Hendrickson Resentencing Rescheduled

[wserra]

Order from two days ago:

By order dated April 5, 2012, the Court alerted the parties to an issue that they should be prepared to address at Defendant’s forthcoming resentencing hearing. In response to this order, Defendant’s counsel, Mark E. Cedrone, has written a letter to the Court indicating that he has personal knowledge and information bearing on the issue identified in the April 5 order, and suggesting that, in light of this information, he could potentially be called as a witness at Defendant’s resentencing hearing. In order to ensure that Defendant remains properly and appropriately represented by counsel at the resentencing hearing, even in the event that developments at this hearing preclude Mr. Cedrone from continuing to serve as Defendant’s counsel throughout the full course of this proceeding,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that backup counsel shall be appointed, at government expense, to be available to serve as counsel for Defendant at his forthcoming resentencing hearing in the event that Defendant’s current counsel of record, Mr. Cedrone, is precluded from representing Defendant due to developments at the resentencing hearing.1

1For the reasons indicated in the April 5 order, it would not be appropriate forDefendant’s other remaining counsel of record, Jack R. Hendrickson, Jr., to represent Defendant at the resentencing hearing. Nonetheless, the Court directs Jack Hendrickson to attend this hearing, so that he can address the issue raised in the April 5 order.

May 15, 2012, 3 PM.

Unfortunately, Cedrone's letter isn't docketed. The hearing should be interesting. Picture the first row at a Gallagher concert.

[Famspear]

..... The hearing should be interesting. Picture the first row at a Gallagher concert.

Oh yeah......

[LPC]

Defendant’s counsel, Mark E. Cedrone, has written a letter to the Court indicating that he has personal knowledge and information bearing on the issue identified in the April 5 order, and suggesting that, in light of this information, he could potentially be called as a witness at Defendant’s resentencing hearing.

I'm trying to imagine what information Cedrone might have that wouldn't be covered by attorney-client privilege.

[Cpt Banjo]

Since Hendrickson's alleged action would constitute fraud on the court, would the crime-fraud exception apply?

[wserra]

Since Hendrickson's alleged action would constitute fraud on the court, would the crime-fraud exception apply?

The Model Rules specifically deal with this situation. Rules 3.3(b) and (c):

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

"Reasonable remedial measures" generally means first calling on the client to own up, and disclosing if the client refuses. Rule 1.6 is client confidentiality. And I have no doubt at all that a court would find signing someone else's name to an affidavit is "criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding".

[Imalawman]

"Nonetheless, the Court directs Jack Hendrickson to attend this hearing, so that he can address the issue raised in the April 5 order."

For my own curiosity, is this the same as a court order? If Jack decided to blow off this hearing (I know, that would be a very bad idea) is that contempt?

[Imalawman]

..... The hearing should be interesting. Picture the first row at a Gallagher concert.

Oh yeah......

I can't help but think Petey's finally going to have an "oh shit" moment at this hearing. This could be a bloodbath. The question is will Petey have sense to fall on his sword and admit a stupid decision?

[wserra]

For my own curiosity, is this the same as a court order? If Jack decided to blow off this hearing (I know, that would be a very bad idea)

Very.

is that contempt?

Yes - plus, Jack is a lawyer. A very bad idea.

[Dr. Caligari]

"Nonetheless, the Court directs Jack Hendrickson to attend this hearing, so that he can address the issue raised in the April 5 order."

For my own curiosity, is this the same as a court order? If Jack decided to blow off this hearing (I know, that would be a very bad idea) is that contempt?

"The Court directs" is an order. The Court "requests" or "suggests" is not an order.


Violation of an order is punishable by contempt.

[Dr. Caligari]

I can't help but think Petey's finally going to have an "oh sh*t" moment at this hearing. This could be a bloodbath. The question is will Petey have sense to fall on his sword and admit a stupid decision?

He's in a very tough spot. He has three choices: (1) admit he perpetrated a fraud on the court (if he takes that choice, I'm sure he won't use those words, and will say something like "bad judgment," but that's what he will be admitting to); (2) brazen it out and call his own brother a liar (which will result in an evidentiary hearing which he will lose); or (3) take the 5th Amendment (in which case he will have no opportunity to deny or mitigate what he did). Any one of the 3 choices will likely result in more prison time on this sentence, a referral for prosecution for a new crime, or both.

[Famspear]

I can't help but think Petey's finally going to have an "oh sh*t" moment at this hearing. This could be a bloodbath. The question is will Petey have sense to fall on his sword and admit a stupid decision?

He's in a very tough spot. He has three choices: (1) admit he perpetrated a fraud on the court (if he takes that choice, I'm sure he won't use those words, and will say something like "bad judgment," but that's what he will be admitting to); (2) brazen it out and call his own brother a liar (which will result in an evidentiary hearing which he will lose); or (3) take the 5th Amendment (in which case he will have no opportunity to deny or mitigate what he did). Any one of the 3 choices will likely result in more prison time on this sentence, a referral for prosecution for a new crime, or both.

