Back to jail for Doreen Hendrickson

[jcolvin2]

On October 18, 2017, with the consent of the government, the court extended the date for Doreen's self-surrender to November 29, 2017:

13-cr-20371 (Docket Entry #173)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 13-20371
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
DOREEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

On October 16, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time of Self- Surrender Report Date. [Doc. 172] The Government does not object to the motion.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must self-surrender on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 to the facility designated by the Bureau of Prisons.

IT IS ORDERED.
/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: October 18, 2017

[jcolvin2]

On October 20, the Court warned Doreen that it may construe her motion as a Motion as a 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion. If Doreen had any other potential valid habeas claims, construing her motion as a section 2255 claim could have disadvantages.

The court's order (Docket #175):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-20371
v.
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
DOREEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
NOTICE OF ABILITY TO CONSTRUE "MOTION FOR THE STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE, THE VACATING OF HER CONVICTION, AND OTHER RELIEF" [Doc.#169] AS A MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

I. Introduction

Doreen Hendrickson (“Hendrickson”) filed a pro se “Motion for the Stay of Execution of Sentence, the Vacating of Her Conviction, and Other Relief.” [Doc. # 169]. Hendrickson claims the Court lacked jurisdiction throughout her proceedings. In response, the Government filed a “Motion for Warning to Defendant Regarding Potential Characterization of Motion as Governed by Section 2255.” [Doc. # 171].

Hendrickson responded to the Government’s motion; she filed a “Response in Opposition to the Government’s October 12 Motion for Warning.” Hendrickson acknowledges the possibility of the Court construing her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but sees no reason to withdraw or amend it. She also says it is “unnecessary” for the Court to issue any warning.

Nevertheless, the Court is obligated to notify Hendrickson that it could properly construe her motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, and gives her the opportunity to withdraw or amend it. This notice and the applicable law must come from the Court, and
not by way of Government motion.

II. Background

A jury convicted Hendrickson of felony criminal contempt. On April 9, 2015, the Court sentenced Hendrickson to eighteen months imprisonment, followed by one year of supervised release. As a condition of her release, the Court ordered:

While on supervised release, defendant is to fully cooperate with the
IRS by filing all delinquent or amended returns within 60 days of the
release on supervision and to timely file all future returns that come due during the term of supervised release. On these returns defendant shall not alter the jurats, add disclaimers, or otherwise make it impossible for the IRS to properly process them and they cannot be based on any theory contained in Cracking the Code.

Twice, in April 2015 and in September 2016, Hendrickson filed a motion to modify the conditions of her supervised release. The Court denied both motions. As of September 8, 2017, Hendrickson had not filed her amended 2002 and 2003 federal income tax returns, in violation of the conditions of her supervised release. The Court subsequently sentenced her to four months in prison with no supervised release to follow.

Hendrickson filed the pending motion, indicating that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and (6), she requests the Court to vacate her conviction due to the Court’s lack of jurisdiction over her proceedings. Specifically, she claims that by compelling her to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003, the Court and the Government violated 26 U.S.C. § 7206, which criminalizes any effort to procure tax returns if the signer believes any material thing on the returns is false. Hendrickson argues that because it was illegal for the Government to seek and for the Court to issue the order, the Court lacks jurisdiction. She also requests that the Court stay the execution of the sentence it imposed on September 8, 2017 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b)(4).

The Government requests that the Court warn Hendrickson that: 1) her motion may be recharacterized as a § 2255 motion; 2) if she wishes to proceed, such a recharacterization may mean that any subsequent or successive § 2255 motions may be subject to restrictions; and 3) if she fails to include all of her claims in an initial § 2255 motion, she may lose other claims if she tries to assert them in later § 2255 motions. The Government also asks the Court to inform Hendrickson that she may withdraw her motion, or amend it to include all claims she believes she has.

