Pete's criminal trial (continued)

[Imalawman]

Despite the change in the judges in the Hendrickson case, I see no docketed ruling that expressly results in any further postponement in the trial. Is the trial still scheduled to begin on Tuesday, February 10th?

Good question.

but why did the judges change? it wont have any relevancy to the case i am just curious

Its so hard to know. I once had a case that went through 3 judges before one finally took the case. Each one found something to disqualify themselves - conflict of interest, schedule conflict, etc. The last one waited until the day before the trial to officially re-schedule the case, but all the parties knew before that. So, its anyone's guess when they'll officially move back the trial (I'm certain that they will, but who knows?) and also anyone's guess what the judge recused him/herself.

Don't read too much into it, its not that uncommon.

[Demosthenes]

Despite the change in the judges in the Hendrickson case, I see no docketed ruling that expressly results in any further postponement in the trial. Is the trial still scheduled to begin on Tuesday, February 10th?

Good question.

but why did the judges change? it wont have any relevancy to the case i am just curious

There's no way to tell yet since no one here attended the recent hearing. Maybe Pete will say something in his next newsletter.

[ASITStands]

And she STILL hasn't corrected the incorect reference in her Certificate of Service.

Who the hell is "Defendant Arlee?"

Defendant 'Arlee' is Arlo Guthrie's half-sister.

Maybe, Pete's signaling his intent to pull an "Alice's Restaurant" defense.

"Kill! Kill! Kill!"

EDIT: Hey! Don't blame me. It's Friday Afternoon!

[ASITStands]

However I can contribute for Mutter's benefit, that most Tax Court opinions are available on the Internet via http://www.ustaxcourt.gov.

Opinions are not available in the Opinions Search tab if they have been submitted for appeal, BUT there's a great deal of information available through the Docket Inquiry tab.

All opinions, even those submitted for appeal, are available on the Tax Court website.

Yes. The misunderstanding is the difference between a Memorandum Opinion and an Order of Dismissal and Decision. One results in an opinion being posted to the Opinions section, and the other is available as a PDF viewable from the docket.

This last is with the caveat that only recent orders are viewable. Happened during 2008.

So, when looking for a case on the tax court website, first find the docket to see what's posted there. It should give you the sequence of events and all Opinions and Orders.

Searching the Opinions section only will often not result in any findings.

[Dezcad]

Latest docket entry below:

02/06/2009 24 NOTICE of hearing on 18 Motion to Dismiss Indictment as to *Peter Hendrickson*. Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2009 02:00 PM before District Judge Gerald E Rosen (LSau) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

[Demosthenes]

03/05/2009 25 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Lyle D. Russell, Jr appearing for Peter Hendrickson. (Russell, Lyle) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

[Dezcad]

03/05/2009 25 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Lyle D. Russell, Jr appearing for Peter Hendrickson. (Russell, Lyle) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

Anyone have any information on Lyle Russell. I couldn't find much at all. Just wondering why Petey may have hired him, the hearing on PH's Motion to Dismiss is in one week.

[Demosthenes]

03/05/2009 25 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Lyle D. Russell, Jr appearing for Peter Hendrickson. (Russell, Lyle) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

Anyone have any information on Lyle Russell. I couldn't find much at all. Just wondering why Petey may have hired him, the hearing on PH's Motion to Dismiss is in one week.

Did a quickie-only check and found that he's a lawyer in good standing with the Michigan bar. Here's a recent (Jan 2009) ad for his firm:

Russell & Stoychoff, P.C.
DON’T LOSE ANY MORE SLEEP!!
Paul M. Stoychoff
Attorney at Law
Waterford, MI 48329 Phone 248-618-0300
GET THOSE CREDITORS OFF YOUR BACK!! Email pmstoych@yahoo.com
We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for Bankruptcy Relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

[Demosthenes]

The new lawyer has 27 cases listed in the Eastern Michigan US District Court. Of these, only three were filed or resolved in the last ten years, not including Hendrickson's case. Of these three, only one was a criminal case:

2:08-cr-20345-DML-VMM-1 Aubrey Terbrack filed 06/17/08

This was a mortgage fraud case (defrauding Ginnie Mae) where the defendant cut a plea deal.

[webhick]

Magic 8 Ball says:

::shake::shake::shake::

"Pete will want another continuance so his new attorney can become familiar with the case."

::shake::shake::shake::

"Pete will then want yet another continuance so he can find a different attorney."

::shake::shake::shake::

"Too many bubbles. Try again later."

[notorial dissent]

So ole Pete went from a petty crimes lawyer, and I’m still unclear on what her credentials would ever have been to have been trying a tax fraud case in the first place, to a bankruptcy lawyer with next to no trial experience.

Gee Demo I think I too see a pattern emerging here. I wonder how long it will take the court to see the same and take action.

