Sentencing for Doreen Hendrickson

[Famspear]

....For a couple of reasons that I don't have time to go into, I think he's wrong, and will likely lose the point. I think he in private would likely agree. But he's not obviously wrong, and courts have as far as I know not previously considered this aspect.

This statement -- from someone who is light years ahead of me in knowledge of criminal law -- tends to confirm my sense that Cedrone's arguments on behalf of Doreen are, at least, not frivolous.

[Gregg]

I'm hardly in a position to disagree with anything Wes and Famspear have said, but to my simple mind the thing she is being compelled to do is to comply with a court order that has been appealed unsuccessfully up to and including SCOTUS. She is not in the instant case facing any tax charges, she has been convicted of criminal contempt of court. All the finer legal points aside (and I admit they are interesting nuances) if she gets away with this, how is it not the essentially finding that people are free to thumb their nose at a Federal Court just because they don't like what the Judge, the Jury, the Appellant Court and at least by declining to intervene when asked the Supreme Court have told her the law says she must do.

Can you imagine the flurry of cases that will, pro se, try to drive the same road encouraged by the one and only time something Pete Hendrickson says about the courts actually worked? Hell, the book sales (and the forthcoming sequel no doubt) will go through the roof when the criminally crazy SovCit world hears of it.

[Duke2Earl]

I agree with Gregg. All Ms. Hendrickson is being asked, as part of her sentencing, is to actually comply with the law. I simply do not care what she believes. Her delusional beliefs have nothing whatever do do with her legal duty to actually comply with the law. If I was the judge I would say to her that she has a choice here...either comply with the order to file returns in accordance with the law or her sentencing needs to be reconsidered with a eye towards the maximum. If she really wants to grow old and perhaps die in a federal prison for her "beliefs" ...fine with me. Enough manure is enough. These people have wasted entirely too much of our court resources that they refuse to pay for already.

[wserra]

Hey, guys - it's not as though I wrote that I agree with Cedrone's position. I don't, I think it will lose, and I wrote that. In fact, I wrote that I doubt that Cedrone personally believes it. But it is not the Hendricksonian claptrap, it is not the point that has been previously litigated (as far as I know, anyway), and it is not frivolous.

Damn. You'd think I wrote that I decided to study law under Kent Hovind.

[Famspear]

Hey, guys - it's not as though I wrote that I agree with Cedrone's position. I don't, I think it will lose, and I wrote that. In fact, I wrote that I doubt that Cedrone personally believes it. But it is not the Hendricksonian claptrap, it is not the point that has been previously litigated (as far as I know, anyway), and it is not frivolous....

I would just add that I think retaining Cedrone is about the only bright thing that Doreen has done, that I can see. She should have hired him or someone like him a long time ago.

[wserra]

She should have hired him or someone like him a long time ago.

In order to have made a difference, she still would have had to listen to him . . .

[notorial dissent]

She should have hired him or someone like him a long time ago.

In order to have made a difference, she still would have had to listen to him . . .

Well, there you go, off on another flight of fancy.

[Gregg]

Hey, guys - it's not as though I wrote that I agree with Cedrone's position. I don't, I think it will lose, and I wrote that. In fact, I wrote that I doubt that Cedrone personally believes it. But it is not the Hendricksonian claptrap, it is not the point that has been previously litigated (as far as I know, anyway), and it is not frivolous.

Damn. You'd think I wrote that I decided to study law under Kent Hovind.

I'm not railing against you as much as the unfortunate reality of the situation. Its a shame to waste such good lawyerin' in such bad people and positions. And I agree it's not frivolous, I just see madness if it works.

[Famspear]

....Its a shame to waste such good lawyerin' in such bad people and positions......

I respectfully have a different position. I don't look upon Cedrone's work for Doreen as "waste." I don't have a problem with Doreen, or anyone else, having the best lawyer she can find and afford, if that's what she wants. If she had hired me as her lawyer (admittedly a foolish thing for her to do, as I have no criminal practice experience ), I would do what Cedrone has done -- try to come up with the best non-frivolous positions I can for her.

