Hendrickson Conviction Aff'd; Sentencing Remanded

[grixit]

"There will be fewer but better Warriors!"

[LPC]

Some unintentional irony (or obliviousness) from LH:

Still no actual reports on Petey's, but in a thread titled "Pete's Appeal Hearing Nov. 18," which is where you might expect the results of the appeal to be reported, there's a 2/13 posting in which "TruthBearer" babbles for a while about "lawful" money, and then concludes with the following aside:

Again in my personal opinion, the recurring problem for CtC adherents comes from the unfortunately wrong use of Form 4852 in trying to zero out W-2 information reports. I don’t believe the 4852 was designed for that purpose, and its use in that way has been specifically targeted by IRS.

And filing false 4852s is half of the reason that Petey is in the pokey. (The false 1040s is the other half.)

[Famspear]

Back on November 25, 2011, T.J. Hendrickson ("Soulcatcher"), who is Pete's son, wrote:

I will definitely post about the news as soon as I get it. However, my Dad says that according to the other inmates, it should be about six weeks after the appea [sic] is heard that he gets a ruling....

Now, user "Holbrook" writes:

It's been 3 month [sic] now.....still nothing to report?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... cfc1#28354

Duhhhhhh......

[The Observer]

However, my Dad says that according to the other inmates,

Wait a minute...Peter Hendrickson, The Very Model Of A Modern Legal Eagle In His Own Mind, is asking for and accepting advice from inmates? Could it be that Pete is harboring some doubts about what he truly knows and understands?

[Famspear]

Now, user "JHV" chimes in:

They [the Court of Appeals] will drag their feet for as long as they can on this one. When the slaves leave in a mass exodus the former owners are never happy. But we certainly will be.

What a hopeless, hapless, clueless group of "warriors"! The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Pete Hendrickson's conviction on February 8th. So, nine days have now passed, and not one of Pete's nutball followers has a clue about it yet. What a surprise!



EDIT: "Dragging their feet", eh, JHV? What a clueless doofus you are! You and your few remaining buddies apparently think that Preposterous Pontificating Prevaricating Pete, the Pompous Prisoner, has the Court of Appeals right where he wants 'em!

The rhetoric from JHV reminds me of Harvester/Nationwide/Libre/("we're winning! we're winning!") johnthetaxist's claim that the government was somehow befuddled by Peter and that Pete would never go back to prison -- because the government had just taken too long to go after him.

[Famspear]

Ironically, the Clueless Code Crackers are equally ignorant of the one real "win" in all this for Pete: the fact Pete will probably get out of prison a bit early than originally expected. Pete wins a victory of sorts at the Court of Appeals -- and his followers still haven't gotten the word.

[LPC]

Now, user "Holbrook" writes:

It's been 3 month [sic] now.....still nothing to report?

And after 24 hours, no response.

It looks like even the moderators/administrators of LH (i.e, Pete's family) are no longer bothering to read the messages in the forum.

[Famspear]

....It looks like even the moderators/administrators of LH (i.e, Pete's family) are no longer bothering to read the messages in the forum.

Doreen might be busy trying to keep a roof over her head and the heads of her children.

I wonder how they're doing. The daughter is college age and might not be at home, but I think the son might still be at home.

What a wonderful job Pete has done for himself and his family!

[Famspear]

"Hang'Em High", another clueless one at losthorizons dot com, writes:

A few thoughts on how long it is taking...

First, it is of of course outrageous that Pete was not allowed to remain free until his appeal was heard and ruled upon, especially considering the judge told the jury not to worry about getting it wrong because if they make a mistake it can be fixed by the appeals court. He is more than halfway through his sentence is he not? How can the appeals court fix that? Not to metnion what his family is going through while he is away.

But besides all that, what JHV said made me think. If they are going to overturn his conviction, they probably don't want to issue the decision until after April 15th, right? So from that perspective, maybe the long wait is good news?

Then again, if they are going to sustain the conviction, they may want to save that until just before filing deadline for maximum PR effect. So maybe it's not so good that it's taking so long.

They are probably just trying to figure out what to do. How can they NOT reverse? Yet how can they keep the scam going if they do?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 9320#28356



EDIT: As far as I know, the only poster at losthorizons who definitely does know that Hendrickson's conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals is "Libre/Nationwide/Harvester/johnthetaxist", and he apparently is reluctant to be the one to break the news over there.

