Doreen Hendrickson Retrial Set for July 21, 2014

[LPC]

If we see any reactions at all, the reactions we'll see at losthorizons will be similar to the reactions Galvani saw when he applied electricity to frog legs.

[Dr. Caligari]

The reaction is exactly what you would expect:

Well, that is disappointing to say the least. The legal system has fallen so far from it's common sense roots and is on the verge, if it is not already there, of being totally corrupted.

[notorial dissent]

That was fast.

Now we wait for the reactions over at losthorizons?

Stunned silence. Denial. Avoiding the issue as long as they can, la, la, la, this didn't really happen. The inevitable filings of further gibberish documents. And finally the standard "the courts are corrupt" diatribe he ultimately falls back on when he has lost and doesn't have any other viable excuses.

I really don't think that considering what had to have been presented, that there was really much for the jury to argue about in this one. The court issued an order, and she and hubby basically disobeyed the meat and meaning of it while pretending to follow it, and then argued about it after the fact.

[LPC]

the weblog of Hendrickson's daughter:

http://mssunshinesmoothie.blogspot.com/ ... -results=8

I decided to post some comments there, and I've drawn the attention of some of the Losers on the Horizon:

Someone, some pond scum, calling himself Dan Evans stooped so low to taunt Katie. This person, this piece of......, appears to be the same scum who makes up the laws as he sees it and is the go to source for the Quatloosers. Dan and his fellow swine are vampires who get joy from others suffering. Peters book and website is a threat to his scam business as well as others who profit from manipulating the public with their tax help schemes. Someone who taunts another man and woman's daughter is worse than an infidel. Ichabod is written upon that man. God help your soul.

It takes a big man to trash-talk where I can't respond.

(And, just to be clear, because otherwise someone might not understand, the "big man" stuff was a joke. We're actually talking "little man" here. Very little. Teensy. Maybe not even a man at all. Gerbil?)

[Jeffrey]

get joy from others suffering

I think they're not grasping the point that if they had listened to the "vampires" they wouldn't even be in trouble.

[JamesVincent]

I decided to post some comments there, and I've drawn the attention of some of the Losers on the Horizon:

While you were there did you notice who one of the members of the blog is? John the Taxist.

edit: clarify

[JamesVincent]

His comments were consistent with the information on his web site. I was going to contact him but decided that he is too far gone to be wasting any energy on, pity the poor fool who gets him to help with anything to do with the IRS, but still a part of me would like to ask him a few questions about he IRS. Maybe tomorrow. Have to wait till my blood pressure subsides. What an idiot.Wonder if he reads anything on this site?

I'll just leave that one right there for a minute....

[grixit]

That was fast.

Now we wait for the reactions over at losthorizons?

Stunned silence. Denial. Avoiding the issue as long as they can, la, la, la, this didn't really happen. The inevitable filings of further gibberish documents. And finally the standard "the courts are corrupt" diatribe he ultimately falls back on when he has lost and doesn't have any other viable excuses.

Denial of Results
Angry Threats Against Authority
Retroactive Advice on What Should Been Done
Discouraged Followers Stop Posting
Declaration of Victory

[.]

[she] filed an additional false tax return for 2008 on which she falsely claimed that wages she earned as a movie extra were not taxable

Who knew?

Maybe their ultimate object is to have a movie made about their miserable TP lives of trying to play stupid word-games.

The narrative could include their long and unbroken string of losses, criminal and civil, at both the trial and appellate levels. Not to mention incarceration. As they continually rage against the evil IRS machine.

If they're paid for the rights to their story of narcissistic and idiotic criminality, will they file an accurate return reflecting that income? Nah, that might be meat for a sequel.

More ominously, DoJ uses the terms "false" and "falsely" (which I read to mean "fraudulent" and "fraudulently") and leaves open the distinct possibility of further criminal prosecution for post-conviction filings.

I'm not a lawyer, but it wouldn't seem logical that a conviction for criminal contempt of a court order would bar prosecution based on the underlying statute on some theory of double jeopardy. One act, but two separate offenses. There's probably some case law on that sort of thing.

In any case, this goofy saga may go on for years.

[notorial dissent]

INAL either, but it seems to me that this trial was soley about her failing to obey a lawful court order and the fact that in violating the court order she filed a fraudulent return is another matter entirely. Which to my mind means she is open to criminal prosecution at a later time for the return. I don't know if they will go ahead and charge her since hers is more a matter of stupidity than willfulness, but she may bring it down on herself if hubby helps her enough.

[operabuff]

[
More ominously, DoJ uses the terms "false" and "falsely" (which I read to mean "fraudulent" and "fraudulently") and leaves open the distinct possibility of further criminal prosecution for post-conviction filings.

You would think that false return and fraudulent return mean the same. But it's not so. A conviction under section 7206(1) is for intentionally filing a return that is false as to any material matter. But the prosecution doesn't have to establish that the false return was intended to defraud the government. So you can be convicted under section 7206(1) and still escape the civil fraud penalty. Wright v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 636 (1985). (Petitioner's lack of business acumen may have been the cause of the false statements rather than any intent to defraud. So the government's motion for summary judgment as to civil fraud based on the 7206(1) conviction was denied.)

[wserra]

I'm not a lawyer, but it wouldn't seem logical that a conviction for criminal contempt of a court order would bar prosecution based on the underlying statute on some theory of double jeopardy. One act, but two separate offenses. There's probably some case law on that sort of thing.

