Hendrickson Resentencing Rescheduled

[Famspear]

You know, you can't find this quality of humor at just any and every old internet web site exposing frauds and scams.......



EDIT: I'm thinking of quitting my day job and moving full time into the comedy specialty of tax protester humor! Why, the field is wide open! There is limitless potential! Fortunes to be made! Look out, Letterman! Look out, Leno!

Heeeeeerrre's "Fammy!"

Famspear was last seen being dragged away by nice men in neat, white coats.....

[obadiah]

Famspear was last seen being dragged away by nice men in neat, white coats.....[/size]

Wasn't it "those nice young men in their clean white coats"...

[Famspear]

Famspear was last seen being dragged away by nice men in neat, white coats.....[/size]

Wasn't it "those nice young men in their clean white coats"...

Yes, in the original, that's right, I believe....

Something like this?

"They're coming to take me away, ha-ha,
"To the funny farm
"Where life is beautiful
"All the time
"And I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
"And they're coming to take me away........"

It was Napoleon XIV, "They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!" (Warner Records # 5831). Hit the Billboard Top 40 chart on July 30, 1966; on that chart for 5 weeks, and got up to number 3.

(sigh).... They just don't make the hits like that anymore.....

[grixit]

How many here remember what was on the B side of the 45 of that song?

[Kestrel]

How many here remember what was on the B side of the 45 of that song?

!Aaah-ah, Yawa Em Ekat ot Gnimoc Er'yeht
(Try repeating that five times and see if you can stay sane.)
It's what we called a "flip flop." You didn't hear that one on the radio very much.

We did hear "They're coming to take me away" fairly often for years, often with Monster Mash.

Nineteen sixty six. I AM getting old.

[Gregg]

You know, Blowhard Hendrickson has been locked up at what his wife Doreen has so touchingly called his "temporary address" (the federal prison at Milan, Michigan) since June 29, 2010. That's over 22 months in the slammer so far this time. This is of course his second stay in federal prison. He has presumably missed his kids' birthday celebrations, several holiday family get togethers, even his father's funeral.

I just wonder whether Pete has had enough. I wonder whether, at his re-sentencing hearing coming up on May 15th, Pete will be contrite, will wise up, will confess everything (including the alleged forgery), will ask his brother Jack for forgiveness, and will throw himself on the mercy of the Court.

[ . . . . . . long pause . . . . . . . ]

I put my money on this being some of Pete's best years from his own point of view. He's got a good excuse to skip those family gatherings where they whisper behind his back, kids birthdays where it gets kind of awkward when the clown shows up and tells Pete he's nuts when Pete tries to explain WHY he's paying with cash, the funeral where his sister in law wants to toss him in the hole with the coffin. Pete doesn't enjoy any gathering where the center of attention isn't Pete, so no loss there. He's thinking more along the lines of what a great victory it's been for him to have time to serve as a martyr, work on his core in the yard, and perhaps he's even grateful to discover his feminine side on those long prison nights.

Come on, who here really thinks that Pete doesn't have more friends in the joint than he does on the street nowadays?

[notorial dissent]

Come on, who here really thinks that Pete doesn't have more friends in the joint than he does on the street nowadays?

0 is still 0, even by Pete's version of New Math. He's lucky he's not in administrative isolation from the other inmates wanting to kill him. Seriously, he does not play well with others, can't seem to keep his mouth shut, and has the warm and winning personality of Pete Hendrickson, not traits guaranteed to win friends and influence people, at least positively, and most particularly not in prison.

Fammy's attempts at humor notwithstanding, does anyone here actually think ole Pontificating Pete is going to do any of the aforementioned. Fammy's got an excuse, someone forgot to lock up the nitrous again, and he found it, but anyone else???

[Gregg]

So, what's the probability of him getting some serious time tagged on, and if he does, what's the chance the anyone at LH will question why he's serving his 5th year of a 33 month sentence?

