1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

PETER HENDRICKSON, 

 Defendant 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS 

VIO: 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) 

 

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE 

TO EXCLUDE THE 2006 CIVIL ACTION AND 

FORMS 1040 FOR 2005 AND 2006 

AS SET FORTH IN THE GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE 

DATED JUNE 3, 2009

 

 For the reasons set forth more fully in the memorandum submitted herewith in support of this 

motion, Defendant Peter Hendrickson, by and through counsel, requests that the government be 

precluded from raising at trial any of the issues described in the memorandum. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

_________/s/________ 

Mark Lane 

Counsel for the Defendant 

4 Old Farm Road 

Charlottesville, VA 22903 

Tel: (434) 293-2349 

Fax: (434) 293-9013 

Mlane777@cs.com

 

 

 

Dated: September 1, 2009 

 

 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 57 Filed 09/01/2009 Page 1 of 7
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

PETER HENDRICKSON, 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS 

VIO: 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) 

 

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE 

TO EXCLUDE THE 2006 CIVIL ACTION AND 

FORMS 1040 FOR 2005 AND 2006 

AS SET FORTH IN THE GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE 

DATED JUNE 3, 2009

 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 

 The government has filed a supplemental notice of intent to introduce evidence under F.R.E. 

404(b). It intends to offer evidence regarding a civil case that was decided by the court after all of the 

circumstances set forth in the indictment had been concluded. In fact, the government, again finding 

itself in a difficult and embarrassing position, is trying to extricate itself by introducing evidence so 

prejudicial and so unrelated to any issue in this case that it would deny to the defendant a fair trial. 

 Very likely the defendant was indicted due to the fact that he had published a book entitled 

Cracking the Code, and that the government “began to observe taxpayers filing form 1040 tax returns 

which reported ‘zero’ or no income.” That statement was made by Shauna Henline, “a Technical 

Advisor for the Frivolous Return program at the IRS’s Ogden Compliance Services campus in Ogden, 

Utah.” Ms. Henline submitted a Declaration with that information under oath in a civil action brought 

by the government against Mr. Hendrickson in the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

Michigan, Southern Division. Her declaration was executed on May 19, 2006. 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 57 Filed 09/01/2009 Page 2 of 7
3

 The government was embarrassed because the special division it had established to look into 

frivolous returns had apparently looked into Mr. Hendrickson’s returns for two years and had sent 

refunds to him. Mr. Hendrickson had made no fraudulent statement in his application. He utilized the 

form provided by the IRS and informed the IRS that funds had been withheld and that it was his belief 

that they should be returned to him. 

 Rather than try this case on the merits, the government wishes to introduce a civil judgment 

dated May 2, 2007, which was rendered after all of the acts alleged in the indictment had been 

allegedly committed. 

 Should the Court permit the government to present evidence of this highly prejudicial ruling 

by a court, it would require the trial of yet an additional case. 

The evidence of a previous civil court ruling bears no relationship to any issue in this case. It 

can be contended that the defendant had a different concept of the law from that advocated by the 

government, and even allegedly endorsed by some court rulings. The defendant does not assert that 

no one is obligated to pay income tax. In fact, in his book, Cracking the Code, the defendant asserts at 

the very outset: 

Let’s get this said loud and clear right at the outset: IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE 

INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX. Section 1(a) of the 

Internal Revenue Code says: “there is hereby imposed a taxable income of ... [a tax of 

varying percentages].” 

The government apparently takes the position that a Complaint in a civil case against the 

defendant proved that “he was on notice that his legal theory was without foundation.” Actually, the 

Complaint set forth the government’s then current position regarding his analysis of the law. Clearly, 

Mr. Hendrickson understood that the government did not agree with him regarding his evaluation, 

which is no doubt the reason that the government did not refund sums which had been withheld from 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 57 Filed 09/01/2009 Page 3 of 7
4

him for some years, after first refunding sums which had been withheld from him for some years. The 

Complaint appeared to present the government’s view as to why the withheld funds should not be 

refunded, but did not explain why previously the government had refunded withheld funds. In any 

event, the documents which the government seeks to introduce would create a subtrial in which the 

defendant would be obligated to call a number of witnesses and offer substantial testimony and 

evidence. That subtrial, as is the case with the other three subtrials that the government is proposing, 

would each take longer to try than would the government’s case based upon allegations contained in 

the indictment. It would focus the attention of the jury upon extraneous and prejudicial issues and 

prevent the jurors from examining the evidence submitted to them based upon the charges set forth in 

the indictment. 

