Hendrickson Conviction Aff'd; Sentencing Remanded

[wserra]

The more I read of David's "teachings" on his suitor site, the more I am stunned that he actually has followers who appear to take his teachings as gospel.

“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir 1986).

[notorial dissent]

And since none of them have a clue about what they are actually talking about to begin with it just makes it all the more hilarious.

Merrill's stock in trade is to take something, totally misread the meaning in the simple wording of it, and then invent his own mythos about it and then become the self proclaimed expert on the subject, and his acolytes being even more clueless than he is don't know that he is full of it or that they are swallowing it whole with no basis for any of it.

[Gregg]

I dunno know about you, but how many people do you know who can go around committing low level felonies and screaming about it at the top opf their lungs for any period of time without having to eventually explain it to someone?

5-8 false mortgage applications
involvement in fraudulent bankruptcy filings
involvement in fraudulent liens / title transfers
blogging about the above
= Casey Konstantin Serin

Well, Casey really is that dumb. He would get my serious consideration for "Dumbest Homo Sapiens Ever"

[notorial dissent]

Mind you, we only have Merrill's word on that, and so far he has shown to be severely reality challenged and veracity deficient. Taking ANYTHING Merrill says at face value is tantamount to taking out a mortgage on the Brooklyn Bridge.

[Gregg]

Umm, waiter, I'll have a bowl of what HE'S, smoking.

[webhick]

Umm, waiter, I'll have a bowl of what HE'S, smoking.

Why would you want a bowl of suppositories*?

*The trick is to light it before insertion.

[Gregg]

Well, that explains a lot.

[Dr. Caligari]

It's now been a month since the Court of Appeals' decision, and all we see about it on the LostHopes forum is:

.....(crickets)....

[The Observer]

It's now been a month since the Court of Appeals' decision, and all we see about it on the LostHopes forum is:

.....(crickets)....

Whoo-hooo! Did I call it or did I call it?

[wserra]

There's only been one post to the entire board in more than a week - Harvey's whine that we won't let him lie by claiming to have successfully flouted the law.

[The Observer]

There's only been one post to the entire board in more than a week - Harvey's whine that we won't let him lie by claiming to have successfully flouted the law.

He actually admitted that he lies?

[wserra]

Hendrickson has filed a pro se petition for rehearing en banc - 30 pages of the exact same prolix, repetitive bullshit that has lost every time a judge has seen it over the last five years. The entire ruling from the Sixth Circuit: "It is ORDERED that the petition not be accepted for filing". It was one day late.

Think there's a hint in there somewhere? Not that these guys are the sort to take hints.

[The Observer]

It [the petition] was one day late.

And why is that? Why does it always seem that TPs are one day or more late with their sure-fire argument, brief, motion, plea or writ of mandumbass that was going to win their case? Are all TPs born with an innate sense of bad timing? Or is this just their way of trying to avoid looking defeated when the court rules against their cockamanie writings? I could surmise that the TP promoter knows that he/she comes off looking better for being tardy instead of just having a losing argument.

I can see the explanation for Hendrickson being one where he will tell his devotees in his I-could-had-been-a-contendah speech: "I faced an uphill battle in trying to get that petition filed. The guards kept me away from the one computer available to me, the prisoners kept deleting my files on those days when the computer wasn't eating them, the research materials provided to me were out of date, incomplete, or irrelevant. It was all I could do to get this completed and somehow along the way, which is completely understandable, I lost track of when I needed to get this petition filed. And, of course, the court took complete advantage of that situation to avoid having to be embarrassed by my masterful and logical petition being read in open court."

[Famspear]

I just can't understand it. The Fabulous Felon, the Preposterous Pontificating Prisoner, the Haughty Hendrickson -- Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson Himself loses yet again!

What can he be doing wrong? Is he just not reading his own book, Cracking the Code? Has he forgotten some of his own words therein? What kind of wisdom could there possibly BE that is not already found in His Haughtyness's own writings that could have helped him? After all, He Himself has described His Own Work as......

. . . . the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted.

I mean, he's not talking here just about "what is income" or "what are wages". He is talking about (1) the common law of the American tax system, (2) the Constitutional law on the American tax system, (3) the statutory law on the American tax system, (4) the case law related to the American tax system -- I mean, hey that would seem to include E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G -- even such arcane topics as federal CRIMINAL tax procedure, how to beat the IRS and the Department of Justice in a federal criminal tax case, what to do and how to do it on appeal, etc., etc., EVERYTHING!

Just can't understand it.....



EDITED for typos..... Famspear

[Pottapaug1938]

I can see the explanation for Hendrickson being one where he will tell his devotees in his I-could-had-been-a-contendah speech: "I faced an uphill battle in trying to get that petition filed. The guards kept me away from the one computer available to me, the prisoners kept deleting my files on those days when the computer wasn't eating them, the research materials provided to me were out of date, incomplete, or irrelevant. It was all I could do to get this completed and somehow along the way, which is completely understandable, I lost track of when I needed to get this petition filed. And, of course, the court took complete advantage of that situation to avoid having to be embarrassed by my masterful and logical petition being read in open court."