[notorial dissent]

You're assuming they will ever find out. Based on past experience, not great. How long did it take for the news of the appeal to make it's way into their august presence to begin with? At that rate, they, all what is it two or three of them now, will still be in the dark when he gets done serving he sentence for perjury and fraud, which I am hoping he and Darlene both get slammed with.

[Gregg]

So am I right in my assumption that it's at least possible that this time, Pete isn't gonna get some "now be nice and fill out your tax returns or we'll be very cross with you" slap on the wrist, and he is potentially looking at something here that could be worse than the sentence he's already serving?

While I'm thinking about it, is this going to impact any time he gets for good behavior? Do you still get the 15% freebie if you've spent the entire time you were locked up in an ongoing felony?

[Dezcad]

Standby counsel has been appointed for Pete:

CJA 20 Appointing Harold Z. Gurewitz as Standby Counsel for Peter Hendrickson. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

Here is Harold's bio

[The Observer]

Here is Harold's bio

That is an impressive set of credentials, but I sense problems. Nowhere do I see any experience, or, for that matter, familiarity with CtC. I'm sure any Crackhead can tell you that heading into a courtroom with one of those kind of attorneys is just asking to be stomped. Yeah, I know - people are going to tell me he is a first-class defense attorney, the kind you want when you are facing the charges due to Pete's tireless efforts at sparing no thought to see how much trouble he could really get into. How is this attorney going to defend CtC if he doesn't even know anything about it?

And you notice his picture? This attorney is not even cross-eyed! Do you really expect him to be able to spout authentic gibberish in the courtroom when Pete really needs it?

[Famspear]

Here is Harold's bio

That is an impressive set of credentials, but I sense problems. Nowhere do I see any experience, or, for that matter, familiarity with CtC. I'm sure any Crackhead can tell you that heading into a courtroom with one of those kind of attorneys is just asking to be stomped. Yeah, I know - people are going to tell me he is a first-class defense attorney, the kind you want when you are facing the charges due to Pete's tireless efforts at sparing no thought to see how much trouble he could really get into. How is this attorney going to defend CtC if he doesn't even know anything about it?

And you notice his picture? This attorney is not even cross-eyed! Do you really expect him to be able to spout authentic gibberish in the courtroom when Pete really needs it?

Not to worry - Pete will be there to guide him every step of the way.....

[Famspear]

On Friday, May 11, a "Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum" was filed with the Court on behalf of Pete Hendrickson by someone purporting to be Mark Cedrone, Pete Hendrickson's attorney. (I say "purported" at this point, out of an abundance of caution.) The Memorandum has been entered at docket entry 134.

In the document, Hendrickson disputes his brother Jack's assertions. Here's an excerpt:

This presumptively simple matter has now been complicated by a letter dated June 2, 2011 from Jack Hendrickson, one of several counsel of record, who was involved in and authorized the filing of the § 2255 Motion. On June 2, 2011, Jack Hendrickson wrote this Court and essentially stated he had nothing to do with the filing of the § 2255 Motion except that he allowed defendant to use his ECF login and password to file the § 2255 Motion as a pro se pleading. Additionally, Jack Hendrickson’s letter suggests that he did/does not concur with the allegations laid in the § 2255 Motion and its supporting Affidavit.

In light of Jack Hendrickson’s letter to the Court dated June 2, 2011, on April 5, 2012, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the parties to address whether Peter Hendrickson is subject to a two-level increase for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 in connection with perceived misconduct related to the filing of the § 2255 Motion. In its Order to Show Cause, the Court essentially credits Jack Hendrickson’s letter and suggests that there may have been misrepresentations contained or otherwise embodied in defendant’s April 14, 2011 § 2255 Motion.

In fact, the Court all but concludes that the § 2255 Motion contained misrepresentations......

Before the Court can consider whether “misrepresentations contained or otherwise
embodied” in the § 2255 Motion qualify as obstructive conduct, the Court must preliminarily
determine whether the § 2255 Motion contains misrepresentations. On this point, defendant is
confident the Court will rule in his favor......