III. Analysis

A prisoner sentenced by a federal court may “move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence” when “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Many pro se defendants file post-conviction motions without specifying the legal basis for the relief sought. In re Shelton, 295 F.3d 620, 621 (6th Cir. 2002). “District courts, in an effort to assist pro se litigants unaware of the applicable statutory framework, often re-characterize such filings as § 2255 motions.” Id.

However, before the Court can recharacterize a pro se petitioner’s motion as a § 2255 petition, it must give the petitioner notice and the opportunity for withdrawal. In re Shelton, 295 F.3d at 622. The Court must also “warn the litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on ‘second or successive’ motions, and provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all the § 2255 claims [s]he believes [s]he has.” Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). If the Court fails to do this, the motion will not be considered a § 2255 motion, and the restrictions of subsequent motions will not apply to later motions the petitioner may file. Id.

Hendrickson does not characterize her motion as a § 2255 one. However, Hendrickson requests that her conviction be vacated, or that her sentence be stayed because the Court lacks jurisdiction over her proceedings. This is the type of relief available under § 2255. Accordingly, the Court can construe the motion as one filed under § 2255. See In re Shelton, 295 F.3d at 621 (where the district court construed the defendant’s “motion to dismiss for lack of territorial jurisdiction” as a § 2255 motion).

To fulfill its duty, the Court notifies Hendrickson that it could rightfully construe her motion to be a § 2255 motion. The Court gives Hendrickson the opportunity to withdraw, or amend her motion to include any and all § 2255 claims she believes she has. If Hendrickson does not choose to withdraw her motion, then upon such recharacterization as a § 2255 motion, it is subject to the restrictions on subsequent or successive § 2255 motions. If she chooses to proceed with her motion as filed, then she may lose other claims she may try to assert in a later § 2255 motion.

By November 3, 2017, Defendant may either withdraw the motion or file an amended motion under § 2255. If nothing is filed by November 3, 2017, the Court will issue an order formally construing the motion as a § 2255 motion. If that order issues, the Government must respond to Hendrickson’s motion in the normal course.

IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: October 20, 2017

[jcolvin2]

On November 8, 2017, the court officially construed Doreen's motion as a section 2255 motion, and provided a briefing schedule. The text of docket entry 176 provides the following:

Notice Construing 169 "Motion for the Stay of Execution of Sentence, The Vacating of Her Conviction, and Other Relief" as a Motion Under 28 U.S.C., §2255 and Setting Briefing Scheduling. Response due by 12/6/2017; Reply due by 1/3/2018. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

On November 14, 2017, Doreen filed a motion to extend the time for self-reporting to January 28, 2018:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOREEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
Case No. 13-cr-20371
Judge Victoria A. Roberts

DOREEN HENDRICKSON'S SECOND MOTION FOR THE
ENLARGEMENT OF HER SELF -SURRENDER REPORT DATE

On October 10, 2017, Doreen Hendrickson filed a Motion to Vacate and for Stay of Execution of her pending sentence of four months of incarceration until final disposition of her motion. On October 12, 2017 the Court issued a scheduling order calling for a government Response by October 24, 2017 and Mrs. Hendrickson's Reply on October 31. At that time, Mrs. Hendrickson was due to self-surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on October 31, meaning that she would be unable to have a full and proper opportunity to formulate her Reply, would be unavailable for any subsequent hearing on her motion, and that in effect her motion would, in part at least, be automatically denied simply by virtue of the existing schedule. On the same day, October 12, the government Moved the Court for a warning to Mrs. Hendrickson that her motion might be construed as a § 2255 motion.

Due to the problems inherent in the then-existing schedule of events, on October 16 Mrs. Hendrickson Moved the Court for an enlargement of her self-surrender date to November 29, 2017, to which the government had no objection. On October 18, the Court granted that motion. On October 19, Mrs. Hendrickson responded in opposition to the government's motion for a warning, indicating her understanding that her Motion might be construed by the Court as a § 2255 motion, and that nonetheless she saw no need to withdraw or amend the motion.

