Pete Hendrickson Trial -- An Important Note

[Joey Smith]

Every year on Quatloos!, we usually have at least one high-profile criminal trial of a tax protestor promoter. We've been through the trials of Lynne Meredith, Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, etc., plus the trials of many wingnuts.

These trials are all the same:

(1) The promoters and their supporters say that the government is afraid to take them on, and that if they were so wrong why doesn't the government indict them, until they are indicted. Then they complain about being unfairly targeted.

(2) After indictment, the promoters and their supporters say that the government is afraid to actually take the case before a jury, until the trial starts. Rumblings start with among the supporters that the promoter might have missed some important point.

(3) The promoters and their supporters say that they are looking forward to trial, to proving that: "The income tax is unconstitutional!" But when the trial actually begins, the promoter doesn't even try to argue that the income tax is unconstitutional, but instead flees for the "Cheek defense" and tries to convince the jury that he or she didn't *know* that the income tax was in fact constitutional and legal. Oh, there's also the First Amendment defense -- "I can print whatever I want no matter how wrong it is."

(4) When the promoters are convicted, their supporters claim that they were railroaded -- glossing over the fact that the promoters abandoned their legal challenges to the income tax, and instead tried to skulk out on a Cheek defense which of course the jury didn't believe. The supporters will also now suddenly "realize" that the promoter was just wrong on one point, and that their next guru "has it all right" (until, of course, the guru goes through the same process).

(5) The supporters quickly forget about the promoter after conviction (who even talks about Lynne Meredith or Irwin Schiff anymore, and they were as popular as they come among tax protestors?), but instead go on to their next guru with the silver bullet.

Such as it is, and such as it will be with Pete Hendrickson. A year from now, you won't even hear his name muttered and he will have disappeared in to the federal prison system as forgotten as an Indonesian homeless person washed away in the tsunami.

Soak - Wash - Rinse - REPEAT every year ....... Pete is just this particular year's dirty laundry, and actually sort of boring as promoters go.

[fortinbras]

Your analysis is right on!

I'd add one thing: The promoters will publicly dare the govt to move against them. Then, when the govt does move, they whine that they were "targetted". (Of course they were. They made the effort to make themselves big targets.)

[notorial dissent]

I vote for conviction, with the qualification that I think he will try and cut a deal.

[LPC]

Hendrickson will be convicted for two reasons:

1. He's pleaded guilty before to willfully failing to file income tax returns, and he's filed "non-CtC" returns in the past, so a clear case can be made that he willfully violated a clear (and known) legal duty; and

2. "Cracking the Code" will be incomprehensible to the jury (after all, it's largely incomprehensible to its advocates at LH), and the jury will therefore conclude that it is a lame rationale for tax evasion and not the result of a mistake.

[fortinbras]

Probably the only deal that PH can cut - and if he doesn't do it willingly there will be a court order requiring him to do it - is provide the IRS with a list of his customers and clients.

[Imalawman]

As I see it, juries are typically less lenient to the head guru than they are the followers. Case in point - Wesley Snipes. Had Snipes been the TP guru, I think you would have seen a different result. I did not think that the Gov. had a great case for the more serious offenses in that case. The only really surprise to me in the TP criminal world was Cryer, but then again, he was a lawyer and he was smarter than the average TP. (I'd put Petey down towards the bottom, maybe slightly above Larkin Rose, but not much) In the end, that one remains a mystery. Good for him, he put on a good defense.

Given the degree of involvement with the IRS over the years, his blatant disregard for the tax laws and his obstinate demeanor, I think he'll be convicted. Also, his theory on the tax laws is just too absurd for anyone to buy. The first impulse most people have at hearing the CTC theory is too laugh heartily - not good for Petey. My thought is that he has around a 80% chance of conviction. The LHers don't understand that the CID and DOJ don't pursue a case unless they feel like they have a 90% chance of conviction.

Side note - I was thinking, we should have a scale to measure TP theories and they're gurus based on the level of "intelligence" (that term used very very lightly). Demo would be more knowledgeable than I. But I think it would be F. Tupper Saussy at the top and maybe Gene Chapman at the bottom? Maybe the Saussy/Chapman scale? If so, Petey would have to come in pretty low on that scale.

[LPC]

From Hendrickson's motion to dismiss:

Citing to Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39, L.Ed. 759 (1895) [Pollock I] and Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601,15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895) [Pollock II], Cracking the Code went on to maintain that in general, receipts derived from unprivileged, non-federally connected activities are not subject to direct taxation except in accordance with Article I, Section 9[4].

Of course, the two Pollock decisions say no such thing.

So here's a conundrum: Does the AUSA cross-examine PH (assuming that he takes the stand to negate the evidence of willfulness) to pin him down on exactly where he gets this nonsense about "federal privileges," or does the AUSA pretty much ignore the details of the crap and concentrate on showing how "convenient" Hendrickson's beliefs are, and how often they have been refuted.

