Latest in Hendrickson's criminal trial

[Red Cedar PM]

Dumb non-lawyer question: What does taken under advisement mean? Does that mean the judge is just taking additional time to rule on the motions?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Dumb non-lawyer question: What does taken under advisement mean? Does that mean the judge is just taking additional time to rule on the motions?

Yep.

[ASITStands]

Dumb non-lawyer question: What does taken under advisement mean? Does that mean the judge is just taking additional time to rule on the motions?

Yep.

I was going to say: "Dumber, non-lawyer answer: It means he's taking time to rule."

The Judge's response was better than mine.

I'd say, "The Judge wants to make sure nothing's overlooked in the motions, argument or responses that would affect the outcome of the case, such as defendant rights."

[Pottapaug1938]

He's probably wanting some time to spell out, in intricate detail, what a total, high-powered, 24-karat moron Hendrickson is, and he doesn't want to leave anything out. Seriously -- he probably wants to make sure that he has left no precedent unreviewed in the quest to demolish every TP argument raised by Henrickson. If the judge also decides to recommend bar discipline against the lawyers who advised him, he wants to make absolutely sure that his recommednation is supported by sound legal basis. The LAST thing that he wants is a reversal on appeal -- not least because of the triumphant braying that we will hear as a result.

[Prof]

He's probably wanting some time to spell out, in intricate detail, what a total, high-powered, 24-karat moron Hendrickson is, and he doesn't want to leave anything out. Seriously -- he probably wants to make sure that he has left no precedent unreviewed in the quest to demolish every TP argument raised by Henrickson. If the judge also decides to recommend bar discipline against the lawyers who advised him, he wants to make absolutely sure that his recommednation is supported by sound legal basis. The LAST thing that he wants is a reversal on appeal -- not least because of the triumphant braying that we will hear as a result.

Or, it means:

This was a busy day, and the Judge did not want to dictate findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record, which is required in federal practice.

Or: He didn't want to deal with the expected outburst from PH or PH supporters in the courtroom.

Or: He had a luncheon appointment.

Or: He wanted to get a cigarette or go to the bathroom or whatever.

[Nikki]

"Taken under advisement" means that some of the clerks were out of the office and haven't had a chance to share the joke yet.

[Dezcad]

Three new filings by PH and the puppets regarding the pending motions. It appears that the font sizes in some of the filings are different at the body than at the end. This leads me to believe that the body of the argument was inserted into the filing and then filed by counsel.

Check these out:
- more argument about the definition of person -
Post-Argument Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment

Defendant’s Reply Brief to Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment

Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment

[Famspear]

From Hendrickson's "Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Violation of Rule 7and Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States":

All the defendant asks is that this court require the government to recognize that the words, “wages”, “employee”, “person”, and “in employment”, as used in the tax code, are terms of art that have different meanings from the common meanings, that this court require the government to properly instruct the Grand Jury that the code definitions are different from the common definitions, and that that this court assure that the Grand Jury indict only after finding probable cause that the defendant made false statements in light of its properly instructed understanding of the tax code definitions of these terms of art and its consequent understanding of the true character of the defendant’s filings.

Ahhhh.....an open invitation -- by Peter Hendrickson -- to have a federal court render yet another ruling that would directly or indirectly repudiate the Pontificating Petermeister's nonsensical "definitions" of terms like "wages," "employee," "person," and "in employment" -- a defeat that Peter would, in due course, probably claim to be a Cracking the Code "victory".

[Pottapaug1938]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

Gee -- that reminds me of someone....

[Pottapaug1938]

Reading PH's pleadings, I was reminded of a divorce case I handled in which I represented the wife. She begain raising the husband's support checks "because she needed the money", even though the checks were in the amount agrfeed upon by all parties concerned. This bimbo swore up and down, in my office one day, mascara streaking her teary face, that she would never, EVER, do that again.

You know what happened when the husband sent the next check. His lawyer called me to inform me; and when I said that I was filing a Motion to Withdraw as the wife's counsel, the husband's lawyer pointed out that the judge might not let me withdraw unless she found someone to succeed me. but assured me that my reputation among members of the local bar would not suffer because they all had clients like that at one point or another. Fortunately, my motion was granted.

For the sake of the professional reputations of PH's lawyers, I hope that this is a similar case for them. I would like to think that they are gritting their teeth as they follow the destructions of their clients, and that their fellow bar (oh yeah -- BAR -- they belong to the British Accredited Registry, after all) members realize this. I have the horrible feeling that I'm wrong, though.

