Hendrickson aftermath

[notorial dissent]

In a way, it is kind of comforting to see Pete running true to form, right smack into that brass doorknob in the dead of night, and even more comforting to realize that he is falling back on his usual line of nonsense, with the added twist that he is now going to try and redefine what has been heretofore decided case law to suit his view of the world. Sort of like what he has done for dictionaries everywhere.

I somehow do not think it will get any further with the appeals courts than his regular brand of delusion has with the trial courts. In other words, they will have a good laugh and hand it back to him as confetti, as I doubt they will accept for appeal once it has been read.

I would also expect at this point that his current batch of lawyers have washed their hands of him if they are letting him go this alone, and I can’t imagine any of them letting him attach their names to any of this.

[grixit]

Weston knows weak sauce.

[wserra]

a motion for acquittal or new trial

From Paragraph 11:

Defendant expects to order the trial transcript shortly.

Translation: Hendrickson doesn't have the money to pay for it, and his lawyers are not about to front it. Can a CJA application be far behind? If one appears, yet more irony meters fall victim to the sight of tax money funding a TP's defense.

[LPC]

Wow, well it appears as if Hendrickson's attorney Mark E. Cedrone out of Pennsylvania on 11/3 filed a motion for acquittal or new trial for a host of reasons: http://defendindependence.org/KB/PH/7206-2008/PH78.PDF.

From the motion:

10. Defendant makes this prophylactic Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or for New Trial to comply with the time constraints governing such motions as set forth in Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c) and 33.

And from the memorandum in support of the motion:

The commentary to both rules, as well as Fed.R.Crim.P. 45 contemplates that the deadline for filing such motions can be extended. Defendant, however, has opted to file motions and seek leave to supplement based upon grounds that may become apparent after more careful review and consideration of the trial record.

So, instead of asking for an extension of time to file the motion, Cedrone filed a vague and largely meaningless motion while asking for permission to supplement (or withdraw) it later, once he can figure out if he really has any grounds for the motion.

Anyone have any idea why Cedrone would do this?

My ideas so far:

1. Hendrickson is paranoid, outraged, or something, and *insisted* that something be filed immediately.

2. Cedrone is paranoid (or careful), and didn't want the 7 day time limit to pass without filing something.

3. Hendrickson has money problems (as Wes suggested above), and this was Cedrone's way of somehow maximizing his chances of getting paid while minimizing his efforts.

4. Hendrickson and Cedrone can't agree on the grounds for the motion (and future appeals), and this is a way of stalling for time.

5. This is actually a fairly standard practice, but I've never seen it before.

6. Some combination of the above.

[LPC]

...Meanwhile Hendrickson and now Doreen are both asking for help in disproving the following cases:

Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959);
United States v. Maggi, No. 98-5570, (6th Cir. 1999),
United States v. Napier, No 90-1297 (6th Cir. 1991),
United States v. Boling, No. 87-5051 (6th Cir. 1988),
United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1981),
United States v. Latham 754 F.2d (7th Cir. 1985),
United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986)
United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)

I wonder what Hendrickson (or WW) mean by "disproving." Proof that the cases don't really mean what they say?

From the TP FAQ:

“Nor is there merit in petitioner’s contention that Congress, by specifically providing in 6331 for levy upon the accrued salaries of federal employees, but not mentioning state employees, evinced an intention to exclude the latter from levy. The explanation of that action by Congress appears quite clearly to be that this Court had held in Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388, that a federal disbursing officer might not, in the absence of express congressional authorization, set off an indebtedness of a federal employee to the Government against the employee’s salary, and, pursuant to that opinion, the Comptroller General ruled that an ‘administrative official served with [notices of levy] would be without authority to withhold any portion of the current salary of such employee in satisfaction of the notices of levy and distraint.’ 26 Comp. Gen. 907, 912 (1947). It is evident that 6331 was enacted to overcome that difficulty and to subject the salaries of federal employees to the same collection procedures as are available against all other taxpayers, including employees of a State.” Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-113 (1959), (emphasis added).

“Petitioner’s assertion that he is not a person required to pay tax as he is not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or of a corporation, is wholly meritless.” United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1981).

