More threats against judges

[Demosthenes]

chicagotribune.com
U.S. accuses man of threatening judge
By Wendy E. Normandy
Special to the Tribune
December 21, 2007

A former Chicago-area man is being held in New Orleans after he sent several threatening e-mails to a federal judge in Chicago and three federal tax investigators in Washington, D.C., officials said Thursday.

According to an affidavit released this week, Michael F. Henry, 49, was arrested Dec. 14 by federal agents at his New Orleans home and was charged with two misdemeanor counts of impeding certain officers or federal employees and interfering with federal investigators "by communicating threats of force."

At his detention hearing in New Orleans Thursday, Henry, who will be prosecuted in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, was deemed a threat and a flight risk, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Greg Kennedy of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The threatening e-mails reportedly stemmed from an income tax case Henry filed against the government after he sold his Chicago-area computer company to a major corporation, said his Palos Hills-based attorney Michael Ettinger.

According to the affidavit, Henry owes the government in excess of $6 million in delinquent income taxes. Henry's lawsuit against the IRS alleges he was owed a larger refund than what the agency allowed. A verdict later found the government was not at fault in his tax case.

On Dec. 13, an attorney with the Department of Justice tax division alerted IRS agents to a threatening e-mail that Henry sent to U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan and three Justice Department attorneys on Dec. 12, according to the affidavit, which states the e-mail read in part: "I am sure it will not be hard to find a very sympathetic crowd in Chicago when the jurors are told of deleting federal records, perjury and tampering with evidence. At least one thing's for sure the trial will make daily headlines. Just think, March 1, 2008, will be the three-year Anniversary of the Killing of Judge Lefkow's Family."

The husband and elderly mother of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago were shot to death in early 2005 by a man whose malpractice lawsuit was dismissed in federal court by Lefkow.

The affidavit in the Henry case does not explain why he targeted Der-Yeghiayan.

After the unfavorable verdict against him, Henry filed several lawsuits in federal court in Chicago against various federal government agencies, accusing them of misconduct and altering and destroying documents. All of the lawsuits Henry filed were dismissed in U.S. District Court in Chicago and the last one was dismissed on Dec. 12, according to the affidavit.

In addition to the e-mails, Henry also is alleged to have faxed a brief about the dismissed lawsuit to a Department of Justice attorney. He wrote, "The next step the plaintiff has is his rights under the Second amendment of the constitution and to exercise his right to bear arms and forcibly take back his property from various government employees who participated in the violation of the plaintiff's rights and the illegal seizure of the plaintiff's assets," according to the affidavit.

Ettinger said a court-appointed psychiatrist examined Henry, who once lived in the Orland Park area, before his detention hearing and found that he did not pose a threat to himself or the community.

The judge ordered that Henry be held without bail and remain in federal custody until his next hearing on Thursday, Ettinger said.

[LPC]

We had a thread on Mr. Henry back in March, and my summation of the situation was as follows:

I did some background research once before on Henry, because he's come up before (not sure why or when).

As near as I can figure, he was brought in to be the CEO of a telecommunications company, and then discovered "cash flow problems," so he was asked to put up $2MM of his own money for $4MM of stock, with a non-recourse promissory note for the unpaid $2MM. It didn't do any good, because the company goes bankrupt and he's out the $2MM.

And somehow during the bankruptcy, he became personally liable for $50MM owed Cisco Systems for some switching circuits.

And then the IRS decided to audit his income tax returns and ignore the $2MM nonrecourse promissory note, giving him $2MM in income when the stock was issued to him. (This position is questionable, but I don't blame the IRS for taking it, because I'm not sure that a company's security interest in its own stock has any legal or economic significance.)

I'm not sure if this guy is dumb or unlucky or both, but he's got reason to be angry with a lot of people, and it seems to have pushed him over the edge.

[Demosthenes]

He's even put out his own press release last March:

