Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

  1. #101
    I believe her fate will be called voir dire (questioning prospective jurors). And the judge will disallow Cracking the Code to go into evidence. After all, this is a contempt accusation, nothing to do with income tax law...

  2. #102
    "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."

    Do you think the Department of Injustice will try again?
    Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.

  3. #103
    I hope not. I feel for Doreen. The DoJ really wants her conviction as a trophy though.

    That is quite the Find, the lack of the term "lawful"! It would seem useful.

  4. #104
    Pete said "Folks, we don't know that the count ran 11-1. All we know is that one juror was singled out by the others at one point as being particularly adamant on Doreen's side. Others may well have been undecided at the point at which it ended, but when it became clear that one or more were not going to convict, and one or more apparently weren't going to go the other way, the jury declared itself deadlocked."
    Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.

  5. #105
    I know that Doreen decided not to sign the tax returns "under penalties of perjury" (26 USC § 6065 - VERIFICATION OF RETURNS) perjury jurat is mandatory only on statements that are required by an IRC statute or regulation) and the courts have ruled that such a verification renders such statements admissible evidence, then she would be a witness against herself.

    In the beginning did the revenue agent assigned to Doreen’s case who looked at the voluntary self assessment tell Doreen to sign the forms or did the revenue agent file a complaint before a judge and have the judge summons her to court to sign the IRS documents?

    You will not force me to sign a contract I do not agree with when it comes down to 18 USC § 1621 made within or without the United States.

    It had to escalate from there.

    Was the proper procedure was done to Doreen? What was the argument between Doreen and the revenue agent before the court action was brought against her?

    Did the revenue agent initiate the suit? I don’t see the revenue agent(s) name in the court document.

    Is it true that the revenue agent can only go so far on anyone before any action is brought on the filer without a court order?

    By the book don’t you need a judge’s signature before any action can be imposed or does the revenue agent have the liberty to do what they feel like doing?

    It states on the court document that an indictment from a grand jury charges (a group of people who deliberate whether a case has enough merit to warrant a trial) that Doreen filed a false and frivolous returns in 2002 and 03.

    Who told the grand jury that it’s okay to be witness against oneself?

    Did the revenue agent or the IRS lawyers tell the grand jury that the returns were false and frivolous? And why were they false and frivolous?

    Did the revenue agent or the IRS lawyers file in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT where Judge Victoria A. Roberts received the case for Doreen to summons her to court and force her to sign the IRS forms and witness against herself?

    Who is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filing the charges on the court document?

    Is it the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (North America) the name of this country bringing on a civil action against Doreen or is it Title 28 15 ABC ?
    Last edited by Chex; 11-13-13 at 02:37 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •