Hendrickson Indicted II

[Famspear]

Yesterday (24 November), Pete's attorney (Ellen Dennis) filed a Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Motions on Pete's behalf. Pete is requesting a 90 day extension, until March 10, 2009. The Motion states in part:

a. Counsel for Defendant has a prepaid vacation from December 4, 2008 through December 9, 2008, in Vieges, Puerto Rico. She also expects to be out of the office for the Thanksgiving holiday from November 26, 2008 until December 1, 2008, and out of the office for the Christmas holiday from December 24, 2008, until December 29, 2008.

The Motion also states:

b. Counsel for Defendant has not yet received discovery from the United States, although she expects to receive it by December 1, 2008.

c. This case involves complex issues of tax law and statutory construction. Counsel for Defendant needs extra time in which to develop the defense, in order to protect Defendant’s constitutional rights.

Pete's lawyer also cites various other cases that need her time and attention.

The Motion asks that the Court reschedule the dates for the Plea Agreement, Final Status Conference, and Trial.

The Motion states that the United States has agreed to the motion (item 4f of the Motion).

EDIT: The Motion also states that Pete's lawyer "is still evaluating the case" but expects "to file several motions which will be time consuming to research and draft."

[Imalawman]

b. Counsel for Defendant has not yet received discovery from the United States, although she expects to receive it by December 1, 2008.

c. This case involves complex issues of tax law and statutory construction. Counsel for Defendant needs extra time in which to develop the defense, in order to protect Defendant’s constitutional rights.

Huh? 3401 is among the simplest sections of the IRC. I wonder if the attorney has any background in tax at all. On the other hand, trying to get the judge to think there's actually a tax issue at stake could be a good strategy. But come on, "complex"? That might be a bit of stretch - even for a defense attorney.

[Lambkin]

Unless Darth Hendrickson stashed some juicy stuff in the glove box of the Death Star, he totally screwed himself by broadcasting the "Victories" along with identifying information across the known universe.

I bet there are more people who bought the book and may have used it without crowing over their victories. It seems likely that some clearly understood it was a scam and would just keep quiet. Or they are uncomfortable around the wild-eyed yaweh-lovin militant true believers.

[Dezcad]

c. This case involves complex issues of tax law and statutory construction. Counsel for Defendant needs extra time in which to develop the defense, in order to protect Defendant’s constitutional rights.

Then she should just read Blowhard's book, because it is:

. . the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted.

Or better yet, just speak with him - he knows so much about "statutory construction".....

[LPC]

c. This case involves complex issues of tax law and statutory construction. Counsel for Defendant needs extra time in which to develop the defense, in order to protect Defendant’s constitutional rights.

Huh? 3401 is among the simplest sections of the IRC.

I doubt that Hendrickson's lawyer is so silly as to believe that section 3401 (or anything else Hendrickson claims to be true) is at issue.

The Cheek defense (which is a matter of statutory construction of "willfully") can be considered a complex issue, particularly in the context of "willful blindness," which could be an issue in this case.

And in another thread I suggested that there might be a legitimate question of whether the filing of one tax return with two forms requiring signatures (i.e., Forms 1040 and 4852 filed together as one return) should be considered one "return, statement, or other document" or two for purposes of section 7206(1). I don't know the answer and haven't bothered to check, but if I were the defense lawyer I would certainly want to check it out and, if there were any doubt whatsoever, I would file a motion seeking to dismiss half of the ten counts of the indictment.

Another pre-trial issue would be the admissibility of Hendrickson's previous conviction. The US will want to introduce it as evidence of knowledge of the tax laws and supporting a finding of willfulness. The defense will try to exclude the previous conviction as prejudicial. (The defense will lose, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't try.)

[Imalawman]

And in another thread I suggested that there might be a legitimate question of whether the filing of one tax return with two forms requiring signatures (i.e., Forms 1040 and 4852 filed together as one return) should be considered one "return, statement, or other document" or two for purposes of section 7206(1). I don't know the answer and haven't bothered to check, but if I were the defense lawyer I would certainly want to check it out and, if there were any doubt whatsoever, I would file a motion seeking to dismiss half of the ten counts of the indictment.

Yeah, I think that's an issue, but it depends, to a certain extent, on how he filed. The most typical result that I saw was that there was a first a normal return filed, then amended returns with amended 4852's attached (all filed together). I suppose that he just filed one set with the documents attached. I haven't read the indictment, is he charged with 7207 then for each 4852? That might indeed be an issue. But he might be charged with 7207 for other documents that he filed, do we know for certain that the 7207 charges are for 4852s? I don't care enough to research the issue, but I could respect that argument. But that would only shave 5 years off the statutory maximum.

[Famspear]

And in another thread I suggested that there might be a legitimate question of whether the filing of one tax return with two forms requiring signatures (i.e., Forms 1040 and 4852 filed together as one return) should be considered one "return, statement, or other document" or two for purposes of section 7206(1). I don't know the answer and haven't bothered to check, but if I were the defense lawyer I would certainly want to check it out and, if there were any doubt whatsoever, I would file a motion seeking to dismiss half of the ten counts of the indictment.

Yeah, I think that's an issue, but it depends, to a certain extent, on how he filed. The most typical result that I saw was that there was a first a normal return filed, then amended returns with amended 4852's attached (all filed together). I suppose that he just filed one set with the documents attached. I haven't read the indictment, is he charged with 7207 then for each 4852? That might indeed be an issue. But he might be charged with 7207 for other documents that he filed, do we know for certain that the 7207 charges are for 4852s? I don't care enough to research the issue, but I could respect that argument. But that would only shave 5 years off the statutory maximum.

It's all 7206(1), for everything, if I recall correctly.

[ASITStands]

CaptainKickBack:

That's statuary construction not statutory.

[Gregg]

And in another thread I suggested that there might be a legitimate question of whether the filing of one tax return with two forms requiring signatures (i.e., Forms 1040 and 4852 filed together as one return) should be considered one "return, statement, or other document" or two for purposes of section 7206(1). I don't know the answer and haven't bothered to check, but if I were the defense lawyer I would certainly want to check it out and, if there were any doubt whatsoever, I would file a motion seeking to dismiss half of the ten counts of the indictment.

There is a jurat on the 1040, and another on the 4852, each jurat should be a charge, or at least that's what I would argue. The false information on the 4852 supports the false information on the 1040.
Isn't it typical for a joint return with frivolous arguments to result in 2 civil penalties?

[gezco]

Just another excuse for Demo to put off writing the alleged book.

Actually, other than the mail bomb / wearing a wire to fink on his friends bit, I don't find Hendrickson the least bit interesting.

His scheme is nothing new (just a repackaged rehash of what other dumb dumbs have tried), and his followers are too robotic to be all that entertaining. The majority of them had a different guru when they started and Pete is their fall-back position. When Pete fails, they'll just move on to the next guru.

So when is this book going to come out?

[Famspear]

By court order entered Monday, December 1, 2008, Hendrickson's trial has been re-set, to February 10, 2009.

Hendrickson was granted some delay, but not as much as he wanted.