Three IRS Employees and US Attorney Sued for $9 Million Tax Fraud

Written by Michael Henry
CHICAGO, Mar 28, 2007 -- /prbuzz/ --- High-profile United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's office is defending three employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Attorney Lynne Murphy for their part in a purported $9 million tax fraud. They have been sued in the Northern District of Illinois for allegedly fabricating and falsifying IRS tax records.
According to the suit, one Michael Henry purchased $8 million of stock in American Metrocomm Communications, by paying $2 million cash and giving the company a non-recourse note in the amount of $6 million. Under current tax law, and as upheld in the landmark case of Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 1047(1947), a non-recourse debt is treated as a recourse debt for tax purposes. However, according to the suit Ms. Murphy (following the orders of her supervisor Michael J. Kearns and Eileen J. O'Connor, the Assistant Attorney General) instructed the IRS employees to ignore this ruling, as well as Commissioner v. Tufts, 461 U.S. 300(1983), and enter fraudulent information into the IRS computers showing Henry earning, instead of owing, $6 million. This caused the IRS system to erroneously create a deficiency notice for insufficient tax payments in excess of $9 million.
Henry has sued the United States Department of Justice, the IRS and all individuals involved, for fabricating and falsifying this deficiency notice and for ignoring the Supreme Court rulings. Based on the evidence that the IRS claims it has in its possession Goldman Sachs, Cisco Systems and Henry Paulsen along with the IRS and the U.S. Government withheld records and evidence in the Delaware bankruptcy filing of American Metrocomm Corporation. Henry is claiming civil damages for legal malpractice, bankruptcy fraud and damages against the government and its individual employees for creating and falsifying government tax records and for withholding documents from the bankruptcy court.

However, Ms. Murphy maintains that a U.S. attorney can commit fraud and ignore Supreme Court rulings while working for the U.S. Government, because the U.S. Government and its employees are immune to lawsuits under so-called “sovereign immunity.” In the meantime, Ms. Murphy continues to work on tax-related cases.

The Honorable David Coar has been assigned the case (06-C7087).
Any questions can be addressed to Michael Henry at 312-560-5291.

SOURCE Michael F. Henry -

[SteveSy]

Is it possible that the guy has gone mental irregular and should be under observation somewhere?

His actions could be construed as irrational. Either that or it is a cheap-jack attempt to avoid his fate. Either way it is a sad commentary on the man and the corner in which he has become trapped.

I am guessing his suits will end up being tossed or will come to nothing and all that will result is additional interest and penalties.

Well I would go "mental" too if I lost my ass and the IRS said I owed taxes on money I never received. Taxes being owed are so high I wouldn't have anything probably for the rest of my life not to mention interest and penalties so high any other entity would be classified as criminal and certainly identified as usury.

[Quixote]

Is it possible that the guy has gone mental irregular and should be under observation somewhere?

His actions could be construed as irrational. Either that or it is a cheap-jack attempt to avoid his fate. Either way it is a sad commentary on the man and the corner in which he has become trapped.

I am guessing his suits will end up being tossed or will come to nothing and all that will result is additional interest and penalties.

Well I would go "mental" too if I lost my ass and the IRS said I owed taxes on money I never received. Taxes being owed are so high I wouldn't have anything probably for the rest of my life not to mention interest and penalties so high any other entity would be classified as criminal and certainly identified as usury.

And if the IRS were wrong, the Tax Court would have set them straight. Did Henry even file a petition?

[The Observer]

And if the IRS were wrong, the Tax Court would have set them straight. Did Henry even file a petition?

[sarcasm]Tax Court set them straight? Don't you know that all federal judges are obligated to interpret the law the way the IRS interprets it? After all, it is the IRS that pays their salaries![/sarcasm]

[LPC]

And if the IRS were wrong, the Tax Court would have set them straight. Did Henry even file a petition?

It's possible he did.

There's a Tax Court docket No. 020518-04 in the name of "Michael Henry" that was filed pro se on 10/25/2004, which looks to be consistent with the chronology as I understand it. But it was filed without any fee paid and was dismissed on 2/9/2005 by the court sua sponte.

Henry filed for a refund of $791,650 for the year 1999 in federal district court (E.D. La. No. 02-0968) in 2002. He filed pro se and, as a result, the complaint goes on for 27 pages, detailing all of his communications with incompetent or corrupt IRS employees without ever actually explaining why he thought he was entitled to a refund. However, he cited a case, Steadman v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 369 (1968), affd. 424 F.2d 1 (C.A. 6, 1970), certiorari denied 400 U.S. 869 (1970), which leads me to believe that he was claiming a deduction (and not a capital loss) for stock that became worthless in 1999.

From the complaint he later filed against IRS employees in the Northern District of Illinois, No. 06C-7087, it appears that the IRS only issued the notice of deficiency after looking at the documentation Henry produced as part of his refund suit. In other words, the IRS never audited his return and never realized that he had paid only $2 million for $8 million of stock until Henry told them.

So Henry is not a schlimazel, but a schlemiel. (Have I said that before?)

[grixit]

Nah, just attempted to get a handout from Leo Rosten once.