Subject:
Re: HUGE NEWS YOU WILL NEVER SEE ON LAME STREAM MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY
Another major victory
for our side 
(Things are looking up):
Federal Assault on Doreen Hendrickson Goes to a Michigan Jury
By Lysander on 3
November 2013
A jury in the United
States District Court of Eastern Michigan is deliberating on the evidence
provided in the three day trial of Doreen Hendrickson, wife of author and tax
honesty activist Peter Hendrickson. Mr. Hendrickson wrote the book, Cracking
the Code, the Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America. (CTC) The
IRS has tried to suppress the book since the day it was published in 2003.
Mrs. Hendrickson is
charged with criminal contempt of court for failing to obey an order issued by
Judge Nancy Edmonds of the same judicial district. Judge Edmonds ordered
Doreen to sign amended tax forms for which the government dictated the figures.
Mrs. Hendrickson doesn’t believe the figures the government supplied represent
a true statement of her taxable income.
The IRS insists that
Mrs. Hendrickson must sign the forms without indicating that the court is
ordering her to do so. The court has put Doreen in the untenable position
of swearing to something she doesn’t believe in order to avoid punishment.
She can either
perjure herself or go to prison.
It is purely a matter
of principle for Doreen, and purely a matter of compelling obedience, and
suppressing disfavored information for the federal government. The amount of
taxes involved, even using the government’s figures, is zero. It’s not
about the taxes for either side.
There is much more at
stake in silencing the Hendricksons and punishing them for their heresy than
the taxes. The government has sued or brought charges against the couple,
separately and together, six times in ten years. Pete and Doreen are not
wealthy by any measure. They could not afford legal representation for Doreen
in her case. The amount of money Doreen would owe in taxes on the returns at
issue, even using government figures, is zero. The amount of tax at issue
offers no explanation of the extreme effort the government has made to
persecute them and suppress Pete’s book.
It is safe to say the
government has already spent many, many thousands of dollars on the series of
legal assaults it has brought against the Hendricksons. There is no realistic
hope that the government will recover these expenditures in future taxes from
them. The government is terrorizing them in order to terrorize us into quite
obedience.
The only question
before the jury is whether Mrs. Hendrickson has willfully disobeyed a lawful
order.
Oh, but there is this
one thing. The court has taken the word “lawful” out of the statute in charging
Mrs. Hendrickson.
The law under which
Doreen is charged says that the court may punish,
“Disobedience or
resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or
command.”[1]
But astonishingly,
the presiding judge, Victoria Roberts, has agreed to instruct the jury that the
constitutionality or lawfulness of the court’s order is no defense to
the charge. Judge Roberts is simply ignoring the
troublesome word “lawful” in the statute.
According to the
court’s jury instructions, the order Doreen is accused of disobeying can be
completely unlawful, and unconstitutional to boot, and she still has to obey it
or go to prison.
It doesn’t take a lot
of imagination to see the mischief such power might instigate.
If it’s true, it
means federal courts can order us to do pretty much anything. It means the courts
can compel us to join certain political parties, or social clubs, or civic
groups. The courts could order us to discriminate against disfavored ethnic,
religious, or racial groups, to swear to facts we know to be false, or even to
commit crimes.
This notion doesn’t
sound like something Jefferson and Madison would have come up with. It rings of
a somewhat more Maoist, or Stalinist legal tradition.
We’re talking forced
confessions here. I can hardly think of a more un-American idea. You
might wonder what could inspire government officials to attempt such an
incredible overreach of their power. I think the answer is because they think
we might let them get away with it.
Governments, like all
organizations, work to maintain and increase the organization’s power and
influence. The fed gov’s organizational goal for us is absolute, unquestioning
compliance with its every administrative and legislative whim. I believe the
feds see an opportunity to pull off an astonishing power-grab by disguising the
repudiation of the First Amendment as a complex tax protest issue.
