Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

[Michael Joseph]

contempt (n.)
late 14c., from Latin contemptus "scorn,"

scorn (n.)
c.1200, a shortening of Old French escarn "mockery, derision, contempt," a common Romanic word (cf. Spanish escarnio, Italian scherno) of Germanic origin, from Proto-Germanic *skarnjan "mock, deride" (cf. Old High German skern "mockery, jest, sport," Middle High German scherzen "to jump with joy").

Probably influenced by Old French escorne "affront, disgrace," which is a back-formation from escorner, literally "to break off (someone's) horns," from Vulgar Latin *excornare (source of Italian scornare "treat with contempt"), from Latin ex- "without" + cornu "horn."



carry a horn in your back pocket if you are in a court room that way the judge can never find you in contempt.

Walter this is just what some man has thought the term meant. Lets not concern ourselves with the leaves but rather with the root. And here is the root. If one makes a promise, then one is bound [legally bound] to perform the promise so as to convey equity upon the one who is promised. Now if one Undertakes then one makes a promise.

Can God lie? The answer is no. Therefore it is a crime for man to lie or said another way for man NOT to keep his word. Therefore if you make me a promise I intend to hold you to it. And if you will not perform, then perhaps we shall seek a court that has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Now then what is the evidence says the judge. Well that one is easy - there is a joint return.

For what cause is there a return except that a trustee is providing the books for inspection to the beneficiary.

Here is one asking Yehovah to UNDERTAKE on his behalf:

Isa_38:14 Like a crane or a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward: O LORD, I am oppressed; undertake for me.

A choice to Undertake or not.

[ManOntheLand]

Irregular at best.

It strikes me that the prosecution (judge) is trying to avoid trying Doreen for the same drawn out accusation. Contempt is typically between the judge and a party in the courtroom. But I have never studied up much about contempt specifically. This sort of thing might go on all the time.

I think you are right that they are trying to avoid charging Doreen with filing false documents as they did with Pete. They certainly could charge her with filing false documents, but they are going for the easy win with contempt. They cannot risk losing in court against visible people in the "tax protestor" community like the Hendricksons especially. I think Pete's trial was a bit of a scare for them, when Pete challenged jurisdiction on the basis that he is not a "person" as defined in the Code. It took five months for the judge to come back with a denial of that motion.

In Pete's criminal trial, they used the same court orders that Doreen is now accused of being in contempt of, to prove that Pete was put on notice that his returns violated the law, so they could establish "willfulness" necessary for Pete's criminal conviction. But Doreen may appear a more sympathetic figure to the jury than Pete, so to ensure a win they are keeping it simple--either she obeyed the court's order, or she did not. If she did not, does she have any defense that makes the violation not "willful"?

If anybody thinks Pete or Doreen would listen at this point, she may be able to defend herself by refusing to enter a plea until she understands the nature and cause of the charges, she could challenge jurisdiction based on the lack of any knowing, voluntary waiver of rights per Brady v. United States. People always assume they "understand" the charges against them. But they really don't, and should not say that they do. Force those who seek to enforce a contract to reveal the contract. Case dismissed!

[John Howard]

But Doreen may appear a more sympathetic figure to the jury than Pete, so to ensure a win they are keeping it simple--either she obeyed the court's order, or she did not. If she did not, does she have any defense that makes the violation not "willful"?

She could say that she does not understand how she can change her testimony and not be perjuring herself.

[ManOntheLand]

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.

[David Merrill]

It strikes me like the time the judge wanted to jail me for contempt. He asked if I understood my right to an attorney. I said, "No."

He explained it again. I said "No." He asked me why he should not jail me for contempt of court. I said that was only for somebody who was holding up the proceedings. He said that is exactly what I was doing.

He asked me again. I said, "You have asked me and I have answered that at least three times. How come you keep asking me if there is only one acceptable answer?"

[Michael Joseph]

He asked me again. I said, "You have asked me and I have answered that at least three times. How come you keep asking me if there is only one acceptable answer?"

Yehoshuah was tempted three times by one practicing the art of Devilling.

Are you sure you want to stick to that position? This is the art of casting doubt and fear? Surely you don't want to do that? Surely God did not say....

Shalom,
MJ

[ManOntheLand]

It strikes me like the time the judge wanted to jail me for contempt. He asked if I understood my right to an attorney. I said, "No."

He explained it again. I said "No." He asked me why he should not jail me for contempt of court. I said that was only for somebody who was holding up the proceedings. He said that is exactly what I was doing.

He asked me again. I said, "You have asked me and I have answered that at least three times. How come you keep asking me if there is only one acceptable answer?"

"Understand" is a widely misunderstood word in legal context. More than just an expression of cognitive ability, "yes I understand" in legal context means "yes I stand under" the terms and conditions (even unstated ones?) of the venue. One is presumed to know what one is doing. Mostly we do not, and we pay the price for claiming that we do.

[David Lyn]

I don't know the situation, but the very well might have blocked Pete from getting the "law" into evidence. They don't like juries seeing "law"

[walter]

blocked Pete from getting the "law" into evidence.

What evidence?
Law is fiction.

The system is slick.

[ManOntheLand]

What evidence?
Law is fiction.

The system is slick.

Yes it is. The defendant is not permitted to argue about what the law says. However, he is entitled to make an affirmative defense. If he can create reasonable doubt as to whether he willfully violated the law, the jury may acquit. To that end, a defendant may enter into evidence any citations of law, court decisions or other authorities he relied upon to establish his basis for his belief as to what the law required of him. Willfulness is an essential element to tax offenses, and it requires violation of a "known legal duty".

[David Merrill]

However those are few and far between - those wins. The monopoly on them seems to be from Larry BECRAFT who doles them out apparently according to judges' direction. He would have slam-dunk acquittals all day long otherwise. I sense he protects his career by coming off the patriot attorney but only uses the above tact enough to keep his reputation. Otherwise he sells his clients to the prison system regularly.

[John Howard]

Any bets on whether or not I get banned on Pete's forum after I posted this?

[David Lyn]

Yes it is. The defendant is not permitted to argue about what the law says. However, he is entitled to make an affirmative defense. If he can create reasonable doubt as to whether he willfully violated the law, the jury may acquit. To that end, a defendant may enter into evidence any citations of law, court decisions or other authorities he relied upon to establish his basis for his belief as to what the law required of him. Willfulness is an essential element to tax offenses, and it requires violation of a "known legal duty".

I'm gonna tell you right now, the jury doesn't have ANY idea what known legal duty and willfulness mean. It's Friday, they want to go home and the fastest way to do that is find you guilty. After all, you didn't pay your taxes, and they did.

[David Lyn]

Any bets on whether or not I get banned on Pete's forum after I posted this?

He might let that fly..

[David Merrill]

I am registered there and can read. But after all these years, my account is still "inactive"?