## Facts

- Norbert L. Hildebrandt, a Minnesota farmer in severe financial distress, lost his farm through state foreclosure after credit problems.
- After the foreclosure, he followed teachings sold by Roger Elvick, including materials titled “Introduction to Redemption.”
- Acting on those teachings, Hildebrandt prepared and sent IRS Forms 1099 to numerous individuals involved in the foreclosure or related proceedings, including judges, law enforcement personnel, lenders, attorneys, and creditors.
- Forms 1099 report non-wage compensation; Hildebrandt listed large dollar amounts as if he had paid those recipients, although he had not made such payments.
- He filed the 1099s with the IRS along with summary cover sheets claiming he had paid millions of dollars in non-wage compensation, and on at least one cover sheet he swore under penalty of perjury that the submitted documents were true.
- At trial, Hildebrandt testified that he believed the filings were not false, believed he had a legal duty to file them, and expected the IRS to collect taxes on the reported “income.”
- A jury convicted him on two counts of making false statements to a federal agency under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court had to give a specific instruction that a defendant’s subjective good-faith belief that he was not violating the law negates the “willfulness” element under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
2. Whether excluding certain materials related to Elvick’s teachings as hearsay improperly limited Hildebrandt’s ability to present a state-of-mind defense.
3. Whether the Sentencing Guidelines’ three-level “official victim” enhancement was properly applied where many recipients of the false 1099s were judges and law enforcement officers.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The jury instructions adequately required the government to prove Hildebrandt knowingly and intentionally used false documents, knowing they contained false statements; no separate “subjective good-faith belief” instruction was required.
- The district court’s exclusion of certain defense materials as hearsay was not reversible error, particularly because Hildebrandt was permitted to testify extensively about his beliefs and reliance.
- The “official victim” enhancement was properly applied because Hildebrandt targeted government officials based on their official actions connected to the foreclosure and related proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, it is sufficient to instruct the jury that the defendant must have knowingly and intentionally made or used a false document, knowing it contained a false statement; the statute does not require an additional instruction focused on a defendant’s subjective belief in the legality of his conduct.
- A claimed good-faith legal theory does not negate knowledge of factual falsity when the defendant knows he did not make the reported payments.
- Materials offered to prove the truth of asserted legal propositions may be excluded as hearsay; limiting such evidence is less likely to be reversible error where the defendant can present his state-of-mind testimony through other admissible evidence.
- A sentencing enhancement for “official victims” applies when the offense targets government officers or employees because of their official status or acts performed in an official capacity.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hildebrandt’s § 1001 convictions for filing false Forms 1099 and affirmed a sentence enhancement for targeting officials, holding that standard mens rea instructions were adequate and that evidentiary limits on hearsay materials did not warrant reversal.


United States v. Hildebrandt, 961 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1992)