Comments by "silat13" (@silat13) on "Libertarian Caller: I'm No Hypocrite, I Get a Tax Refund!" video.
-
104
-
19
-
18
-
14
-
14
-
Dom Trussardi FEDERAL COURT BARS MICHIGAN AUTHOR OF TAX BOOK FROM FILING FALSE TAX RETURNS AND FORMS
Commerce Township Couple Must Repay More Than $20,000 in Erroneous Tax Refunds
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A federal court in Detroit has permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., from filing tax returns and forms on which they falsely report their income as zero, the Justice Department announced today. The injunction order, signed by U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, also requires the couple to repay more than $20,000 in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes that they had obtained by filing false tax returns with the IRS.
The order notes that the couple based their improper conduct on a book Peter Hendrickson wrote called Cracking the Code. The book states that federal tax withholding and income taxes on wages are applicable only for a limited class of people, primarily government employees. The court found that position to be “false and frivolous,” and cited an earlier court decision holding the position to be “preposterous.”
Based on advice in Hendrickson’s book, individuals have unlawfully filed tax returns with false substitute W-2 wage statements they prepare reporting little or no wage income. They also fail to submit the correct W-2 wage statement they receive from their employers. Hendrickson’s scheme is number five on the IRS’s 2007 list of the “Dirty Dozen” tax scams, posted at http://apps.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=167983,00.html.
The Justice Department sued the Hendricksons and seven others last year in suits filed in California, Nevada, Michigan, Alabama, Kansas and Florida, seeking to recover erroneous tax refunds that the nine defendants had received as a result of acting on the advice in Hendrickson’s book. The government has now prevailed against all nine defendants. Information on those suits is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv06219.htm.
Peter Hendrickson was convicted in 1992 on federal criminal charges for failing to file a federal income tax return and for a conspiracy involving a firebomb placed in a bin at a U.S. Post Office in Royal Oak, Mich. on April 16, 1990, the last day on which tax returns could be postmarked that year. Hendrickson testified at a co-conspirator’s trial that he wrapped a tea bag around the bomb’s tubing as a reference to the Boston Tea Party tax protest.
Since 2001, the Justice Department has obtained injunctions against more than 235 tax fraud promoters and fraudulent return preparers. More information about the Justice Department’s efforts to stop tax scams can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2007.htm. Information about the Justice Department’s Tax Division can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/index.html.
Related Documents:
United States v.
Peter Hendrickson, et al.
Order Denying (1) Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment, [26] and (2) Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [27]
Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction [23, 24]
13
-
12
-
Dom Trussardi
"The case against Pete was about a civil fraud promoted by Pete Hendrickson who encourages one to file false and fraudulent returns.
Pete has never won anything, only got refunds which everyone who uses his “information” will have to pay back, plus be sued for fraudulently filing false statements.
Read what happened below wherein he testified AGAINST his own friends, in 1992, in his federal criminal trial. Written here http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/30/30.F3d.135.93-2527.html (copied below) and in order to save his own butt, he turned on his friends and cut a deal. The gal Doreen, who is now Pete’s wife, secretly worked with Pete and the government to save themselves, and the two of them secretly taped phone conversations of their friends, and turned them over to the government. Nice folks.
IF Pete’s book had any lawful substance to support his legal claims, he would not have lost his civil litigation, that requires him to pay back in excess of $20,000.
The Golson’s have to pay back $69,760.85 PLUS interest. You can read about them and the rest in the links."
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Dowling_Complaint.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Golson_Complaint.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Gerstenkorn_Complaint.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Spitzer_Complaint.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Artman_Complaint.pdf
12
-
Dom Trussardi UNITED STATES SUES NINE IN NATIONWIDE CRACKDOWN ON TAX-REFUND SCAM
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department announced today that, in a nationwide crackdown against a tax-fraud scheme promoted by Peter Eric Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., it has brought suit against nine people this week. According to the government complaints, filed in seven lawsuits across the country, the nine people—including Hendrickson and his wife Doreen M. Hendrickson—have received a total of nearly $150,000 in erroneous tax refunds by submitting false forms with their federal tax returns to replace W-2 and 1099 forms that correctly reported their income.
