Hendrickson criminal trial (continued)

[LPC]

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.

The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao.

Similarly, the CtC that can be stated concisely and clearly (and can therefore be refuted) is not the true CtC.

[grixit]

You can determine the citation or the verbosity of one of his arguments, but never both.

[LPC]

You can determine the citation or the verbosity of one of his arguments, but never both.

Yes, the Hendrickson uncertainty principle would be dependent on <plunk>'s constant.

[Famspear]

You can determine the citation or the verbosity of one of his arguments, but never both.

Yes, the Hendrickson uncertainty principle would be dependent on <plunk>'s constant.

Oooooooooh. Good one!

[mutter]

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.

that is an absolute and dead on analysis of it. he will NOT ever clearly say this is what I am saying. He will not state his position to any court out right cos this allows him to always say they didnt address CTC!

[Quixote]

From the Worldcat interlibrary loan service. Note the highlighted entry a third of the way down the page. On the one hand, Pete sold another copy. On the other ...

Libraries with Item: "Cracking the code : / the..."( Record for Item | Get This Item )Location Library Code
US,TX MCALLEN MEM LIBR TME

US,AZ YAVAPAI CNTY LIBR DISTR YFL

US,CA ALIBRIS ALBRS
US,CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA,DAVIS, MABIE LAW LIBR UCDLL

US,CT BIBLIOMATION, INC BIB

US,DC US DEPT OF THE TREASURY DTL

US,FL NICEVILLE LIBR FD8
US,FL TAMPA-HILLSBOROUGH CNTY PUB LIBR TNH

US,IL DES PLAINES VAL PUB LIBR DIST, LOCKPORT OI4
US,IL OAK PARK PUB LIBR IUO

US,IN MONROE CNTY PUB LIBR IMR

US,MI WAYNE STATE UNIV EYW
US,MI WEST BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP PUB LIBR EZX

US,MO MID-CONTINENT PUB LIBR CMI

US,NY SUFFOLK COOP LIBR SYST SDE

US,OH OCLC TRAINING & ILLIAD PARTICIPANT TRN

US,VA CHRISTENDOM COL LIBR PYY
US,VA MASSANUTTEN REG LIBR PFN

US,WA KING CNTY LIBR SYST NTG

[LPC]

[Peter Hendrickson] will NOT ever clearly say this is what I am saying. He will not state his position to any court out right cos this allows him to always say they didnt address CTC!

In the few days I was allowed to post to Lost Horizons, my experience was the following:

[Me]: The income tax is not limited to government employees, and here's why: ....

[Crackhead]: That's not what CtC is about or what Hendrickson claims.

[Me]: Then tell me what CtC is about and what Hendrickson claims.

[Crackhead]: Read the book.

No one was ever willing or able to tell me what it was that they believed.

Which meant that it could never be refuted.

It's really kind of pathetic, when you think about it. An entire "movement" based on something that can't ever be stated in a coherent way.

[LPC]

It's really kind of pathetic, when you think about it. An entire "movement" based on something that can't ever be stated in a coherent way.

Sounds like religion

Religion can be stated in a coherent way.

The fact that you don't consider it to be persuasive, or logical, doesn't mean it's not coherent.

For example, Kirkegaard's "leap of faith" is a coherent point of view. You may choose not to take that leap, but that does not mean that Kirkegaard is not coherent.

[Quixote]

Yeah, that religion, real coherent, so much so everyone is on the same page

coherent -
–adjective
1. logically connected; consistent: a coherent argument.
2. cohering; sticking together: a coherent mass of sticky candies.
3. having a natural or due agreement of parts; harmonious: a coherent design.

Coherent does mean "true" or even "persuasive", just "logically connected". Various religions end up on different pages because they start on different pages.

[Dezcad]

Seems like Pete isn't paying his attorney:

07/13/2009 48 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Lyle D. Russell by Peter Hendrickson. (Russell, Lyle) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

Pertinent part of Motion below:

Although an initial retainer was paid to the Firm, and initial communications were satisfactory, and although undersigned counsel has filed pleadings on behalf of Defendant Hendrickson, attended court appearances of behalf of Defendant Hendrickson, and assisted in the drafting of additional pleadings on behalf of Defendant Hendrickson, Mr. Hendrickson has failed to effectively communicate with undersigned counsel during the past 30 days; has failed to fulfill obligations regarding attorney services and fees, and has declined opportunities to meet or communicate with undersigned counsel to address the above shortcomings. Mr. Hendrickson has been warned by undersigned counsel that the firm would withdraw its appearance unless the obligations set forth in the fee agreement are fulfilled. The fee agreement provides that in the event of untimely or non-payment of fees, and/or in the event that the client does not cooperate in communications, counsel will withdraw.
At the date of this Motion, the above obligations have not been fulfilled, so that the attorney client relationship has broken down, and undersigned counsel is unable to continue to effectively represent Mr. Hendrickson. Continued representation will result in an unreasonable financial hardship on the law firm. In addition, because of the lack of communication, avoidance of meetings intended to resolve these matters, and anomalies involving the fee agreement, undersigned counsel does not believe that he can effectively defend Mr. Hendrickson against the charges in this case. Ongoing disagreements regarding these matters have caused a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Continuation of these disagreements is not in the best interest of either counsel or Mr. Hendrickson, and in the opinion of undersigned counsel, is likely to negatively affect counsel’s ability to effectively defend Mr. Hendrickson. Withdrawal of the Firm and undersigned counsel is permitted within the discretion of the court pursuant to Local Rule 83.80.

