Doreen Hendrickson Retrial Set for July 21, 2014

[jcolvin2]

11/18/2013 55 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Doreen M. Hendrickson Jury Trial set for 7/21/2014 09:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

11/18/2013 56 AMENDED TRIAL NOTICE AND STANDING ORDER as to Doreen M. Hendrickson Motions due by 4/21/2014 Plea due by 6/23/2014 Jury Trial set for 7/21/2014 09:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

11/18/2013 TEXT-ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 56 Scheduling Order, 55 Order to Continue - Ends of Justice as to Doreen M. Hendrickson. Documents mailed to Doreen M. Hendrickson at 232 Oriole Rd, Commerce Twp., MI 48382. (CPin) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

[Kestrel]

Good!

I notice the tax deniers who so swiftly crowed "victory" aren't being anywhere near as swift in announcing this news.

So, with 8 months' reprieve, do we have an idea where or how she'll be spending that time?

[Famspear]

.....So, with 8 months' reprieve, do we have an idea where or how she'll be spending that time?

Multiple choice:

A. At a law library somewhere, looking for something that would somehow explain why there was a mistrial, rather than the acquittal she so dearly wanted.

B. Going on a tour of the country, speaking to Wackadooster groups everywhere, explaining why every Cracking the Code defeat is seen as a victory.

C. Writing her memoir, to be entitled: "Life with The Blowhard: My Marriage to Perseverant Pete".

D. At home -- attending each and every day, in each and every way, to every need and desire of her Hubby, the Haughty Hendrickson, the Nefarious Narcissist, the Preposterous PeterMeister, the Fabulous Felon, the Bloviating Blowhard.

[The Observer]

. Going on a tour of the country, speaking to Wackadooster groups everywhere, explaining why every Cracking the Code defeat is seen as a victory and soliciting donations from the Crackheads.

Fixed it for you.

[webhick]

E. Screaming her fool head off about double-jeopardy.

[.]

I wonder if it's crossed her mind yet that she might avoid a re-trial and conviction and prison time simply by filing accurate returns and apologizing. Might result in a divorce, but that's probably a good thing.

Surely, the feds have bigger tax-miscreant fish to fry than PH or any of his pitiful, mostly impecunious sycophants. They might well be perfectly happy to entertain some sort of nolo plea with certain undertakings as to future behavior and minor sanctions, just to be rid of her.

If she ever signs another frivolous return, they can go whole hog and throw every book they have at her, and she'd deserve every year in the jug she'd get.

[AndyK]

...
Surely, the feds have bigger tax-miscreant fish to fry than PH or any of his pitiful, mostly impecunious sycophants. They might well be perfectly happy to entertain some sort of nolo plea with certain undertakings as to future behavior and minor sanctions, just to be rid of her.
...

She's high-profile enough to go after. Plus, the trial is for criminal contempt. Failing to follow up on a Court's contempt citation could piss off judges who feel they're being ignored.

[Famspear]

Doreen Hendrickson's retrial on criminal contempt is set to begin Monday, July 21. The case is United States v. Doreen Hendrickson, case no. 2:13-cr-20371-VAR-LJM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

A recent Court order in this case, from last Wednesday:

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM FILING FURTHER MOTIONS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT

The Court DENIES Hendrickson’s motion to dismiss for failure to charge a crime. Hendrickson says that listing her two alleged violations of Judge Edmond’s Order on an indictment for only one contempt count does not charge a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) but is tantamount to creating a new crime of “general contempt.” The Court should then, Hendrickson argues, dismiss the claim under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B) because it would have no jurisdiction over any “general contempt” crime. She also claims that listing two violations for only one count of contempt lowers the government’s burden of proof.

This indictment charges her under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) and does not create a different crime.

The Court rejected Hendrickson’s many other challenges to the sufficiency or wording of the indictment. See Dkt. ## 25, 27, 77, and 78. After this latest filing, the Court finds it necessary to prohibit Hendrickson from filing any more motions without first seeking leave of the Court.

IT IS ORDERED.

July 16, 2014 [docket entry 95]

And this, from Friday:

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (DOC. ## 82, 83, and 84) AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE ON PREJUDICIAL REFERENCES (DOC. # 85)

Doreen Hendrickson is charged with one count of criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) for failing to comply with a court order entered by Judge Edmunds in a 2007 civil action. Judge Edmunds found Hendrickson liable for filing false tax returns for the years 2003 and 2004; Hendrickson reported zero income for those years allegedly because she believed she was not subject to federal taxation. Judge Edmunds ordered her to stop filing false tax returns.

The Government alleges that in 2009 Hendrickson again filed a false tax return; she reported zero income on her 2008 tax filing. Now, Hendrickson has filed four motions in limine (1) to preclude the presentation of any “information returns” documents, such as Forms W-2 and 1099, except under certain conditions; (2) to prevent the presence of IRS personnel at the prosecution table but allow her husband at the defense table; (3) to exclude jurors being paid by the federal government for cause; and (4) to remove references to earlier incidents from different documents that will be presented to the jury because the incidents prejudicial and irrelevant.

