Doreen Hendrickson was indicted

[Famspear]

Doreen
(sung to the tune of "Jolene," by Dolly Parton)

Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
I'm begging of you, please file your return!
Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
Oh, it's too late, now, and you might get burned!

You face a charge, now, of contempt!
Your pers'nal life is so unkempt!
You gotta fight these charges, now, Doreen!

Indictment is du-pli-ci-tous--
So now's your chance to make a fuss,
And get the charges dropped for now, Doreen!

Although they'd only re-indict,
You gotta show 'em you can fight!
I know that you can do it, oh, Doreen!

Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
I'm begging of you, don't rely on Pete!
Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
The Blow-hard-meister's always gettin' beat!

His legal knowledge ain't worth crap!
A two-time loser! What a sap!
That Felon-meister-loser is Absurd!

Prepost'rous Pete will never stop,
And C-t-C is such a flop!
Two prison terms! Will he make it a third?

In prison terms both one and two,
He should have been supporting you!
I hope you wake up some day, oh, Doreen!

[Dr. Caligari]

Asserting two different alleged violations in support of the same, single count charged in the indictment, right?

You're good!

[Famspear]

Asserting two different alleged violations in support of the same, single count charged in the indictment, right?

You're good!

Umm.... Are you referring to (A) my knowledge of the law of criminal procedure, (B) my limericks, or (C) my song lyrics for Doreen?

[Dr. Caligari]

Asserting two different alleged violations in support of the same, single count charged in the indictment, right?

You're good!

Umm.... Are you referring to (A) my knowledge of the law of criminal procedure, (B) my limericks, or (C) my song lyrics for Doreen?

(D) All of the above.

[Famspear]

(D) All of the above.

Oh, boy... Dolly Parton must be rolling around in her....

in her.....




....oh, I'm sure she's rolling around somewhere.......

[LPC]

For any criminal procedure geeks out there, I think the indictment is duplicitous (used in the technical legal sense of the word, not in the lay sense of "dishonest").

Asserting two different alleged violations in support of the same, single count charged in the indictment, right?

I really know nothing about criminal contempt, but I was curious about the fact that it was one count of contempt even though there are arguably three different acts in contempt: failing to amend the 2002 return, failing to amend the 2003 return, and filing the 2008 return.

And the failure to amend and the filing of the false return were two different paragraphs of the injunction.

[LPC]

I'm also wondering why Pete wasn't also indicted. Some ideas:

1. He was already convicted for filing the false 2002 and 2003 returns, and indicting him for failing to correct the same returns might be double jeopardy. (Might be. I don't know.)

2. Perhaps he didn't sign and file the 2008 return. If it was filed late, while he was in prison, Doreen might have signed it under a power of attorney.

3. He's actually filed corrected returns for 2002 and 2003. (It's okay to laugh for a little while. Just don't overdo it.)

4. He's too easy a target, and the DOJ was bored, so they decided to go after Doreen for a change of pace.

[notorial dissent]

So, they're finally, only, going after her for contempt?

[Noah]

For any criminal procedure geeks out there, I think the indictment is duplicitous (used in the technical legal sense of the word, not in the lay sense of "dishonest").

Asserting two different alleged violations in support of the same, single count charged in the indictment, right?

I really know nothing about criminal contempt, but I was curious about the fact that it was one count of contempt even though there are arguably three different acts in contempt: failing to amend the 2002 return, failing to amend the 2003 return, and filing the 2008 return.

And the failure to amend and the filing of the false return were two different paragraphs of the injunction.

This might explain it...
788 Sentencing—Effect of 18 U.S.C. § 401 on the Appropriate Fine or Imprisonment
Section 401 of Title 18 provides that a court may not both fine and imprison a contemnor for a single act of criminal contempt. In re Bradley, 318 U.S. 50, 51 (1943); United States v. Hilburn, 625 F.2d 1177 (6th Cir. 1980); United States v. DiGirlomo, 548 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1977); MacNeil v. United States, 236 F.2d 149, 154 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 912 (1956). This, however, does not prohibit the imposition of a fine and a term of imprisonment when both civil and criminal contempt actions are commenced in regard to the same transaction, Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585, 594 (1947), with one serving as a punitive exaction and the other as a coercive or compensatory sanction. Mitchell v. Fiore, 470 F.2d 1149, 1154 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 938 (1973). See United States Sentencing Guidelines, § 2J1.1.