One question, Your Hendersonian Greatness: why did you not hire an attorney to present your case on your behalf? After all, since you have written the most masterful analysis of federal tax law and practice in history, any lawyer using Cracking the Code as a resource is BOUND to get your conviction reversed, with minimal effort....

[The Observer]

What can he [Hendrickson] be doing wrong?

It just came to me what went wrong in Hendrickson's case. It is so blindingly simple that I cannot believe that it didn't occur to anyone else before now. Hendrickson lost - follow me closely here, since this so simple even the wisest and trained legal eagle could lose the trail - Hendrickson lost because the court system is inherently corrupt and biased in favor of the illegal income tax system!

Can we not see the simple beauty and rationality in this? Why couldn't we see this coming? It explains everything, and I mean everything, in regards to why CtC will never be able to prevail in a federal court.

if only we could have warned Pete about this so he wouldn't have gotten caught up in the sinister web and deceit that passes for the federal justice system.

[NOTICE TO THE SARCASM-IMPAIRED. THE PRECEDING WAS A SARCASTIC PREEMPTIVE RESPONSE TO THE INEVITABLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY P. HENDRICKSON CANNOT GET OUT OF JAIL. THE RESPONSE ABOVE SHOULD NOT BE SEEN AS A TRUE OR ACCURATE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE US COURT SYSTEM AND ITS CONTINUING REJECTION OF HENDRICKSON'S FOLLY.]

[Dezcad]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 08-20585
v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
PETER HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING RESENTENCING

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on March 22, 2012

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. RosenChief Judge, United States District Court

In an opinion issued on February 8, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Defendant Peter Hendrickson on ten counts of filing a false document in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), but vacated his 33-month sentence and remanded the case to this Court for resentencing. By motion filed on February 13, 2012, Defendant requests that he be released from custody pending the resentencing hearing ordered by the Sixth Circuit. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that this relief is unwarranted.

In Defendant’s view, his present request for release pending resentencing is governed by a statutory provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1), that specifies the conditions under which a court may release a defendant who has been convicted but is awaiting sentencing. This provision states in pertinent part:

. . . [T]he 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 . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1).

Defendant contends that he satisfies the prerequisites for release under this provision, where he never violated any condition of his release prior to his conviction and initial sentence, and where there otherwise is no indication in the record that he is a flight risk or poses a danger to the community.

Under analogous circumstances, however, the courts have been reluctant to invoke §3143(a)(1) to order the release of a defendant who, like Defendant here, is currently serving a sentence pursuant to a conviction that has been affirmed, but who is awaiting resentencing. In United States v. Holzer, 848 F.2d 822, 824 (7th Cir. 1988), for example, the Seventh Circuit held that § 3143(a)(1) “has reference to the situation where a defendant is awaiting sentencing the first time, and does not apply where the defendant is awaiting resentencing.” Under the particular facts of that case, the court reasoned that the release of the defendant pending his resentencing would not advance the objectives of the statute:

The reason for not imprisoning a convicted defendant (unless he is likely to flee or is a public menace) before he is sentenced is that the sentence may not be a sentence of imprisonment, or may be a sentence for a shorter period of imprisonment than the interval between conviction and sentencing; or that the defendant needs some time to get his affairs in order.
The reason has no application to a case where the defendant’s conviction for extortion has been upheld and a sentence of eighteen years remanded solely to give the judge a chance to consider a possible, though doubtless modest, reduction because the court of appeals has vacated a concurrent sentence. It is not within the realm of realistically foreseeable circumstances that [the district judge] on remand will reduce [the defendant’s] sentence from eighteen years to eighteen months (the time he has served already); but only if he would, would bail pending resentencing serve the purposes of the statute.
Holzer, 848 F.2d at 824 (citation omitted).

To be sure, the facts here are not as stark as in Holzer, where the defendant had served only a small fraction of the prison term that was likely to be imposed at resentencing. Here, in contrast, Defendant’s sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was originally calculated as 27 to 33 months for each of the ten counts of conviction, and he was sentenced to 33-month concurrent terms of imprisonment for each of these counts. Under the remand ordered by the Sixth Circuit, Defendant states that he will face a revised Guidelines sentencing range of 21 to 27 months, so that resentencing at the upper end of this range would result in a 27-month term of imprisonment. According to Defendant, a 27-month sentence would leave him “with only approximately three months left of his sentence.” (Defendant’s Motion at 4.) The circumstances presented in Holzer were far different, with the defendant in that case facing a likelihood of several additional years of incarceration despite his resentencing.
Nonetheless, while Defendant here does not face additional years of incarceration, neither can it be said that he has already served the entirety of the term of imprisonment that is likely to be imposed at his forthcoming resentencing. Under these circumstances, where a defendant has begun serving his term of imprisonment but at least some portion of this sentence remains to be served, the courts have elected to follow the ruling in Holzer and deny release pending resentencing. In United States v. Krilich, 178 F.3d 859, 861-62 (7th Cir. 1999), for instance, the court elected to follow its prior ruling in Holzer and deny the defendant’s request for release on bond pending his resentencing, explaining that in that case, as in Holzer, the defendant was almost certain to face continued confinement upon imposition of a new sentence. In support of this decision, the court reasoned that “reaking a sentence in the middle does not promote any end other than reducing the effective penalty by allowing a holiday or, worse, providing an opportunity to escape.” Krilich, 178 F.3d at 862.