Federal attorneys are
experts at controlling evidence, and receive the full cooperation of the
federal courts. If the notions supporting the government’s case against
Doreen become widely accepted in the courts, that expertise won’t be necessary
any longer. The rules of evidence will become meaningless. If the courts
can dictate testimony, the government will always have the evidence it needs.
When it doesn’t, it can simply get a judge to order us to say what they want us
to say.
This idea represents
breath taking increase in federal power. The power grab is riding on the
broadly accepted, but entirely unproven notions that “everything that comes in”
is taxable and “everybody has to file.” The feds never have to prove or even
show that those two presumptions are true.
A large majority of
Americans, and thus jurors, accept these presumptions without the least doubt.
And those who ask to see the law are simply denied it with the excuse that the
court will give the law to the jury.
The government is
using these broadly accepted presumptions to bring about an enormous power
shift, in favor of the government, in the foundational relationship between the
government and the people. If this idea infests the judiciary of the federal
courts, government will be able to order citizens to simply confess under oath
to whatever crimes the government wants to allege. Judges will be able to order
witnesses to say, under oath, just what the court wants to hear.
Such a state of
affairs would amount to pernicious thuggery, but without the rubber hoses.
Instead of beatings in windowless rooms, grey-suited, brief case bearing
functionaries use the threat of long confinement and punishment in the vast and
growing federal prison system to
accomplish the same things as the beatings of yore.
Additionally, Doreen
was ordered to do the impossible. Edmond’s order forbid Doreen’s filing
returns that were based on a complete misstatement of the conclusions made in
CTC. But since the court misstated the book’s position, it is one that Doreen
and Pete have never relied on. You can’t obey and order to refrain from doing
something based on a position you’ve never taken and do not intend to take.
Throughout the trial,
and throughout the entire ordeal, the government and the courts have
consistently accused the Hendricksons of making an argument they never made,
i.e., that “wages are not income.” What the Hendricksons actually claim is that
payments made to them did not qualify as “wages” as that term is defined in the
law. No court has made an honest examination of his claim.
I won’t plunge you
into the steaming morass of mind numbing legalese in the Code that Pete slogs
through to make his conclusions. Nor is it necessary, because the case against
Doreen isn’t about taxes. It’s about obedience to authority and suppression of
information embarrassing to the authorities. Nevertheless, the courts find it
necessary to consistently misstate the conclusions in Pete’s book to avoid an
honest examination of what he really says.
The courts, as we
might expect, have rejected Mr. Hendrickson’s assertions about the law. At
Doreen’s trial the government made a very big deal about how many courts had
rejected the court’s own consistent misstatement of the conclusions in Pete’s
book. But Doreen was not allowed to explore the motivations of government
actors in their appraisal of the contents of the book, nor was any
consideration given to the possibility that Pete’s conclusions are correct.
Let’s talk about that
for a minute. Let’s say strictly for the sake of argument, that Pete is right.
Let’s say that there are deceptively ambiguous definitions of terms in the Code
that change the meaning of the defined words in ways that people are unaware
of. And that as a result, people are deceived into paying taxes they do not
owe.
For a court to rule
that Pete’s conclusions are correct that court would necessarily have to
confess to ongoing crimes of deception. Those crimes would involve trillions in
fraudulently collected taxes, over the course of several generations. No such
admission will be forthcoming from courts that have misapplied the law in
support of the swindle that Pete alleges to have discovered.
This isn’t to say
Pete is right or wrong, but to show that the courts are anything but impartial,
disinterested parties to the controversy. There is no way we can rely on the
word of federal courts in this matter, because if Pete is right, those courts
are complicit in the deception. The courts’ repeated failure to admit ongoing
crimes cannot be used to determine the objective correctness of the information
in Cracking the Code.
But the tax arguments
are a distraction from the real issue. Doreen’s is not a tax case. It’s a First
Amendment case. The charge is “criminal contempt of court.” Doreen is accused
of failing to provide a signature under penalty of perjury on a tax form on which
the government dictates the numbers based on unsworn third party reports.
