Doreen Hendrickson Retrial Set for July 21, 2014

[Gregg]

I think what happened to Ding Dong Doreen on the stand is she didn't understand what Pete placed into evidence....

[grixit]

In the Anderson case, if they'd just been a little bit more, um, (what's the opposite of an idiot-savant?) they probably could have truly achieved their goal of putting the money out of reach, with no recourse when their "trustee" start spending it.

[Famspear]

On his website, Blowhard Hendrickson writes about Doreen's upcoming sentencing, set for December 10:

This Is All That Matters Right Now

On December 10, the good guys come together, or a final nail goes into the rule of law's coffin.

Wait a minute. Does this mean that Blowhard Pete is NOT gonna count Doreen's impending stay in jail as a "victory"?

His Haughty-ness continues:

LET IT BE SAID PLAINLY: Forcing someone to declare herself indebted to another party-- whether by court order or threat of penalty for not making such a declaration-- is not a legitimate, lawful act of any organ of the state. Instead, it is a corrupt, tyrannical act, and prohibited by the United States Constitution's speech, due process and equal protection provisions......

Heavens to Murgatroyd!

But wait! There's more!

....Compelling someone to declare her earnings on a line in the "income" section of a testimonial document like a 1040-- whether by direct command or by threat of a penalty for not doing so-- is compelling her to declare a belief that those earnings are "income" and subject to the tax....

Whoa! What tipped you off? Can't slip anything past Preposterous Pathetic Pete!

LET IT BE RECOGNIZED: If someone's earnings ARE actually subject to the tax as a matter of law, and the government is aware of them sufficiently to command their declaration on a 1040, there can be no legitimate purpose for compelling their declaration, even were doing so not Constitutionally prohibited. Such an effort to compel can only serve a government interest if those earnings ARE NOT actually subject to the tax as a matter of law.

Thank you for sharing that with us.

......Earnings actually subject to the tax are so subject whether the recipient agrees or not.....

Wow. A correct statement about the law. From Blowhard Hendrickson. I'm thinking of having this framed.

.....Compelling agreement with that fact is pointless as well as illegal. All the government needs to do is create its own return declaring the earnings to be "income" over a sworn signature-- which it is, in fact, required to do by law if the recipient of the earnings hasn't already agreed to the tax.....

No, sorry. Although section 6020(b) uses the word "shall" (which often means "must" in the Internal Revenue Code), in this particular case the courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is NOT required to create its own return for the taxpayer where the taxpayer has not filed a valid return.

Needless to say, this is both simpler, cheaper and easier than attempting to compel agreement from the recipient, and involves no Constitutional issues. (And again, it is mandated by law in any event).

Simpler, probably. Cheaper, probably. Easier, probably. Mandated by the law, nope.

Snip the rest of the rant, for now. The full rant is currently found at:

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

This, from Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, who now refers to himself as:

......possibly the most effective lawyer in history, even while never having set foot in a law school, nor ever being a card-carrying member of "the bar".....

[Dezcad]

This, from Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, who now refers to himself as:

......possibly the most effective lawyer in history, even while never having set foot in a law school, nor ever being a card-carrying member of "the bar".....

Pete must have a different definition of "effective" than I do. Maybe "effective" is just a typo.....perhaps he meant "effluent".....

[Famspear]

Pete must have a different definition of "effective" than I do. Maybe "effective" is just a typo.....perhaps he meant "effluent".....

Yes, Pete has a history of serious problems "understanding" the definitions of terms -- terms like "law," "belief," "income," "wage," "employer," "employee," "includes", and "including."

Add to that list: the terms "lawyer" and "effective."



Toward the end of his latest rant, the Fabulous Felon writes:

SO HERE'S THE THING, PEOPLE-- THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS NOW. On December 10, at 1:30 PM, in the courtroom of Victoria Roberts in the Theodore Levin Federal Building in downtown Detroit, my beautiful and good Doreen is due to be sentenced for the alleged "crime" of not letting herself be compelled to declare a belief the government wants her forced to avow, and punished for not avowing.

Be there, making yourself heard and seen, and until then, be raising one hell of a racket with journalists and the legal community-- especially organizations that profess to be "public interest". If not, don't cry to me when your turn comes.

In other words, "To any of my minions who aren't going to BE THERE for the sentencing on December 10th: screw you!".

Now there's a pep talk for you!

[The Observer]

In other words, "To any of my minions who aren't going to BE THERE for the sentencing on December 10th: screw you!".

But he is also implying that his CtC method can't possibly work unless (according to him) you have lots of people showing up and trying to intimidate the courts into not sentencing his wife.

