The government is asking for a prison sentence of 24 months on her criminal contempt conviction. Some excerpts (and, get ready for a surprise):
Now, for the surprise:Without regard to the fact that the jury has spoken, the defendant persists in her denials that she did anything wrong. Her stance is consistent with her quarter-century career as a hard core anti-government zealot. For much of her adult life, she has enthusiastically joined with her husband and others to lead a campaign against the authority of the United States to collect income taxes.
In her sentencing memorandum, the defendant has the temerity to ask this Court to refrain from sending her to prison because “she has always held and concretely expressed a deep faith in the institutions of this country, its established procedures of law and political process.” [ . . . ] The Court should reject the defendant’s phony attempt to wrap herself in the flag. Indeed, Doreen Hendrickson’s utter contempt for the laws of the United States calls for a substantial term of incarceration. For the reasons set forth below, the government respectfully requests that the Court sentence the defendant to a term of incarceration of 24 months.
[ . . . ]
The defendant argues that § 2B1.1(b)(9) [of the Sentencing Guidelines] does not apply because she did not engage in fraudulent conduct. However, the defendant cites no authority to support her conclusion that intentionally filing false tax returns is not fraud or that this enhancement does not apply under these circumstances. Instead, a review of the cases interpreting § 2B1.1(b)(9) shows that a violation of federal law in contravention of a court order is sufficient to trigger the enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Phillips, 363 F.3d 1167, 1168 (11th Cir. 2004) (failure to pay court-ordered child support resulted in enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(9)).
As set forth above, the defendant attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the IRS by filing tax returns that concealed the true amount of income earned by her and her husband during the years at issue. Even after Judge Edmunds warned that her 2002 and 2003 returns were frivolous and enjoined her from filing similar returns in the future (and even though she was not legally obligated to file a tax return for 2008 because she did not earn sufficient income during that year) the defendant filed a tax return for 2008 on which she falsely claimed that she earned no wages. This gratuitous violation of federal law, which appears calculated to produce another “victory” that the defendant’s husband could display on his website, plainly satisfies the definition of “fraud in contravention of a” court order. Accordingly, the enhancement in § 2B1.1(b)(9) applies.[ . . .]
The memo goes on to assert, among other things, that in the U.S. Post Office bombing case, Doreen admitted to having obtained the phosphorus for the bomb from the school where she worked. This "model citizen" also testified, in the bombing trial as follows:The defendant does not appear to object to the assignment of one criminal history point, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c), for her 2006 drunk driving conviction, which resulted in a sentence of probation.[footnote 5]. However, the defendant does contest the assignment of two additional criminal history points, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), based on the probation officer’s finding that she committed part of the offense of conviction while on probation in the drunk driving case.
[footnote 5]As detailed more fully in the PSR, the defendant was arrested for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .30. During the course of the traffic stop that led to her arrest, the police had to use a Taser on her twice after she refused to comply with an officer’s order to exit her vehicle. Although the defendant’s convictions for drunk driving and contempt seem wholly dissimilar at first glance, the attitude that the defendant displayed toward law enforcement during the traffic stop is similar to the contempt for government authority that the defendant displayed throughout the proceedings before Judge Edmunds and this Court.
And, this excerpt from the bombing trial regarding her refusal to co-operate with government investigators:Q: . . . Did you believe that the placing, or do you believe now that the placing of this device was wrong?
A: No.
Q: And – but, but the same token, do you have any problem admitting that you were involved in getting the red phosphorus for this device.
A: No.
Q: You were involved, weren’t you?
A: Yes.
There is a lot more in the memorandum, including references to the way the Hendricksons have corrupted their own children and to the CtC Warriors.A. . . . I told the postal inspectors that, whether I knew anything or not, it would be a cold day in hell that I told them about it.
Q: And your reason for not telling, was that because, among other things, you didn't want to be caught or prosecuted for it?
A: No, because I'm sure I could have gone through Mr. Rabaut, my attorney, and worked out some kind of a deal. It was just a general resistance to working with the Government.
Sentencing is set for noon Eastern time, Thursday, April 9, in Federal court in Detroit.
