Hendrickson's Motion for Reversal

[Dezcad]

One of the attorneys for Peter Hendrickson, namely his brother Jack, has filed a MOTION FOR REVERSAL OF “OBSTRUCTION” AND “INTENDED TAX LOSS” SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS.

Here's an interesting portion of the Motion:

That is, the jury may have mistaken “willfulness” to mean “obstreperous”, or “stubborn”. Indeed, the jury may have been incapable of understanding it any other way. After all, the government made no effort to prove or even identify any “duty” to which Mr. Hendrickson was allegedly subject, or that he received “wages” (or anything at all), or that anything on his forms was “material”, or ANYTHING except that he dislikes the IRS and disagrees with certain lower court rulings, even those which themselves conflict with other, higher authorities. And yet, the Court failed to dismiss the charges at the close of the government’s case in chief for failing to meet its burdens of proof. What COULD the jury conclude other than that the only thing the government DID attempt to prove was the only thing the government needed to prove? Thus, the ONLY thing that can be concluded is that the jury was, in fact, completely misled in this fashion and the verdict implies nothing but a complete misunderstanding of the relevant meaning of “willfulness” and what the prosecution must do to bring and sustain a legitimate charge.

It is clear that only an attorney who is related to PH would sign such a Motion.

[wserra]

What COULD the jury conclude other than that the only thing the government DID attempt to prove was the only thing the government needed to prove?

Um . . . that Hendrickson's conduct fit the elements of the crimes as the judge defined them in the charge?

Just a wild guess.

And what in the world is a "Motion for Reversal"? Does he mean a "Motion for a New Trial" under FRCrP 33? If so, the guy can't even read the rule.

[Pottapaug1938]

One of the attorneys for Peter Hendrickson, namely his brother Jack, has filed a MOTION FOR REVERSAL OF “OBSTRUCTION” AND “INTENDED TAX LOSS” SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS.

Here's an interesting portion of the Motion:

That is, the jury may have mistaken “willfulness” to mean “obstreperous”, or “stubborn”.

No, Sherlock, they didn't make that mistake. They took it to mean that Petey-boy intended to do precisely what he did.

I wonder if Jack craves Bar discipline the way that his brother craves imprisonment?

[Dezcad]

And what in the world is a "Motion for Reversal"? Does he mean a "Motion for a New Trial" under FRCrP 33? If so, the guy can't even read the rule.

The Subject line doesn't quote the full title of the Motion - it is even worse: MOTION FOR REVERSAL OF “OBSTRUCTION” AND “INTENDED TAX LOSS” SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS

Below is the ultimate relief sought, perhaps under FRCrP 35(a). But that, along with most of what is contained in the Motion, is not very clear.

CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Mr. Hendrickson moves this Honorable Court to remove the sentence enhancement for “obstruction”, and revise the sentence to reflect an “offense level” of no more than 6, resulting in a sentence range of 0 - 6 months.

[Gregg]

Hey, Charles Manson got a commutation, anything can happen.

But it's been a long time, did they have as good a case against Chuck?

[Thule]

And what in the world is a "Motion for Reversal"? Does he mean a "Motion for a New Trial" under FRCrP 33? If so, the guy can't even read the rule.

It's "Motion for Rehersal". The Greybar Players are doing H.M.S. Pinafore this summer, and they'd like Pete behind bars ASAP, as he is supposed to play the part of Josephine.

[.]

Manson got a commutation

Not in the usual way via a governor. California v. Anderson. 1972. Overturned all CA death sentences. He got lucky.

[Gregg]

Manson got a commutation

Not in the usual way via a governor. California v. Anderson. 1972. Overturned all CA death sentences. He got lucky.

Back to the Restore America Plan I guess......

[LPC]

Here's an interesting portion of the Motion:

That is, the jury may have mistaken “willfulness” to mean “obstreperous”, or “stubborn”.

Which "mistaken" belief by the jury would actually be a good interpretation of the views of the Supreme Court:

“Of course, the more unreasonable the asserted beliefs or misunderstandings are, the more likely the jury will consider them to be nothing more than simple disagreement with known legal duties imposed by the tax laws, and will find that the Government has carried its burden of proving knowledge.”