[notorial dissent]

Which is what a good attorney with integrity would/should do. Cedrone had an enormous uphill battle on this one, and I'm actually amazed that he was able to keep Pete from totally disrupting things, but he truly does have a fool for a client. That notwithstanding, I still think it is absolutely frivolous, but then IANL or a judge. I also seeing it as arguing that the contempt citation and conviction are not valid.

[Famspear]

Get ready, sports fans, for a journey into an expression of the increasingly wacked-out thought processes of Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, from his web site:

WE RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM OUR COUNTY SHERIFF to our request for his help in defending Doreen's rights that puts the unique character of this case into focus. Michael Bouchard, sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan, wrote back:

Dear Doreen:
I appreciate you taking the time to contact the Sheriff’s Office with your concerns. However, as the Sheriff, I am not allowed nor do I have the authority by law to intervene with any court cases or judicial proceedings. I would encourage you to seek legal counsel on this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Bouchard
Oakland County Sheriff
President Emeritus, Major County Sheriffs’ Association of America

Bouchard's response nicely illustrates the unprecedented and pardigm [sic]-shattering situation here, in which Doreen is being victimized by members of the federal judiciary in cooperation with with [sic] rights-violating executive-branch actors.

Everyone is conditioned to resort to the federal judiciary as the arbiters of last resort.......

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

Uh, yeah, Pete. Judges are the arbiters of last resort, under the U.S. legal system. And federal judges are the arbiters of last resort in a federal case. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws and, when a dispute arises over a legal issue, the judicial branch (not you or me or the county sheriff) interprets the law. The courts are indeed the final arbiters of what the law is. If the people don't like the result, Congress can change the law. And the people can, through a specified process, amend the U.S. Constitution if desired. Were you asleep in that ninth grade civics class?

.....and even to buy into what has long been the fiction that those judges are objective and personally-disengaged. Consequently, many whose positions charge them with responsibilities relevant to this kind of situation just collapse into complete incomprehension when faced with the actions of the judges involved in Doreen's case, which involve crystal-clear and unmistakable Constitutional violations with absolutely zero cover of precedent or credible rationalization.

That no-place-to-hide quality is unique. Even when a court is dealing with a Fourth Amendment violation by the NSA [National Security Agency], or even a torture case, there actually are judicial precedents (the virtues of which are irrelevant for purposes of this point) and there is the "national security" rationale (the virtues of which are irrelevant for purposes of this point.

But the orders made to Doreen, very much to the contrary, are completely unprecedented. Further, they not only serve no defensible government interest but are in service to a government interest (the control of inconvenient speech and due process rights) which the government is expressly prohibited from advancing and the courts are expressly prohibited from finding to be compelling.

In fact, the Bill of Rights says that it is a compelling governmental and judicial interest to ensure that no one is ever subject to orders like those made to Doreen, and no one is ever punished for resisting such orders.

So someone like Michael Bouchard, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, is not only authorized but is required to "intervene with any court case or judicial proceeding" of this kind......

That is idiotic baloney. Under the U.S. legal system, a county sheriff has no general authority to intervene in any court case or judicial proceeding of this kind.

There is nothing in the law that says that Constitutional violations by members of the judiciary, or those committed under the cover of a "judicial proceeding" are somehow excused.

Total, utter baloney. This is monumentally stupid claptrap, even for Blowhard Hendrickson.

[Pottapaug1938]

It sounds like Petey is, in desperation, sipping from the Kool-Aid jug of the Posse Comitatus crew when he proclaims that Sheriff Bouchard has a responsibility to intervene to stop further legal proceedings against Doreen. He knows that he cannot "ensure that no one is ever subject to orders like those made to Doreen" or bring about punishment for "Constitutional violations by members of the judiciary, or those committed under the cover of a 'judicial proceeding'" in the manner prescribed by law, and he probably thinks that he has nothing to lose by, in effect, flinging more poo at the court system; so we will probably see more of this in the days to come

[notorial dissent]

Thank you most sincerely for the warning....

I'm not sure "wacked-out thought processes of Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson" is actually a valid phrase, but fantasy production certainly comes close.