“Similarly, Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.” United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).

“[Condo] asserts that the sixteenth amendment only allows taxing income from ‘sources’ (entities and monopolies created by law), not persons. The sixteenth amendment authorization, however, is for a tax on income from whatever source derived.” United States v. Condo, 741 F2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985). The Condo decision has also been cited for rejecting the proposition that "includes" is not limiting, but I don't have the text supporting that conclusion.

"databrain" has posted the texts of the Boling, Napier, and Sims decisions on the LH forum, and the Boling case contains this gem: "Boling's third and final argument is patently frivolous. He contends that the trial court lacked "subject matter jurisdiction in persona" because he is not a "person" as defined in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7343. Nothing in section 7343 limits the ordinary meaning of "person" so as to exclude individuals such as Boling."

The Napier case is also not helpful: "Napier first argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction in his case because he is not a person who is subject to taxation. This argument is without merit in the instant case. See United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir.1981)."

I don't have anything on Maggi on Karlin.

[LPC]

Additional thoughts:

1. Is it possible that "researcher, analyst and scholar Peter E. Hendrickson" has decided to actually read the decisions that contradict what he wrote in "the only in-depth, practical, accurate and comprehensible presentation of the truth about the 'income' tax"? And is it mere curiousity, or is he beginning to wonder if he was a bit hasty in some of his conclusions?

2. If Hendrickson were going to do actual research, wouldn't it have been better to do it *before* the trial (and conviction), rather than after? (Researching tax law is even better if done before actually filing what the IRS has publicly declared to be a false return, but an indictment might have lead him to double-check his conclusions. Waiting for the jury verdict before double-checking is a bit tardy.)

3. Meanwhile, over at LH, suspicions are mounting that Mark Lane was in on the fix, and deliberately took a fall

[.]

The total collapse of belief is well underway. Weston is in the vanguard. Two or three months from now, nobody will even remember his name or what "CtC" stands for. His 15 minutes are over. On to next idiot guru.

[jg]

As the reason that Mark Lane was throwing the case, a link is given to where it says:

Christopher J. Petherick, a self-avowed Satanist, was the editor of American Free Press and the former Spotlight, publications of the Liberty Lobby of Washington, D.C. It makes no sense that a Satanist would be the chief editor of a newspaper that is purportedly written for patriotic Christian Americans, unless one understands that the Liberty Lobby is actually owned and controlled by a Zionist Jew named Mark Lane. The paper is a controlled opposition outlet that acts like flypaper to create a list of active patriots -- for the Jewish intelligence organization Lane works for.

and in the other linked article:

One of the reasons the American people are unable to resist the Zionist criminal network that controls the U.S. government and media is that the so-called patriotic movement is controlled by the same criminal network.

What an amazing piece of brain work !

[jkeeb]

Those damn jooz again. Is there anything they can't do?

[notorial dissent]

Anyone have any idea why Cedrone would do this?

My ideas so far:

1. Hendrickson is paranoid, outraged, or something, and *insisted* that something be filed immediately.
Goes without saying. My guess is that Pete is furious that they wouldn’t let him trot out his favorite delusions during trial and is now blaming them for his conviction, as if this particular freight train derailment could ever have been stopped. I’m still impressed / amazed that they stayed as close to reality as they did during the trial, course maybe his lawyers also wanted to continue to practice law and not be laughed at too much later on.
2. Cedrone is paranoid (or careful), and didn't want the 7 day time limit to pass without filing something.
More likely was nagged and whined at, and he did it so that he looked like he was doing something. As I remember, it is pretty usual to file a “let’s void the verdict or move for acquittal” pipedream, but they are usually a little more creative about it at least.
3. Hendrickson has money problems (as Wes suggested above), and this was Cedrone's way of somehow maximizing his chances of getting paid while minimizing his efforts.
My guess would be a resounding YES. Obviously the CTC Warriors couldn’t come up with enough couch change to bankroll his latest foray into the ridiculous, and he has run out of anyone else to touch. As to Cedrone actually getting paid, with what??? The last I heard ole Prevaricatin’ Pete was tapped out, and the gov’t has or should have liens against everything he owns or possibly ever will own at this point, and I really doubt that Pete ever had much in the way of assets to tap.
4. Hendrickson and Cedrone can't agree on the grounds for the motion (and future appeals), and this is a way of stalling for time.
I’m pretty sure you’re right here. So fantasy doesn’t count here anymore than it did at trial. Well, imagine that. There goes Pete’s last line of defense. Reality doesn’t provide him with anything to work with either. Really hard to get around it when the law, caselaw, the facts, and the fact that you have admitted to doing what you have been convicted of, and being so totally unsympathetic that even the sympathy vote is against you.
5. This is actually a fairly standard practice, but I've never seen it before.
Grasping at straws???
6. Some combination of the above.
All of the above gets my vote.

