Pete's Criminal Trial

[ASITStands]

I am not surprised that incompetents in the legal profession indulge themselves in trivializing the incompetence of their peers.

This from a guy who thinks Pete's legal theories hold water.

Clobberro used to post on the old Lost Horizons board as Biggdooger.

I had thought there was a change of mind?

See, 'Clobberro,' I am defending you. 'Biggdooger' often opposed my posts on Lost Horizons.

[The Observer]

I am not surprised that incompetents in the legal profession indulge themselves in trivializing the incompetence of their peers.

This from a guy who thinks Pete's legal theories hold water.

Clobberro used to post on the old Lost Horizons board as Biggdooger.

I had written Clobberro off a long time ago as a result of him not being able to recognize a TP when he saw one. Now that I find out that he was a participant at LH, and a one-time supporter of Hendrickson, I'm glad to see that my sense of judgement is still operating very well.

[notorial dissent]

The plain fact of the matter is that if she doesn’t automatically assume, and prepare for Pete’s past to haunt them throughout the trial, she is in for a rough and unpleasant ride.

Do you mean she called in Sammy & Dean from Supernatural to gank the ghost of Pete's past? If she did, I'd totally be there for the trial. Dean's really yummy to look at.

With what ole Petey has to look forward to, I think every little bit would help, but I don’t think even those boys are up to exorcizing that particular demon. Could be fun to watch though.

I am not surprised that incompetents in the legal profession indulge themselves in trivializing the incompetence of their peers.

This from a guy who thinks Pete's legal theories hold water.

Clobberro used to post on the old Lost Horizons board as Biggdooger.

I thought that particular dull thunk of logic was familiar, now I know why.

[Famspear]

From the case docket, entry 17, on 13 January 2009:

Motion for Second Extension of Time in Which to File Motions and for Adjournment of Trial Date

Now comes Peter Hendrickson, Defendant herein, by and through his counsel, Ellen Dennis, and files this Motion for Second Extension of Time in Which to File Motions and for Adjournment of Trial Date.

Defendant says as follows:

1. On January 6, 2009, and again on January 12, 2009, counsel for Defendant spoke with Assistant United States Attorney Michael Leibson and asked for concurrence in the relief requested in this motion. Assistant United States Attorney Michael Leibson, on behalf of the government, does concur in the relief requested.

2. Defendant was arraigned on the indictment on November 12, 2008.

3. On November 24, 2008, Defendant filed a motion asking for a 90 day extension of time in which to file motions.

4. On December 1, 2008, the court issued an Order Granting in Part Motion to Extend Time to File Motions. By the terms of the order Defendant is required to file all motions by January 15, 2009. Any Plea Agreement is due January 29, 2009. The Final Status Conference/Entry of Plea is scheduled for January 29, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. Trial is scheduled for February 10, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.

5. Defendant is requesting a second extension of time in which to file motions until March 1, 2009.

6. The reasons for the request for an extension of time are as follows:

a. Since being indicted Defendant has been attempting to retain a second attorney to represent him who has extensive experience in representing defendants in federal criminal tax prosecutions. Counsel of record does not have such extensive experience with the tax laws of the United States. Defendant did not expect to be indicted and so had not retained an attorney prior to being indicted. Any new attorney will need additional time to familiarize himself/herself with the extensive discovery material and with the complex statutory and constitutional issues germane to the case.

b. Counsel of record for Defendant did not receive discovery from the United States until December 12, 2008. That discovery consisted of five cds of material. One disc contained 3800 pages of documents. Two of the discs, which purport to record an undercover operation, could not be opened. Assistant United States Attorney Michael Leibson has not been able to open these discs either, and new discs will have to be prepared by the government.

c. This case involves complex issues of tax law and statutory construction. Counsel of record for Defendant needs extra time in which to develop the defense, in order to protect Defendant’s constitutional rights.

d. Counsel of record for Defendant is still evaluating the case, but she does expect to file motions which will be time consuming to research and draft.