In seven suits filed in U.S. district courts in California, Nevada, Michigan, Alabama, Florida and Kansas, the Justice Department seeks to recover the erroneous refunds. In addition, the suit against Hendrickson, filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, asks the court to enjoin him from filing false tax forms and returns. A violation of the injunction would be punishable as contempt of court.
According to the complaint, Hendrickson claims that only government workers are subject to income taxes. Hendrickson tells people to not submit their W-2 and 1099 forms with their tax returns, and in their place submit substitute or corrected W-2 and 1099 forms that they create on which they change their reported income to zero. Under the scheme, people then submit the falsified forms with a tax return falsely reporting no income and request a refund of all taxes withheld from wages. This scheme is number one on the IRS’s 2006 list of the “Dirty Dozen” tax scams, posted at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154293,00.html.
“Federal law provides serious penalties for filing false tax forms,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “People who engage in tax fraud schemes can expect to pay back taxes, plus interest and penalties, and may face criminal prosecution for evading taxes.”
The suit against Hendrickson alleges that he was convicted in 1992 on federal criminal charges for failing to file a federal income tax return and for a conspiracy involving a firebomb placed in a bin at a U.S. Post Office in Royal Oak, Mich. on April 16, 1990, the last day on which tax returns could be postmarked that year. Hendrickson testified at a co-conspirator’s trial that he wrapped a tea bag around the bomb’s tubing as a reference to the Boston Tea Party tax protest.
The seven people sued in addition to the Hendricksons are Sharon K. Artman of Largo, Fla.; Michael J. Dowling of San Diego; Joy M. Ferguson of Henderson, Nev.; Melvin L. Gerstenkorn of Topeka, Kan.; Larry B. Golson and Debra G. Golson of Montgomery, Ala.; and James A. Spitzer of Winter Park, Fla. Copies of all seven complaints will be posted with this press release today at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2006.htm.
This week’s suits are part of the IRS’s and Justice Department’s efforts against tax-fraud schemes. More information about these efforts can be found at www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2006.htm. Information about the Tax Division can be found at www.usdoj.gov/tax/index.html.
« back
30 F.3d 135
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Karen SCARBOROUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-2527.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 28, 1994.
Before: MARTIN, SUHRHEINRICH, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
Defendant Karen Scarborough appeals her conviction on one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and several counts of making false statements before the grand jury. Defendant challenges her jury conviction on four grounds: (1) that the district court erred in concluding that defendant's false statements to the grand jury were material; (2) that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to cross examine a witness about his polygraph; (3) that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the jury to review transcripts of tapes during deliberation; and (4) that the government failed to introduce sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction.
2
These arguments lack merit, and we AFFIRM defendant's conviction.
I.
3
This case arises out of a grand jury investigation into a "firebombing" at the Royal Oak Post Office on April 16, 1990, which occurred when an incendiary device, placed among a number of tax returns, erupted into flames. The fire injured Thomas Berlucci, a postal employee, who had collected the smoking package from the mail receptacle.
4
The ensuing investigation focused on the Libertarian Party, members of which were protesting at the post office when the incident occurred. Eventually the investigation focused on two members, Pete Hendrickson and his girlfriend at the time, Doreen Wright.
5
During the grand jury investigation, witnesses testified that prior to April 16, 1990, several members of the party met to discuss the possibility of placing an incendiary device in the mail on income tax day to protest the tax system. Witnesses testified that defendant had attended that meeting.
6
The grand jury subpoenaed defendant, who received immunity prior to testifying.1 Defendant testified that she had attended the meeting described by other witnesses but had no recollection of a discussion about putting a bomb in the mail; that she had no prior knowledge or involvement in the scheme; and that she was with Pete Hendrickson at the post office on April 16, and that he could not have planted the device.
