Hendrickson criminal trial (continued)

[Demosthenes]

The gov supplemented their last notice:

06/03/2009 44 NOTICE of Intent to Offer Evidence by United States of America as to Peter Hendrickson (Daly, Mark) (Entered: 06/03/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/hendrickson44.pdf

[Doktor Avalanche]

Place yer bets, place yer bets!

I'm putting the over/under at 7.

[cynicalflyer]

"The government intends to introduce at trial certain pleadings and the judgment from the
2006 civil action to recover erroneous refunds from the defendant...The pleadings and judgment of the civil action will be introduced for the purposes of showing notice and absence of mistake and will be used to prove willfulness."

Which is the reason for Pete's little timing ploy of waiting until the U.S. Supreme Court cannot deny his motion to rehear the inevitable denial of cert until after his criminal trial. The Supremes will deny cert in mid to late June, he'll have until mid to late July to file motion to rehear, and he'll then make the claim that, because of the "pending" nature of the case before the Supreme Court, anything from the 2006 action should be kept out of the trial.

Not saying it will work, but...

[Gregg]

"The government intends to introduce at trial certain pleadings and the judgment from the
2006 civil action to recover erroneous refunds from the defendant...The pleadings and judgment of the civil action will be introduced for the purposes of showing notice and absence of mistake and will be used to prove willfulness."

Which is the reason for Pete's little timing ploy of waiting until the U.S. Supreme Court cannot deny his motion to rehear the inevitable denial of cert until after his criminal trial. The Supremes will deny cert in mid to late June, he'll have until mid to late July to file motion to rehear, and he'll then make the claim that, because of the "pending" nature of the case before the Supreme Court, anything from the 2006 action should be kept out of the trial.

Not saying it will work, but...

Let's just on a whimsy say it works, when the final denial of cert comes down, does he then have to surrender, pay his taxes and come clean with the crackheads?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Let's just on a whimsy say it works, when the final denial of cert comes down, does he then have to surrender, pay his taxes and come clean with the crackheads?

[Red Cedar PM]

Any ruling yet on the motions to dismiss? Or did I miss something?

[Demosthenes]

Any ruling yet on the motions to dismiss? Or did I miss something?

Nope. Nor has a trial date been set.

[Famspear]

At docket entry 45 on June 22, 2009,

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Peter Hendrickson, Defendant.
[case no. 08-cr-20585; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Div.]

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE AND FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE DELAY

The parties, through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate to entry of an order finding excludable delay in the above matter commencing February 10, 2009 (the date for a prior finding of excludable delay ordered by United States District Court Judge David M. Lawson) through and including September 25, 2009.

The parties further stipulate that this matter shall be continued to permit the filing of such additional motions and pleadings as the parties may deem necessary or as the court may require; for determination of our pending motions filed by the Defendant; for entry of the scheduling order submitted contemporaneously with this Stipulation; and further stipulate that the ends of justice served by this stipulation outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161.

[signatures, Mark F. Daly and Michael C. Leibson, for Department of Justice; Ellen Dennis and Lyle D. Russell for Defendant]

EDIT: Because I couldn't seem to get this file to "save" from PACER, I had to copy it by hand; I hope got it verbatim.

[cynicalflyer]

The parties, through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate to entry of an order finding excludable delay in the above matter commencing February 10, 2009 (the date for a prior finding of excludable delay ordered by United States District Court Judge David M. Lawson) through and including September 25, 2009

Interesting timing. The Supreme Court will not deny Pete's motion to rehear his denial of cert until October 5, 2009. I guess the prosecution is OK with using the denial of cert, while Pete thinks his motion to rehear will give him the ability enough to say the Supreme Court has not had the "final" say on this...

[Dezcad]

The parties, through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate to entry of an order finding excludable delay in the above matter commencing February 10, 2009 (the date for a prior finding of excludable delay ordered by United States District Court Judge David M. Lawson) through and including September 25, 2009

Interesting timing. The Supreme Court will not deny Pete's motion to rehear his denial of cert until October 5, 2009. I guess the prosecution is OK with using the denial of cert, while Pete thinks his motion to rehear will give him the ability enough to say the Supreme Court has not had the "final" say on this...