Probably the latter. From what I have seen, the prosecution doesn't want to cross-examine the witness about the law because that plays into the defense strategy of arguing the law to the jury and hopefully confusing the jury. Which I think is a shame as an academic/intellectual matter, but quite understand as a practical matter.

[Nikki]

If Pete testifies in his defense, he will NOT be cross-examined regarding the law or his interpretation of it.

Why?

Because he will not be permitted to open that topic on direct examination.

The only law relevant to his case is the law he is charged with violating. The judge will clearly explain that to the jury and will prevent (multiple references to the Schiff trial) the defendant from attempting to explain the law (as he has misinterpreted it) to the jury.

The government will present clear, step-by-step evidence showing that Pete had sufficient income to pass the required filing threshhold, that, in the past he had complied with tax laws -- establishing his knowledge of a known duty -- and that he filed fraudulent documents to conceal his liability.

Pete won't even be able to discuss "includes."

[ASITStands]

Yeah, but it would be so much fun, 'Nikki,' to have Pete Hendrickson make all his arguments on the witness stand only to have them refuted by a government expert. It won't happen.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I'm leaning toward conviction but can't place a vote this early in the process.

[SteveSy]

If Pete testifies in his defense, he will NOT be cross-examined regarding the law or his interpretation of it.

Why?

Because he will not be permitted to open that topic on direct examination.

The only law relevant to his case is the law he is charged with violating. The judge will clearly explain that to the jury and will prevent (multiple references to the Schiff trial) the defendant from attempting to explain the law (as he has misinterpreted it) to the jury.

The government will present clear, step-by-step evidence showing that Pete had sufficient income to pass the required filing threshhold, that, in the past he had complied with tax laws -- establishing his knowledge of a known duty -- and that he filed fraudulent documents to conceal his liability.

Pete won't even be able to discuss "includes."

I don't understand why, you've explained nothing except to expose a contradiction in reasoning on the government's and the court's part. The argument that he is "attempting to explain the law (as he has misinterpreted it) to the jury", as in he's telling them what the law means in a legal sense, is baloney. The law itself will not change simply because he thinks it means this or that. He is attempting to explain the law as "he" sees it. That's the entire premise upon which the cheek defense stands. If "He" believes the law does not require him to file, or file a certain way, then he can not have knowingly violated a legal duty. Furthermore, its absurd to claim he must know he had a legal duty because he was told by authority what the law was and then on the other hand claim the jury can not hear his version of the law because they might believe him over authority (in this case the judge). That's just a ridiculous argument. You're admitting that its reasonable authority could have told him something and he could still maintain his position was valid. If not then there is no possible way the jury could believe the law means what he's saying he thinks it means because the judge explained it differently to them. There would be no harm whatsoever in letting them hear or see the law as written along with his belief as to what it means.

The truth is the government, and the court, know its very probable the jury will believe that its reasonable he could have believed what he's saying and they, the government and the court, want no part of it. Take away his ability to show how he arrived at his position and he's toast no matter what. It's simply a sham on the court's part and anyone with shred of common sense knows it.

As a side note, I don't subscribe to his beliefs. I just know how the government and the courts run their little techincal bs con game to make sure people like him go down with little effort.

[notorial dissent]

So, just to make sure I am good and clear on this.

If someone walks into a bank with a gun, and yells, “This is a stick up”, and then takes the money and leaves, or just the first part, then concocts some cockamamie explanation about how the law really doesn’t say what it says, i.e. that they should be allowed to argue that because they really really really don’t believe that they were robbing the bank, that they therefore shouldn’t be found guilty of robbing the bank?

I just want to be perfectly clear on your logic here.

[SteveSy]

So, just to make sure I am good and clear on this.

If someone walks into a bank with a gun, and yells, “This is a stick up”, and then takes the money and leaves, or just the first part, then concocts some cockamamie explanation about how the law really doesn’t say what it says, i.e. that they should be allowed to argue that because they really really really don’t believe that they were robbing the bank, that they therefore shouldn’t be found guilty of robbing the bank?

I just want to be perfectly clear on your logic here.

Sure, if the law is written in such a way that you have to willfully be breaking the law. Of course as you know the law isn't written that way for that crime, it doesn't matter if you're willfully robbing a bank or not, its a crime none the less. Besides, the Supreme Court said it and it makes sense. It's not sensible to convict someone of willfully violating a law , meaning they had to know they were doing something wrong, when they truly believed they were not breaking a law. How could they possibly be willfully violating it?

It would of course be proper to exclude evidence having no relevance or probative value with respect to willfulness, but it is not contrary to common sense, let alone impossible, for a defendant to be ignorant of his duty based on an irrational belief that he has no duty, and forbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision.

- Cheek v. United States

The lower courts repeatedly violate this ruling by denying a defendant in a tax case to show all of the evidence, in this case the law itself upon which the defendant formed his belief, to be shown to the jury.

