Hendrickson Conviction Aff'd; Sentencing Remanded

[Famspear]

Oh the Court gave him no certiorari,
Which made Peter the Great really sorry.
Guilty verdict -- it stands!
But now Pete can make plans
For a felony tax dodge safari!

[Famspear]

I was browsing through my tax protester files the other day and I happened to notice something that reminded me of discussions here in Quatloos after Peter Hendrickson was found guilty in his October 2009 federal criminal tax trial. It has to do with what Hendrickson did or did not try to argue in his testimony in his own defense in the case.

In looking back, it does appear that although the trial Court correctly refused to allow him to argue the law to the jury, and although he was not allowed to show copies of statutes to the jury (which could have been an attempt by him to confuse the jury about what the law is), he was indeed able to explain, in his testimony, the essence of his theory about "federal privilege". In his appeal brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, he quoted from the transcript of some of his testimony at the trial (bracketed material was apparently added by Hendrickson or his attorney when the brief was prepared):

Q. You also stated …that, you did not have wages. Is that correct?

A. I stated that I did not have wages as defined in sections 3401(a) of Title 26, which is what this form specifically asks for. The instructions for the use of the W-2 and the 4852, as well as a substitute for that form doesn’t ask for a [report] of whatever got paid, it asks for reports specifically of wages as defined at 26 U.S.C. 3401(a) on that line.

….

Q. What then were you saying to the government?

A. What I was saying is that I don’t believe I received what qualifies as wages under the definitions specified for the use of this form and for the use of the W-2, which is wages as defined at 3401(a) and also 3121(a).

….

Q. What did you state [to the government]?

A. Used company provided records and the statutory language behind IRC Sections 3401 and 3121 and others. Which is to say that the statutory language informed me of what was to be reported on this form and informed me that what was to be reported was not simply what got paid to me just in terms of money, but only what qualified as wages as defined at the relevant sections. And amounts withheld, the company provided records supplied that information.

A. As I note in response to question eight: How did you determine the amounts in item seven above, which includes those categories of items. Company provided records and the statutory language behind Internal Revenue Code Sections 3401, 3121, and others. It’s those sections that contain the statutory definitions of the wages that are asked about and are intended to be reported on this form. And it was in reference to that – those definitions and that statutory language that I concluded that I had not received any of those wages and noted that accordingly. And the company provided records and supplied the information on the amounts withheld.

[ . . . ]

Q. Okay. We’ll get to that. Your claim on the wages. You did a lot of talk about the Constitution and so forth. But basically on those forms, you’re making a statutory claim, aren’t you? That wages as defined by the statute do not include you.

A. It absolutely goes all the way from the statute to Constitution. Constitution kind of controls to some degree what the statute -- it sets a context for the statute.

Q. Okay.

A. But, yeah. Technically, it’s the statutory language.

[ . . . ]

Q. [By the Prosecutor Michael Leibson]: What do you actually claim statutorily? Why are you not supposed to be paying on these wages – paying taxes on them? Why are these not wages—

A. The statute specifies that wages are remuneration paid to certain classes of people.

Q. What are those classes?

A. Well, I have the statute right here.

Q. I assumed you would. It’s essentially government workers?

A. Well, not exclusively, no.

….

The Witness: Okay. 3401(c) definition of employee is: An officer, employee or elected official of the United States, state or any political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term of employee also includes an officer of corporation.

Q. I assume – you’re claiming, what? Why aren’t you –

A. I’m certainly not in that list.

Q. You’re saying the term wages, as defined in the Code, applies only to that class of people which is government workers?

A. Not exclusively to those specific listed people, but to that class of people, yes.

[ . . . ]

THE COURT: Let me ask a question and ask to you give a concise answer to this. You just testified -- on a number of occasions, you’ve testified you have never claimed that wages, quote unquote, are not income.

THE WITNESS: Well, not within the context of the period we’re talking about.

THE COURT: Within context of the period we’re talking about. Is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Can you explain to the jury why you believe, as concisely as you can, why you believe that the remuneration that you have received during these years in question, is not subject to income tax.

THE WITNESS: Well, as I was testifying during direct, the tax -- the income tax is an excise tax, it is a specialized tax on privileged related gains. I don’t engage in any privileged activities. My work is perfectly common. You know, perfectly common work doesn’t have any special characteristics, doesn’t gain special benefits, enjoy any special benefits from any government. And it isn’t covered in the language of the statutes that apply to this tax.

THE COURT: So the basis of your belief is that the work that you did is not definitionally privileged work. Is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That’s correct.

THE COURT: And you understand privileged work to be what?