The Court correctly concludes that misrepresentations were made to the Court. The
misrepresentations, however, are contained in Jack Hendrickson’s June 2, 2011 letter (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). Specifically, in his June 2, 2011, Jack Hendrickson
falsely attempts to distance himself from the § 2255 Motion and his attached Affidavit. As is
discussed below, there is no question that as of the filing of the § 2255 Motion, Jack
Hendrickson attested to the positions taken and statements made in the Motion and knew and
authorized the Motion to be filed in his name and not as a pro se pleading....

Notwithstanding his letter of June 2, 2011 to the Court, Jack Hendrickson was deeply
involved in the preparation, signing, and filing of the § 2255 Motion. Jack Hendrickson did not,
however, draft the Motion. The Motion was drafted through the combined efforts of Peter
Hendrickson and Sarah Waltner, a paralegal who assisted Peter Hendrickson in connection with the § 2255 Motion and other pleadings. Although Jack Hendrickson did not actually draft the Motion, he reviewed it during the drafting process, agreed with its content, and authorized/directed Ms. Waltner to file the Motion using his Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) account information. This --Jack Hendrickson’s active participation and involvement in the
preparation and filing of the § 2255 Motion-- is easily established through review of several email communications.

As stated in earlier submissions to this Court, undersigned counsel has firsthand knowledge that Jack Hendrickson was deeply involved in at least the preparation of the § 2255 Motion. In early January, 2011, Jack Hendrickson reached out to undersigned counsel and asked counsel to call him “on a matter of urgent import.” Attached hereto as Exhibit “B.1” is a copy of Reyn (Jack) Hendrickson’s January 4, 2011 e-mail to undersigned counsel. Thereafter, undersigned counsel called Jack Hendrickson who informed counsel that defendant Peter Hendrickson was working on a § 2255 Motion which would allege ineffective assistance of lead trial counsel AttorneyMark Lane. Jack Hendrickson asked undersigned counsel if he would sign
an Affidavit in support of that Motion.

....Consistent with the several above e-mails, at his upcoming resentencing, defendant will establish that during the entire time period beginning in late November, 2010 through the filing of the § 2255 Motion on April 14, 2011, Jack Hendrickson remained deeply involved in the preparation of the § 2255 Motion. The Motion was actually typed and formatted by Sarah Waltner, a paralegal. During the relevant time period (November, 2010 through April 14, 2011), Ms. Waltner exchanged multiple e-mail communications with Jack Hendrickson in which various drafts of the § 2255 Motion were exchanged and reviewed.

In light of these e-mails, there can be no question that Jack Hendrickson was deeply involved in and aware of the contents and filing of the § 2255 Motion. Sarah Waltner will be present in Court to answer any questions the Court or counsel may have concerning Jack Hendrickson’s involvement in the Motion. In addition, Ms. Waltner will be in a position to provide information concerning the preparation and execution of Jack Hendrickson’s Affidavit, attached as Exhibit “D” to the § 2255 Motion. Although Jack Hendrickson did not physically file or directly cause the physical filing of the § 2255 Motion, he certainly authorized it to be filed under his name and was aware of its content....

Clearly, Jack Hendrickson falsely seeks, after the fact, to distance himself from any involvement in the preparation and filing of the § 2255 Motion.....

I haven't read the entire document yet, but this is going to be interesting.....

[Famspear]

Pete Hendrickson also contends that his brother Jack did sign the affidavit. He includes a written statement purporting to be from two IRS Special Agents who interviewed the notary public on April 12, 2012. Although the notary public did not specifically remember having notarized the document, she apparently did not deny having done so. Presumably the IRS Special Agents showed her the document bearing what purports to be her signature and notary stamp.

[notorial dissent]

So supposedly Cedrone filed a memorandum to the effect that Cedrone / Hendrickson is calling Jack Hendrickson a liar?? and that it was Jack not Pete who filed the motion and affidavit?? and then they come back later and say that it was not Jack who actually drafted it, but Pete and some paralegal??? and even more curiously, the notary doesn’t remember who signed the thing?????

I think saying this thing is going to get interesting is an olympic effort in understatement to say the least.