Similarly, the introduction of allegedly false Forms 1040s for the calendar years 2005 and 

2006 are extraneous, highly prejudicial and would result in yet another subtrial if the defendant is 

required to respond to that evidence. The government apparently neglected to seek an indictment for 

the filings of the allegedly false forms, although it now claims that the filing of those forms 

constituted criminal violations of 26 USC Section 7206(1). If the government thought that the filing 

of those forms was criminal, it could have sought an indictment for those alleged crimes at the outset, 

or it could have sought a superseding indictment. Instead, it seeks to muddy the waters in the trial of 

the returned indictment by making charges of criminal conduct for which the defendant has not been 

indicted, further obfuscating the charges in the indictment and further distracting the jury from the 

very simple accusations set forth in the indictment. 

If the government’s efforts to cause four subtrials are permitted, a case which might have been 

concluded in three or four days, according to the estimate of the Department of Justice trial counsel 

for this case, likely will take more than a month. 

Most of the witnesses on the witness list submitted by the defendant to the government on this 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 57 Filed 09/01/2009 Page 4 of 7
5

date are witnesses who will be called to refute the evidence which the government wishes to offer 

about acts, opinions, documents and other evidence not referred to or comprehended in the indictment. 

In spite of sound cautionary instructions which this Court would likely give to the jury, the 

mere weight of the case in terms of time spent and documents produced would prevent the jury from 

meeting its appropriate task of focusing upon the charges set forth in the indictment. 

For the evidence the government wishes to present to a jury in this case, a great deal of time 

will be required by both the government and the defendant. The defendant alone will be required to 

place many witnesses on the stand. On the other hand, counsel for the Department of Justice, Mark F. 

Daly, the trial attorney in this case, has informed Mr. Lane, counsel for Mr. Hendrickson, that he 

expects the case to last a very short period of time. In other words, it appears that more time will be 

spent, and therefore more emphasis placed, upon irrelevant and highly prejudicial sets of 

circumstances, which occurred after most of the events alleged in the indictment had taken place or 

two decades before. In short, the government wishes to extricate itself from its embarrassing position 

by trying a case different from the one set forth in the indictment. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that his prior conviction and 

prior alleged criminal conduct not be admitted for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b) and that its 

probative value was not substantially outweighed by the considerations set forth in Rule 403 and that 

the government be precluded from raising at trial any of the extraneous issues discussed and described 

herein and in the previous motion in limine filed on August 28, 2009. The defendant further 

respectfully requests that correspondence and filings with a state agency and documents related to that 

issue not be admitted and that the government be precluded from raising at trial any of the issues 

discussed and described in the motion filed on August 28, 2009, and in this memorandum including 

documents regarding a civil case and 1040 forms for which no indictment was returned. 

In short, the defendant respectfully requests that the Court direct the government to restrict the 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 57 Filed 09/01/2009 Page 5 of 7
6

presentation of its evidence at trial, as well as allegations to be made in the opening statement by the 

government, to the confines of the accusations clearly set forth in the indictment which has been 

returned, rather than wander into allegations which apparently have not even been presented to the 

Grand Jury in obtaining the indictment of this case. 

In ruling upon this Motion in Limine, the defendant requests that this Court conduct its Rule 

404 and 403 balancing on the record. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

_________/s/________ 

Mark Lane 

Counsel for the Defendant 

4 Old Farm Road 

Charlottesville, VA 22903 

Tel: (434) 293-2349 

Fax: (434) 293-9013 

Mlane777@cs.com

 

 

 

Dated: September 1, 2009 

 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 57 Filed 09/01/2009 Page 6 of 7
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 This is to certify that on September 1, 2009, an original copy of the foregoing Defendant’s 

Motion in Limine and Memorandum in Support therein was filed with the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan and served on counsel for the government by filing the same with the 

Electronic Case Filing system. 

 

__________/s/__________ 

Mark Lane 

Trial Attorney 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 57 Filed 09/01/2009 Page 7 of 7