[Famspear]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2009, the government filed the following in Hendrickson's criminal case:

GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE OF INTENT
TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE UNDER FRE 404(b)

The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, files this Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Counsel for the United States believes the evidence referenced below is inextricably intertwined with the charged offense and is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. However, this notice is given in an abundance of caution, in the event that the evidence is later determined to be extraneous. In addition, the government reserves the right to make further disclosures at a later date, in the event that additional misconduct on the part of Defendant Peter Hendrickson is discovered or thought to be extraneous.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case relates to defendant Peter Hendrickson’s most recent refusal to comply with the Internal Revenue Code by making and subscribing false documents, including IRS Forms 1040 (“U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”) and 4852 (“Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement”). Defendant Hendrickson has a long history of opposition, both violent and nonviolent, to the Internal Revenue Service and the internal revenue laws. In 1991, the defendant entered a plea guilty to failure to file a return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, and conspiracy to possess a destructive device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861, 5871. See United States v. Hendrickson, Crim. No. 91-80930 (E.D. Mich.). Defendant Hendrickson participated in the preparation of a destructive device. Hendrickson and his co-conspirators wrapped the device in a padded envelope and addressed it to “The Tax Thieves.” Hendrickson’s co-conspirator, Scott Scarborough, placed the device in a mail bin on April 16, 1991 as a form of violent anti-tax protest. A postal employee was injured by the device. The failure to file the return arose from Hendrickson’s failure to file his individual income tax return for calendar year 1989. As part of his plea agreement, Hendrickson agreed to, and did, testify against his former co-conspirators. See United States v. Scarborough, Crim. No. 93-80218 (E.D. Mich.).

Hendrickson continued his opposition to the internal revenue laws, albeit in a different form, after he was released from prison. He filed tax returns that accurately reported his wages and income, although he altered the jurat on the return to evidence his disagreement with the government’s taxation of wages. Beginning with the calendar year 2000, the IRS refused to accept Hendrickson’s returns, and directed him to file returns without any caveat added to the jurat. Refusing to accept that wages were subject to taxation, Hendrickson filed an amended Form 1040 for 2000 and Forms 1040 for 2002 through 2004 on which he claimed that he received no wages. Although he had received Forms W-2 that accurately stated the wages that he had received from his employer, Hendrickson filed Forms 4852, with his Forms 1040 for calendar years 2000 and 2002 through 2006, on which he claimed that he received zero ($0) wages from his employer.

In 2006, the Department of Justice brought a civil action and a request for injunctive relief seeking to recover refunds paid to Hendrickson and his wife pursuant to the fraudulent Forms 1040 that they filed for calendar years 2002 and 2003. The documents filed in 2002 and 2003, the Forms 1040 and 4852, are charged in the Indictment. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, enjoined Hendrickson and his spouse from filing false returns, and ordered him to repay the sums obtained through his scheme. See Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction, United States v. Hendrickson, Civ. No, 06-11753 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2007). Hendrickson appealed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and granted the government’s request for sanctions, based upon frivolous arguments raised by Hendrickson on appeal, in the amount of $4,000. See Order, United States v. Hendrickson, No. 07-1510 (June 11, 2008). Hendrickson has filed a petition for certiorari. See Hendrickson v. United States, No. 08-1399. The government has waived its right to respond. [footnote 1]

[footnote 1] According to the Case Distribution Schedule, the petition should be distributed to the justices in the near future. The government expects that it discussed at a conference by June 18, 2009.


NOTICE

1. Defendant’s Prior Convictions and Prior Criminal Conduct

The government intends to introduce at trial evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for conspiracy and willful failure to file a return. The evidence will include court documents and admissions made by the defendant. Admissions made by the defendant will be presented either through transcripts of the defendant’s testimony in the trial of his co-conspirator, see United States v. Scarborough, Crim. No. 93-80218 (E.D. Mich.), or by testimony from law enforcement agents who investigated the underlying crimes and conducted numerous proffer sessions with the defendant.

Evidence regarding the prior convictions and criminal conduct will serve to prove motive, notice, intent, and absence of mistake. Further, it is evidence of willfulness. For example, Hendrickson has consistently expressed his hostility towards the tax laws and has argued since the early 1990's that wages are not taxable. Such testimony contradicts his claim that he arrived at such a conclusion only after the IRS rejected his 2000 form 1040 with an altered jurat. For example, in 1993 when testifying at the trial of his co-conspirator, Hendrickson stated:

I consider the tax system as it is currently employed to be in violation of the Constitution, in violation of the Declaration of Independence, in violation of every principle on which this country is founded, and therefore it is in and of itself illegal. Acts of resistance to an oppressive structure are not illegal.

and

[A]ny form of taxation directly against individuals is constitutionally an excise tax and of course the income tax is not collected as an excise tax; therefore, it’s unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, in fact, has held in its – in its standing ruling is that – that wages, salaries, and commissions do not constitute income under the meaning of the first – of the Sixteenth Amendment. Of course, we all know that wages, salaries, and commissions are collected as income by the IRS, but it’s clearly illegal.