[Famspear]

Now user "holbrook" responds:

Is there not something that Pete's lawyers can do to awaken or rather expose the court to this obvious dragging it out for so long?
Is there not some time limit to this?
The old "Squeeky wheel gets the oil" must be exersised [sic] I believe.
Enough is enough!
A motion or complaint must be filed?

What a doofus.

[Famspear]

The moaning and groaning at losthorizons dot com continues -- this from "TruthBearer":

I can't help but think that if "Pete's lawyers" had been worth a damn to begin with--and they included his own brother, if I remember right--they would not have allowed this travesty of justice to occur in the first place. What evidence was the DOJ using against Pete? Where was the Discovery process? Who were the "expert" witnesses? As a convict, Pete has little chance of getting a fast review of his appeal. Those elitist judges must first play golf, vacation, go to Rotary lunches, travel, go fishing, whatever, in preference to reading a brief from some federal prisoner. If WE are frustrated with not hearing anything yet, imagine how Pete must feel....

[Famspear]

Back at the District Court, at docket entry 121 on February 13, 2012:

MOTION OF DEFENDANT PETER HENDRICKSON
FOR RELEASE PENDING RESENTENCING HEARING

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3143(b), Defendant Peter Hendrickson respectfully moves this Court for release pending the hearing on re-sentencing under the order of remand by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dated February 8, 2012. In support of this Motion, Peter Hendrickson represents as follows:

I. RELEASE PENDING RE-SENTENCING IS PROPER

Mr. Hendrickson must be immediately released pending his re-sentencing. Release at this time under his own recognizance or by unsecured appearance bond is warranted by statute, and supported by clear and convincing evidence as follows.

A. Release Is Warranted by Statute

There is a presumption in favor of pre-trial release. 18 U.S.C. §3142(b); Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951) (defendant charged with noncapital offense shall be released on bail if defendant gives adequate assurance that he will appear at trial and submit to sentence if convicted). After conviction, the criteria for release pending sentencing are set forth in §3143(b)(1):

(a) Release or Detention Pending Sentence.—

(1) . . . the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence . . . be detained, unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142 (b) or (c). If the judicial officer makes such a finding, such judicial officer shall order the release of the person in accordance with section 3142 (b) or (c).

Section 3142(b) refers to “Release on Personal Recognizance or Unsecured Appearance Bond,” and Section 3142(c) refers to “Release on Conditions.”

1. Mr. Hendrickson is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community

Mr. Hendrickson does not present a risk of flight or of danger to any other person or to the community in general, and no such legal presumption has arisen. He was indicted of a nonviolent crime. Mr. Hendrickson’s previous pre-sentence bond consisted of a nominal, unsecured appearance bond of $10,000 with no restrictions of any kind. He has never violated any condition of his bail. He appeared every day for his trial, and when he was convicted, he voluntarily surrendered himself to custody by the time he was ordered to do so. At no time did he pose a flight risk. He has deep ties to the community in which he has lived with his wife and children for 13 years. He has lived in the Eastern District of Michigan his whole life. His neighborhood has lake access, and for 13 years he has served his community by participating yearly in a neighborhood cooperative construction and maintenance project of repairing the docks on the lake. They own their home, and school their minor child at home.

Further, while incarcerated, Mr. Hendrickson has conducted himself with honor, has never engaged in any unruly behavior or fighting, has always followed the rules, and has never earned any disciplinary action. He has been an exemplary inmate and has earned time off of his sentence for good behavior. Finally, he has very little time left on his sentence and has done nothing to risk getting that sentence increased. This clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that Mr. Hendrickson is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community if released.

2. Release pending re-sentencing should be in accordance with Section 3142(b) as before

Under the applicable statute and with this finding, the judicial officer “shall” order the release of Mr. Hendrickson pending his hearing on the re-sentencing mandated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 8, 2012, and such release shall be ordered in accordance either with section 3142 (b) or (c). In this case, it is appropriate that Mr. Hendrickson be ordered released under §3142(b) under the same terms he had prior to his incarceration. Nothing in his record indicates he should be given any more conditions placed on his release than before, and in fact his record shows his behavior has been compliant and trustworthy. No further restrictions or conditions would be necessary or warranted and he should be released on his own recognizance or by unsecured appearance bond.

