US v. Hendrickson-- status of appeal?

[Dr. Caligari]

Over at Lost Hopes, John Bulten has posted this:

The Circuit Court gave the DOJ an extended deadline to August 13 to file its brief. As of this writing (August 16), no brief has yet been filed, according to both the case manager and the Circuit Court Docket report. Astonishing! Considering how freely the DOJ's attorneys have thrown around the word "frivolous" in this case, you'd think their reply would practically write itself, and would have been filed long ago...

(Of course, the fact that it is actually THEIR arguments that are "frivolous", having been ruled against in virtually every circuit court-- including the Sixth-- AND the Supreme Court as well, many, many times; that the plain words of the relevant statutes are squarely against them; and that they have no evidence to support even the desperate MIS-reading of the statutes and case law to which they are struggling to cling may explain the difficulty they are having...)

Are we having fun yet?!

I discount Bulten's nonsense, of course, but the fact that the DOJ has apparently blown a deadline is not likely to be something he made up. Anyone know anything about what's going on here?

[jg]

In the newsletter Hendrickson gave an update:

Update
This afternoon, August 17, while the current newsletter was going out, the DOJ's reply arrived in my mailbox. I will presume that a copy arrived at the Sixth Circuit Clerk's office today, as well. The certification included asserts a first-class mailing date of August 13 (circuit court rules allow for a brief to be considered filed on the date of first-class mailing)-- I'll presume that this is true, and that the DOJ's crack attorneys just somehow picked a slow Post Office...

So, I take it all back. Rather than having to exceed the extended time sought after and granted, the DOJ merely had to use every last minute of it trying to overcome our "frivolities"...

There is, of course, no proof that the reason the reply was not done sooner has the implications that Hendrickson assumes or claims.

[Dr. Caligari]

Thanks. it's reassuring to know that the DOJ isn't wasting my tax dollars by screwing up a can't-lose case.

[Joey Smith]

So, the countdown to "Affirmed" begins, with the only open question being whether the appellate court will impose its own sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

It will be fun to watch the goings-on at lostheads when the court of appeals slaps Pete down. ("The courts are corrupt! The courts are corrupt!")

[webhick]

So, the countdown to "Affirmed" begins, with the only open question being whether the appellate court will impose its own sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

It will be fun to watch the goings-on at lostheads when the court of appeals slaps Pete down. ("The courts are corrupt! The courts are corrupt!")

Or one of the moderators will edit it out of existence. That's what it looks like happened when he lost. They've since modified the original poster's post to add links to the injunction.

[gezco]

Has Pete Hendrickson been convicted? What is he appealing? Doesn’t he have the answer in Cracking the Code?

[webhick]

Has Pete Hendrickson been convicted? What is he appealing? Doesn’t he have the answer in Cracking the Code?

TP Gurus Wiki Page on Pete:.

The Conviction:

Hendrickson pleaded guilty to one count of willfully failing to file an income tax return and one count of conspiracy to place an incendiary device in the United States mail. United States v. Peter Hendrickson, No. 2:1991cr80930 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich.). Hendrickson was sentenced to 21 months in prison, and was released on 8/25/1993.

The Appeal (on the injunction):

The government finally filed a civil action against Hendrickson and his wife, requesting a judgment against them for the erroneous refunds issued to them and an injunction requiring them to file correct tax returns. The government's motion for summary judgment was granted, the court holding that there was no dispute as to any material fact, and the government was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. United States v. Peter Eric Hendrickson, No. 06-11753 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 2/26/2007). Hendrickson has appealed, and his appeal is still pending. No. 07-1510 (6th Cir.).

And I think you have to read CtC while shooting milk and vodka wafers out your nose to find the answer.

[Famspear]

gezco wrote:

Has Pete Hendrickson been convicted? What is he appealing? Doesn’t he have the answer in Cracking the Code?