The government has provided defendant with all federal tax documents that it intends to use at trial. Further, the government has provided the defendant with all documents in its possession related to his prior convictions as well as to transcripts of his testimony in United States v. Scarborough.

2. Defendant’s filing of false Michigan state income tax returns or to pay taxes.

Hendrickson has filed false state income tax returns for calendar years 2000 through 2006 on which he has claimed that he did not receive any wages. Further, on the state tax returns he requested refunds of taxes withheld by his employers. Further, the State of Michigan assessed Hendrickson taxes for calendar years 2002, 2004 and 2005 that he has failed to pay. The false returns and failure to pay taxes due and owing are part of Hendrickson’s larger scheme to fraudulently obtain refunds by filing a false return and retain the proceeds of that crime. Further, Hendrickson received a great deal of correspondence from the State of Michigan Department of the Treasury on which the state treasury rejected Hendrickson’s legal arguments. Such documents evidence notice. For example, on October 8, 2004, the state treasury entered an order rejecting Hendrickson’s request for refund of all withheld taxes for calendar year 2001. Enclosed with the order was a memorandum in which a referee stated that courts have “consistently rejected” Hendrickson’s argument that his wages were not subject to taxation, and, quoting precedent, characterized them as “wholly without merit.”

Defendant has been provided with any and all state tax documents that the government intends to use at trial. In the event that additional documents are received, the government will provide the defendant with copies.

CONCLUSION
In sum, the United States intends to offer the above evidence at trial and believes it is admissible under either Federal Rule of Evidence 402 or 404(b).

Respectfully submitted,

TERRENCE BERG
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

May 26, 2009

--at docket entry 43; Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS, United States v. Hendrickson,
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, May 26, 2009.

[Famspear]

Many years ago, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson stated:

I consider the tax system as it is currently employed to be in violation of the Constitution, in violation of the Declaration of Independence, in violation of every principle on which this country is founded, and therefore it is in and of itself illegal. Acts of resistance to an oppressive structure are not illegal.

Blowhard Hendrickson also stated:

The Supreme Court, in fact, has held in its – in its standing ruling is that – that wages, salaries, and commissions do not constitute income under the meaning of the first – of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Well, well, well. Looks like Blowhard's "understanding" of the constitutionality of the federal income tax has "evolved" over time.

How conveeeeeeeeeennnnnient!

[Famspear]

Today, May 26, Hendrickson states on his web site:

Read 'Cracking the Code' and avoid the pitfalls of such expensive-- and possibly dangerous-- misunderstandings as:

[ . . . .]

That "wages" are not income under the revenue laws.

But back in 1993, Hendrickson stated, in open court:

The Supreme Court, in fact, has held in its – in its standing ruling is that – that wages, salaries, and commissions do not constitute income under the meaning of the first – of the Sixteenth Amendment.

OK, let's see. Hendrickson has said that the idea that "wages are not income" under the "revenue laws" is a misunderstanding or pitfall that we should avoid --

buuuuuuuuuuuuut --

Hendrickson has also said that the Supreme Court has held "that wages, salaries, and commissions do not constitute income" under the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Oh Blowhard, we bow before your infinite Blowhardiness.

[LPC]

Clearly, Hendrickson is in deep, deep, fecal matter.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Clearly, Hendrickson is in deep, deep, fecal matter.

[Famspear]

Unfortunately, this Pustulant Putrescence was produced by the Protesting, Pontificating PeterMeister himself and will, in all probability, be used to hammer His Peterness at the trial.

Ah, to Cheek -- or not to Cheek, that is the question.

[wserra]

Ah, to Cheek -- or not to Cheek, that is the question.

What else has he got?

[Famspear]

Ah, to Cheek -- or not to Cheek, that is the question.

What else has he got?

What should he do at this point? In order to mount a Cheek defense, realistically, he would have to get on the witness stand, right? Cross-exam could be devastating.

But if he chooses not to testify (i.e., he chooses "not to Cheek"), what are his chances, realistically?

[cynicalflyer]

I cannot seek him going with a Cheek here. He is so absolutely convinced he is not only correct but that everyone else is wrong, I cannot see him willing to utterly anything close to "I misunderstood". Moreover, given how his lawyers are apparently letting him just cut and paste his rants into the briefs they are filing over their own signatures, I do not see his counsel as being particularly persuasive in getting him to either keep his mouth shut (i.e. stay the heck off the witness stand) or directing him into some sort of safe harbor during the direct examination, much less cross-examination.

[webhick]

hammer His Peterness

Kind of needed a keyboard alert on that one.