The case began when
the IRS properly processed Pete and Doreen’s tax returns. On those returns the
Hendricksons corrected what they believed were inaccurate reports of their
receipt of “wages” as that term is defined in the law. The IRS processed the
returns and refunded the money that had been withheld. A few years later, when
the Service started receiving a lot more of these returns from readers of
Pete’s book, the IRS decided it had made a terrible mistake and sued the
Hendricksons to recover the refunds.
Eventually, after
failing to ban the book, the IRS whipped up criminal charges against Peter and
put him in prison for almost two years.
While Pete was in
prison the IRS pressured Doreen to sign amended tax returns containing the
figures the government wanted on them, obtaining a court order to that effect.
Doreen did everything she could to comply with the court’s order without
compromising her principles.
She signed the forms
indicating on the face of the returns that she had been ordered to do so. That
was not acceptable to the IRS.
Later Judge Edmonds,
apparently realizing the problems with compelled testimony, altered her order.
She decided to allow Doreen to attach a separate affidavit to the return
stating the true facts. Doreen did just that, complying with the order 100%.
And by the way, Doreen’s response was in 100% compliance with instructions on
the amended tax form itself that require the signer to explain why the original
return was being amended. But still the IRS wasn’t satisfied.
The Service applied
to the Judge Edmonds for a civil contempt order, but the judge never acted on
the motion. Finally the IRS went to the DOJ to press criminal contempt charges.
A fundamental concept
at issue in this trial involves the nature of a tax return. Tax returns are a
species of affidavit, that is, a sworn, written, voluntary declaration of facts
from personal knowledge.
During the trial
Doreen tried to explore the idea of whether compelled affidavits were valid.
Two DOJ attorneys on cross-examination displayed an embarrassing ignorance of
both the nature of affidavits and the details of the internal revenue code.
They feigned ignorance and couldn’t say whether a compelled affidavit was
valid.
They were almost
certainly lying. The nature of affidavits is something that any first year law
student should be familiar with. The idea that DOJ tax attorneys don’t know
that affidavits must be voluntary is ludicrous. They just don’t want to admit
on the record that affidavits must be voluntary.
Affidavits and sworn
declarations are the backbone of the truth seeking process in our system of
law. Black’s Law Dictionary, a standard reference for lawyers, offers this
definition:
“Affidavit. A written
or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and
confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before an
officer having authority to administer such oath.” (Emphasis Added)
Black’s, 6th edition, pg. 58.
The notion of a valid
but involuntary affidavit is as alien to our legal traditions as that of a
forced confession, and in fact amounts to the same thing.
The idea that
administrative agencies like the IRS can go to federal judges and demand that
citizen be ordered to say what the agency wants them to say mocks the
principles liberty and justice that underlie our institutions.
The jury is our only
hope of halting this blatant expansion of federal power. Misinformed though
they may be by the court concerning their power to judge the law and dispense
justice, the jury is the last barrier we have between us and the absolute power
over our lives that the federal government is pursuing in this case.
It is the jury that
will have to remember that in this country people cannot be forced to adopt
beliefs or state facts they do not honestly think are true.
The jury will have to
value and protect civil disobedience to unlawful orders.
The jury will have to
prevent the government from benefiting from forced confessions.
And ultimately, the
jury that is the last line of defense of our right to speak our minds honestly
without fear of punishment from our government.
I pray this jury will
recognize and perform its duty to grant justice to a principled woman who
refuses to abandon her principles.
Chapter 21 of U.S.C.
18, section 401(3) (my emphasis)
Woman Indicted for Failure to Commit Court Ordered Perjury
By Lysander on 6 July
2013
The Michigan court
has ordered Doreen to file amended tax returns that reflect the amounts of
income the government alleges she received.
No government or
private sector witness has actually testified that the payments Doreen received
are taxable “wages.” The government is placing its faith in the hearsay on a
form W-2.
Doreen has refuted
that form with sworn testimony on her return. But that testimony doesn’t suit
the IRS or the Court.
The Court has ordered
Doreen to put the numbers the government claims are accurate onto the return,
and to swear that they are accurate and reflect taxable wages. Since she must
sign an amended return under penalty of perjury, to now adopt the government’s
figures would require that Doreen also commit perjury.