United States v. Cheek, 498 U.S. 192, 203-204 (1991).

A "simple disagreement" with known legal duties is, according to the Supreme Court, the same as willfullness. So if the jury believed that the defendant was “obstreperous” or “stubborn” in disagreeing with the IRS and the courts, then the jury was right in concluding that the defendant acted willfully.

[The Dog]

And what in the world is a "Motion for Reversal"? Does he mean a "Motion for a New Trial" under FRCrP 33? If so, the guy can't even read the rule.

It's "Motion for Rehersal". The Greybar Players are doing H.M.S. Pinafore this summer, and they'd like Pete behind bars ASAP, as he is supposed to play the part of Josephine.

Why not the Major General from Pirates of Penzance or King Gama from Princess Ida?

I know ev'rybody's income and what ev'rybody earns;
And I carefully compare it with the income-tax returns;
But to benefit humanity however much I plan,
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!

[Cathulhu]

They're trying to do the same with the courts as they attempted to do with taxes; make up their own rules and see if anyone's gonna fall for them. It's pretty obvious that Jack thinks they can "reopen" the whole thing, as he's still harping about wages, and the W-2 form and testimony is the proof he's dismissing. Maybe he thinks if he writes angrily enough nobody will notice. Can't wait to see what this little gem generates.

[Pottapaug1938]

Maybe he thinks if he writes angrily enough nobody will notice.

That's essentially Charlie Pierce's Third Great Premise of Idiot America: fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

It's "Motion for Rehersal". The Greybar Players are doing H.M.S. Pinafore this summer, and they'd like Pete behind bars ASAP, as he is supposed to play the part of Josephine.

Why not the Major General from Pirates of Penzance or King Gama from Princess Ida?
...

Actually, the Bureau of Prisons just paid for the rights to a stage adaptation of the movie "Stardust." Pete is set to play the part of Captain Shakespeare.

[LPC]

And what in the world is a "Motion for Reversal"? Does he mean a "Motion for a New Trial" under FRCrP 33? If so, the guy can't even read the rule.

It looks like a motion for reconsideration, but I don't see any provision for that kind of motion in the rules of criminal procedure.

Is there really no way to ask a judge to reconsider a sentence?

A quick Google search turns up United States v. Gargano, 826 F.2d 610 (7th Cir. 1987) (opinion by Judge Posner), which states that:

1. The criminal rules make no provision for motions to reconsider; and

2. Despite the lack of any express rule, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for reconsideration may be filed in a criminal case and that if filed within the time allowed for an appeal it tolls the time for appealing, just like a timely motion under Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 77-80, 84 S.Ct. 553, 554-556, 11 L.Ed.2d 527 (1964); see also United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 97 S.Ct. 18, 50 L.Ed.2d 8 (1976) (per curiam); Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir.1985); cf. In re X-Cel, Inc., 823 F.2d 192, 193 (7th Cir.1987).

I wonder if Jack knows that (or cares).

[Imalawman]

And what in the world is a "Motion for Reversal"? Does he mean a "Motion for a New Trial" under FRCrP 33? If so, the guy can't even read the rule.

It looks like a motion for reconsideration, but I don't see any provision for that kind of motion in the rules of criminal procedure.

Is there really no way to ask a judge to reconsider a sentence?

A quick Google search turns up United States v. Gargano, 826 F.2d 610 (7th Cir. 1987) (opinion by Judge Posner), which states that:

1. The criminal rules make no provision for motions to reconsider; and

2. Despite the lack of any express rule, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for reconsideration may be filed in a criminal case and that if filed within the time allowed for an appeal it tolls the time for appealing, just like a timely motion under Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 77-80, 84 S.Ct. 553, 554-556, 11 L.Ed.2d 527 (1964); see also United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 97 S.Ct. 18, 50 L.Ed.2d 8 (1976) (per curiam); Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir.1985); cf. In re X-Cel, Inc., 823 F.2d 192, 193 (7th Cir.1987).

I wonder if Jack knows that (or cares).

I didn't know any such rule, but common legal sense told me there had to be way. Though I wouldn't have styled it in the way Jack has. However, I don't think Jack has been litigating recently, so he's probably rusty. After that nonsense, he may have to convince a panel that he should keep his license....