The Court DENIES Hendrickson’s motion to bar W-2 and 1099 forms. (Doc. # 82.) The four W-2 and 1099 Forms meet the hearsay exceptions in Fed. R. Evid. 803 for business records, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), and public records, Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). Additionally, Hendrickson has no Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the W-2s and 1099s were prepared in the regular course of business not for litigation and are non-testimonial documents. See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 324, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2539-40, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2009) (stating that “business and public records are generally admissible absent confrontation not because they qualify under an exception to the hearsay rules but because—having been created for the administration of an entity's affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial—they are not testimonial”).

The Court DENIES Hendrickson’s motion to prevent IRS personnel from sitting at counsel table and to allow her husband to sit with her. (Doc. # 83.) Allowing case agents to sit at the prosecution table is “virtually universal practice.” United States v. Cox, 459 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1972). The Court does not see how the IRS official’s presence will result in confusion or prejudice. Further, the contempt charge involves failure to pay taxes and the IRS agent can assist in presenting the government’s IRS specific evidence.

Also, a defendant has no “Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of non-lawyer friends” but the Court can exercise its discretion in allowing such assistance. United States v. Perry, 802 F.2d 460 (6th Cir. 1986). The Court is not convinced that Mr. Hendrickson has any “legal or technical” expertise or that his familiarity with the underlying civil case necessitates his participation from the defense table. His presence at the first trial shows he would most likely serve as a distraction and Mrs. Hendrickson had plenty of time to prepare her case....

Hold it right there. Obviously, I agree with the Court's observation about Peter Hendrickson's lack of legal or technical expertise. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the government can have non-lawyer assistance before the bar while the defendant is not allowed such, um "assistance" (granted, Pete would be of little assistance to Doreen, and the judge is arguably doing a favor for Doreen).

The Court's order continues:

.....The Court DENIES Hendrickson’s motion to excuse any prospective juror with financial “connections” to the government. (Doc. # 84.) Courts “have long rejected contentions that government employees must automatically be stricken from juries considering violations of federal laws.” United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir. 1982) (collecting cases). Voir dire will provide a chance to uncover jurors who should be excused for cause; there is no reason to create a blanket prohibition on government employees or benefit recipients....

Doreen does win a point, though:

......The Court GRANTS Hendrickson’s motion to remove prejudicial references. (Doc. # 85.) Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides, in part, that evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Unfair prejudice is “an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” United States v. Whittington, 455 F.3d 736, 739 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). But “unfair prejudice” does not include “the damage to a defendant’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence.” United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 567 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Hendrickson wants all references to her husband’s guilty plea to conspiracy to place an incendiary device in the mail and willful failure to file tax returns redacted. The references are contained in the Tax Division’s civil complaint against Hendrickson (Gov. Exh. 12 at ¶ 30) and the Sixth Circuit’s order confirming the summary judgment ruling against Hendrickson (Gov. Exh. 17 at p. 1-2). The first reference contains a paragraph-long explanation of the incident surrounding her husband’s guilty plea. It is prefaced with a sentence explaining that Hendrickson’s “improper submission of false forms and tax returns was not accidental” and that she knew and had reason to know “the positions asserted on [her] tax filings [were] false.” (Gov. Exh. 12 at ¶ 30) The second reference contains one sentence saying “Peter E. Hendrickson is a tax protester who pled guilty to reduced charges for his role in a conspiracy to place a firebomb in a post office bin as a tax protest, which resulted in injuries to a postal worker and a bystander.” (Gov. Exh. 17 at p. 1-2)

The information will be prejudicial because her husband pleaded guilty to an act of domestic terrorism. The information will only be relevant depending on the defense Hendrickson chooses to mount. The government declares the evidence relevant to rebut the “claim that she relied in good faith on her husband’s teachings in forming her own views about the tax laws.” However, the government cannot be certain what her defense will be and out of an abundance of caution the Court will require redaction. Considering the brevity of these references, redacting the documents will not be difficult or burdensome for the government.

If a defense is presented that makes the references relevant, the Court will reconsider the issue at trial.

IT IS ORDERED.

July 18, 2014 [docket entry 100]

[LPC]

The government declares the evidence [of Peter Hendrickson's convictions for conspiring to place an incendiary device in the mail and willful failure to file tax returns] relevant to rebut the “claim that she relied in good faith on her husband’s teachings in forming her own views about the tax laws.” However, the government cannot be certain what her defense will be and out of an abundance of caution the Court will require redaction. Considering the brevity of these references, redacting the documents will not be difficult or burdensome for the government.

If a defense is presented that makes the references relevant, the Court will reconsider the issue at trial.

Unless Doreen recently got a brain transplant, she's going to want to testify and, as soon as she testifies, the evidence that the court has excluded comes back in.

So, it's nice of the judge to give her the benefit of the doubt and to try to protect her from herself, but her inner lemming is sure to come through.

[Famspear]

Unless Doreen recently got a brain transplant....

"t would be such good fortune for her! Alas! 't will never be!

....her inner lemming is sure to come through.

Interesting choice of words....a bit of inspiration for....

............The Blowhard Hendrickson Cracking the Code Marketing Department!

Hey there, tax protesters and tax deniers everywhere!