The only thing I can say about the memorandum it that it looks to me like an effort for Cedrone to get his tail out of the trap that has already snapped shut. I’d like to know how they got access to the notary in the first place, since it is obvious she doesn’t know any of them by sight, which is probably why they chose her. I think one can safely conclude that the CYA period has begun in this relationship.

I will have to go with CKB on this one, of the possibilities for liar in chief, I would have to go with Pete, followed by Doreen. I still don't think Jack is all that bright, but so far he hasn't seemed liable or prone to straying over the edge that would get him in ethics trouble, so I don't think he would all of a sudden just said chuck it and jumped in with both feet, particularly not when they were this close to getting Pete out and being done with this, and this sounds like true vintage Pete droppings.

[wserra]

So, which do you think it is? That Jack H. is lying or that Pete is? My money is on Pete.

I don't think so.

First of all, so that the audience can follow along, the docs: the Cedrone memo and the exhibits to that memo. My observations, in rough order of declining importance:

(1) Unless Cedrone has forged an entire series of emails - something that truly seems unlikely - Jack ("Reynold") Hendrickson reviewed the motion and the affidavit throughout its preparation, and finally approved it. Pete wrote it, in combination with "paralegal" Sarah Waltner (whom we've discussed on several occasions). Jack then gave Doreen his ECF login and password - what a nitwit - and she forwarded them to Waltner, who did the filing.

(2) The notary who swore the "Jack Hendrickson" signature on the affidavit was no acquaintance, but just worked in a bank and notarized docs as a favor to bank customers. In an interview with IRS agents, she said that she knew none of the idiots, had no recollection of the incident, but would not have notarized a signature without the person present, with ID. I believe her.

(3) With all this in mind, take a look at the previously unpublished June 2011 letter from Jack to the Court (the first doc in the "Exhibits" file). In the light most favorable to Jack, it is disingenuous; least favorable, a panicked deception. While he doesn't say it, Jack clearly implies that the motion/affidavit were filed without his approval, his trust abused by Pete. The emails don't permit that conclusion. Jack is very careful never to deny that he in fact signed the affidavit. We now know the reason for such care - it appears that he did. Moreover, to my non-expert eye, the signatures on that letter and the questioned affidavit appear quite similar.

(4) Those emails that Cedrone attaches as exhibits are arguably at least confidential, and perhaps privileged. They contain (through third parties, since Pete is in jail) communications from his client. While a lawyer may reveal confidences to prevent his client from deceiving the court, Cedrone accuses Jack of deceit, not Pete (he could hardly openly accuse his own client). I hope for his sake that Cedrone had Pete's permission to release these publicly.

(5) Originally, Cedrone was supposed to sign the affidavit trashing Mark Lane, but he refused.

(6) Mark Lane deserves to be trashed on general principles. See "Carto, Willis".

(7) With the possible exception of Cedrone, what a bunch of idiots. Did I already mention that?

[The Observer]

(7) With the possible exception of Cedrone, what a bunch of idiots. Did I already mention that?

You might have. But you should have also mentioned that they are a bunch of idiots.

[LPC]

(3) With all this in mind, take a look at the previously unpublished June 2011 letter from Jack to the Court (the first doc in the "Exhibits" file). In the light most favorable to Jack, it is disingenuous; least favorable, a panicked deception.

It does now look as though Jack has been the one trying to mislead the court, and not Pete.

But I'm still not sure why. Why would Jack panic?

The only thing I can think of is that he began to realize how truly inaccurate (or misleading) the affidavit was, and began to worry that he might get in trouble once the court held a hearing and Cedrone testified contrary to the affidavit.

If that was Jack's concern, then he's made the situation much, much, much worse for himself.

[wserra]

The only thing I can think of is that he began to realize how truly inaccurate (or misleading) the affidavit was, and began to worry that he might get in trouble once the court held a hearing and Cedrone testified contrary to the affidavit.

If that was Jack's concern, then he's made the situation much, much, much worse for himself.

Not to mention that the DJ himself was a witness. That's the way I see it.