THE WITNESS: Well, in reference to the federal income tax work that enjoys the benefit of a federal privilege of some kind.

--from the trial transcript, as quoted in Appellant's Brief, Document 006110722992, docketed Sept. 1, 2010, United States v. Peter Eric Hendrickson, case no. 10-1726, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Despite all of Hendrickson's whining and despite his lies about how the courts have treated his Cracking the Code nonsense, he actually did get to present the basics of the nonsense to the jury in his own criminal trial, in what I would argue was a fairly clear and understandable way.

And yet, the jury found him guilty of willfully filing false federal income tax returns which were prepared using the Cracking the Code scam method (excuse me, "non-method").

[Famspear]

Notice that the trial court judge specifically acknowledged that he (the judge) understood the distinction that Hendrickson always makes about the terms "income" and "wages" -- that Hendrickson does not claim that "wages are not income," but that Hendrickson instead claims that the earnings received in an activity not connected to the exercise of a federal privilege are not "wages" under Hendrickson's special, "technical" interpretation of the Code.

So, even in Hendrickson's own criminal case, where he was unsuccessful with both the judge and the jury, it is clear that both the judge and the jury understood what Hendrickson was saying -- and the result was that he spent nearly two years in federal prison.

[.]

and the result was that he spent nearly two years in federal prison.

And likely many more years to come between the two of them, considering that nobody in that family seems inclined to give up on his nonsense.

Multiple criminal convictions, an unblemished record of civil losses, no successful appeals or grants of cert -- one wonders if reality will intrude before they wind up like Ed and Elaine. Or Irwin.

[Gregg]

I'm waiting to see the first episode of "Hendrickson: The Next Generation" where his kids start doing time.

[webhick]

I'm waiting to see the first episode of "Hendrickson: The Next Generation" where his kids start doing time.

Alternative titles: The Persecution of Pete and Hard Time at the Hendricksons

[Quixote]

Notice that the trial court judge specifically acknowledged that he (the judge) understood the distinction that Hendrickson always makes about the terms "income" and "wages" -- that Hendrickson does not claim that "wages are not income," but that Hendrickson instead claims that the earnings received in an activity not connected to the exercise of a federal privilege are not "wages" under Hendrickson's special, "technical" interpretation of the Code.

The prosecutor, on the other hand, didn't seem to pick up on Hendrickson's wordplay. "Why are these not wages?" is the wrong question. After Pete's answer, the prosecutor started following Pete right down the rabbit hole.

[Gregg]

The entire scam non-method could have been disposed of if at that point the Judge would have said "That interpretation of the law is wrong, your entire theory is fatally flawed because your word playing with the law is wrong"

[Famspear]

The entire scam non-method could have been disposed of if at that point the Judge would have said "That interpretation of the law is wrong, your entire theory is fatally flawed because your word playing with the law is wrong"

I view this testimony by Hendrickson as being the fruit of the prosecution's successful tactic of getting Hendrickson on the record -- with the jury present -- to show that, rather than having been unaware of the law, Hendrickson was aware of the law by virtue of the fact that he had studied the law and had come up with an alternative, incorrect, idiosyncratic, goofy interpretation of the law. The prosecution here was able to illustrate, through Hendrickson's own testimony (apparently with the jury present and listening to Pontificatin' Pete Himself), that Hendrickson really had a disagreement with a law of which he was aware.

The judge's role at that point, in front of the jury with Hendrickson right there on the stand, might not be to stop Mr. Hendrickson and tell him that he is wrong.

Rather, I assume that the judge took care of the task of explaining the law later -- to the jury -- in the charge to the jury. The jury obviously did its job correctly, and in particular did not buy the Fabulous Felon's Foolishness.

EDIT: Or, perhaps I should say the Fabulous Felon's Fatally Flawed Foolishness.....

[Famspear]

Q. You also stated …that, you did not have wages. Is that correct?

A. I stated that I did not have wages as defined in sections 3401(a) of Title 26, which is what this form specifically asks for......

If Hendrickson's reference to "this form" was a reference to page 1 of Form 1040, he was wrong as usual.

The "wages" required to be reported on page 1 of Form 1040 would be certain gross income amounts in the form of compensation under Internal Revenue Code section 61 (as modified by various other Code sections not material to this discussion) --not under section 3401(a).

To a very high probability in a given case, that section 61 amount would also happen to be equal to the "wage" amount under section 3401(a). But section 3401 defines "wages" for purposes of Chapter 24 of the Code, which relates to the withholding requirements. Section 3401 does not define "wages" for purposes of page 1 of Form 1040.