Why stick yourself with the ravings of losers like Arthur Porth, Bill Benson, Irwin Schiff, Lindsey Springer, or Larken Rose.....

.....when you can stick yourself with the ravings of a loser like Peter Eric ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson....

...........get in touch with Your Inner Lemming.....

[Paths of the Sea]

...the trial is for criminal contempt.

I wonder if Kent Hovind's people are going to be watching to get some idea as to what Kent might be in for come September...if he doesn't get a delay in his criminal contempt trial.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Famspear]

Docket entry on Monday, July 21, 2014:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts: Voir Dire Held and Continued on 7/21/2014 as to Doreen M. Hendrickson Voir Dire continued to 7/22/2014 09:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts(Court Reporter: Janice Coleman) (Defendant Attorney: pro se) (AUSA: Melissa Siskind) (CPin) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

[Dr. Caligari]

Voir Dire Held and Continued on 7/21/2014 as to Doreen M. Hendrickson Voir Dire continued to 7/22/2014

They didn't finish picking a jury on the first day? Very unusual in federal court.

[notorial dissent]

Can't imagine why!!!! But I'll bet it had something to do with Doreen being as difficult as she could manage after being coached by her loving hubby.

[Dr. Caligari]

Can't imagine why!!!! But I'll bet it had something to do with Doreen being as difficult as she could manage after being coached by her loving hubby.

The reason jury selection moves so quickly in federal court, as compared to most state courts, is that a federal judge typically questions the jurors himself/herself; the lawyers can submit proposed questions in advance, in writing, but the judge doesn't have to ask them, and very few federal judges let lawyers actually ask the jury anything during voir dire. I can't imagine that the judge is letting a pro se defendant ask questions of the jurors.

[Famspear]

Over at lost horizons, user "TruthBearer" writes:

Does anyone have any news about what transpired in Doreen's trial yesterday (July 21)??? Hope that somebody who attended the trial will think to report what went on..... I'm intensely curious about it all, and I'm sure there are many others wondering the same thing. For instance, is Doreen using an attorney? If so, who? What procedural games are being played by judge and prosecutors this time around? Who is on the jury? Etc....

"JHV" puts two cents worth in:

Don't forget that last time around the kangaroo court took four days to try to get 12 zombies to convict.

And "Homie" (who according to some posters there is a sockpuppet for the paranoid Harvester-Noah-Nationwide-Libre-johnthetaxist-johnnycash etc.):

As Hendrickson's loudest critic, Famspear shirley haz all details. Just havta wait for his personas to respond.

And BrainySmurf76" writes:

Perhaps the verdict isn't in. Or Peter is waiting a bit. As far as people there, last I inquired about the trial in November, maybe 3 were in attendance. Sad considering all who've been helped from Peters work, especially those in Michigan and northern Indiana and Ohio. Maybe Detroit brings to mind a wasteland, that could keep many away.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 530#p31530

Oh, boo-hoo!

[Famspear]

Something just occurred to me. Is it still DOJ policy that a federal tax prosecution has to be authorized by the DOJ in Washington?

I ask because I'm curious as to how this criminal contempt case against Doreen got started. Technically, it's not a tax prosecution. So, was approval in Washington requested?

[Famspear]

Now, someone has posted the following in the losthorizons thread, under a brand new account under the user name "Countryboy":

Since no one else has responded, I'll share what little I know in regards to Monday's events.

The trial didn't actually get underway on Monday. The day was spent dealing with pre-trial motions and jury selection.

There were pre-trial motions from the Prosecutor asking the judge to prohibit Doreen from making claims that she made during the opening statements of her October 2013 trial.

The Prosecution also introduced 300 pages of new witness testimony that Pete and Doreen have never seen before. If the trial had actually gotten started when this new testimony was introduced, they could have gotten a delay to give them the opportunity to review the 300 pages. As it is, I suspect they spent all night last night reading the 300 pages.

As of the end of Monday, the Prosecution could still strike 2 potential jurors and Doreen still had one strike left, so the trial should have gotten underway today.

Some potential jurors were asked if they disliked the government or any of its extensions. Some potential jurors admitted they disliked the government...and the Prosecution used their strikes to make sure those people didn't end up on the jury. I guess those jurors never learned to keep their mouth shut if they dislike the government. If you dislike the government, use jury nullification to voice your disapproval when your say actually has the power to change things.

I'll post more as I get more info.

[Famspear]

Docket entry on Tuesday, July 22, 2014:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts: Jury Trial Held and Continued as to Doreen M. Hendrickson on 7/22/2014. Jury Trial set for 7/23/2014 09:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts(Court Reporter: Janice Coleman) (AUSA: Melissa Siskind) (Defendant Pro Se) (CPin) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

[Famspear]

Oh, wait. There are two docket entries for today. The one posted above is the second one posted today (Tuesday, July 22). Here's the first one:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts: Voir Dire Held and Concluded and Jury Impaneled on 7/22/2014 as to Doreen M. HendricksonCourt Reporter: Janice Coleman (AUSA: Melissa Siskind) (Defendant Pro se) (CPin) (Entered: 07/22/2014)