I personally am of the opinion that both attorneys should be sanctioned for wasting the court’s time. Since as Demo points out this will be another continuance, maybe, and then yet another lawyer when this one wises up, hopefully.

While I do not deny Pete the right to an attorney and a defense, I do feel that there is a line where hiring the incapable as a delaying tactic should be seen as just that and dealt with, and quite frankly, there is or should be a professional line where an attorney says or should say, "I am not qualified to represent you in this matter", and to step aside.

[Prof]

I have no idea what the qualifications of PH's attorneys may be; however, it could be that the first attorney could not find the most essential witness in any criminal defense matter, "Mr. Green." Or, the second attorney may well have been able to take this matter even though the witness is somewhat "smaller" than anticipated.

[Cpt Banjo]

What, you mean to say that the defense fund the CtCretins put together for Pete isn't literally overflowing with contributions?

[Gregg]

I was kind of thinking the first lawyer fired the client when she realized that he wasn't going to let her try the case in court. I wrote somewhere else on this, Pete is going to go down in flames but do it in a way that he can say to the faithful "they never let the facts come out in the trial", he wants to argue the law says what HE says it does and means what HE says it means. Any attorney stuck with him as a client would I think try to challenge willfulness as the only way of winning, which in light of Pete's past and present activities is still a longshot.
Pete would rather lose and say "the court was currupt" than take a chance of winning by saying "I was wrong but not on purpose". I guess he figures if he loses he can drag out appeals to avoid prison time and never have to say he's sorry.
Anyhow, in teh filings I read in the case, it seemed to me that the arguments being made came more from Pete than anyone who ever went to or walked past a law school, and when I saw he had a new attorney I figured she may have decided she had standards.

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree with Gregg here, in that I am quite convinced that Petey sold lawyer #1 a bill of goods, and thought he could horse her into letting him run things, which he apparently did for a time judging by some of the filings made, and she either got tired of being used, or wised up, and as Gregg suggests, fired him. The point being she should never have accepted him as a client in the first place. I really don’t foresee any change in strategy with lawyer #2, the only question is how long will it take him to get wise to the program and also fire Pete.

I agree, that I think the only chance, long shot, Pete has is to try and beat the willfulness charge, and I don’t really think his ego will let him do it. Pete HAS to be right, and I just don’t see him admitting to making an error.

[LPC]

Anyhow, in teh filings I read in the case, it seemed to me that the arguments being made came more from Pete than anyone who ever went to or walked past a law school, and when I saw he had a new attorney I figured she may have decided she had standards.

It's possible.

Something that lawyers really need to do when they take on a case is spell out exactly what strategy they plan to follow, and ask the client to agree to that strategy. So, for example (and this example has nothing to do with Hendrickson), the lawyer's strategy might be to move for summary judgment on an important legal issue and, if the motion fails, capitulate and work out a deal based on a few remaining factual issues. If the client expresses a desire for a "Stalingrad" strategy in which nothing is ever conceded and the end result is hand-to-hand fighting with knives and teeth, then there should be a parting of the ways before there is a joining of the ways.

Unfortunately, clients sometimes lie about their intentions, or change their minds, in which case you wind up trying to bail in order to avoid following what you consider to be a "toilet" strategy.

[Nikki]

Are copies of the Withdrawal and Entry of Appearance motions available?

[Famspear]

The signature area of the aforementioned March 5 notice of appearance itself actually says that the attorney is appearing for "Aubrey Terbrack" -- although the caption on the notice and the body of the text of the notice say "Hendrickson". As noted above, the notice is posted and linked on Hendrickson's case docket (and the docket entry next to the link also says the attorney is appearing for Hendrickson). Could be that in drafting the notice, the attorney just modified the form he had already used from the Terbrack case, changed the names in two places, but forgot to change the name at the bottom in the signature area.

Anyway, I see no notice of withdrawal for any attorney.

[notorial dissent]

Unfortunately, clients sometimes lie about their intentions, or change their minds, in which case you wind up trying to bail in order to avoid following what you consider to be a "toilet" strategy.

What, Pete not be honest with his attorney or lie, say it ain’t so!!!!! Why the next thing you’ll be telling me that CTC is a work of fantasy!!!!!!!!

I definitely think "toilet strategy" is an apt expression here, since that is exactly where it is headed one way or another.

If Pete is honest with his attorney, they will have to or at least should have to tell him that his approach isn’t viable and will only get him in deeper, and that they are not going to play and cannot be a party to what he is planning. If Pete isn’t honest(which is the going bet), he will continue to string them along until they figure out that he is trying to have them help him build his own self immolation pyre using them as part of the tinder, and I would think that self preservation would prompt them to flee quickly in the other direction.

[Gregg]

Back to my earlier question, is Pete more or less entitled to a continuance to get his new lawyer up to speed? Is it up to the judge and if it is how likely is he to get a delay?