I think my favorite statement in this piece of drivel is where Cedrone comes up with the portentous statement of “6. After Defendant presented some evidence, the Court submitted the case to the petit jury.”

I mean, he actually went to law school to learn to come up with such a stirring phrase, to go along with the rest that impressive document.

If Pete had a brain, good sense, a clue, (I know, I’m off in fantasy land here now) he’d be really worried right about now, as if this is any indication, the boat done sunk.

I may be overly credulous, but I always thought you had to at least make the appearance of presenting something to justify either the appeal, or motion, and unless I missed something that motion was short of like anything to justify it being filed. The only thing I can see coming of that is a swift “denied” for lack of anything to review.

I have to agree that it looks more like Cedrone is just going through the motions than anything else.

It would seem that Pete has given up on his lawyer’s take on the subject, and is instead now going to rewrite case law to suit himself, after all, he did so well at redefining statutory definitions the last time around. The boy just don’t get it.

[LPC]

...Meanwhile Hendrickson and now Doreen are both asking for help in disproving the following cases:

Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959);
United States v. Maggi, No. 98-5570, (6th Cir. 1999),
United States v. Napier, No 90-1297 (6th Cir. 1991),
United States v. Boling, No. 87-5051 (6th Cir. 1988),
United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1981),
United States v. Latham 754 F.2d (7th Cir. 1985),
United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986)
United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)

The lost boys are dutifully posting the full text of the opinions on LH (not that it will do them any good).

But I was struck by a comment from SkankBeat:

I think it would be a good idea to bang these out so Hendrickson can spend his time finessing his motion to the court.

"Finessing"?

I can understand "polishing" or "refining" or "fine-tuning," but "finessing" suggests deception or evasion.

Is it a Freudian slip? Or a malapropism?

(And incidentally, where did these guys get case numbers for published decisions? Once a case is published in an official reporter, the court filing number becomes something of a trivia question. So why did Hendrickson cite to Napier, Boling, and Maggi using court filing numbers?)

[notorial dissent]

I think finessing is a very good and exact term coming from that quarter, particularly since that is exactly what the intention is. Pete is going to try and take those cases and twist them to say the exact opposite of what they do say, just like he has tried with the various definitions he has tortured. He will fail miserably and utterly, but he will try.

I would suspect he is working from some old TP source he has found, since heaven forfend he should actually use real material from a contemporary source.

My feeling is that the only accomplishment here will be in providing either a very good laugh for the unfortunate clerk who has to wade through Pete’s drivel, or stomach turning nausea depending upon the reader’s state of mind. That is assuming that it is even accepted as an appeal in its fictitious form.

[.]

It's comical.

One minute these idiots are busy whining that the metastasizing pile of PH's CtC civil and criminal losses are all because the courts are corrupt and fear exposing CtC "truth."

The next minute, at the behest of a now two-time federal convict, they're busy wasting time tilting away at yet another legal windmill. Even as they claim they can't win.

Instead of being distracted by yet more BS, they might want to pay more attention to the reality that some of them are being targeted for referral to DoJ for prosecution. Even if one doesn't believe the specific statements by the head dudes at CI, a couple of CtC-related indictments and February/March trials and convictions would fit right in with IRS/DoJ inclinations to provide some publicized tax-season reminders of what not to do.

