Hendrickson Resentencing Rescheduled

[Famspear]

Meanwhile, at the United States Supreme Court, the government has waived its right to respond to Peter Hendrickson's pro se petition for writ of certiorari which was filed on May 2 (case no. 11-1345 at the Supreme Court).

This has been distributed for conference on June 7th.

[Pottapaug1938]

If I were a government attorney, I wouldn't want to waste my time trying to rebut arguments that will fail on their own, without help from me.

[Famspear]

If I were a govermnent attorney, I wouldn't want to waste my time trying to rebut arguments that will fail on their own, without help from me.

Yeah, and here's a possible, maybe even a likely, result:

Pete will argue that the government simply could find no effective response to his marvelously insightful analysis of the tax law. The Supreme Court will let Pete's convictions stand by denying his petition. Pete will then tell his bozo followers that the Court's denial of his petition will have meant that the Supreme Court agreed with Pete's theories about tax law but denied his petition because the Court considered his petition to be "moot" (even though the Court will have let his convictions stand). HIs followers, almost without exception, are absolutely stupid enough and certainly eager enough to buy the argument that Pete's defeat is somehow a "victory" for his Cracking the Code tax scam.



EDIT: For those who may not know Pete's past, this kind of thing would be consistent with how Pete has tried to "paper over" his prior losses. A few years ago, the government won a court judgment against him in connection with the erroneous federal tax refunds or credits he had obtained using his Cracking the Code tax scam. He filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to overturn his loss. When the Court denied his petition (which of course had the legal effect of letting the lower court rulings against him stand), he simply told his followers that the Court had denied his petition because the petition was "moot". His followers were too dumb or too crooked to ask the obvious questions:

Pete, if your petition is "moot", then why the heck did you file it in the first place? Did something marvelous happen between the time you filed it and the time the Supreme Court denied it? Pete, do you understand what the term "moot" means? What in the world were you asking the Supreme Court to do for you, if not to overturn your losses at the lower courts? Isn't that what you were asking the Supreme Court to do? If your Cracking the Code tax theory is correct, then why did you lose, and why did the Supreme Court let stand the lower court order prohibiting you from ever using it again on your own tax returns?

To paraphrase one of Pete's followers (Patrick Mooney), every defeat is a victory in the minds of the goobers who follow Pete.