e. Defendant is not in custody.

f. Counsel of record for Defendant is also engaged in other cases which need her time and attention. Included among those cases are United States v. Peter Lukasavitz, Case No. 08-20499, pending before Judge Robert H. Cleland, Untied States v. Robert Major, Case No. 08-20601, pending before Judge Paul D. Borman, and Collier v. Lafler, Case No. 06-10923, pending before Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. She also has pending appeals in the Michigan Court of Appeals, Shoreline Steel, Inc. v. Superior Piling, Inc., Appeal Nos. 288744 and 288745 and other cases pending in the Washtenaw and Lenawee County Circuit Courts.

Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendant, Peter Hendrickson, requests the following relief:

A. That the court grant a second extension of time in which to file motions.

B. That the court adjourn the trial date.

C. Such other relief as is equitable and just.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Ellen Dennis (P-24400)
Law Office of Ellen Dennis
Attorney for Defendant Hendrickson
[ . . . ]

(bolding added)

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
Defendant did not expect to be indicted....

Right.

I really do sympathize with defense counsel in this matter. It's the equivalent of handing someone a grenade with the pin already pulled and being told by the client that it's an avocado.

[webhick]

....
Defendant did not expect to be indicted....

Right.

I really do sympathize with defense counsel in this matter. It's the equivalent of handing someone a grenade with the pin already pulled and being told by the client that it's an avocado.

Except that with a quick Google search, she could have found out that the avocado was a live grenade before agreeing to take the "avocado." I still feel bad for her, but not as bad as I would if she were Pete's public defender.

[notorial dissent]

My thought/question from the very beginning, was why would an attorney, who admittedly is not in tax or criminal practice, intentionally take on a case like this when even to a layman it is quite obvious which way the derailment is headed?

I really can’t believe she is that totally clueless, and so have come to the conclusion that she was either mislead by her client as to the nature of what he was facing, or she was the only one who didn’t know better and slam the door in his face when he came calling, and now really wishes she had.

This has puzzled me from the very beginning, and were I more cynical than I am normally prone to being, I would think that Pete chose her as a delaying tactic, except that I have a really hard time ascribing that much intelligence to Pete.

[Doktor Avalanche]

"A person who represents themselves or Pete Hendrickson has a fool for a client."

Fixed.

[Famspear]

My thought/question from the very beginning, was why would an attorney, who admittedly is not in tax or criminal practice, intentionally take on a case like this when even to a layman it is quite obvious which way the derailment is headed?

According to her web site, she does practice criminal law (as opposed to criminal tax law). I would assume that she has insisted on, and has obtained, an adequate retainer. Lawyers often take cases because they're engaged in the practice of law, not because they think each case is going to be easy to win.

Regarding the direction of the putative, impending derailment of PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson, I don't think it's a sure a thing as you seem to believe. He's facing a very tough situation and, yes, there's a lot of evidence out there that could slice him up. But a jury will presumably decide whether he gets sliced (if he doesn't cop a plea, etc.). I cannot consistently, accurately predict what juries will do.

I really can’t believe she is that totally clueless, and so have come to the conclusion that she was either mislead by her client as to the nature of what he was facing, or she was the only one who didn’t know better and slam the door in his face when he came calling, and now really wishes she had.

I respectfully disagree. This is just my opinion, and I don't know her, but I would guess that she is far from clueless. Indeed, if I had extensive experience practicing criminal defense law (which I do not) and if I were located in the Eastern District of Michigan (I am not), I might accept the case -- if Hendrickson could come up with the retainer.

Hendrickson needs people like us -- not me specifically, as I don't have criminal law experience -- but Hendrickson needs a lawyer or lawyers who know the nuances of the willfulness element, the ins and outs of a Cheek defense, how to deal with a jury, and so on. The fact that I strongly disapprove of Hendrickson and his tax evasion scam does not mean that I would not accept the job (if I had sufficient criminal practice experience) and tear the prosecution's case apart if I could find a way to do that.