Obviously NOT a "constitutional sheriff" then if he won't interfere in an ongoing court case.

I always love it when pardigms shatter, they make such a satisfying tinkly noise, and I loath that word, and needless to say the people who insist on using it.

Pete won't like your comment, you told him he doesn't get to decide what laws apply to him or that he can't just ignore them if it suits him, and yes, I am quite convinced he either slept through, or more likely skipped out on his civics classes, nothing I've seen to date indicates otherwise.

We always knew Pete lived in a fantasy world, just more and certain proof.

I think you're right in that he is really fallen down the rabbit hole altogether now. He's really going to come unglued when she goes to jail for real.

Pottapaug, under normal circumstances I'd just say that Pete has finally lost it, but I think that event happened so long ago it is lost in the mists of time, but I do agree that his fantasy world is crumbling down around his ears and he is striking out for any forlorn hope at this point, and as usual it is inappropriate and fantasy.

[noblepa]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the orders that Pete is referring to (to file legally accurate tax returns) are pretty standard fare in cases of income tax evasion, aren't they? At the very least, they are not without precedent.

[notorial dissent]

Pete is trying to rewrite not only the law but history and reality as well, but then he has been trying that and failing at it for years.

[The Observer]

This is just Pete trying to desperately pull something out of the legal shipwreck he has created and hope he can make people think that he and his baseless theories are still relevant. Otherwise he knows he is going to be consigned to the dustbin of tax protester history (which is getting pretty darn full nowadays).

"Waaaaaah! The courts are corrupt! That is why I lost! We need to get the sheriffs of this country to go in and arrest the entire judiciary! Waaaaaaaah! Write your sherriff today and protect the rule of law!"

[Famspear]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the orders that Pete is referring to (to file legally accurate tax returns) are pretty standard fare in cases of income tax evasion, aren't they? .....

That's a great question, and I don't know the answer off the top of my head. It might be interesting to go back to look at the judgments of convictions in various leading tax protester cases, and see whether the courts have ordered the defendants to keep their tax return filings up to date.

Regarding Blowhard Pete's discomfort with the response he received from his local sheriff, I can see how Pete is upset. The sheriff's response was totally accurate and reasonable, but I suspect that Pete (who, in his own delusional way, fancies himself to be a legal scholar) may have taken the sheriff's response to be in a tenor of something along the lines of "There there, now, little Peter, be a good boy, run along, and don't forget to eat all your vegetables."

Poor little Peter. How the Haughty hath fallen!

[Judge Roy Bean]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the orders that Pete is referring to (to file legally accurate tax returns) are pretty standard fare in cases of income tax evasion, aren't they? At the very least, they are not without precedent.

I can't put my cursor on the particular .pdfs on this machine, but from memory I know in at least two supervisory orders that I've seen that the felon was compelled to comply with "all" regulations and that the case officer would be scrutinizing their finances for compliance. I've also seen similar orders where restitution payments were scheduled.

[notorial dissent]

Along with what JRB has said, I've seen that particular order in a number of instances, and in certain financial cases I suspect it is boiler plate. IIRC I think an order to follow the law is quite common in certain types of cases.

[wserra]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the orders that Pete is referring to (to file legally accurate tax returns) are pretty standard fare in cases of income tax evasion, aren't they? At the very least, they are not without precedent.

It might be interesting to go back to look at the judgments of convictions in various leading tax protester cases, and see whether the courts have ordered the defendants to keep their tax return filings up to date.

I know in at least two supervisory orders that I've seen that the felon was compelled to comply with "all" regulations and that the case officer would be scrutinizing their finances for compliance.

I've seen that particular order in a number of instances, and in certain financial cases I suspect it is boiler plate. IIRC I think an order to follow the law is quite common in certain types of cases.

It is indeed standard for both probation and supervised release orders to contain special conditions to file accurate returns. In the future. Cedrone's point concerned an order to file accurate amended returns, which arguably indicate willfulness in filing the original return. As I've said before, I don't agree that such an order is a direction to self-incriminate, and think he will lose, but there is a difference.