There is a lot in there, but for me, some highlights of interest:
(bolding added)As the Court knows, through post-verdict motions, Mr. Hendrickson takes umbrage with the jury's verdict and the manner in which the case was submitted to the jury. Mr. Hendrickson will not use this Sentencing Memorandum as a vehicle to reiterate/regurgitate his arguments concerning the invalidity of the conviction. In addition, Mr. Hendrickson does not submit his Memorandum in an effort to half-heartedly accept responsibility for conduct he believes to be neither criminal in the first instance, nor which the Government proved to be criminal.1
1. The Government will no doubt label Mr. Hendrickson's persistence concerning his innocence as recalcitrance. Undersigned counsel, however, sees it as refreshing and honest resolve to principle.
In discussing the calculation of tax loss:Regardless of whether one agrees with Mr. Hendrickson's ultimate conclusions on the issue (renumeration paid for non-federally connected conduct does not constitute wages as defined under the Internal Revenue Code) or any other conclusion set forth in "Cracking the Code', it cannot be credibly dispute [sic] that Mr. Hendrickson's conclusions are based on thorough and detailed analysis of the Internal revenue Code, Internal Revenue Service Regulations, and case law interpreting both.
And, get this:...Mr. Hendrickson asserts that The United States has never asserted a formal claim that his earnings, regardless of their source, are taxable. Stated otherwise, Mr. Hendrickson believes that before there can be any "tax loss", a properly determined tax must be assessed through the elaborate procedures set forth in the Internal revenue Code for making such assessment. (footnote omitted)
The Government believes that Mr. Hendrickson "has urged others to file false returns similar to his own." Mr. Hendrickson has done nothing more than express his views which he suggests that other consider. He does not provide legal advice, nor does he urge anyone to take a particular action. He reports his view on the subject and reports the views of others who share this view. It is unfathomable that the Government will request and upward variance based upon such an expression of First Amendment privilege.