Not that this has any chance of working at all, but Pete just doesn't seem to grasp that making such statements demonstrates that he really knows deep down CtC doesn't work. Otherwise Doreen wouldn't need a bunch of demonstrators showing up. She could just wave the CtC book at the judge and he would release her...

[Arthur Rubin]

I reminded of a MeTV commercial: Perry Mason had to pass the bar, but you shouldn't. Watch Cheers. (Cheers is on at 11 pm weekdays, followed by Perry Mason at 11:30.)

[Pottapaug1938]

In other words, "To any of my minions who aren't going to BE THERE for the sentencing on December 10th: screw you!".

But he is also implying that his CtC method can't possibly work unless (according to him) you have lots of people showing up and trying to intimidate the courts into not sentencing his wife.

Not that this has any chance of working at all, but Pete just doesn't seem to grasp that making such statements demonstrates that he really knows deep down CtC doesn't work. Otherwise Doreen wouldn't need a bunch of demonstrators showing up. She could just wave the CtC book at the judge and he would release her...

What Pete and Doreen don't know or understand about the law would fill volumes. The way I see it, Doreen has nothing left to do except nail her colors to the masthead and be more defiant than ever. If she allows the tiniest doubt to creep into her mind, the whole house of cards collapses as she realizes that she and Pete have made public and very expensive fools of themselves.

[Gregg]

If not, don't cry to me when your turn comes.

And if you followed his tax advice, your day IS coming.

[.]

Alternatively, if some dope followed CtC for a year or two or six, the dope could hire a lawyer to try to negotiate a deal to file accurate returns, pay any actual tax liability plus late payment penalties and perhaps civil fraud penalties in return for an agreement not to refer the matter to DoJ for criminal prosecution.

Given that the IRS is much more interested in prosecuting dopes who haven't recanted the nonsense (and run around the interwebs bragging about what they think they are (temporarily) getting away with) than those who realize and admit the error of their ways, it can probably be accomplished.

Admit you were wrong, file correct returns, pay up and go forth and sin no more. Beats all that plus a prison sentence when they finally get around to you.

Perhaps others here have some actual experience with such deals, whether from the IRS side or repentant-former-TP side.

[The Observer]

Alternatively, if some dope followed CtC for a year or two or six, the dope could hire a lawyer to try to negotiate a deal to file accurate returns, pay any actual tax liability plus late payment penalties and perhaps civil fraud penalties in return for an agreement not to refer the matter to DoJ for criminal prosecution.

Depends on when the dope wakes up and realizes that he or she should do it. Typcially, if the IRS at some point in the criminal investigation has determined that they have enough evidence to show that a crime was committed, it is not likely they are simply going to walk away because the TP is now sorry and wants to straighten things out. Plea bargains will be considered as an alternative typically to a full-blown prosecution. But other than that, if DOJ sees it as a case where greed and over-the-top evasion is going to get the jury's attention, I am not sure a TP will be able to walk all of that behavior back.

Of course, most TPs will never end up in the line of sight of a criminal investigation and they can certainly turn things around by filing correct returns and start paying on the owed taxes. That would stop a criminal investigation from ever starting in the first place. But if you are a Hendrickson, you are never going to consider that option.

[LPC]

Toward the end of his latest rant, the Fabulous Felon writes:

SO HERE'S THE THING, PEOPLE-- THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS NOW. On December 10, at 1:30 PM, in the courtroom of Victoria Roberts in the Theodore Levin Federal Building in downtown Detroit, my beautiful and good Doreen is due to be sentenced for the alleged "crime" of not letting herself be compelled to declare a belief the government wants her forced to avow, and punished for not avowing.

Be there, making yourself heard and seen, and until then, be raising one hell of a racket with journalists and the legal community-- especially organizations that profess to be "public interest". If not, don't cry to me when your turn comes.

As threats go, "don't cry to me when your turn comes" would be a lot more effective if Pete had ever helped, or shown any interest in, anyone else whose "turn" had come.

The "Tax Protester Dossier" for Pete shows a large number of people who followed his method and ended up with tax liabilities, fines, or jail time. Did I miss the public expressions of sympathy for them, or the offers of help for them? All I've ever seen from Pete are denials of any responsibility for any of the failures of those who screw up and don't use his teachings properly. Did I miss something?

It looks to me that, if I don't go to Doreen's sentencing and later get into tax trouble, Pete won't care. But, if I do go to Doreen's sentencing and later get into tax trouble, Pete won't care.

