Doreen Hendrickson Retrial Set for July 21, 2014

[ArthurWankspittle]

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.

This situation is, I believe, avoided in the UK by allowing the revenue to make their own assessment and not forcing the taxpayer into making a return. Revenue says taxpayer owes £xx,000 ; taxpayer says they owe £0. Court (Tax Tribunal? Not a court but decisions have similar weight in law.) says the taxpayer owes the revenue £yy,000, end of case. That's the figure, go away and pay it. No appeals. No need to have a form signed by the taxpayer, willingly or otherwise. (I think my info is out of date but the principle remains.)

[Famspear]

.....No need to have a form signed by the taxpayer, willingly or otherwise.....

There also is no need, in the case of the U.S. federal income tax, to have a form signed by the taxpayer. Indeed, there is no need for the government to "file" a return on behalf of the taxpayer (although the government can do so if it wishes). If the taxpayer refuses to file a return, the Internal Revenue Service can simply compute the amount that the IRS contends is the correct tax, and then send a statutory notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer fails to file a petition in the U.S. Tax Court within 90 days of the notice of deficiency, the IRS can then assess the tax (meaning, formally record the tax liability on its books), send the taxpayer a written "notice and demand for tax", and proceed with collection activities.

Indeed, until the taxpayer files a return, and within 3 years immediately after the taxpayer files a return, the IRS can even sue the taxpayer for collection of the tax -- without assessing the tax at all (although this approach is rare).

In the case of Doreen Hendrickson, the Court may have been rubbing Doreen's nose in her own mess by ordering her to do what she was legally obligated to do. In response, Doreen filed a false return, and made the situation that much worse for herself.

[Dr. Caligari]

In the case of Doreen Hendrickson, the Court may have been rubbing Doreen's nose in her own mess by ordering her to do what she was legally obligated to do.

That's exactly what the court did, and why I wouldn't have done it if I were the judge (I know, fat chance).

[Dr. Caligari]

i wonder what she'll get sentenced for her efforts?

If I'm not mistaken, the court can dispense with a jury in a criminal contempt case by certifying that the defendant will not be sentenced to longer than 6 months. So the fact that this was a jury trial suggests that Doreen will serve a longer sentence.

[Quixote]

.....No need to have a form signed by the taxpayer, willingly or otherwise.....

There also is no need, in the case of the U.S. federal income tax, to have a form signed by the taxpayer. Indeed, there is no need for the government to "file" a return on behalf of the taxpayer (although the government can do so if it wishes). If the taxpayer refuses to file a return, the Internal Revenue Service can simply compute the amount that the IRS contends is the correct tax, and then send a statutory notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer fails to file a petition in the U.S. Tax Court within 90 days of the notice of deficiency, the IRS can then assess the tax (meaning, formally record the tax liability on its books), send the taxpayer a written "notice and demand for tax", and proceed with collection activities.

Indeed, until the taxpayer files a return, and within 3 years immediately after the taxpayer files a return, the IRS can even sue the taxpayer for collection of the tax -- without assessing the tax at all (although this approach is rare).

In the case of Doreen Hendrickson, the Court may have been rubbing Doreen's nose in her own mess by ordering her to do what she was legally obligated to do. In response, Doreen filed a false return, and made the situation that much worse for herself.

As I recall, I mentioned that when the Court first ordered Pete and Doreen to file corrected returns. It struck me as the most expensive way to assess the correct amount of tax. I still don't understand the Court's motivation.

[LaVidaRoja]

Publicity. By ordering it, the Court had the ability to also publicize further compliance (or lack thereof) In this case, it kept the entire matter within the Court's jurisdiction. No need to worry about IRS agents, Counsel attorneys or DOJ attorneys dropping the ball and allowing Pete and Doreen to get away with trying to game the system. It may not have been the most efficient method, but I think it was the most effective in this case

[ArthurWankspittle]

Been thinking about this today and I concluded that the court was rubbing the Hendricksons' noses in it. It's a bit unnecessary but the other side of the argument is that the court is showing who is boss. If the Hendricksons want to keep trying to tell the court they know better, the court will slap them down with a few more years in jail. Signed proper return? No. Contempt of court, have 2 years in jail. Rinse and repeat until Hendricksons change their mind or die in jail.

[Famspear]

Been thinking about this today and I concluded that the court was rubbing the Hendricksons' noses in it. It's a bit unnecessary but the other side of the argument is that the court is showing who is boss. If the Hendricksons want to keep trying to tell the court they know better, the court will slap them down with a few more years in jail. Signed proper return? No. Contempt of court, have 2 years in jail. Rinse and repeat until Hendricksons change their mind or die in jail.

Yes, but consider this: If Doreen had been charged and convicted under 26 USC section 7206(1) -- willfully filing a return or other statement "under the penalties of perjury" -- she would be facing a possible maximum of three years in prison. And that -- willfully filing such a return using her husband's "Cracking the Code" tax evasion scheme (for the year 2008, I believe) -- is part of what resulted in the jury verdict against her in this criminal contempt case.

So, I am pondering: How much of a sentence will she end up with on this criminal contempt? What are the chances that the Court might give her more than three years?

I think that in the case of federal criminal contempt, the sentence is up to the Court's discretion, subject to an appeal if the defendant believes that the Court has abused its discretion.

I am pondering: What would be a reasonable sentence for Doreen in this case?

[LPC]

Been thinking about this today and I concluded that the court was rubbing the Hendricksons' noses in it.

Except that it wasn't the court's decision to prosecute for criminal contempt, it was the US Attorney's decision.

I think that judges can sometime suggest or refer cases to the US Attorney, but ultimately the decision as to whether to indict and prosecute lies with the prosecutor, and not the court.

