Here's an interesting portion of the Motion:
It is clear that only an attorney who is related to PH would sign such a Motion.That is, the jury may have mistaken “willfulness” to mean “obstreperous”, or “stubborn”. Indeed, the jury may have been incapable of understanding it any other way. After all, the government made no effort to prove or even identify any “duty” to which Mr. Hendrickson was allegedly subject, or that he received “wages” (or anything at all), or that anything on his forms was “material”, or ANYTHING except that he dislikes the IRS and disagrees with certain lower court rulings, even those which themselves conflict with other, higher authorities. And yet, the Court failed to dismiss the charges at the close of the government’s case in chief for failing to meet its burdens of proof. What COULD the jury conclude other than that the only thing the government DID attempt to prove was the only thing the government needed to prove? Thus, the ONLY thing that can be concluded is that the jury was, in fact, completely misled in this fashion and the verdict implies nothing but a complete misunderstanding of the relevant meaning of “willfulness” and what the prosecution must do to bring and sustain a legitimate charge.