The job of the courts
is to receive testimony from opposing parties and apply the law to that
testimony. Courts are most definitely not empowered to dictate what testimony
is to be given. But that hasn’t phased the robes in the Eastern District of
Michigan. They are ordering Doreen to testify, and telling her what she must
say. How does this differ from a coerced confession?
A Huge Victory in Spite of Being Set Up
The Rail Roading IRS
Trial of The Century That Fell Off The Tracks J
Nov 5-Trial Update on
doreen Hendrickson, wife of author Pete Hendrickson who wrote "Cracking
The Code"
The jury in Doreen
Hendrickson’s trial returned to the courthouse and deliberated all day. She was
being accused of Contempt of court, the prosecution already gave in on her tax
argument based on the methods at www.losthorizons.com . But they wanted some flesh in
revenge. The corrupt judge actually ordered her to change her testimony (her
basic position) and her affidavit (entirely illegal and against her civil
right). She was charged with contempt of court if she would not confess and
thus lie…. yes really. But she held her ground, all without an attorney. At
around 5pm, they finally emerged and presented their verdict: hung
jury. Hung by ONE! What a delightful victory!!!
One juror stood up to
the others, stood up to the IRS (no small undertaking) and to the judiciary —
who was clearly making decisions on the side of the IRS. Judge Roberts admitted
all the IRS’ evidence and almost NONE of the
defendant’s. The jury instructions were also
unconstitutional at best, criminal at worst. The instructions to the jury
effectively said the jury could not consider her evidence and affidavit nor
consider the constitution! REALLY! She should be removed
from the bench and disbarred.
The lone principled
juror was even called out and grilled about his decision. He was not swayed by
the badgering: “I just wasn’t convinced.” Thank you! Neither were we. And,
yes, I’m saying the other jurors weren’t principled. Unless supporting thuggery
is principled? Suborning perjury is principled? Obeying an IRS demand even if
it is unlawful and unconstitutional is principled? Being ignorant of the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights and jury nullification is principled? So
after rigging the jury, not admitting her evidence, and trying to force her to
confess to something she did not believe to be true, the tyrants still lost
this one.
As our
"masters" are fond of telling us, being ignorant of the law is no
defense. That blade cuts both ways. Let those other ignorant and
"government educated" jurors go home to Dancing with the Stars. Maybe
one day, they will wake up. I’m grateful for the lone juror: thank you for
being the conscience of the people.
“It does not take a
majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting
brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” – Samuel Adams,
Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence
What Happens Next?
The IRS can call it
quits and move on. Or it can re-try Doreen and waste even more taxpayer money.
If they try again, the Hendricksons will be even more prepared for the
shenanigans. The news about jury nullification is spreading. As the economy
falls further into the toilet, Americans are waking up to what is going on and
who is benefiting.
More and more people
are questioning the IRS’ tactics if not the entire institution. Calls to “Audit
the Fed!” are heard more and more often…
Not that any dose of
sanity will stop the DOJ tyranny. The DOJ have nothing to lose — it isn't their
money they are spending to persecute a tiny woman for not obeying their order
to sign the damn form and perjure herself. Yes they wanted her to perjure
herself. The Government hacks get paid regardless, right? While innocent people
are in jail for "paper political crimes", the tyrants get their
pensions and benefits regardless, right? Yes they do, until we stand up with
the power of God's authority and defeat Goliath…again.
Paying Taxes: the big picture for
the Hendrickson's. The only person who can stop them is YOU. Please share and
spread this article far and wide. the internet is our best hope. The lone
juror sent a very strong message today. Let’s not leave him and Doreen to stand
alone. I know from Facebook, online news sources, activist groups like
Oathkeepers and the shares of these articles that everyone who reads about
Doreen’s trial is outraged. That is cause for hope.
.
Lesson: rubbing the egos of Church-hating left-wingers doesn’t make more
Catholics, it just makes the Church less respected.
