Another attorney for Pete Hendrickson

[Dezcad]

In his criminal case, a new attorney has filed a Notice of Appearance for Petey (see below). He did forget his city and state in the Notice and failed to serve any party - he only filed it.

His website is here - http://www.libertaslex.com/

An interesting statement on his website at http://www.libertaslex.com/

We will not waste our valuable time for any amount of money. We will not spend our time on motions that have no probability of success and will not advise our clients to vigorously litigate a case for any purpose other than to achieve a just result.

(emphasis added)

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 106 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 08-20585
PETER HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

The undersigned, William B. Butler, Esq., hereby appears on behalf of Defendant Peter Hendrickson.


Dated: June 7, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

William B. Butler
By: /s/ William B. Butler.
William B. Butler, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 227912
William B. Butler PLLC
Suite 4100
33 South Sixth Street, 55402
Telephone: (612) 630-5177
E-Mail: bill@libertaslex.com;
butlerpllc@comcast.net
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

[bmielke]

Minneapolis, MN he gave a zip code.

[Imalawman]

Seems like a real douche.

[LPC]

We've seen him before. See "Minneapolis litigator praises Schiff and Hendrickson".

[Pottapaug1938]

Seems like a real douche.

At this point, who else would even think of taking Petey on as a client? If I were still practicing law, I think that I'd get more pleasure out of slamming my fingers in a door.

[notorial dissent]

And he thinks he is ever going to see a dime from Pete at this point? I can't imagine the old BS meister could raise bus fare, let alone a real retainer, or maybe he(the attorney) is as dumb as he appears.

[.]

Maybe he considers it to be pro bono.

No rational lawyer expecting to be paid would take it on without plenty of cash up-front and/or a lien on property with lots of unencumbered equity, neither of which is likely to be available in this case.

[notorial dissent]

I would say it was pro bono whether he knows it or not at this point. Unless old Petey has been lying more than usual, he doesn't have anything left to pay anyone with. I'll still stick with the dumbern' he looks theme though.

[.]

Or, perhaps he's somewhat sympathetic to the TP "cause" without having actually drunk the TP nectar and just doesn't care whether he's paid or not.

Which sounds like a good way to wind up out-of-pocket for sanctions at some point, but might be a good way of building TP street-cred in the unlikely event that a TP who can actually pay might need his services in the future.

All in all, a dubious venture at best.

[Dezcad]

Perhaps someone involved with PH or Butler reads this board since today a new Notice of Appearance was filed correcting the two errors I mentioned (omission of city and state and omission of Certificate of Service):

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 107 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Case No. 08-20585
:
PETER HENDRICKSON, :
Defendant. :
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
The undersigned, William B. Butler, Esq., hereby appears on behalf of Defendant Peter Hendrickson.

Respectfully submitted,

William B. Butler
Dated: June 9, 2010
By: /s/ William B. Butler.________________
William B. Butler, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 227912
William B. Butler PLLC
Suite 4100
33 South Sixth Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 630-5177
E-Mail: bill@libertaslex.com;
butlerpllc@comcast.net
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT


Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on June 9, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the
Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
Michael C. Leibson
Assistant U.S. Attorney
211 W. Fort St., Ste. 2001
Detroit, MI 48226
Michael.leibson@usdoj.gov
and
Mark F. Daly, MA Bar No. 640581
United States Department of Justice, Tax Division
P.O. Box 972
Washington, D.C. 20530
mark.f.daly@usdoj.gov

[Lorax]

Or, perhaps he's somewhat sympathetic to the TP "cause" without having actually drunk the TP nectar and just doesn't care whether he's paid or not.

Which sounds like a good way to wind up out-of-pocket for sanctions at some point, but might be a good way of building TP street-cred in the unlikely event that a TP who can actually pay might need his services in the future.

All in all, a dubious venture at best.

This has already been addressed in the thread that LPC linked. He's a true believer, sharing Hendrickson's confusion about the definition of the word "employee" in the IRC. See the column Butler wrote on the topic last November:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/92/butler/butler1.html

[grixit]

Oops. Hendrikson has put his fate in the hands of an esquire.

[Cathulhu]

Oops. Hendrikson has put his fate in the hands of an esquire.

Joust kidding!