Trial set for October 20th

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 08-cr-20585
Honorable Gerald E. Rosen,
Chief Judge
PETER HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE AND FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE DELAY
The Defendant, Peter Hendrickson, filed motions challenging the sufficiency of the Indictment in this matter, seeking discovery, and seeking disclosure of grand jury materials. A hearing was conducted on these motions on May 14, 2009; was continued to afford counsel for the Defendant time in which to file reply briefs as to dismissal issues; and to afford counsel for the government time to provide certain records to the Court for an in camera review. Counsel for the government and the Defendant agreed to a continuance for these purposes. The Court also directed the parties to submit a stipulation containing proposed pre-trial deadlines in this matter. The Defendant indicated his agreement that the period of time from a previous finding of excludable delay on February 10, 2009, by the Honorable David M. Lawson, to whom this case was originally assigned, and the date currently set for trial of this matter, October 20, 2009, shall be excluded from the calculation of the period within which the Defendant must be brought to trial under the Speedy Trial Act, in order for Defendant to have the amount of time reasonably necessary to effectively prepare his defense, and to permit this Court to decide pending motions.

Attorneys for the parties having submitted a stipulation regarding the above, accordingly it
is:
ORDERED that the Defendant’s motions to dismiss the Indictment are CONTINUED, subject to further order of this Court; and it is
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Disclosure is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Discovery is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT and is continued pending an in camera review by the Court of materials to be provided by the government; and it is
ORDERED that the following deadlines shall apply to this matter unless otherwise ordered
by this Court:
A. All non-Jencks Act materials must be provided to counsel for Defendant on or before July 10, 2009.
B. Expert witness names and materials regarding the identified expert(s) must be provided by the government to defense counsel on or before August 15, 2009.
C. Witness lists must be exchanged on or before September 1, 2009.
D. Motions in Limine must be filed on or before September 1, 2009.
E. Motions concerning witnesses named on the witness lists must be filed on or before September 10, 2009.
F. Any signed Rule 11 Plea Agreement shall be submitted to the Court on or before September 24, 2009.
G. Trial shall commence on October 20, 2009, at 1:30 p.m.

It is further ORDERED that the time from February 10, 2009, through October 20, 2009, is
excluded from the calculation of the period within which the defendant must be brought to trial under the Speedy Trial Act in order to give counsel for the defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, and to permit this Court to issue its decision and order regarding the pending motions in this matter. See 18 U.S.C. §3161 (b)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by this Order outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A).

s/Gerald E. Rosen
GERALD E. ROSEN
Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan
Dated: June 24, 2009

[Famspear]

So, essentially, if I'm reading this correctly, there is no decision yet on Peter's motion to dismiss the indictment, but the court went ahead and set the trial date, October 20. Decision on the motion, etc., to come later.

[.]

The Supreme Court will not deny Pete's motion to rehear his denial of cert until October 5, 2009

I've been looking off-and-on for any case of a motion to reconsider denial of cert succeeding for a couple of weeks. Found zip.

Did run across an interesting article about motions to rehear across the entire federal Circuit level. The less than 3% success rates are what one might expect. Of course, PH failed miserably at that level, too, for obvious reasons.

http://www.foley.com/files/tbl_s31Publi ... 0FINAL.pdf

Bad odds, but not nearly as bad as the 0.000000000000000% chance of success that PH now has.

My preferred solution to him and the rest of the TP idiots would be to grant his ridiculous motion to reconsider and then DIG it with a detailed explanation of why, which would really only require citing a few choice paragraphs about frivolity penned by lower courts.

That would finally put the unambiguous imprimatur of the USSC on them, even though it's already there via repeated cert denials, a concept that TPs are incapable of understanding. Of course, the USSC usually trys to avoid pontificating on issues not before them so the chance that they will take the opportunity to totally bury his BS is nil.

[Pottapaug1938]

Even if the Supreme Court disposed of PotatoHead's motion right now, the TPers still won't catch on. They'll only ramp up their letter-writing campaign even more, add to the paper recycling needs of the Supreme Court, and add to the revenue of the paper manufacturers and the Postal Service. They will find some way -- ANY way -- to pretend that PH's fight isn't over.

[Nikki]

My preferred solution to him and the rest of the TP idiots would be to grant his ridiculous motion to reconsider and then DIG it with a detailed explanation of why, which would really only require citing a few choice paragraphs about frivolity penned by lower courts.

That would finally put the unambiguous imprimatur of the USSC on them, even though it's already there via repeated cert denials, a concept that TPs are incapable of understanding. Of course, the USSC usually trys to avoid pontificating on issues not before them so the chance that they will take the opportunity to totally bury his BS is nil.