[Quixote]

(And incidentally, where did these guys get case numbers for published decisions? Once a case is published in an official reporter, the court filing number becomes something of a trivia question. So why did Hendrickson cite to Napier, Boling, and Maggi using court filing numbers?)

That's how Judge Rosen cited them in his order denying Hendrickson's motion to dismiss the indictments.

See United States v. Maggi, No. 98-5570, 1999 WL 96651, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 1999); United States v. Napier, No. 90-1297, 1991 WL 22022, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 1991); United States v. Boling, No. 87-5051, 1988 WL 3477, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 19, 1988).

page 41

Two of the three were unpublished in fact as well as in name if you don't count electronic publishing. The full text of Boling is available in print.

[LPC]

(And incidentally, where did these guys get case numbers for published decisions? Once a case is published in an official reporter, the court filing number becomes something of a trivia question. So why did Hendrickson cite to Napier, Boling, and Maggi using court filing numbers?)

That's how Judge Rosen cited them in his order denying Hendrickson's motion to dismiss the indictments.

Didn't think to look there. Thanks.

[notorial dissent]

So, in other words, the cases cited all refute ole Prattlin’ Pete’s tax contentions, and now he is going to try and make them say something completely different. My ain’t that a surprise!!!!! And poor deluded Doreen can’t seem to understand why the judge used them as cites in his response.

I think this all gives the term cognitive dissonance a fresh new perspective.

[Nikki]

Just wait for his next brilliant, tactical legal ploy.

He is going to request that the various LoserHead legal analysts be permitted to submit their rebuttals of the cases as amicus briefs

And then will have another round of appeals based on the court's refusal

[Famspear]

I may have posted this before, a long time ago; sung to the tune of "Misery" by John Lennon and Paul McCartney:

Peter's treatin' me ba-aa-aa-ad... Mi-ser-y!

I'm the kind of guy
Who never used to cry,
But Pete is treatin' me ba-aa-aa-ad... Mi-ser-y!

Now C-t-C's a bore:
No an-swers a-ny more!
Tax cheatin' is a dra-aa-aa-ag... Mi-ser-y!

-----I'll re-mem-ber all the liens - they weren't fun!
-----Can't Pete see, he'll al-ways be, the losing one?!?

We Crackheads all should flee,
'Cause Uncle Sam can see
The Peter Meister put us all in mi-ser-y!

[Famspear]

Interesting posting over at losthorizons, from a user called "jayjay":

I'm pretty sure I will be banned after this post rather quickly, but as a former contributor, many forums ago, before Pet [sic] decided he didn't like the conversations being had here and that has happened at least three times that I can recall, Pete lost. There may be an appeal, but he lost period end of discussion. And in my humble opinion, he will lose on appeal.

How long are you fine folks going to follow this guy into his prison cell? Don't get me wrong, I wish Pete and his family the very best, but if he can't convince a jury about his beliefs/understandings/research[,] than [sic] who here can? Let’s face it. Ten million FRNs is not that big a deal spread out over how many years, Six, seven? Get real here please before the curtain falls on all of you.

Some of you seem to be pretty good at researching law, court cases etc., but I’ve seen that on at least three iterations of this board. Now everyone here is asking the same questions, just as before. How do I FOIA this or how do I answer a NOFTL, or how do I answer this CPXXX notice or what's the best way to petition Tax Court, or District Court, after I lost in Tax Court.

I didn't believe this was any more a silver bullet 5/6 years ago when I stumbled upon it than I do now. Yes I used to post here regularly and ask questions and post opinions, but when everything got shut down (multiple times) simply because so many were asking questions that didn't fit the mold, well that was an eye opener.

Do I have any answers for you? No. I do offer my best wishes that you somehow find your way out of the hole you dug for yourselves and your families, just as I do Pete. I wish him no harm, but he has put himself and his family in a terrible position.

Like I said, I will probably be banned after this, just understand I am not bashing anyone here. I am not a "Quatlooser". I am not here to stir the pot. I wish you all the very best. I personally have no answers for any of you, but good luck and may God bless you all.

Best of luck,

Jay

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2294

[Doktor Avalanche]

Thems fightin' words, Jay.