If Hendrickson's current counsel feels she does not have adequate tax experience, Hendrickson can bring in someone who does. His current counsel, however, might be "strong" in some important area in which the incoming "tax" person might be weak. So she could still be of great help to the defendant.

I do agree that anyone who represents Petey has a fool for a client.

[notorial dissent]

According to her web site, she does practice criminal law (as opposed to criminal tax law). I would assume that she has insisted on, and has obtained, an adequate retainer. Lawyers often take cases because they're engaged in the practice of law, not because they think each case is going to be easy to win.
True, but there is criminal law and there is criminal law, and one may be good in one area and not so good in others, and I definitely hope she got a good retainer. Taking a case is one thing, taking a case you are not prepared to deal with is another, and it is beginning to sound as if she is in over her head. IMO.

Regarding the direction of the putative, impending derailment of PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson, I don't think it's a sure a thing as you seem to believe. He's facing a very tough situation and, yes, there's a lot of evidence out there that could slice him up. But a jury will presumably decide whether he gets sliced (if he doesn't cop a plea, etc.). I cannot consistently, accurately predict what juries will do.
I never said it was a sure thing, but a derailment it will be, regardless of who comes out ahead. I don’t pretend to second guess juries or horse races, but this is going to be a long and protracted mess, unless of course Pete decides to cave and throw his followers under the bus, which may yet happen.

I really can’t believe she is that totally clueless, and so have come to the conclusion that she was either mislead by her client as to the nature of what he was facing, or she was the only one who didn’t know better and slam the door in his face when he came calling, and now really wishes she had.

I respectfully disagree. This is just my opinion, and I don't know her, but I would guess that she is far from clueless. Indeed, if I had extensive experience practicing criminal defense law (which I do not) and if I were located in the Eastern District of Michigan (I am not), I might accept the case -- if Hendrickson could come up with the retainer.
I said I DIDN'T think she was clueless, but rather that I she had probably been seriously mislead as to the nature of what he was facing, either that or she didn’t have a convenient other appt in time to avoid speaking with him.

Hendrickson needs people like us -- not me specifically, as I don't have criminal law experience -- but Hendrickson needs a lawyer or lawyers who know the nuances of the willfulness element, the ins and outs of a Cheek defense, how to deal with a jury, and so on. The fact that I strongly disapprove of Hendrickson and his tax evasion scam does not mean that I would not accept the job (if I had sufficient criminal practice experience) and tear the prosecution's case apart if I could find a way to do that.
I quite agree with you, Petey needs a really good attorney as this is all mostly technical and is not going to be an easy case, and I hope he can find or has that type of representation when the time arises. However, at the present time that would appear to not be the case.

If Hendrickson's current counsel feels she does not have adequate tax experience, Hendrickson can bring in someone who does. His current counsel, however, might be "strong" in some important area in which the incoming "tax" person might be weak. So she could still be of great help to the defendant.
From the last material posted, it would seem that she has reached the conclusion that she is in over her head, or that Pete is demanding she do things she knows she can’t, and is diplomatically setting the stage for a change of council, since she is asking for extensions out to March now and is pleading being very busy.

I do agree that anyone who represents Petey has a fool for a client.
Which goes without saying.

[wserra]

True, but there is criminal law and there is criminal law, and one may be good in one area and not so good in others

That really isn't so for litigation generally, and is especially not so for criminal litigation. Thanks to vagueness requirements, criminally proscribed conduct must be pretty specifically laid out. The defense attorney's job is then to poke holes in the govt's case hopefully to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the client's conduct fell within the narrow proscription. Despite the brays of the TP bar, there is nothing special about defending 99% of evasion or failure-to-file charges. A Cheek defense is just a minor variation on the lack of intent defense which every experienced criminal litigator has used repeatedly. Learning the legal requirements is a matter of reading a couple of cases. The art is in the jury presentation, which is readily transferable from every other trial. Hendrickson's plea of need for specialized tax counsel is a delaying tactic. It may work - judges are loath to deny defendants counsel of choice - but there is no need. I'm not saying that specialized knowledge is never needed to defend a criminal case - environmental crimes and (in the tax realm) evasion by way of abusive shelters come to mind - but that's not Hendrickson's case.