B. Immediate Release Is In The Interests Of Justice

Mr. Hendrickson was originally sentenced to 33 months in prison because of a two-point sentence enhancement that has now been struck down by the Sixth Circuit. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, that enhancement had raised his sentencing level from 21-27 months to 27-33 months. Based on all the "tax loss" calculations adopted by the trial court, the maximum to which Mr. Hendrickson would now be re-sentenced under the Guidelines is 27 months.

With that new sentence, Mr. Hendrickson would be left with only approximately three months left of his sentence, the better part of which he would be eligible to serve in a halfway-house. It may well be that this entire time and more will pass before a new sentencing hearing is scheduled and all proceedings finally concluded. Should he be given a new sentence of 21 or 22 months, Mr. Hendrickson would already have served all the resulting prison time and more, even if all proceedings were concluded tomorrow. Under the circumstances, immediate release pending resentencing would be just and reasonable.

Respectfully submitted
William B. Butler
Attorney for Defendant
Dated: February 13, 2012

---from docket entry 121, Feb. 13, 2012, United States v. Peter Hendrickson, case no. 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Div.).

[LPC]

Mr. Hendrickson was originally sentenced to 33 months in prison because of a two-point sentence enhancement that has now been struck down by the Sixth Circuit. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, that enhancement had raised his sentencing level from 21-27 months to 27-33 months. Based on all the "tax loss" calculations adopted by the trial court, the maximum to which Mr. Hendrickson would now be re-sentenced under the Guidelines is 27 months.

With that new sentence, Mr. Hendrickson would be left with only approximately three months left of his sentence, the better part of which he would be eligible to serve in a halfway-house.

That's what I was wondering about before. It looks as though the sentencing reduction required by the Court of Appeals is about 6 months.

Should he be given a new sentence of 21 or 22 months,

Well, let's not get carried away. The Circuit Court decision requires the district court to change the sentencing range, but it doesn't require the court to go from the high end of the range to the low end of the range.

[Gregg]

How does his continuing contempt of court figure into this?

[notorial dissent]

I'm wondering how long he'll be out before he violates his probation. I seem to remember that there were some pretty stiff terms in it that probably won't last five minutes. Pete just doesn't strike me as the kind who learns from his past mistakes, let alone ever admits to having made any.

[LPC]

I'm wondering how long he'll be out before he violates his probation. I seem to remember that there were some pretty stiff terms in it that probably won't last five minutes.

Technically, it's "supervised release" and not "probation."

He was sentenced to one year of supervised release, and the terms can be found here. They don't strike me as particularly onerous, although he's supposed to pay the taxes he owes and not commit any more crimes, both of which might be difficult for him.

Meanwhile, it's still the clueless leading the delusional at LH. From earlier today:

Morgan_Edwards, no we are talking about Pete's appeal to have his conviction reversed by the appeals court. His appeal was finally heard last November 18 with no news yet (that anyone seems to know about).

And you don't need a PACER login to find circuit court opinions. If you go to the 6th Circuit website and search opinions for "Hendrickson," the recent opinion is easy to find. (It might disappear after 30 days, however, because most circuits don't maintain unpublished opinions for very long.)

The fact that no one there has yet found the opinion could be ignorance or stupidity, but I suspect that they also don't really care any more.

[.]

Probably a combination of supreme ignorance and invincible stupidity, neither of which has ever gotten in the way of whether they care or not.

A Google search on "hendrickson appeal" yields a link (headed "Feb 8, 2012") to the opinion as the second result on the first page of results (no need to search the 6th Circuit):

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pd ... 56n-06.pdf

Could a LostHead ever have done such a thing as a simple search?

Apparently not. That would be too much "research."

C'mon, Harvey, enlighten the sorry assortment of totally clueless LH morons about what everyone else, including you, has known for 2 weeks. Just one short post, toss them the link and sit back and watch the TP cat-fight.

[notorial dissent]

the terms.... he's supposed to pay the taxes he owes and not commit any more crimes.......
Uhh.... See my previous statement re the above...

supreme ignorance and invincible stupidityI always kind of thought that was the hallmark of that whole group, along with the standard definition of insanity.

Could a LostHead ever have done such a thing as a simple search?
If it wasn't delivered from on high or out of the mouth of Prattlin' pete I doubt it would qualify as research in their minds.

[ashlynne39]

Well, Harvey finally posted in the Lost Horizons thread about Pete's appeal. Nope, he didn't break the news though. It's just more nonsense about lawful money.

[Dr. Caligari]

15 days and still not a word on the LostHopes forum. Should we start a poll on how long it will be?