That's a tough choice to make.[/sarcasm]

[notorial dissent]

As I recall, isn't Pete's usual and standard response when any of his followers do an epic fail in tax court is that "They done it wrong!!!", if he even bothers to notice that is, so somehow his bleatings for sympathy for his wife, who he got in to this mess in the first place, beat rather more than a bit hollow and hypocritical.

[AndyK]

As a side note to several of the above posts, it's important to remember that the IRS does not conduct ANY criminal prosecutions.

All the IRS can do is refer cases to DoJ and request prosecution. Given that DoJ's Tax Crimes unit is understaffed and underfunded, very few of the referrals are accepted.

Actually, that's not really true. What happens is that many Criminal Tax cases never get referred to DoJ because the IRS knows they'll get 86ed. IRS Chief Counsel works closely with DoJ to select cases for prosecution. Dollar amount, novelty of the crime, number of participants, and slam-dunkability are among the factors considered.

As a matter of fact, IRS doesn't even initiate any civil tax cases. IRS responds to taxpayers' petitions in Tax Court and refers other civil prosecutions to DoJ.

[grixit]

I reminded of a MeTV commercial: Perry Mason had to pass the bar, but you shouldn't. Watch Cheers. (Cheers is on at 11 pm weekdays, followed by Perry Mason at 11:30.)

New policy: first time tax protesters get sentenced to tax school. It's like traffic school except Cliff Claven will be explaining exactly how the system works and what happens to people who try those scams in court. Sorry, it's an 8 hour event and the door is locked.

[webhick]

If not, don't cry to me when your turn comes.

Step 1: Ignore the cries of your followers as their turns come.
Step 2: When yours (or your wife's) turn comes, cry to your followers for help with a threat to withhold help.
Step 3: Hope that your followers forget step 1.
Step 4: Ignore the cries of your followers as their turns come.

I can't stop laughing.

[notorial dissent]

Rinse, repeat. Sounds like what he's done before.

[Arthur Rubin]

New policy: first time tax protesters get sentenced to tax school. It's like traffic school except Cliff Claven will be explaining exactly how the system works and what happens to people who try those scams in court. Sorry, it's an 8 hour event and the door is locked.

Cruel and unusual punishment?

[Famspear]

New policy: first time tax protesters get sentenced to tax school. It's like traffic school except Cliff Claven will be explaining exactly how the system works and what happens to people who try those scams in court. Sorry, it's an 8 hour event and the door is locked.

Cruel and unusual punishment?

Yeah, that's what I was gonna say....

[Famspear]

Currently, sentencing for Doreen Hendrickson is set for Wednesday, December 10th. Earlier today, Doreen filed her pro se “Doreen Hendrickson’s Motion for a Continuance,” which reads in part:

Doreen Hendrickson respectfully Moves the Court for a continuance of the currently-scheduled sentencing date in the above-captioned matter.

[ . . .]

Mrs. Hendrickson finds herself overwhelmed by the vagueness and intricacies of the sentencing arguments, process, considerations and calculations....

Ah, although she firmly believes she knows the federal tax law better than 99.99999% of all attorneys, CPAs and federal judges, this “sentencing” thing has "overwhelmed" her.

......Having succeeded in coming to acceptable terms with an attorney in whom she is able to repose confidence, Mrs. Hendrickson is electing to exercise her right to representation for purposes of this proceeding, as reserved in Faretta proceedings [ . . .]

However, as indicated in the letter attached as Exhibit 2, the attorney, Mr. Mark Cedrone, needs a brief period in which to properly familiarize himself with the case and prepare for a hearing [ . . . ]

If she is talking about tax lawyer Mark E. Cedrone of Philadelphia, I think that would be heavy-duty legal representation.

....Melissa Siskind, speaking for the United States, has indicated opposition to a continuance. Perhaps she sees Mrs. Hendrickson’s conundrum as an opportunity to gain an unfair advantage over an untrained and inexperienced opponent.

Ms. Siskind has possibly forgotten that when she and her co-counsel asked the Court for an eight-and-a-half month continuance for the purely personal indulgences of maternity leave and a vacation, respectively, Mrs. Hendrickson generously and courteously consented, even though she had an absolute right to thwart these requests by insisting on a speedy trial. [ . . ]

[ . . .]Mr. Wise [Andrew N. Wise, the public defender, Doreen Hendrickson’s stand by counsel] has lost Mrs. Hendrickson’s confidence and cannot fulfill that role, and on December 3, 2014, the Court refused Mrs. Hendrickson’s November 24, 2014 request to replace Mr. Wise [ . . ] Mrs. Hendrickson was therefore compelled to seek out acceptable representation on her own, has done so, and now simply needs a reasonable accommodation order to properly go forward.

Stay tuned.....