Pete's going to the pokey

[Demosthenes]

06/09/2010 108 MOTION for Release from Custody Pending Appeal by Peter Hendrickson. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Release Pending Appeal, # 2 Document Continuation Certificate of Service) (Butler - NOT SWORN, William) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

06/14/2010 109 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL re 108 Motion for Release from Custody as to Peter Hendrickson (1). Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

The BOP has his name in the system as "NOT IN BOP CUSTODY". He must be at or near his self-surrender date.

[VinnyZ]

I wonder if he will end up in the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, MN.

I have seen Jerry Koosman there.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Any bets on if he were to be released that he'd rabbit?

[Cathulhu]

Can't take that bet, Judge, I'm certain he'd run. Matches his psychology.

[Famspear]

Any bets on if he were to be released that he'd rabbit?

I dunno, but I can't wait to see how Hendrickson and His Haughty Heroes decide to characterize the BlowhardMeister's second term in federal prison. Let's see now.... Pete has a tendency to characterize federal court judgments against him as being "void." As I recall, when he petitioned the United States Supreme Court after his loss on the erroneous tax refund case and the Court refused to hear his case, he tried to argue that his loss wasn't really a loss because the district court judgment was "void" and therefore the question was "moot" (and his followers weren't smart enough to ask the question "Well, Pete, if the district court judgment against you was "void" and the question was therefore somehow "moot," then why the heck did you bother to appeal?").

So, maybe Pete's impending federal prison sentence should be served with the argument by his followers that his time is prison is going to be "void" or "moot."

Otherwise, I'm stumped.

[Famspear]

La Chatte de Melon wrote:

The BOP has his name in the system as "NOT IN BOP CUSTODY". He must be at or near his self-surrender date.

Recalling Hendrickson's nonsense about the meaning of the words "wage" and "employer" and "employee" and "includes", maybe the Blowhard will abscond -- and argue that "surrender" has a special, technical meaning that does not include "voluntarily showing up at the appointed time and place to begin serving my sentence."

[LPC]

06/09/2010 108 MOTION for Release from Custody Pending Appeal by Peter Hendrickson. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Release Pending Appeal, # 2 Document Continuation Certificate of Service) (Butler - NOT SWORN, William) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

06/14/2010 109 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL re 108 Motion for Release from Custody as to Peter Hendrickson (1). Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

It took Judge Rosen 5 whole days to make up his mind? And he didn't need to hear from the government first?

The actual order represents judicial understatement at its best:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
PETER HENDRICKSON,
Defendant.

Case No. 08-20585
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

______________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on June 14, 2010

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court

By motion filed on June 9, 2010, Defendant Peter Hendrickson requests that he be permitted to remain free on bond pending the resolution of his appeal of his conviction and sentence. This request is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), which provides in pertinent part:

[T]he judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds —

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released . . . ; and

(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in —

(i) reversal,

(ii) an order for a new trial,

(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or

(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.

18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). “This statute creates a presumption against release pending appeal.” United States v. Sabino, No. 04-3499, 97 F. App’x 626, 627 (6th Cir. May 14, 2004) (citing United States v. Vance, 851 F.2d 166, 169-70 (6th Cir. 1988)).

The Court finds that Defendant has not overcome this presumption against release, because he has not identified a substantial question of law or fact that he intends to pursue on appeal. The Sixth Circuit has explained that the “substantial question” prong of § 3143(b)(1) is satisfied if “the appeal presents a close question or one that could go either way and . . . the question is so integral to the merits of the conviction that it is more probable than not that reversal or a new trial will occur if the question is decided in the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Pollard, 778 F.2d 1177, 1182 (6th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The “substantial questions” identified in Defendant’s present motion are precisely the same issues he raised at trial and in his postverdict motion for a judgment of acquittal or new trial. This Court has thoroughly addressed and rejected these challenges — most of them on more than one occasion.

Upon once again considering the issues raised in Defendant’s present motion, the Court cannot say that any of them “present[] a close question or one that could go either way,” such that Defendant’s release pending appeal would be warranted under § 3143(b)(1). To the contrary, Defendant merely rehashes legal challenges that have very little prospect of
success on appeal, for the reasons previously explained in the Court’s various pre-trial, trial, and post-verdict opinions and rulings.

Accordingly,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s June 9, 2010 motion for release pending appeal (docket #108) is DENIED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: June 14, 2010

[Pottapaug1938]

La Chatte de Melon wrote:

The BOP has his name in the system as "NOT IN BOP CUSTODY". He must be at or near his self-surrender date.

Recalling Hendrickson's nonsense about the meaning of the words "wage" and "employer" and "employee" and "includes", maybe the Blowhard will abscond -- and argue that "surrender" has a special, technical meaning that does not include "voluntarily showing up at the appointed time and place to begin serving my sentence."