You don't like the law get congress to take willfulness out of it.

[notorial dissent]

Teensy tiny problem Stevie, the excuse goes away after you’ve been slapped up the side of the head with a “you can’t do this”, as Hendrickson has repeatedly, as well as have his followers, so this excuse will ultimately fail.

[SteveSy]

Teensy tiny problem Stevie, the excuse goes away after you’ve been slapped up the side of the head with a “you can’t do this”, as Hendrickson has repeatedly, as well as have his followers, so this excuse will ultimately fail.

Guess you're not reading what I'm writing. If that's true then there certainly isn't a reason he can't show the law to the jury and explain why he believes what he believes based on what's written. If no one can believe they don't owe after they've been told by authority “you can’t do this”, then there is no possibility whatsoever the jury will get confused concerning the law when they hear it. The judge will be right there telling them what the law means, Hendrickson's version will be meaningless to them.

[Nikki]

Unfortunately for Pete's potential Cheek defense, his CtC method is premised on a deliberate misreading of the law. In specific, he ignores the definition of "includes" as specified in 26USC and then misapplys the concept of the withholding laws to the taxability laws.

He will not be permitted to present his interpretation to the jury since it is contrary to the law, has been ruled as such in many legal cases across the country, and now has fallen into the black hole of frivolous arguments.

Also, it's really difficult to maintain a Cheek defense when one promotes onesself as a serious tax law researcher.

[SteveSy]

Unfortunately for Pete's potential Cheek defense, his CtC method is premised on a deliberate misreading of the law. In specific, he ignores the definition of "includes" as specified in 26USC and then misapplys the concept of the withholding laws to the taxability laws.

He will not be permitted to present his interpretation to the jury since it is contrary to the law, has been ruled as such in many legal cases across the country, and now has fallen into the black hole of frivolous arguments.

Well that's a total logical fallacy. You can't say Pete can not possibly believe his version of the law because he was told differently by authority and then in the next breath claim the jury might be confused and believe him even when authority is right there telling them differently. Pete's entire position is based on what's written in the law, its evidence of his position. How can you not see how illogical the reasoning is there?

More importantly Pete can't tell the jury what the law means and it actually mean that. Pete's in no authoritative position to do that. Even when Pete explains his position on the law based on what's written, he's only explaining what he believes and why. If the jury can be confused by his version then its certainly reasonable Pete himself is confused and therefore he's demonstrated that he may not have willfully violated the law. That's just common sense.

Also, it's really difficult to maintain a Cheek defense when one promotes onesself as a serious tax law researcher.

I would argue the exact opposite. In fact I would argue the Cheek defense is exactly what the Supreme Court intended for people like Pete. Cheek was a "serious tax law researcher" also. It's up to the jury, not the judge, to determine if Pete actually believes his own research.

[Lambkin]

Steve, I think your position still boils down to believing Pete is not lying. Personally I don't see how you can be a two-time loser like him and still not understand how the legal system works. You call it confusion in good faith, and I call it recidivism. My guess is the jury will see it my way, but you never know, he could walk out of that court room with only his tax debt. Will the jury identify with Pete or will they see him as an arrogant buffoon?

[SteveSy]

Steve, I think your position still boils down to believing Pete is not lying. Personally I don't see how you can be a two-time loser like him and still not understand how the legal system works. You call it confusion in good faith, and I call it recidivism.

I'm not saying Pete is anything. I'm saying the court will deny him a fair trial like they have with many other people like him based on what Niki has explained.

My guess is the jury will see it my way...

Of course they will, they won't be able to see how Pete arrived at his position. The won't get to see the core evidence that might prove he didn't act willfully. You can convict just about anyone if you can deny them the ability to show how they arrived at their position.

The law could be as simple as the following:
1.1 Parking is not permitted next to the court house on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.
1.2 Anyone willfully violating the laws in section 1 shall pay a fine of $1000.


You read the law and park at the court house on Wednesday. You find a ticket on your windshield for violating sec 1.2. You go to trial and the Judge says the law does not say you can park there on Wednesday. He also makes it clear you can not read, show or state the law to the jury. You as the defendant throughout the trial maintain the law allows you to park there on Wednesday. You know because you read the law. The jury during trial requests clarification on the law, the judge tells the jury the law does not state a person can park next to the courthouse on Wednesday. The defendant left with nothing for evidence is found guilty and must pay the fine.

[wserra]

He will not be permitted to present his interpretation to the jury since it is contrary to the law

He has to be able to present his (ahem) interpretation to the jury. He just won't be able to argue that it's the law.

Also, it's really difficult to maintain a Cheek defense when one promotes onesself as a serious tax law researcher.

It certainly shouldn't be any harder for a (ahem) "serious tax law researcher" than for a lawyer. Juries - God bless 'em.