Unless the Court took a copy of Cracking The Code in hand and specifically refuted every single one of Pete's underlying assumptions, theories, and legal constructions; the LoserHeads would STILL claim that Pete hadn't been proven wrong.

If the Court did all of the above, we'd then hear the "corruption", "fear of audit", "protecting their government paychecks", etc arguments which are one of their last fallback positions.

In any case, even if the court drives a convincing, irrefutable stake through Pete's heart, all his acolytes will merely flock to the next guru on the list.

[.]

Aw, c'mon, even Crackheads aren't totally dense. Something like this might cover it:

Petitioner has repeatedly advanced the losing argument in various litigation below that petitioner did not engage in any 'federally-privileged' activities, as promulgated in his abysmally ignorant and ridiculous book, 'Cracking the Code' which we note would well be avoided by anyone with any sense who seeks to avoid penalties for frivolous filings, not to mention injunctions and criminal sanctions, unlike its author.

Petitioner's contentions in his motion and book are nothing but tax protester rhetoric and meaningless legalistic gibberish, and we shall not dignify such inane 'arguments' with further discussion, nor shall we painstakingly address petitioner’s legal rubbish with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent as to do so would be a total waste of time.

Dismissed as improvidently granted, just so that the Court could make the foregoing crystal-clear.

[Imalawman]

Aw, c'mon, even Crackheads aren't totally dense. Something like this might cover it:

Petitioner has repeatedly advanced the losing argument in various litigation below that petitioner did not engage in any 'federally-privileged' activities, as promulgated in his abysmally ignorant and ridiculous book, 'Cracking the Code' which we note would well be avoided by anyone with any sense who seeks to avoid penalties for frivolous filings, not to mention injunctions and criminal sanctions, unlike its author.

Petitioner's contentions in his motion and book are nothing but tax protester rhetoric and meaningless legalistic gibberish, and we shall not dignify such inane 'arguments' with further discussion, nor shall we painstakingly address petitioner’s legal rubbish with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent as to do so would be a total waste of time.

Dismissed as improvidently granted, just so that the Court could make the foregoing crystal-clear.

The court said it just as plainly in Latham and Pete called it a victory. I don't think he'd ever concede defeat or the die-hard LHs. It would all end in - corrupt courts. Pete is not wrong, he's determined that already.

[.]

Yeah, yeah, I know, nothing anyone says will ever convince the die-hard morons. But, a little out-of-character bluntness would be refreshing and perhaps even helpful to the marginal cases who haven't gone totally off the deep end. Where's Easterbrook when you need him?

“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. Commissioner 791 F2d 68, 69 (7th Cir 1986.)

[Quixote]

Unless the Court took a copy of Cracking The Code in hand and specifically refuted every single one of Pete's underlying assumptions, theories, and legal constructions; the LoserHeads would STILL claim that Pete hadn't been proven wrong.

Even with a copy of Cracking the Code in hand, the Court might not be able to determine what Pete's underlying assumptions, theories, and legal constructions are. You may recall that none of the LoserHeads who have posted here have been able to explain Pete's theory. Much of Cracking the Code is analogous to an abstract painting. Ideas are hinted at, but the reader is allowed to see what he wants to see, undistracted by any explicit position taken by the author.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...Much of Cracking the Code is analogous to an abstract painting. Ideas are hinted at, but the reader is allowed to see what he wants to see, undistracted by any explicit position taken by the author.

That reminds me of some of the frequent posters at the old sui site. The one I recall who was the apparent guru at being some kind of inscrutable guru was "jersee." Every answer seemed to include some kind of mysterious requirement to conduct more study to gain understanding about becoming master of whatever it was.

[Nikki]

He's relocated to SonOfSooey, but is as clueless as ever:

You can call me Terry Jameson. I'm located in Bridgetown, NJ. I have 3 kids and a wife. I operate a H3 but I drive a truck. I have 2 brothers.

Now when you come to arrest me--I'll be waiting. Just make sure you have your remedy when I take you to court--because I'm not going to give you the one that's available to you.
__________________
v/r
Jerseee
"For as He thinketh in His heart, so is He."

My Maxims:
1. Make your accusor prove their claim
2. Never argue
3. Adopt no. 1 & 2 as second nature
4. Do not claim anything that does not belong to you (i.e. render unto Cesaer that which belongs to Cesaer)

{misspellings verbatim}