trial is scheduled for June 22, 2015.

[Mider]

Oh Nice, must have missed that, something to look forward to, will need to stock up on some microwave popcorn.

[Famspear]

We have some initial activity in Doreen's appeal. On Friday, May 8, 2015, the following order was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in United States v. Doreen Hendrickson, case no. 15-1446:

ORDER

Before: COLE, Chief Judge; GILMAN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

Doreen M. Hendrickson appeals her conviction for criminal contempt, arising from her failure to comply with a 2007 district court order directing her to file a valid 2008 income tax return and to file amended income tax returns for 2002 and 2003. The district court permitted Hendrickson to self-surrender within sixty days of the judgment. But it also ordered that she be immediately detained if she did not file the amended 2002 and 2003 returns within thirty days of the judgment. The district court denied Hendrickson’s motion to modify that condition. Hendrickson now moves to reverse the district court’s order. The government opposes the motion, and Hendrickson replies.

Hendrickson first argues that the district court lacked the authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3143 to condition her release upon her filing of her 2002 and 2003 tax returns. Under § 3143, a district court judge shall order a person found guilty of an offense detained unless the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not a flight risk or a danger to the community or others. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). The district court did not find that Hendrickson was a flight risk or a danger to others, and the government does not suggest otherwise. But that is not the end of the inquiry because, even if Hendrickson is neither a flight risk nor a danger to others, she can be released only “in accordance with section 3142(b) or (c).” Id. Section 3142(b) requires that, if a person is released, that release be “subject to the condition that the person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). Hendrickson’s conviction for criminal contempt, a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 401, was based upon her failure to file her tax returns as ordered by a court. Thus, her failure to file these tax returns constitutes the commission of a federal crime, and the district court had the authority to order her to file her tax returns as a condition of continued release.

Hendrickson also asserts that the district court’s condition implicates her right against self-incrimination. But she has not claimed the privilege on the grounds that her filing of the tax returns would incriminate her by disclosing the source of illegal income. Cf. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 435 & n.7 (1984). Rather, she invokes the privilege on the ground that she could be subject to further prosecution. But, because her income would be legitimately earned, she cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment: “An individual who refuses to disclose the amount of his income derived from a legitimate source on the grounds that such disclosure would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination has improperly invoked and asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege, unless he can show some possibility that such a disclosure may lead to a criminal prosecution.” United States v. Warner, 830 F.2d 651, 656 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Verkuilen, 690 F.2d 648, 654 (7th Cir. 1982)). The person asserting the privilege must also show that she is “confronted by substantial and ‘real,’ and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.” Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). A taxpayer may not “draw a conjurer’s circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law.” United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927).

Here, Hendrickson has not shown that she has a reasonable ground to fear future prosecution based upon filing these tax returns. Hendrickson claims that, if her conviction is reversed, the government may use her returns as evidence against her if she is prosecuted for other tax offenses. But to establish “willfulness” in a criminal tax case, the government must show “an intentional violation of a known legal duty.” United States v. DeClue, 899 F.2d 1465, 1471 (6th Cir. 1990). Filing an amended return does not, standing alone, demonstrate that a person intentionally filed an incorrect original return. And, as the government pointed out below, Hendrickson’s filing of returns pursuant to a court order does not provide any evidence of her state of mind. Nor does Hendrickson’s filing of amended returns in any way alter her failure to file the returns within thirty days as directed in the original court order.

The motion to reverse the district court’s denial of her motion for modification of release conditions is therefore DENIED.

Oh well.

[Famspear]

Doreen's daughter has posted a weblog comment indicating that Doreen will begin serving her sentence on Friday, May 15, 2015, at the Alderson Federal Correctional Institution in West Virginia.

http://mssunshinesmoothie.blogspot.com/ ... -results=1

[LPC]

Filing an amended return does not, standing alone, demonstrate that a person intentionally filed an incorrect original return. And, as the government pointed out below, Hendrickson’s filing of returns pursuant to a court order does not provide any evidence of her state of mind.

I think that Famspear and others have voiced similar opinions, and it's nice to know that the 6th Circuit is thinking the same way.

Nor does Hendrickson’s filing of amended returns in any way alter her failure to file the returns within thirty days as directed in the original court order.

I had to read that twice to figure out what the court was saying.

I think that the "original order" refers to the first order to file correct returns, back in 2007 or 2008, and the failure to comply with that order is what resulted in the conviction for criminal contempt.

So I think that all the court is saying here is that finally filing correct returns in accordance with the original court order can do nothing now to affect the conviction for contempt.

[Gregg]

If'n I were running the world, she'd be tried for straight tax evasion for the filing the bogus returns and between you and me, I don't care if the court ordered her to stand on her head and sing rap lyrics, the contempt is for not doing what the judge told her to do, whatever it is he told her to do.

I fully realize that the law is more nuanced than that, and it was and is important that she be treated as the court has done, but she and her firebombing partner/husband are approaching my point of "whack 'em in the head with a 2x4" stupid.

[Famspear]

The Federal Bureau of Prisons shows sixty year old Doreen Marie Hendrickson as inmate # 48564-039 at the Alderson Federal Prison Camp near Alderson, West Virginia. Her projected release date has not yet been posted.

[Famspear]

To recap, the followers of Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax evasion scam who are currently in Federal prison in connection with the use of the scam are:

Carmen D'Agostino
inmate # 20410-052
Federal Bureau of Prisons Residential Management Reentry field office
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Projected release date September 28, 2015

James R. Back
inmate # 17586-006
Federal Correctional Institution
Sheridan, Oregon
Projected release date November 26, 2015

Gregory P. Boyd
inmate # 69890-097
Federal Correctional Institution
Bastrop, Texas
Projected release date August 20, 2016

Doreen Marie Hendrickson
inmate # 48564-039
Alderson Federal Prison Camp
Alderson, West Virginia
No posted projected release date, but I project her release date as being late August 2016.

[NYGman]

FIFY

To recap, the followers of Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax evasion scam who are currently in Federal prison in connection with the use of the scam are who have scored the greatest victory possible:

Carmen D'Agostino
inmate # 20410-052
Federal Bureau of Prisons Residential Management Reentry field office
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Projected release date September 28, 2015

James R. Back
inmate # 17586-006
Federal Correctional Institution
Sheridan, Oregon
Projected release date November 26, 2015

Gregory P. Boyd
inmate # 69890-097
Federal Correctional Institution
Bastrop, Texas
Projected release date August 20, 2016

Doreen Marie Hendrickson
inmate # 48564-039
Alderson Federal Prison Camp
Alderson, West Virginia
No posted projected release date, but I project her release date as being late August 2016.