There is indeed, and it's not what you think. It's not the separate offenses that counts, it's different conduct. Generally speaking, a prosecution for a non-summary criminal contempt bars a subsequent prosecution by the same sovereign for the same conduct. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993). Biggest exception: Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (each crime has at least one element that other doesn't). It can get complicated.

[Duke2Earl]

Actually, this whole saga is all rather sad. I understand why people must obey court orders or be compelled to do so. However, it is hard to see exactly what has been accomplished here. I wish there was a better way, however, I do not know what that would be

[Famspear]

Actually, this whole saga is all rather sad. I understand why people must obey court orders or be compelled to do so. However, it is hard to see exactly what has been accomplished here. I wish there was a better way, however, I do not know what that would be

I have this same kind of feeling. Somehow I would have preferred it if they had prosecuted her for filing a false return rather than for criminal contempt -- and I'm not sure why; I haven't put my finger on it.

I have very little sympathy for Peter and Doreen, but I feel very sad about the rest of the family, and not just the son and daughter.

[JamesVincent]

Actually, this whole saga is all rather sad. I understand why people must obey court orders or be compelled to do so. However, it is hard to see exactly what has been accomplished here. I wish there was a better way, however, I do not know what that would be

I was told by a judge, while I was going through my divorce, that a civil or criminal contempt charge was an option to force compliance to a court order. Especially in a civil capacity where there is no penalty assigned. Like failure to pay child support or obey a custody order. By the use of a show cause (a real one) the threat of a contempt hearing *should* be enough to get someone to comply. Sadly often the reason a show cause is issued and a contempt hearing is scheduled is that someone refuses to comply. Whatever comes after that show cause is issued is 100% up to the respondant. If you do not comply then the consequences will catch up to you, whether you believe in them or not. And if are so far down the rabbit hole that you don't believe, even after you have learned better and had your wrongs explained, then there isn't much else to do. There is no other legal option available.

[.]

Generally speaking, a prosecution for a non-summary criminal contempt bars a subsequent prosecution by the same sovereign for the same conduct.

Thanks for explaining that. Can't say I like the logic, but it is what it is. In reading a bit more about federal criminal contempt, I see that the judge has a choice. Fine or imprisonment, but not both. Too bad. Be interesting to see how that turns out. I'll guess prison.

In 2007, PH and DH were enjoined from filing false returns and ordered to file accurate returns for 2002 and 2003 and pay back the 20K+ of refunds. Instead of doing any of that, DH filed a brand spanking new false return for 2008 sometime in 2009. Pure TP hole-digging genius, that.

PH having been convicted of filing false returns for '00 and '02 through '06 is most probably, perhaps definitely clear of those 7 seven years, and DH may be clear of '02, '03 and '08 because of the contempt conviction, but that still leaves a lot of other years of returns which may be considerably less than accurate as to every material matter.

One might even guess that their interactions with the federal courts aren't yet anywhere near at an end. With two options to go after them -- criminal contempt as they're both still enjoined, or 7206(1).

The life of a TP must be so exhilarating -- one defeat after another with no end in sight.

This weighs heavily in favor of them moving on to promote their goofy ideas to masochists. You know, those who might appreciate the results more than do their current assortment of friv-penned, sanctioned, garnished, liened and levied Crackhead losers. Go after the people who think that a federal prison sentence might be great fun!

[Famspear]

....One might even guess that their interactions with the federal courts aren't yet anywhere near at an end. With two options to go after them -- criminal contempt as they're both still enjoined, or 7206(1).....

Not to mention their U.S. Tax Court case, no. 006863-14, which ummm, well, which I just mentioned.

[LPC]

Not to mention their U.S. Tax Court case, no. 006863-14, which ummm, well, which I just mentioned.

Any idea what that is about?

The lack of an "L" means it's not a collection due process case, so it's most likely a challenge to a notice of deficiency.

I wonder if the IRS issued a notice of deficiency for 2008 (the year for which Doreen filed a frivolous return)?

And will Hendrickson be able to add section 6673 Tax Court sanctions to his list of accomplishments?

Along those lines: Entertainers talk about achieving an "EGOT," which is winning Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony awards, which 12 people have been able to do. We should define a similar "grand slam" for tax deniers. Perhaps "SLIC" for Sanctions (by a court), Levy (to collect a tax), Injunction, and Conviction.

Irwin Schiff was definitely a SLIC winner, but I think that Hendrickson is missing the Levy part of the grand slam.

[Famspear]

Not to mention their U.S. Tax Court case, no. 006863-14, which ummm, well, which I just mentioned.

Any idea what that is about?

Maybe a notice of deficiency on the 2009 return?

[Dr. Caligari]

I, for one, never thought the original injunction should have included the order to file correct returns, as I believe I posted at the time. (There is an old legal maxim that equity doesn't enjoin a crime, on the theory that a criminal should get the full panoply of criminal-defense rights in a future prosecution, rather than the narrower rights of one charged with contempt.)

The court had already ordered the return of the fraudulent refunds, and put Pete and Doreen on notice of the falsity of the CTC argument. Her subsequent CTC return should have resulted in a 7206 prosecution, which would have been a slam dunk, and not have given her the right to whine about how she is being forced to swear to something she didn't believe. The fact that her first criminal contempt trial ended in a hung jury shows me that some jurors were troubled by that argument.

Having said all that, the judge did issue such an injunction, the Court of Appeals did uphold it, and she violated it, so she was properly convicted.