[Red Cedar PM]

Mr. Hendrickson has failed to effectively communicate with undersigned counsel during the past 30 days; has failed to fulfill obligations regarding attorney services and fees, and has declined opportunities to meet or communicate with undersigned counsel to address the above shortcomings. Mr. Hendrickson has been warned by undersigned counsel that the firm would withdraw its appearance unless the obligations set forth in the fee agreement are fulfilled.

[jcolvin2]

Seems like Pete isn't paying his attorney:

07/13/2009 48 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Lyle D. Russell by Peter Hendrickson. (Russell, Lyle) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

Pertinent part of Motion below:

In addition, because of the lack of communication, avoidance of meetings intended to resolve these matters, and anomalies involving the fee agreement, undersigned counsel does not believe that he can effectively defend Mr. Hendrickson against the charges in this case. Ongoing disagreements regarding these matters have caused a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Continuation of these disagreements is not in the best interest of either counsel or Mr. Hendrickson, and in the opinion of undersigned counsel, is likely to negatively affect counsel’s ability to effectively defend Mr. Hendrickson. Withdrawal of the Firm and undersigned counsel is permitted within the discretion of the court pursuant to Local Rule 83.80.

"Anomalies involving the fee agreement"? Curiouser and curiouser ...

[Red Cedar PM]

Seems like Pete isn't paying his attorney:

07/13/2009 48 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Lyle D. Russell by Peter Hendrickson. (Russell, Lyle) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

Pertinent part of Motion below:

In addition, because of the lack of communication, avoidance of meetings intended to resolve these matters, and anomalies involving the fee agreement, undersigned counsel does not believe that he can effectively defend Mr. Hendrickson against the charges in this case. Ongoing disagreements regarding these matters have caused a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Continuation of these disagreements is not in the best interest of either counsel or Mr. Hendrickson, and in the opinion of undersigned counsel, is likely to negatively affect counsel’s ability to effectively defend Mr. Hendrickson. Withdrawal of the Firm and undersigned counsel is permitted within the discretion of the court pursuant to Local Rule 83.80.

"Anomalies involving the fee agreement"? Curiouser and curiouser ...

Apparently that law firm doesn't accept bills of exchange from the bank of David Merrill.

[cynicalflyer]

Tax cheats who are deadbeats.

Go figure.

[ASITStands]

The "anomolies" in the fee arrangement probably occured because Pete tried paying in Liberty Dollars - coin and scrip.

I'd guess royalties from the sale of his book (which isn't selling well these days).

[The Observer]

Isn't this the point at which Hendrickson produces his new book, "Cracking the Retainer Code" that explains the term "attorney fee" doesn't appear in the Constitution and the definition by the BAR association is purposely misleading so as to induce innocenent people into thinking that they actually have to pay for legal services rendered?

[Demosthenes]

First Lyle Russell, now Ellen Denise... (Funky numbering is true to the original document.)

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

Now comes Ellen Dennis, attorney for Defendant, Peter Hendrickson, and files this Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel.

Ellen Dennis says as follows:

1. Concurrence in this motion has been sought and granted. Defendant, Peter Hendrickson, concurred in the motion by e-mail on July 12, 2009. Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Leibson, concurred in the motion on July 13, 2009. Co-counsel, Lyle D. Russell, has also concurred in the motion.

1. Ellen Dennis is one of the attorneys of record for Defendant, Peter Hendrickson. The other attorney of record, Lyle D. Russell, has also filed a motion for withdrawal.

2. There has been a breakdown in the attorney/client relationship between Ellen Dennis and Peter Hendrickson. The breakdown is sufficiently significant to damage the defense, possibly depriving Defendant of his right to a fair trial and the effective assistance of counsel.

3. Inasmuch as trial is scheduled for October 20, 2009, there should be sufficient time for Defendant Hendrickson to retain new counsel to represent him.

Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, Ellen Dennis, asks the court to permit her to withdraw as counsel for Peter Hendrickson.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Ellen Dennis (P-24400)
Law Office of Ellen Dennis
Attorney for Defendant Hendrickson
101 S. Ann Arbor St., Ste. 203A
Saline, Michigan 48176
734 944-5819

Brief in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

Ellen Dennis filed an appearance in this case November 14, 2008, the date of arraignment. Since that date she has represented Defendant Hendrickson, first as his sole counsel, and from March, 2009, as co-counsel with Lyle D. Russell, Jr. Together with co-counsel, she has reviewed the discovery and filed motions on Defendant Hendrickson’s behalf, several of which were taken under advisement by the court. She has also appeared in court for argument on the motions.

There has been recent deterioration in the attorney/client relationship between Defendant
Hendrickson and Ellen Dennis caused by issues that have not been satisfactorily resolved. At this point the breakdown in the attorney/client relationship between Defendant Hendrickson and Ellen Dennis is significant enough that there is a danger that Defendant Hendrickson’s defense might be adversely impacted, and it is in Defendant Hendrickson’s best interest to permit Ellen Dennis to withdraw from his representation.

Co-counsel, Lyle D. Russell, Jr., has likewise moved for withdrawal, but since trial is not
scheduled until October 20, 2009, Defendant Hendrickson should have sufficient time to retain new counsel, and his right to a fair trial should not be compromised by the withdrawal of Ellen Dennis.

Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, Ellen Dennis, asks the court to permit her to withdraw as counsel for Peter Hendrickson.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Ellen Dennis (P-24400)
Law Office of Ellen Dennis
Attorney for Defendant Hendrickson
101 S. Ann Arbor St., Ste. 203A
Saline, Michigan 48176
734 944-5819

Dated: July 13, 2009

[ASITStands]

Where's a legal defense fund when you need it?

It would appear from these events that Pete Hendrickson has no money for attorney fees and will shortly be reduced to a court-appointed attorney. Since he writes the motions and responses, it's possible the court will appoint standby counsel, and he'll represent himself.

Because of his arrogance, that's probably a mistake, but since he's the most knowledgeable man in income tax laws (in his own mind), it might be the best thing for the CtC argument.

[Quixote]

Isn't this the point at which Hendrickson produces his new book, "Cracking the Retainer Code" that explains the term "attorney fee" doesn't appear in the Constitution and the definition by the BAR association is purposely misleading so as to induce innocenent people into thinking that they actually have to pay for legal services rendered?

No doubt that is covered in Hendrickson's new book, Upholding the Law and Other Observations, $29.95 on Amazon.

Does the United States Constitution authorize federal control over the private possession of firearms? Who is actually commanded to silence by the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act? Are reasonable searches permitted without a warrant under the terms of the Fourth Amendment? What is the authority of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts, with or without the cooperation of the court? Peter E. Hendrickson, the man who taught America the liberating truth about the income tax in Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America, turns his attention to these and other questions of law and public policy in this wide-ranging, five-star feast for the freedom-loving intellectual appetite. The answers, insights, and clear thinking Hendrickson offers will startle, challenge, and energize every reader. No one who cherishes and respects America's founding principles of limited government and individual liberty will finish this book with the sense that all is well. But every reader WILL finish this book with a confident understanding that, although great effort is spent to persuade us to the contrary by clients of the powerful central state, those principles remain the uncompromised foundation of our legal structure-- needing nothing more to be realized than for those whose heritage they are to climb to their feet, with courage and dedication, and uphold the law.

[notorial dissent]

anomalies involving the fee agreement

Who knew, is this a new lawyerese for deadbeat client????

Tax cheats who are deadbeats.

Perish forfend, say it ain’t so!!!!!

Demo, thanks for printing the MTW. Here before us is an actual article of work produced by an actual, practicing???, attorney. I say this with full awareness from having done time at a law firm. Two things we never did, if we could possibly help it, was let an attorney actually produce and send any document or letter for fear it would go out looking exactly like the one reprinted here.

That being said, I find it fascinating that after all the crap and nonsense we have seen issued in this matter, that they are only now asking to withdraw when it finally dawns on them that Promising Pete ain’t never going to pay them, ain’t never going to have the money to do so, and ain’t ever going to actually listen to them. If they had done any kind of due diligence, they would have known that their client was a pathological liar, a deadbeat, and generally bad news, and at least gotten more than a retainer up front. I would really like to know what sort of mental and ethical gymnastics they went through to justify their actions of the last few months, because, it quite frankly is of Olympic quality. To put not too fine a point on it, I feel no sympathy for them whatsoever, and if there is any justice in the world, the judge will deny the MTW and make them continue on out of their own pockets and go down with the already sinking ship. The first attorney had no business taking the case on, as she wasn’t/isn’t qualified to handle it, and from what I have seen to date neither is the second batch. I am still curios to see if they will earn sanctions, as they should, for some of the stuff they have let Pete enter under their license, another really stupid move. Nope, no sympathy at all at this late date.