7
After Hendrickson and Wright were charged with conspiracy, Hendrickson entered into a plea agreement and agreed to cooperate with the government. Hendrickson and Wright then surreptitiously taped conversations between Karen Scarborough and her husband. The tapes corroborated Hendrickson's version of the incident: that defendant, her husband and Hendrickson assembled the device; that the three went to the post office on April 16, and that Scott Scarborough planted the device at the post office. Defendant and her husband were indicted and charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice by presenting false testimony before the grand jury and also with several counts of perjury.
II. Materiality
8
Defendant contends that the evidence did not establish that her testimony to the grand jury was material to any matter that the grand jury was investigating at the time she gave the testimony. The issue of materiality is a legal question "not a question of fact." United States v. Giacalone, 587 F.2d 5, 6 (6th Cir.1978), cert denied, 442 U.S. 940 (1979). False testimony is material "if it has the natural effect or tendency to impede, influence or dissuade the grand jury from pursuing its investigation. Merely potential interference with a line of inquiry is sufficient to establish materiality, regardless of whether the perjured testimony actually serves to impede the investigation." United States v. Richardson, 596 F.2d 157, 165 (6th Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. Howard, 560 F.2d 281, 284 (7th Cir.1977)).
9
Defendant argues that the district court incorrectly concluded that false statements made by defendant to the grand jury were material because: (1) no grand jury members were called to testify as to whether defendant's testimony impeded their investigation of Hendrickson; and (2) the grand jury had sufficient evidence from other witnesses to proceed against Hendrickson.
10
These arguments are unpersuasive. First, the test is not concerned with actual interference, only with whether the false testimony could have interfered. Consequently, no member of the grand jury needed to testify that defendant's testimony interfered with their investigation. United States v. Swift, 809 F.2d 320, 324 (6th Cir.1987). Secondly, although the investigation had already targeted Hendrickson and Wright at the time defendant testified, defendant denied all knowledge of the crime and provided a false alibi for Hendrickson. Her statements were intended to persuade the grand jury that Hendrickson was not involved. Truthful answers by defendant probably would have aided the grand jury in its investigation and broadened the scope of the investigation. Accordingly, we hold that the defendant made false statement concerning matters "material" to the investigation.
III. Polygraph
11
Defendant contends that the district court abused its discretion in precluding reference to the fact that Pete Hendrickson had taken a polygraph examination or to the results of that examination on the ground that these matters lacked probative value on the issue of Hendrickson's credibility. The Sixth Circuit has never imposed a per se prohibition on the admission of polygraph evidence. United States v. Betancourt, 838 F.2d 168 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1013 (1988). Admissibility is decided after a two-step analysis. "First, the trial court must determine if the proffered evidence is relevant. Second, if the court concludes that the proffered evidence is relevant, it must balance the probative value of the evidence against the hazard of unfair prejudice and/or confusion which could mislead the jury." Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970, 972 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1069 (1988).
12
Here, defendant wanted the polygraph results admitted to attack Hendrickson's credibility. Credibility, however, is a matter for the jury to decide based on the testimony and demeanor of the witness as he testifies. Admitting the results of a polygraph could unduly influence this credibility determination. Consequently, admission of polygraph results is the exception, not the rule. United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1014 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 881 (1992). The district court decided that the facts in this case did not present circumstances so unusual as to warrant an exception to the general rule. There is no basis to find that the district court abused its discretion in prohibiting the admission of the results.
IV. Transcripts
13
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to have the transcript of taped conversations during deliberations. We review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Larson, 722 F.2d 139 (5th Cir.1983) (holding no prejudicial error in allowing jury to have transcript not formally admitted as evidence during deliberation where jury read transcript during trial and was instructed to resolve inconsistencies in favor of the tape), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 907 (1984). See also United States v. Puerta Restrepo, 814 F.2d 1236, 1242 (7th Cir.1987) (allowing jury to have transcripts even though identity of one of the speakers named on the transcript was disputed where court instructed jury that tapes, not transcripts, were evidence); United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1503 (11th Cir.1985) (absent showing that transcripts were inaccurate or that specific prejudice occurred, no error in allowing transcripts to go to jury during deliberations).
14
Defendant claims that the transcript omitted exculpatory passages contained on the original tape and concludes that she was prejudiced beca
9
-
1
-
1
-
1