EXHIBIT D 

2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Doc # 117-5 Filed 04/14/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 2140
AFFIDAVIT

State of Michigan

County of Washtenaw

Before the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of Michigan, on this 4th day of

January 2011, personally appeared Jack R. Hendrickson, Jr, who, having been first duly sworn,

deposes and says, for the following assertions I have personal knowledge and could testify

competently to that effect if called upon to do so.

I was selected as co-counsel in early 2010 by and for Peter E. Hendrickson

in a criminal case brought by the United States Justice Dept before Judge

Rosen in the Federal District Court Eastern District of Michigan, case

number 20-585.

Mark Lane of Charlottesville, VA was appointed lead defense counsel in

late August 2010 by Peter Hendrickson, and an additional co-counsel,

Mark Cedrone of Philadelphia, PA, was subsequently appointed (Sept

2010).

I own and manage several real estate companies as well as a renewable

energy firm, do not and never have practiced law for any but my own

accounts. But as Mr Hendrickson's brother, I acceded to his request that I

co-represent him in this grave matter.

My duties, as assigned by Mr Lane, included preparation of numbered

exhibits for use in trial, and minor editing of drafts of motions and

arguments either filed by Mr Lane or prepared for his verbal presentation

in court. Mr Lane rarely responded to my emails proposing ideas on how

to conduct the defense. When he did, he dismissed almost every idea out

of hand.

Mr Lane, then aged 83 or thereabouts, also determined to run the trial on

his terms, with Mr. Cedrone, despite strong litigation skills, also being

limited to only certain cross-examination duties in court, and to review of

masses of relevant documents, but again, solely in strict support of Mr

Lane's agenda. Mr Lane refused any proposed changes to the manner or

content of his presentation, which cemented in his mind as to all areas of

substance at least one and one half months before the October 20th trial

date.

At trial, which proceeded thru 3 days, Mr Lane's physical health, which

was not tip-top to begin with, showed noticeable signs of rapid

progressive weakening. He complained to the Judge of a weak heart,

pointed to one of his bloodshot eyes as evidence of a heart condition, and

scheduled at least one postponement of presentation of his case. Mr

Page 1 of 3

2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Doc # 117-5 Filed 04/14/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 2141
Lane's eye condition worsened noticeably during the second trial day from

merely bloodshot to blood-filled.

Despite the efforts of both Mark Cedrone and me to offload key Defense

Team trial conduct onto us, Mr Lane emphatically shoved aside such

offers of aid, remaining in strict control. Nonetheless, Lane had to request

that Judge Rosen adjourn the jury early that day.

I prepared under Mr Lane's direction numerous Defense Exhibits, all

numbered exactly in sequence (1 thru 31), for use at trial per Lane's

exacting, scripted approach (never varying in the preceding one and one

half months), each exhibit purposefully prepared to exonerate Peter

Hendrickson in multiple ways. However, Mr Lane's confusion at key

moments during trial was sufficiently great that when required, during his

questioning of government witnesses and of Mr Hendrickson as defense

witness, numerous of these 31 exhibits were never even introduced by Mr

Lane. I believe only 9 were successfully introduced and these ranked as

minor compared to the ones ignored.

Key to the success of Defense at trial was showing with these exhibits

BOTH Peter Hendrickson's state of mind (his purity of intent) and his

rigorous legal research regarding positions he had taken respecting the

federal income tax law, upon which DoJ had brought the criminal charges

in question.

Both of these elements—Peter Hendrickson's intent and his rigorous

conformance with the requirements of all relevant governing statuteswere fully explicated in chapters of his book "Cracking The Code".

One of the key exhibits prepared by the Defense Team under Mr Lane's

direction consisted of several chapters of Peter Hendrickson's book.

Simple. Obvious. Comprehensive. Telling.

Mr. Lane's confusion at a key moment with Mr Hendrickson on the stand

resulted in his failure to introduce this exhibit. When I and Mark Cedrone

individually and emphatically urged introduction of this and other key,

number-sequenced exhibits, Mr Lane whispered to us that he was Veorienting' their sequence of introduction. Such introductions never

occurred.

While Mr Lane's grave, noticeable health decline, reflected in slurred

words, his bulging eyes and his facial pallor, were ultimately the cause of

mismanagement of and failure to introduce these key exculpatory exhibits

when required by the case, another contributing factor was the repeated

urging, nay demands, of Judge Rosen that the trial be rushed to

conclusion, so that he might travel to Thailand for a vacation.

Page 2 of 3

2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Doc # 117-5 Filed 04/14/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 2142
Judge Rosen saw Mr Lane noticeably declining, watched him doggedly

retain control of the case despite the urgent whisperings of Mr Cedrone

and me, and yet did everything in his considerable power to truncate the

Defense case presentation.

In addition, and evocative of Mr Lane's loss of effectiveness at trial, he

only cross-examined a single government witness. His failure to confront

the other government witnesses on behalf of Mr Hendrickson alone is

enough to trigger a new trial.

As a result of the failure of health of his lead attorney, Peter Hendrickson's

constitutional right to a fair trial was utterly compromised.

Jack R. HendricKson, Jr

Witness:

Sworn and subscribed before me this day of January A.D. 2011

Ui^ -*?#i

v- N "-

COURTNEY TURNER

NOTARY PUBLIC - MICHIGAN

BRANCH COUNTY

ACTING IN THE COUNTY OF V .

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG 82014

Page 3 of 3

2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Doc # 117-5 Filed 04/14/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 2143