[.]

What would be a reasonable sentence for Doreen in this case?

I suspect that the court will be constrained by the federal sentencing guidelines as if it were a 7206 conviction.

[.]

I think that judges can sometime suggest or refer cases to the US Attorney, but ultimately the decision as to whether to indict and prosecute lies with the prosecutor, and not the court.

As far as I can tell, that's exactly what happened. Obviously, if a federal judge refers a case some stuff is likely to roll downhill, but it's still the USA's call whether or not to proceed.

[wserra]

What would be a reasonable sentence for Doreen in this case?

I suspect that the court will be constrained by the federal sentencing guidelines as if it were a 7206 conviction.

On the money. Although I don't think the Supremes have ruled on it, several circuits have directed sentencing judges to apply a "most analogous crime" analysis to a criminal contempt conviction. See, for example, United States v. Papadakis, 802 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1986).

[AndyK]

SARCASM MODE INVOKED

The fairest sentence would be for the judge to allow Pete and Doreen to continue with their "no federal privilege" theory, but to invoke it to the absolute limit.

P&D should be sentenced to life without access to any federal privilege:

No airline travel
No television or radio
No travel on any federally-funded highway.
Forbidden to own or operate any motor vehicle which incorporates any of the NTSB researched / mandated safety features (perhaps a Corvair without seat belts?)
No more access to any medication or food tested and/or monitored by FDA or Agriculture
No use of checks or electronic funds transfers
No cell phones or use of any satellite-linked long distance service (like ALL of them -- INCLUDING the Internet)


In other words, P&D would have to revert to subsistence farming operating on a strictly cash basis with almost no contact with the outside world.

BUT, they wouldn't have to pay any taxes. VICTORY

END SARCASM MODE

[JamesVincent]

On the money. Although I don't think the Supremes have ruled on it, several circuits have directed sentencing judges to apply a "most analogous crime" analysis to a criminal contempt conviction. See, for example, United States v. Papadakis, 802 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1986).

But if memory serves a criminal contempt is not a one shot charge. If she is sentenced this time for contempt the underlying, original order is still in effect. Therefor she could very well serve her two years, be released, still refuse to do what the order says, and find herself right back in court again under another contempt charge, yes? I think maybe that is the reasoning behind using a show cause and not just charging her with a code violation, since we all know how well the Hendricksons have complied with court orders. In essence she, or he, could be doing this for the rest of their lives, in jail for 2 years (or whatever sentence they hand down), out for 2 years (long enough to screw up, get charged and go to trial), go right back to jail again, could they not?

[LPC]

But if memory serves a criminal contempt is not a one shot charge. If she is sentenced this time for contempt the underlying, original order is still in effect. Therefor she could very well serve her two years, be released, still refuse to do what the order says, and find herself right back in court again under another contempt charge, yes?

The same could be said of tax crimes in general.

Each tax year is a separate matter, so every year you fail to file a return (or file a false return) is a separate offense. You can be tried and convicted of failing to file, be released, still refuse to file a return, and find yourself right back in court for another willful failure to file charge.

And what I said before about the US Attorney being the one to decide whether to prosecute criminal contempts isn't true in all cases. A judge can punish criminal contempts committed in his or her presence. (That's what happened during the Irwin Schiff trial.) But Doreen committed her contempt out of the presence of the judge, so it was a matter for the US Attorney to decide whether to prosecute.

And I also have to say that I'm not sure that Doreen's prosecution was a good use of prosecutorial and judicial resources. As a judge once said years ago, a horse thief is not hanged because a horse is stolen, but so that horses are not stolen. In other words, it's all about deterrence. In Doreen's case, you can't deter her because she's a mindless bimbo. And deterring others doesn't make a lot of sense because criminal contempt is such an odd thing that it's not going to get a lot of resonance.

What I suspect tipped the scales (so to speak) is the freaking LH website. Doreen's lesser half continues to nurture and encourage other nutjobs, and I think that the prosecutor decided that he had to make an example of Doreen. It's not a great example, but it was an example that (in the mind of the US Atty) had to be made.

Or PH and DH annoyed the US Atty enough to merit what a friend of mine who worked for a DA once described as "special handling."

But I don't think I would have made the same decision. I think I would have spent the resources on civil remedies, making sure that all taxes and penalties were collected. The deterrence is still there, but there's less of the odor of prosecutorial excess.

[LPC]

My very own thread on LH has degenerated into a p**sing contest between competing trolls.

[notorial dissent]

While I agree with most of what you've said here, I rather suspect it is a case of "PH and DH annoyed the US Atty enough", actually I suspect they annoyed him a great deal, Pete is such a wonderful individual after all, that and that they are both so unremittingly stupid that even whacking them between the eyes with a 2x4 isn't likely to accomplish much. Another factor that may well have played a factor is that I really don't see where or how they are ever actually going to get the taxes owed, let alone the penalties since I don't see Pete as ever being a big earner ever again, and I wasn't aware that Doreen was working at this point.

[wserra]

My very own thread on LH has degenerated into a p**sing contest between competing trolls.

Doesn't "degenerated" imply that it was once at a higher level? After all, the first post began "some pond scum, calling himself Dan Evans".

You're at least lake scum.

[Duke2Earl]

I think Ms. Hendrickson and indeed Mr. Hovind are hopefully learning something that I have known a long time. And that is, that it is a very bad idea to piss off federal persecutors. In both cases it is debatable whether limited federal prosecutorial time is being well used but they have brought their troubles on themselves. Unfortunately, both have been demonstrated to be slow learners.

[Famspear]

.....Unfortunately, both have been demonstrated to be slow learners.

Or, umm...... non-learners?