Considering Blowhard Hendrickson's history, there might be a fourth possibility: At the hearing, he tries to evade the Court's questions about the allegedly fraudulent motion and affidavit, and instead begins to re-argue the positions he took at his trial: (1) that the Government had impermissibly targeted him for prosecution in violation of the First Amendment; (2) that the prosecution's theory impermissibly compelled him to either abandon his supposedly "honest" disagreement with the IRS's interpretation of the law or face prosecution, (3) that the indictment should have been dismissed for failure to allege each element of the offenses, and (4) that he was not a "person" within the meaning of the statute.

I would love to see him pull a stunt like this -- just so we could hear about the fireworks that would result therefrom......

[Gregg]

So Pete is trying to demonstrate how to incur a sentence that involves the misuse of power tools.

That's entertainment!

[notorial dissent]

... Defendant’s counsel, Mark E. Cedrone, has written a letter to the Court indicating that he has personal knowledge and information bearing on the issue identified in the April 5 order, and suggesting that, in light of this information, he could potentially be called as a witness at Defendant’s resentencing hearing. In order to ensure that Defendant remains properly and appropriately represented by counsel at the resentencing hearing, even in the event that developments at this hearing preclude Mr. Cedrone from continuing to serve as Defendant’s counsel throughout the full course of this proceeding,

Sounds very much to me like Marvelous Mark has found the out he has been looking for to get off this already sunken garbage scow. I don't know how Cedrone could not be aware of what was/has happening, and it may actually have put him in enough of a legal bind he had to play by the rules.

I can't help but think Petey's finally going to have an "oh sh*t" moment at this hearing. This could be a bloodbath. The question is will Petey have sense to fall on his sword and admit a stupid decision?

So a normal rational human would think, but we are talking about the great BSmeister here, do you seriously expect him to have a sudden burst of sense after all this time??? First he would have to admit he had made a mistake or been in the wrong, and the likelihood of that is about on par with Israel and Palestine to suddenly become all kissy kissy, and secondly Prattlin' Pete is never wrong!!!!

I agree, that hearing ought to be worth the price of admission, and I really wouldn't want to be either of his attorneys at this point, this ought to be a tap dance exhibition beyond all belief if nothing else, and then there will undoubtedly be Pete's contribution which should be even more entertaining.

[wserra]

The AUSA will be trying to keep from grinning, the DJ will be stone-faced, and everyone else will be running around like Christian Scientists with appendicitis. Should indeed be entertaining. Will anyone be near Detroit on May 15?

[notorial dissent]

The AUSA will be trying to keep from grinning

Don't you mean "from falling on the floor LHAO"????

I mean, this has to be one of those unintended exercises in shear comedy that you couldn't write if you tried.

I truly would hate to be sitting with Pete for this one, since no matter what happens, you just know it isn't going to end well for them either. And I suspect that he will be sitting there looking indignant the whole time, adding his useless commentary and help to the mixture.

I agree, they ought to be selling tickets for this one. This one would be worth going to see.

[Famspear]

Although I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I believe that Blowhard Hendrickson probably does have "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association.

One possibility is that if Hendrickson feels enough stress in his contemplation of the May 15th hearing, he may experience decompensation. For example, he might suddenly complain of feeling "ill" in a conscious or subconscious attempt to avoid or postpone the confrontation involving the allegations against him.

Another possibility is that if goes to the hearing and the Court finds the allegations to be true, resulting in a public humiliation and a re-sentencing that is highy unfavorable to Hendrickson, the Blowhard may experience decompensation after the hearing -- again, he may suddenly come down with an ''illness".

In either case, I would expect his "illness" to be something that entails his describing symptoms that cannot be easily verified by a physician.

I once worked with a guy who was very much like Hendrickson in terms of the severity of the disorder, and I saw the decompensation come after a court hearing in which this individual was humiliated.

Again, I'm not a health care expert -- this is just a set of possibilities.

[Gregg]

The AUSA will be trying to keep from grinning, the DJ will be stone-faced, and everyone else will be running around like Christian Scientists with appendicitis. Should indeed be entertaining. Will anyone be near Detroit on May 15?

I could be. I'm pondering the possibilities.

[Imalawman]

The AUSA will be trying to keep from grinning, the DJ will be stone-faced, and everyone else will be running around like Christian Scientists with appendicitis. Should indeed be entertaining. Will anyone be near Detroit on May 15?

I could be. I'm pondering the possibilities.

It could be a rare glimpse of a truly pissed off federal judge. Make a day of it and report back - that's Quatloos order!

[notorial dissent]

While I am not sure I agree with the "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" postulation, I still question that the upcoming court fiasco is going to be, or could be, any more, or less for that matter, humiliating than his previous forays. I mean, when you lose at every turning, it is hard to say this is going to be any worse than any of the other epic fails that are the life of Pete the prisoner.

While the personality disorder gives his behavior some color, it is just as possible that he is quite simply an egomaniacal ass, which is to my mind a much simpler explanation.

[Cathulhu]

I think Famspear has the behavioral probability: Pete will try to argue his case again. It's what he always does. He has not shown a lot of flexibility. The "sickness" also not improbable; can't you just see them claiming that the Ebil Gov is drugging or poisoning him to shut him up?

200 quatloos says Fammie nailed it.