Similarly, in United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 586-87 (5th Cir. 2006), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court decision to deny the defendant’s motion for bail pending his resentencing, where the defendant had served less than the shortest term of imprisonment he likely faced at resentencing. In denying the defendant’s request for bail, the district court had elected to follow the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Holzer, and the Fifth Circuit found that this “result comports with the goals of the statute and with common sense.” Olis, 450 F.3d at 586. The court explained that to apply § 3143(a)(1) and order the defendant’s release pending his resentencing “would lead to an absurd result: [the defendant] would be temporarily released, only to return to prison for the remainder of his sentence.” 450 F.3d at 586.1

Precisely the same can be said here. While Defendant has served most of his now vacated 33-month sentence, and while the Court cannot predict the term of imprisonment it will see fit to impose at Defendant’s forthcoming resentencing, Defendant recognizes in his present motion that he likely has not yet served the entirety of the prison term that he faces at resentencing. Under these circumstances, this Court concurs in the reasoning of the above-cited rulings — namely, that it makes no sense to temporarily release Defendant from confinement, only to order him returned to custody to serve the remainder of the prison term imposed by the Court at resentencing. Rather, the Court finds that both the terms of § 3143 and the purposes behind this statute are best served by continuing Defendant’s term of incarceration without interruption, so that he may expeditiously serve the remainder of his sentence as determined by the Court at his forthcoming resentencing hearing.2

For these reasons,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s February 13, 2012 motion for release pending resentencing (docket #121) is DENIED. In light of this ruling, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s March 12, 2012 motion for an expedited ruling on his motion for release (docket #122) is DENIED AS MOOT.

s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court

1 In both Krilich and Olis, the courts considered the possibility that the defendant’s request for release pending resentencing should be governed by § 3143(b)(1), rather than §3143(a)(1). See Olis, 450 F.3d at 586-87; Krilich, 178 F.3d at 861. Subsection (b)(1) of the statute applies to defendants who have been convicted and sentenced but have filed either an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari. This provision sets a more stringent standard for release than § 3143(a)(1), as it establishes a presumption against release unless the court finds both that the defendant is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, and that his appeal “raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in” reversal, a new trial, or a sentence less than the time already served or to be served during the appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). The court in Krilich observed that the defendant in that case fit the circumstances described in both subsections of § 3143, since his case had been remanded for resentencing but he also planned to file a petition for certiorari. Krilich, 178 F.3d at 861. This posed a dilemma, where “[s]ection 3143 does not specify what happens when both subsections read on the situation,” and where “[a]pplication of both at once is impossible” because “they prescribe different standards.” 178 F.3d at 861.
This case potentially poses the same dilemma. Shortly after he brought the present motion, Defendant filed a petition with the Sixth Circuit requesting en banc rehearing, and thereby extended the life of his pending appeal. Although this request has since been denied as untimely, the deadline has not yet passed for Defendant to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the record does not disclose whether he plans to do so. Notably, to the extent that Defendant’s request for release might be governed by subsection (b)(1) rather than (a)(1) of the statute, both this Court and the Sixth Circuit have denied Defendant’s prior requests for release under § 3143(b)(1).

2 The Court plans to schedule this hearing soon after the Sixth Circuit issues its mandate.

[LPC]

2 The Court plans to schedule this hearing soon after the Sixth Circuit issues its mandate.

Which means that Judge Rosen won't resentence until the 6th Circuit order becomes final, which won't happen until Hendrickson stops contesting it.

I may have the dates wrong, but my impression is that, if Hendrickson files for certiorari with the Supreme Court, he could actually delay his own release.

[jcolvin2]

2 The Court plans to schedule this hearing soon after the Sixth Circuit issues its mandate.

Which means that Judge Rosen won't resentence until the 6th Circuit order becomes final, which won't happen until Hendrickson stops contesting it.

I may have the dates wrong, but my impression is that, if Hendrickson files for certiorari with the Supreme Court, he could actually delay his own release.

The mandate was issued on March 12. From the district court docket:

03/12/2012 92 MANDATE from U.S. Court of Appeals - Sixth Circuit as to 70 Notice of Appeal filed by Peter Eric Hendrickson, Doreen M. Hendrickson [Appeal Case Number 10-1824] (KKra) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

I don't think PEH's late filing of the Petition for Rehearing delayed the issuance of the mandate.

[notorial dissent]

Think there's a hint in there somewhere? Not that these guys are the sort to take hints.

More like a sledgehammer, but since when had Prattlin' Pete been one for catching subtle, let alone flat out slapped in the face with something? It'll all be a plot to keep his message down, or some such nonsense. It's all a plot to stymie him getting his message out.