By and large, a broad-spectrum civil litigator requires a substantially greater range of knowledge. In the last year, I went from trying a medmal alleging that improper intubation procedures resulted in an hypoxic brain injury to trying a products case regarding an elevator. You learn what you need to know, and it keeps life interesting.

[The Operative]

a. Since being indicted Defendant has been attempting to retain a second attorney to represent him who has extensive experience in representing defendants in federal criminal tax prosecutions. Counsel of record does not have such extensive experience with the tax laws of the United States. Defendant did not expect to be indicted and so had not retained an attorney prior to being indicted. Any new attorney will need additional time to familiarize himself/herself with the extensive discovery material and with the complex statutory and constitutional issues germane to the case.

[sarcasm]WHAT!?! Do you mean that the erudite legal scholar that is Pete Hendrickson has not taught his own attorney all she needs to know about tax law? After all, he wrote a book and CtC is the truth.[/sarcasm]

[LPC]

a. Since being indicted Defendant has been attempting to retain a second attorney to represent him who has extensive experience in representing defendants in federal criminal tax prosecutions. Counsel of record does not have such extensive experience with the tax laws of the United States. Defendant did not expect to be indicted and so had not retained an attorney prior to being indicted.

I suspect that this might be lawyer-speak for "my client is still under the delusion that there is a lawyer out there who is willing to buy into his CtC-crap, and I need more time for him to realize that it's a waste of time and I'm the best shot he's got."

I agree generally with what Famspear and Wes have written, and would like to add another comment, which is that an ideal of the legal profession is that everyone deserves a lawyer, particularly criminal defendants. So, sometimes the question you ask yourself is not so much "do I want to represent this person" but "someone needs to represent this person and should it be me?" It's not a major concern, but I think it does come up, especially if the decision as to whether to accept the representation is a close call.

[Demosthenes]

When I read the attorney's latest filing, all I could think was, "Thank God. She's buying the defense some time so that I don't have to travel to Michigan in cold cold weather. Pete's attorney is a genius!"

All I see is a delaying tactic.

I found this tidbit far more interesting:

Two of the discs, which purport to record an undercover operation, could not be opened.

I wonder which "Owl" is really is an undercover agent or rat...

[Judge Roy Bean]

[....Learning the legal requirements is a matter of reading a couple of cases. The art is in the jury presentation, ....

What Wes said (above) - and I would preface that with selection and follow it with the instructions.

[Demosthenes]

<cough> Bulten <cough>

That would be my guess. He was interviewed by a CI Special Agent a couple of years ago. He disappeared from both Los Horizons and here several months ago, and only recently came back to Lost Horizons.

[LPC]

<cough> Bulten <cough>

That would be my guess. He was interviewed by a CI Special Agent a couple of years ago. He disappeared from both Los Horizons and here several months ago, and only recently came back to Lost Horizons.

You mean Bulten turned on Hendrickson before Hendrickson could turn on him?

If true, that would be so cool (and so fitting).

[Imalawman]

When I read the attorney's latest filing, all I could think was, "Thank God. She's buying the defense some time so that I don't have to travel to Michigan in cold cold weather. Pete's attorney is a genius!"

I was thinking that he's trying to get Becraft or Munns, but is having a hard time. He's got to be strapped for cash, he hadn't been exactly successful in life.

[Famspear]

He [John J. Bulten] was interviewed by a CI Special Agent a couple of years ago. [ . . . . ]

Hey, I don't think I knew that. Can you remember any other details?

[wserra]

He [John J. Bulten] was interviewed by a CI Special Agent a couple of years ago. [ . . . . ]

Hey, I don't think I knew that. Can you remember any other details?

The agent eventually left out of sheer boredom.