I believe the reference is to a civil case, an appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, case no. 07-1510 (appeals court docket). The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan judgment in favor of the United States for recovery of erroneous Federal income tax refunds of over $20,000 paid to Mr. & Mrs. Peter Hendrickson. The refunds, the government alleged, were based on misrepresentations made by the taxpayers on the 2002 and 2003 Form 1040 returns - falsely reporting the amount of wages on the returns as being zero. The false representations were based on theories in Hendrickson's book, "Cracking the Code."

[LPC]

Doesn’t he have the answer in Cracking the Code?

Of course. You just have to read the book.

Although, even some of the Crackheads will admit that you can't just read the book once. You have to read it several times before you reach enlightenment. (Apparently, the book is more like a Zen koan than a "how-to" manual.)

Incidentally, PACER reports that Hendrickson currently has three appeals pending, two of which are in the 6th Circuit. One appeal in the 6th Circuit is of the summary judgment against him in the erroneous refund suit, No. 07-1510. The other appeal in the 6th Circuit is from the denial of his petition to quash a third-party summons. Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 07-1144 (6th Cir.), appealing No. 2:2006x 50396 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 6/29/2006). The latter appeal demonstrates a great death of optimism, given that the 6th Circuit has already denied his appeal of another motion to quash a summons issued against a different bank. Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 06-1870 (6th Cir. 4/10/2007), affirming No. 2:2006x 50394 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 6/2/2006) (petition denied). (Has Bulten ever acknowledged that loss?)

Finally, Hendrickson also has an appeal pending in the 9th Circuit on a denial of another petition to quash another third-party summons. Peter E. Hendrickson v. United States, No. 5:2006mc80094 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. 7/18/2006) (petition denied), on appeal, No. 06-56129 (9th Cir.).

Should we be placing bets on the timing of the decisions in this three appeal trifecta?

[.]

Gosh, what will John J. Bullshite do when his hero loses across the board?

What will he do if his hero is headed for prison?

Will John J. Bullshite become a "cooperating witness?"

[rachel]

Gosh, what will John J. Bullshite do when his hero loses across the board?

What will he do if his hero is headed for prison?

Will John J. Bullshite become a "cooperating witness?"

He will most likely disappear.
Its beleived that John is Pete himself.
John mysteriously disappeared off the LH forum. Same the length of time it took for Pete to work on preparing for his court case.

[Demosthenes]

John isn't Pete.

[Joey Smith]

Pete is dishonest enough not to tell his support that he lost. Remember, this is the same guy who has the big "money saved" figure on his website when a pretty huge chunk of that has already been paid back by way of settlements, not to mention to the fines, sanctions, etc., that his people are starting to pay.

At the end of the day, Pete is just another two-bit snake-oil selling paytriot scammer just like so many that we've seen before. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Famspear]

According to the case docket in United States v. Hendrickson (6th Circuit), case no. 07-1510, the appellee brief, filed on behalf of the United States by John A. Nolet, was entered on the docket on 20 August 2007.

[ASITStands]

It's perhaps early for Hendrickson to post the brief, though the request's been made on Lost Horizons. I'm anxious to read it.

Wonder if Pete or John will be honest enough to post it?

[Joey Smith]

Doubt it, and I doubt that they will post the court's opinion either when it comes out totally slamming Pete and his idiotic position.

Pete will just say something like, "I must be right because refund are still being given" (based on totally fraudulent returns no different than submitting a forged check for collection).

[Famspear]

Or how about forgeraud? Or, is there a difference between fraudgery and forgeraud?

[Famspear]

Fraudgery is easily understood, where as forgeraud sounds like either a Norwegian sex crime, or a sleazy German cafe.....

or, maybe forgeraud is the crime of Norwegians having sex in a sleazy German cafe.

Unless nobody's watching, in which case it's called an Ingmar Bergman film.

[Famspear]

Unless nobody's watching, in which case it's called an Ingmar Bergman film.

I hasten to add that I am a fan of the late master. So far I've seen "Autumn Sonata" and "Scenes from a Marriage." Next comes "Cries and Whispers."

[Imalawman]

I hate to break away from the diatribe on foreign films, but is there a place to get the US' brief currently? (besides Pacer)