[Pottapaug1938]

Oops. Hendrikson has put his fate in the hands of an esquire.

Joust kidding!

Let the shadows of knight fall upon this thread....

[Dezcad]

PH's new attorney in the criminal case has filed a Motion for Release Pending Appeal and a Memorandum in support.

AFAIR, although PH is not incarcerated yet, he was remanded into the custody of the US BOP for a date TBD by the BOP. Perhaps the BOP has set a date for him to surrender.

Great, so PH doesn't go into custody for this and now can serve his civil contempt in the "tax refund" case.

Or, is this signaling that PH might intend to comply in the tax refund case?

My favorite parts of the Memo:

Mr. Hendrickson's modest, common-sense analysis of the Code-that the income tax is an excise tax on "income" and applies exclusively to income derived from the exercise of federal positions, licenses or privileges, is powerfully supported by the actual, literal text of sections
3401 and 3121. It is the actual words of these statutes that informed Mr. Hendrickson's tax
filings.

The Memo states:

"A defendant should be allowed to present to the jury the pertinent excerpts from the documents on which he or she relied." (quoting United States v. Nash, 175 F.3d 429, 436 (6th Cit. 1999).)

However, one of the holdings in Nash was:

Nash was also permitted to briefly mention and quote from the documents that were excluded. The district court's ruling in the present case is therefore entirely consistent with the Gaumer decision. We consequently find that the district court's exclusion of the four exhibits was not an abuse of discretion.

[wserra]

Great, so PH doesn't go into custody for this and now can serve his civil contempt in the "tax refund" case.

If he doesn't comply, that's exactly what will happen anyway.

Hang in there, Pete. Maximize your incarceration. We're all witcha.

[LPC]

My favorite parts of the Memo:

Mr. Hendrickson's modest, common-sense analysis of the Code-that the income tax is an excise tax on "income" and applies exclusively to income derived from the exercise of federal positions, licenses or privileges, is powerfully supported by the actual, literal text of sections 3401 and 3121. It is the actual words of these statutes that informed Mr. Hendrickson's tax filings.

What's actually better (or worse, depending on your point of view) is what preceded that:

Section 3121(e) does provide a definition of "United States" "for purposes of' Chapter 21:

(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter-
(1) State
The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
26 U.S.c. § 3121(e).

The use of the term "within the United States" in section 3121 (b) clearly uses the term United States in a geographical sense. Section 3121 (b)' s use of the word "within" contemplates employment within a geographic place. Section 3121 (e) "includes" only federal territories within its geographical definition, does not include any of the 50 States and does not include the State of Michigan. When Mr. Hendrickson filed tax returns requesting that the IRS return wrongfully retained FICA/FUTA payments, he based those filings on the four-comers reading of section 3121, which does not have geographic application within the State of Michigan.

Lawyers have been sanctioned for less, so if Mr. Butler is not careful, he might find that the court's view of his "Lex" is going to reduce his "Libertas."

Perhaps Butler should be ordered to write "The word 'includes' is not restrictive" 100 times before he's allowed back in court again.

[fortinbras]

The Tax Code defines "includes" at 26 USC § 7701(c) "... shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."

This definition goes back many decades and has been upheld by the Supreme Court; e.g., Helvering v. Morgan's Inc. (1934) 293 US 121.

[Gregg]

The Tax Code defines "includes" at 26 USC § 7701(c) "... shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."

This definition goes back many decades and has been upheld by the Supreme Court; e.g., Helvering v. Morgan's Inc. (1934) 293 US 121.

Yeah yeah yeah, but the losers over at Loser Horizons twit that around to say that it only "includes" other things like the ones mentioned, so as to mean other people who work for the government but aren't mentioned specifically. If a law was passed that mentioned them by name, mentioned the job they do (say, fry cook at Wendys) they'd still find a way to say it only applies to people with that name who work at a Wendys on American Samoa... They are totally beyond common sense, the really sad thing is some of them will still be preaching it when large numbers of them start losing homes etc.... and as I've said many times, a large number of them have passed deadlines that cannot be done over and are going to lose everything to show for their own stupidity.

[grixit]

Isn't there a special penalty for bringing up claims that have been proven false as if they were actually true?