[jcolvin2]

I'm also wondering why Pete wasn't also indicted. Some ideas:

1. He was already convicted for filing the false 2002 and 2003 returns, and indicting him for failing to correct the same returns might be double jeopardy. (Might be. I don't know.)

2. Perhaps he didn't sign and file the 2008 return. If it was filed late, while he was in prison, Doreen might have signed it under a power of attorney.

3. He's actually filed corrected returns for 2002 and 2003. (It's okay to laugh for a little while. Just don't overdo it.)

4. He's too easy a target, and the DOJ was bored, so they decided to go after Doreen for a change of pace.

Doreen was indicted on May 14, but the indictment was sealed until she was arrested. It is possible that Pete was indicted at the same time, but the government hasn't yet successfully executed the arrest warrant (and the indictment thus remains sealed).

[wserra]

I'm also wondering why Pete wasn't also indicted.

Doreen was indicted on May 14, but the indictment was sealed until she was arrested. It is possible that Pete was indicted at the same time, but the government hasn't yet successfully executed the arrest warrant (and the indictment thus remains sealed).

I think that's likely correct. If you take a look at each of the docs - not only the indictment, but the unsealing order as well - Doreen Hendrickson is referred to as "D-1". There is no need for such a reference unless there is also a "D-2". That said, local practice as to details like this can differ. For all I know, every indictment in MIED - including those with only a single defendant - uses that label.

It does make sense, though. Which means it's probably wrong.

[LPC]

Another question is about tax returns after 2008. The indictment charges that, after the injunction was issued, Doreen filed a false Form 1040EZ for 2008, reporting that she had no wages.

But what about 2009, 2010, and 2011? (2012 might be too recent.) Was she not required to file returns due to lack of income, were no returns filed, were the returns filed correctly, or did the DOJ not care about those years?

[LPC]

For all I know, every indictment in MIED - including those with only a single defendant - uses that label.

Hendrickson's 2008 indictment uses that same D-1 label, and the on-line docket refers to him as "Defendant (1)," even though he was the only defendant.

(As far as we know. Would it have been possible--or likely--for Doreen to have been indicted also but for her indictment never to have been unsealed?)

[LPC]

http://cheatingfrenzy.com/doreenindictment.pdf

Neither Doreen's name nor her case number are showing up on PACER.

Which means that somebody must have a source.

[Famspear]

http://cheatingfrenzy.com/doreenindictment.pdf

Neither Doreen's name nor her case number are showing up on PACER.

Which means that somebody must have a source.

You may want to double-check. I've had no problem finding her case on PACER. Obviously, there isn't much on the docket yet.

[wserra]

Neither Doreen's name nor her case number are showing up on PACER.

It's not unusual that the national party/case index doesn't pick up a new case for a day or two. You need to go to the specific court, here the Eastern District of Michigan site.

[LPC]

I was updating the TP Dossiers wiki, and notice that Peter was released from prison on June 12, 2012. That meant that the Hendrickson family spent a whole 358 days without anyone in federal custody.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I was updating the TP Dossiers wiki, and notice that Peter was released from prison on June 12, 2012. That meant that the Hendrickson family spent a whole 358 days without anyone in federal custody.

Victory! ?

[webhick]

7 days shy of a year! Stupendous!

[LPC]

From another thread on criminal contempt:

While it's true that 18 USC 401 (criminal contempt) has no statutory maximum, that does not mean that the judge has the unbridled discretion to throw away the key. Although I don't think the Supremes have ruled on it, several circuits have directed sentencing jusges to apply a "most analogous crime" analysis. See United States v. Papadakis, 802 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1986). Here, 26 USC 7212 (corrupt interference) seems a good analogue, and carries a three-year max. So: Count 1 is 18 USC 371 (five year max), Court 2 26 USC 7212 (three) and Counts 3 and 4 are the contempts (if 7212 is the analogue, each three years).

In Doreen's case, would a good analogue be filing a false document (26 U.S.C. 7206, the same crime for which Peter was convicted in connection with the same 2002 and 2003 returns), which carries maximum penalties of $100,000 fine and not not more than 3 years in prison?