Hendrickson's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Denied

[Dezcad]

The Opinion and Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Indictment has finally been entered by the Court in PH's criminal case . This is the result of the hearing on the Motion which was previously held on May 14, 2009.

It is a good read. IMO.

[Dr. Caligari]

When will we see this posted on Lost Horizons?

[Pottapaug1938]

When will we see this posted on Lost Horizons?

As soon as Petey-boy manages to concoct a way to spin this into a "victory". I'm guessing that he'll use the "the Court ruled against me because they were afraid of the consequences of ruling in my favor, like they knew that they should do" page from his playbook.

[The Observer]

As soon as Petey-boy manages to concoct a way to spin this into a "victory". I'm guessing that he'll use the "the Court ruled against me because they were afraid of the consequences of ruling in my favor, like they knew that they should do" page from his playbook.

Before or after his appeal on the denial of the motion?

[jg]

Thanks be that the court took the time to dispose of Pete's arguments (or at least to brand them as without merit) and to expose the bare assertions that he made in the motions.

However when the court stated:

Under these circumstances, the Government could permissibly conclude that the prosecution of Defendant would serve as an effective deterrent to those who might be inclined to apply his analysis to their own tax filings, and that this might staunch the flow of more widespread, but potentially harder to detect, submission of “zero wage” tax forms by readers of Cracking the Code. See Kelley, supra, 769 F.2d at 218.

there was not any recognition of the persistent willful ignorance of "those who might be inclined to apply his analysis to their own tax filings" to the extent that those may include the "CtC educated", as that term is applied by Pete's followers .

[Dr. Caligari]

Before or after his appeal on the denial of the motion?

He can't appeal it until and unless he's convicted and sentenced.

[Quixote]

Before or after his appeal on the denial of the motion?

He can't appeal it until and unless he's convicted and sentenced.

That sentence has two unnecessary words.

[Famspear]

I've been waiting a long time for this ruling.

After skimming the text, I conclude that it was worth the wait.

[Lambkin]

Ruh-roh! So much for "includes."

While Defendant states as ipse dixit that it is “unambiguously clear” and “immediately apparent” that §7343 is intended to limit, and not supplement, the definition of “person” set forth at §7701(a)(1), (Defendant’s 5/7/2009 Motion to Dismiss, Br. in Support at 4-5), the most natural reading of these two definitions suggests otherwise.

[Red Cedar PM]

Does anyone think Pete can still plea bargain at this point, with the trial less than 2 weeks away? Or would the prosecution not even make an offer?

[grixit]

He will never reach the bargaining stage because he's stuck in denial.

[Joey Smith]

Wow. Pete is roadkill.

[Noah]

Wow. Pete is roadkill.

Don't count him out yet...he may survive like Kuglin, Bannister and Cryer on a few others.

[Famspear]

Wow. Pete is roadkill.

Don't count him out yet...he may survive like Kuglin, Bannister and Cryer on a few others.

Agreed. You never know what a jury will do. I give Pete a 10% chance of acquittal.

[LPC]

Don't count him out yet...he may survive like Kuglin, Bannister and Cryer on a few others.

You think that "survive" is a good result?

[Noah]

Don't count him out yet...he may survive like Kuglin, Bannister and Cryer on a few others.

You think that "survive" is a good result?

It sure beats the alternative.

[LPC]

From page 38, not 21, of the court's opinion:

if Defendant believes that his reading of the Internal Revenue Code is correct and that the Government’s is wrong, he can bring a direct challenge seeking dismissal of the indictment for failure to state a criminal offense under a proper construction of the tax code. Indeed, the Court turns next to Defendant’s motion in which he advances an argument of precisely this sort.

So the only direct substantive challenge to the indictment was over the word "person."

Once again, a tax denier who claims to have followed the law, and continues to insist that his understanding of the law is correct, fails to assert that understanding of the law in a direct challenge to the indictment, instead falling back on procedural challenges and, ultimately, the Cheek defense of lack of willfulness due to a misunderstanding of the law.

The closest Hendrickson came to a direct assertion of his legal theory was the question whether the grand jury was "properly instructed" on the law and whether the grand jury was instructed on the "true" meanings of "person, "wages," "employee," and "employment." (Page 34.) The court rejected this challenge on procedural grounds, because there is no right to challenge the evidence or instructions given to the grand jury, but the court also expressed doubt about the substantive argument as well. ("For what it is worth, it seems doubtful, to say the least, that the grand jury would have been instructed in accordance with Defendat's understand of the INternal Revenue Code." Page 38, note 21.)

And this is the same behavior we saw in the civil suit against Hendrickson. He never asserted that he was right as a matter of law, but instead relied on arguments about jurisdiction, burdens of proof, presumptions, and other collateral nonsense.

So we come again to the question why. Why will Hendrickson not directly assert the correctness of his ideas in court?

I don't think that his lawyer is holding him back, because he was able to assert the "person" nonsense. If the lawyer was willing to make a frivolous argument about the meaning of "person," he shouldn't have balked at the equally frivolous arguments about the meanings of "wages," "employee," and "employer."

At this point, there is only one good answer. Hendrickson *knows* that the court will rule against him, and doesn't want that to happen. It might be ego, or it might be economic self-interest (to keep the book sales alive), or it might be an unconscious defense mechanism to protect his delusions. But the conclusion that he is ducking the hard truth is now inescapable.

[LPC]

Don't count him out yet...he may survive like Kuglin, Bannister and Cryer on a few others.

You think that "survive" is a good result?

It sure beats the alternative.

I didn't think that the death penalty was on the table.

[ASITStands]

At this point, there is only one good answer. Hendrickson *knows* that the court will rule against him, and doesn't want that to happen. It might be ego, or it might be economic self-interest (to keep the book sales alive), or it might be an unconscious defense mechanism to protect his delusions. But the conclusion that he is ducking the hard truth is now inescapable.

You're suggesting he doesn't really want the court to address his legal theories. I agree.

If the court were to actually address his legal theories, and rule against him, as they're likely to do, he'd to discontinue book sales, and he'd no longer be the "guru" that others find him.

It is indeed interesting that he's never challenged the law "toe-to-toe" with his theories. He doesn't want the courts to systematically dismantle them, and thus, takes a defensive route.

[Noah]

I didn't think that the death penalty was on the table.

Survive was not a good term, I should have used the phrase "avoid conviction" . Avoiding conviction sure beats the alternative. Thanks for reminding me of the value of exact and precise definition of words and phrases.