On October 20, the Court issued the govermnent-requested Notice that it might construe Mrs. Hendrickson's Motion as a § 2255 motion, providing that she had until November 3, 2017 to withdraw or amend the motion, which Mrs. Hendrickson has declined to do. On November 8 the Court issued a Notice that it is construing Mrs. Hendrickson's Motion as a § 2255 motion and setting a new briefing schedule providing for a government Response to Mrs. Hendrickson's Motion on December 6,2017 and Mrs. Hendrickson's Reply due January 3,2018.

As before, Mrs. Hendrickson's current self-surrender date would deny her a proper opportunity to most effectively reply to the government's response to her motion, and make it impossible for her to participate in the subsequent proceedings. In addition, Mrs. Hendrickson's current self-surrender date would effectively deny her motion at least in part without any hearing and without an actual adjudication of the motion on its merits.

Accordingly. in order to allow Mrs. Hendrickson proper time to competently Reply as well as to facilitate her participation in subsequent proceedings related to her pending Motion, Mrs. Hendrickson respectfully Moves the Court for a second enlargement of her self-surrender date to January 28,2018.

Concurrence was sought from government counsel, who indicated that the government has no objection to the requested enlargement.

Respectfully submitted this 14th day of November, 2017,

Doreen M. Hendrickson, in propria persona
232 Oriole St.
Commerce Twp., MI 48382
(248) 366-6858
doreen@losthorizons.com

[LaVidaRoja]

So, how long do you think she will be able to postpone her reporting date using these tactics?

[jcolvin2]

I'm guessing that Doreen may get one more extension, perhaps extending reporting to late March. The government does not seem gung-ho about having her locked up immediately, so the easiest thing to do is just kick the can down the road. It is rank speculation on my part, but I think that the judge will likely rule on the merits of Doreen's motion after January 28, 2018, but before the middle of March.

[Burnaby49]

What's a § 2255 motion?

[jcolvin2]

What's a § 2255 motion?

A section 2255 petition is a proceedings instituted by a defendant for relief from a federal conviction. Section 2255 essentially a statutory codification of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (aka The Great Writ). For example, defendants who believe that their attorney was incompetent and made a terrible error at trial which led to them being found guilty usually proceed in this manner to seek a new trial. (The incompetence of one's attorney cannot ordinarily be raised on direct appeal.)

When seeking relief from federal convictions, there is typically a one year statute of limitations which starts running when the conviction is final. If the section 2255 motion related to her original trial conviction, it is likely too late because the conviction was final years ago, but perhaps it relates instead to the judge's revocation of supervised release.

Because of legal limitations on second or successive section 2255 petitions imposed by statute, convicted defendants who wish to seek relief are best advised to make sure that any and all possible grounds for relief are included in their section 2255 petition. This is why the Judge cautioned Doreen that she would treat Doreen's motion as a section 2255 petition and gave Doreen an opportunity to withdraw her motion. The idea would be that Doreen might want to refile later, including additional grounds for relief if such grounds existed.

In this case, I'm not sure it makes much difference as I am unaware of any other grounds Doreen might have to seek post-conviction relief. The grounds set out by Doreen in her motion rehash the same arguments that the Hendricksons have made since they were first ordered to file amended returns.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks, a very comprehensive answer.

[jcolvin2]

Order denying Doreen's motion (1/16/2018):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-20371
v.
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
DOREEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
Doreen Hendrickson (“Hendrickson”) filed a pro se “Motion for the Stay of
Execution of Sentence, the Vacating of Her Conviction, and Other Relief,” (“Motion”) on October 10, 2017. [Doc. # 169]. She requests that the Court vacate her conviction because the Court had no authority to preside over proceedings compelling Hendrickson to file false tax returns. She relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and (6).

The Court issued a notice of its ability to construe Hendrickson’s Motion as one
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court warned Hendrickson that she had until November 3, 2017 to either withdraw her Motion or file an amended motion under § 2255. [Doc. # 175]. Hendrickson did not exercise the options given to her. The Court then issued a notice that it would construe her Motion as one under § 2255. [Doc. # 176].