I can just see Petey's future post: "the term surrender" means 'to give oneself up in defeat', just like the Germans and Japanese did in 1945. However, we are NOT defeated. We will win. STAND TALL, WARRIORS!"

[Nikki]

BREAKING NEWS -- This just in from LostHorizons:

chirp, chirp, chirp

[Joey Smith]

Don't forget that "secret plan" by which "Pete will never see a day of prison" that was talked about a few months ago over at LostHeads, with sly intonations that the Michigan Militia was somehow going to spirit him away from the Marshals and hide him out somewhere (Michigan is a BIG state).

[bmielke]

Don't forget that "secret plan" by which "Pete will never see a day of prison" that was talked about a few months ago over at LostHeads, with sly intonations that the Michigan Militia was somehow going to spirit him away from the Marshals and hide him out somewhere (Michigan is a BIG state).

They didn't help the Other group of Militia Men that were busted up there recently (Hurtee?). IIRC A couple of them ran to the Michigan Militia and the Militia Men dropped a dime.

[Gregg]

I can just see Petey's future post: "the term surrender" means 'to give oneself up in defeat', just like the Germans and Japanese did in 1945. However, we are NOT defeated. We will win. STAND TALL, WARRIORS!"

I think it more likely he'll be hearing "BEND OVER, B*****" than "STAND TALL WARRIORS" in the near future.

[Pottapaug1938]

I can just see Petey's future post: "the term surrender" means 'to give oneself up in defeat', just like the Germans and Japanese did in 1945. However, we are NOT defeated. We will win. STAND TALL, WARRIORS!"

I think it more likely he'll be hearing "BEND OVER, B*****" than "STAND TALL WARRIORS" in the near future.

Yeah, but it will be worth it for him, because he will be Suffering For The Cause.

[LOBO]

The appeal had the same result as everything else he filed? But...but...it was worded differently! "Hendrickson Bucks" was supposed to be a slam dunk!

[Investor]

I didn't realize Judge Rosen was involved in this case. Rosen has little tolerance for nonsense. It will be funny to hear the protestors categorize Rosen as a Liberal shill, seeing as how Judge Rosen is a staunch Conservative and a member of the Federalist Society. But putting Hendrickson away is clearly evidence of his socialist views, right?

[Gregg]

I didn't realize Judge Rosen was involved in this case. Rosen has little tolerance for nonsense. It will be funny to hear the protestors categorize Rosen as a Liberal shill, seeing as how Judge Rosen is a staunch Conservative and a member of the Federalist Society. But putting Hendrickson away is clearly evidence of his socialist views, right?

Get immunized and then go read LH, they've called him everything but a white man over there...

[Nikki]

WE INTERRUPT THIS THREAD FOR THIS BREAKING NEWS STORY -- AN UPDATE FROM LOST HORIZONS

chirp, chirp, chirp

[Lambkin]

These are nothing new, but nicely accessible copies.

June 10, 2010 - OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO FILE AMENDED TAX RETURNS FOR 2002 AND 2003 [46, 55, 61] AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY REQUESTS [60]

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm ... 0100610e01


May 21, 2010 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REVERSAL OF SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS AND SETTING AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm ... 0100521a02

[Investor]

I didn't realize Judge Rosen was involved in this case. Rosen has little tolerance for nonsense. It will be funny to hear the protestors categorize Rosen as a Liberal shill, seeing as how Judge Rosen is a staunch Conservative and a member of the Federalist Society. But putting Hendrickson away is clearly evidence of his socialist views, right?

Get immunized and then go read LH, they've called him everything but a white man over there...

A shame. He's a very impressive man to meet and is unwavering in his defense of the Constitution. If these people only knew. I had the privilege of sitting through Judge Rosen's Evidence class when I was a visiting student at Wayne State, in Detroit, many years ago. I can't say enough good things about the man.

[Famspear]

Something occurred to me regarding Preposterous Pete and his Pending Partaking of Prison. In the March 29, 2009 New York Times article about Hendrickson, reporter Jason Zengerle states that in Pete's first federal prison term, his sentence was reduced to 30 days in prison and 11 months in a halfway house.

See Jason Zengerle, "Hell Nay, We Won't Pay," March 29, 2009, New York Times, at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magaz ... xes-t.html

On this go-round, Hendrickson has been sentenced to 33 months -- of which he will presumably be required to serve at 85% of the sentence, or about two years and four months.

I tend to think of the Blowhard Himself as a more or less hardened, obdurate, recalcitrant recidivist - but it must be sobering for his unfortunate children to think that now he will have to serve at least twenty-eight times as much time in the Pokey as he did the first time. I suspect the daughter is so young she probably does not even remember Pete's first prison sentence, and maybe the son wasn't even born yet.

I feel bad for the kids.