Great point John Howard!

I have been discouraged from ranting at this site about the "corruption" of the system, but it is illuminating to see the tactics that are sometimes resorted to by the system's gatekeepers (the courts) when someone pushes up against the walls of "the matrix". Doreen's case is a great example. The issue is one easily understood by any one--does a Court have the right to dictate your testimony? If so, what is the point of having you testify at all? Or anyone else?

Not everybody will be able to grasp, accept or embrace the remedy of redeeming lawful money at first. But even a child can see that the emperor has no clothes on this one. For those who have not yet gotten on board with remedy, the ability to articulate to a jury that the emperor has no clothes may be enough to get IRS to leave you alone.

The point you make about testimony, John Howard, brought to my mind one of the fundamental Achilles heels in the federal tax scheme. At 26 CFR 301.6203-1, it states that the amount of assessment of tax "shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown". This is the same language that appeared in the first income tax act of 1862 (long before the Federal Reserve, the 16th Amendment or the 1933 bankruptcy). The Secretary literally has never had authority in the tax law to assess any amount other than what you state your tax is on the return!

However, what you "owe" by your own agreement (or agreement by default) with IRS is another matter. This is how IRS ended up being pretty much an intimidation and extortion racket. They are operating only under the law of necessity, and enforcing "public policy" which is that as many people as possible must be encouraged (through presumption, deception or intimidation) into "voluntary compliance".

This dissonance between the law as written and the way it is enforced is a big clue to show people that all is not what it seems with the income tax scheme. For those not yet using remedy, it is important if one finds oneself charged with violating IRC to be able to articulate that dissonance to a jury, since the average American on a jury will have never attempted to read any of the income tax code. Pete's jury actually asked to see the Code definitions of "employee" "wages" etc. but Pete screwed up by not putting this into evidence himself for his defense--he was upset that the judge did not show the Code sections to the jury, but that is not the judge's job.

This is not to advocate for Pete and Doreen's position, by the way--I think they would do well to study redemption in lawful money. But I give much credit to Pete for his work examining the Code and pointing out the huge discrepancies between the law as written and the way people typically think the income tax works.

David Merrill is right that this case has nothing to do with Cracking the Code doctrine per se. It is more fundamental than that. Does a Court have the right to tell you how to testify? Logically, it would seem obviously not. What is the purpose of any testimony if the Court can dictate what that testimony is to be?


It could be argued that the court's use of coercion to try to affect Doreen's testimony (amount of tax to be shown on the return) constitutes tampering with a witness in a federal proceeding, a crime under 18 U.S.C., or subornation of perjury.

This might go right to the legal maxim that the law cannot require the impossible. It could be argued it is not possible for her to comply with the court's order without committing perjury.

Neither can a contract (or a court order) be valid if it requires one to commit a crime (perjury). I have often thought, if I am required to do these things, then why do they need my signature? She should make the jury ask themselves the same question.

This may not get her out of the Court's jurisdiction, and the Court will no doubt instruct the jury that she violated its order--but when it comes to the jury evaluating her intent--even on a common sense level to an average juror, it may seem utterly crazy to force someone to testify to something they do not believe under penalty of perjury "because we said so!"

Doreen could say she relied on the federal laws against witness tampering and subornation of perjury to treat the judge's order as unlawful. They will argue that she has every reason to know she is wrong, so her belief reflected on her return is "not reasonable" and therefore insincere. But how reasonable is it to force her to sign testimony other than what she already willingly signed, especially in light of 26 CFR 301.6203-1?

Normally they would just audit such a return and attempt to get agreement or default on a re-assessment of the tax (and/or impose a frivolous return penalty). But they want to make an example of Doreen, as they did with Pete. Another part of the "public policy" they are enforcing.

This is regarding orders made over 5 years ago? I am sure they did their homework and sized her up as a target before they made their move. But they might have overplayed their hand on this one. I hope she doesn't pull a "Pete defense" and argue only that "the plain language of the law" proves her CTC returns are correct and the judge is wrong. At the very least she should have those laws she relied on to enter into evidence so the jury can see them--this is probably where Pete lost out the most on an opportunity for a hung jury or even an acquittal.

Tom Cryer tried to unite tax honesty factions under the one idea he believed they could all agree on: "there is no law that makes Americans liable for income tax". Which is oversimplifying and misleading. However, I think we can all see that something is rotten in Denmark with Doreen's case. We can probably all agree on that. It might serve as a bridge for educating the average person that all is not what it seems with the income tax laws, to open them up to the idea of remedy.

Maybe the right to exchange labor for property per Coppage v. Kansas and the principle that waivers of rights must be knowing voluntary acts per Brady v. U.S. are ideas that everybody can agree on, even Pete and Doreen Hendrickson and any other tax honesty person with a pet theory for getting themselves out of the system. I think remedy is the correct way to opt out. But even for Doreen, pointing out these bedrock principles of a right to labor for money to a jury may cause them to question this whole thing enough to get her an acquittal if not a dismissal. And perhaps open some eyes.