The Motion has been fully briefed. Hendrickson’s request for a stay is MOOT.
The balance of her motion is DENIED.

I. Introduction

In 2014, Hendrickson was tried and convicted of criminal contempt under 18
U.S.C. § 401(3) for failing to comply with an injunctive order entered by Judge Nancy Edmunds. Judge Edmunds’ order required Hendrickson – who falsely believes that only government employees are subject to tax withholdings – to file corrected tax returns for years 2002 and 2003, and to include a true account of Hendrickson’s gross income. Hendrickson was also ordered to refrain from filing false tax returns in the future. Hendrickson failed to abide by Judge Edmunds’ order, and the Government charged her with criminal contempt. As a result of Hendrickson’s conviction in this Court, Hendrickson was sentenced on April 9, 2015 to eighteen months imprisonment, followed by one year of supervised release. One condition of her release was to file all delinquent or amended tax returns.

Hendrickson filed two motions. In both, she asked the Court to modify conditions
of her supervised release. The Court denied both motions. On September 8, 2017, the Court sentenced Hendrickson to four months imprisonment for violating the conditions of her release; she failed to file 2002 and 2003 amended tax returns.

Hendrickson now claims that by compelling her to file amended tax returns for
2002 and 2003, the Court and the Government violated 26 U.S.C. § 7206, which
criminalizes any effort to procure tax returns that the signer does not believe to be true. Hendrickson says the Court acted criminally by ordering the returns and in doing so, this so called criminal conduct by the Court deprived it of jurisdiction over Hendrickson’s case. The Government argues that Hendrickson’s claim is procedurally barred and meritless.

II. Legal Standard

A federal custodial sentence may be vacated, set aside or corrected if: (1) the
sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or, (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

III. Analysis

A. Hendrickson’s Claim Is Not Procedurally Defaulted

The Government concedes in its Response that Hendrickson’s post-conviction
claim that the Court lacks jurisdiction falls within the scope of § 2255. However,
according to the Government, Hendrickson’s jurisdictional claim is procedurally barred because she waived it by not raising it on direct appeal. In her “Reply To The Purported Government Opposition To Her Motion To Vacate And Other Relief” (“Reply”) [Doc. # 181], Hendrickson argues that jurisdictional claims can be raised at any time and are never waived.

Hendrickson is correct; subject matter jurisdiction, which “involves [the Court’s]
power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). Even if, as the Government claims, “[Hendrickson] did not challenge subject-matter jurisdiction on appeal, this claim is not procedurally defaulted because claims challenging subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived.” Lewis v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84925, *11 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 18, 2013). Thus, the Court can address the merits of Hendrickson’s jurisdictional challenge.

B. Hendrickson’s Jurisdictional Challenges Are Without Merit

Hendrickson claims that the amended tax returns she was ordered to file contain
false content dictated by the Government. The amended returns would have to be
submitted under the penalty of perjury. Under the terms of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2),
according to Hendrickson, any effort to procure tax returns containing terms which the signer does not believe to be true is a felony.

Hendrickson claims that it was a felony for Judge Edmunds to order her to file
false tax returns, and for this Court to enforce the condition of her supervised release requiring her to file false tax returns. Hendrickson argues that Judge Edmunds and this Court are without jurisdiction since a court does not have jurisdiction to issue an illegal order.

Hendrickson’s argument concerning Judge Edmunds’ lack of jurisdiction to order
her to file amended tax returns fails. This Court observed in a previous attack on Judge Edmunds’ order, that Judge Edmunds was not ordering Hendrickson to file false tax returns, but to obey the law. [Doc. # 135, Pg. 2]. An “order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.” United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947). Judge Edmunds’ order reached the Sixth Circuit several times, and has not been deemed unlawful by any court. Judge Edmunds had jurisdiction to order Hendrickson to file amended tax returns, and Hendrickson had a duty to abide by the order.

Moreover, Hendrickson has not cited a single case supporting her proposition
that a court cannot order a party to file tax returns. Nor has she cited any case
supporting her argument that the court commits a felony when it orders a party to file tax returns, despite that party’s belief that she is exempt from filing. In fact, such orders have been upheld. In In re Ferris, the debtors failed to comply with a Bankruptcy Court’s order to file tax returns because they believed, inter alia, that they were exempt from filing as members of a religious group. In re Ferris, 30 B.R. 746, 747-48 (Bkrtcy., N.D. Ohio Jun. 17, 1983). The court noted that “tax courts have consistently held that a person who seeks to assert an exemption from taxation, has the burden to prove that he has such a right.” Id. at 749. The debtors did not meet this burden, and the court held that the debtors failed to follow the court’s order. Id. at 750. Similarly, Hendrickson has offered no viable support for her claim that she is exempt from filing amended tax
returns as required.

Further, Hendrickson’s argument that this Court has no jurisdiction to enforce
Judge Edmunds’ order fails. “The federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction to hear federal criminal prosecutions comes from 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which grants the district courts of the United States original jurisdiction of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” McMillan v. Pearson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41289, *8 (W.D. Tenn. Jun. 5, 2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Hendrickson was found guilty of criminal contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), an offense against the United States. The Court had jurisdiction to preside over the proceedings and to sentence Hendrickson for criminally failing to file amended tax returns, in violation of a condition of her supervised release.

IV. Conclusion

Hendrickson’s Motion is yet another in a series of never-ending attempts to not
file tax returns. Again, the Court is not persuaded by her arguments. Hendrickson fails to demonstrate that the Court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence on her and enforce conditions of supervised release.

Hendrickson’s motion to vacate her sentence is DENIED. Hendrickson’s request
for a stay of the execution of her sentence is MOOT.

IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: January 16, 2018

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Doreen Hendrickson by electronic means or
U.S. Mail on January 16, 2018.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

[jcolvin2]

Order denying certificate of appealability (1/24/2018):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No: 13-20371
v Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
DOREEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FOR ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE (Doc. # 182)

On January 16, 2018, this Court issued an order (“Order”) (Doc. # 182) denying
Doreen Hendrickson’s (“Hendrickson”) motion to vacate sentence brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. # 169). For the reasons stated below, a certificate of appealability is DENIED

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Hendrickson may not proceed on appeal unless she first obtains a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. Proc. 22(b). Such a certificate may be issued only upon a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

To demonstrate this denial, the applicant is required to show that reasonable
jurists could debate whether, or agree that, the petition or motion to vacate sentence “should have been resolved in a different manner, or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). When a district court rejects a petitioner’s constitutional claims on the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong. Id.

II. ANALYSIS

Hendrickson was tried and convicted of criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. §
401(3) for failing to comply with an injunctive order entered by Judge Nancy Edmunds. The Court sentenced Hendrickson to eighteen months imprisonment, followed by one year of supervised release. One condition of her release was to file all delinquent or amended tax returns. She subsequently failed to file these returns, so the Court sentenced Hendrickson to four months imprisonment for violating the conditions of her release.

Hendrickson filed a motion to vacate her sentence, arguing that the Court acted
criminally by ordering her to file amended tax returns and in doing so, was deprived of jurisdiction over Hendrickson’s case. The Court denied this motion on its merits, finding that no court had ruled it unlawful for Judge Edmunds to order Hendrickson to file amended returns, and that it had jurisdiction over Hendrickson’s criminal proceedings stemming from her failure to comply with the conditions of her supervised release.

A court may not issue certificate of appealability unless “the [petitioner] has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Cooey v. Coyle, 289 F.3d 882, 887 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order, the Court will deny Hendrickson a certificate of appealability. She has failed to make a substantial showing that she was deprived of any constitutional rights.

III. CONCLUSION

As the Court noted it its Order, Hendrickson’s motion was another attempt to
evade her legal duties to file tax returns. Hendrickson is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, because the issues presented in her § 2255 motion are not debatable amongst jurists of reason, courts would not resolve these issues differently, and the questions presented do not deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Carter v. United States, 160 F. Supp. 2d 805, 816 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
The Court DENIES Hendrickson a certificate of appealability.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: January 24, 2018

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Doreen Hendrickson by electronic means or
U.S. Mail on January 24, 2018.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

[jcolvin2]

Order denying motion for reconsideration (1/30/2018):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs DOREEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant Doreen Hendrickson filed a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 184].

Defendant’s motion presents the same issues already ruled on by the Court. Further, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled. L.R. 7(g)(3).

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: January 30, 2018

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Doreen Hendrickson by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on January 30, 2018.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

[jcolvin2]

The BOP inmate locator shows Doreen Hendrickson is at FPC Alderson (a prison camp in West Virginia), with a projected release date of May 26, 2018:

DOREEN M HENDRICKSON
Register Number: 48564-039
Age: 63
Race: White
Sex: Female
Located at: Alderson FPC
Release Date: 05/26/2018

[LaVidaRoja]

Overs/unders on her actually getting released in May?

[jcolvin2]

Overs/unders on her actually getting released in May?

Doreen almost certainly will be released in late May. I think the sentence upon revocation of supervised release was four months. If she went in on in late January as scheduled, May 26 would be about the right time for release. Because the sentence is less than one year, there is no "good time" which might shorten the duration of the sentence. I think Doreen would have to assault a guard or commit some other federal offense to warrant an extended stay.

[Pottapaug1938]

Perhaps we should discuss the over/under on how soon Doreen will be back at the Graybar Hotel. My money is on her "reoffending".

[Famspear]

Perhaps we should discuss the over/under on how soon Doreen will be back at the Graybar Hotel. My money is on her "reoffending".

I like to look on the positive side. While she's in prison, it's harder for her to be out stealing bomb making materials from schools. It is also harder for her get pulled over by the police while driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of 0.30, and being tasered for resisting the police who pull her over.

Considering her criminal record and the fact that her husband is a convicted felon, maybe they just don't make enough income to need to file Federal income tax returns any more. And, wouldn't it be great if the taxpayers of America ended up having to support both of these deadbeats for the rest of their lives?

What a glorious past this woman has! Let us once more salute this Calamitous Couple: both Dolorous Doreen and her Fabulous Felon -- the Preposterous, Pontificating, Prevaricating Peter!



http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

[Burnaby49]

Pah! Small time amateur theatre. The clear winners of the Sovereign Follies Spousal Lifetime Achievement Award (drumroll please!!!!) ) are the now tragically torn apart Ed Brown and his idiot wife Elaine.

[notorial dissent]

OK. I have a question, this is her contempt sentence. As I understand it, she is STILL in contempt for not having filed the return(s), YES???? If so, is she going to get to repeat this little exercise until she does?

[jcolvin2]

OK. I have a question, this is her contempt sentence. As I understand it, she is STILL in contempt for not having filed the return(s), YES???? If so, is she going to get to repeat this little exercise until she does?

Doreen was sentenced for contempt. One of the conditions of her supervised release (the probationary type period that follows a custodial sentence) was that she file correct 2002 and 2003 returns within 60 days of her release from custody. If someone violates the conditions of supervised release, Probation can request that the defendant be sent back to prison for a period of time (usually no longer than the max for the crime of conviction), and there are sentencing guidelines which are applicable to revocations of supervised release. In this case, the judge determined that an additional four months was appropriate. When Doreeen gets out in May, she will no longer be on supervised release at that point (as the period of release has fully run), and cannot be sent back to prison yet again for her continuing refusal to file correct 2002 and 2003 tax returns.

[mirele]

Doreen is out of prison as of Friday, May 25.

You can go to the Hendrickson website at http://losthorizons.com/IStandWithDoreen.htm#FAL for the latest.

Or you could listen to Rudy Davis talk about it. Your choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pc40mnxNgM

Isn't there another trial coming up for Pete and Doreen?