Doreen Hendrickson is spending what might be the last weekend she has with her family for a few years. On Monday, her jury is expected to return with a verdict on her contempt charge. If she’s found guilty, she will go to jail. The IRS put her husband Pete in jail for 3 years; it is anxious to do the same to Doreen. Doreen’s charge? Not signing a Form 1040. That’s it.Talk about a non-crime.
A 1040 is a legal document that you sign under penalty of perjury:
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.
It is signed under penalties of perjury because a Form 1040 is your sworn legal testimony regarding your income taxes. If you lie on a form 1040, you will go to jail. How ironic. Doreen cannot sign the 1040 because she doesn’t believe it to be true, correct, and complete. The 1040s are for ’02, ’03, and ’08. Total taxes due using the government’s figures = $0. That is not a typo: $0. There is no tax due. Why she doesn’t believe it to be true is another matter entirely and doesn’t even bear on the case. Although during the trial, the IRS tried to connect the two facts and paint her as a tax protester. Doreen is not charged with being a tax protester, however. She is not charged with falsifying a document. She is not charged with evading taxes, or willful failure to file. She’s charged with contempt for not signing a form. A form which, if she is forced to sign it, will cause her to commit perjury.
Doreen offered to sign the form with the words “under duress” written in next to her name. The IRS said not good enough. She offered to sign under the line so that she would not be subject to perjury charges. The IRS said not good enough. Judge Victoria Roberts suggested that Doreen sign the form and attach an affidavit stating her reasons for not wanting to sign. Doreen said great and went home to write up the affidavit. The IRS called: not good enough.
Here’s the Crime: Suborning testimony. The IRS demands Doreen sign the form on the line, swearing it to be true, correct, and complete even though she does not believe that. The IRS is demanding she change her testimony to suit them. It is dictating her testimony. This is straight out of Soviet Russia. But wait: there’s more.
There were two astonishing instructions from Judge Roberts to the jury. The first is the tired old lie that the jury may not judge the law. The judge said that she will tell them what the law is and they must judge the case based on the what she says the law is. This is a flat out lie, one being told by judges all over the country. In fact, it is the jury’s obligation to judge the law by way of jury nullification. History is clear on this: “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” — Judge John Jay, first chief justice of the Supreme Court. “It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” — John Adams, Founding Father and second president of the United States.
In 1969, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. [US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)].
In 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said: the jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge… [US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)].
The IRS requested that the judge give the following instruction: It is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order was unlawful or unconstitutional. Unbelievably, the judge actually gave this instruction. It follows that anyone in authority can order you to do something illegal and you have to do it.
The jury is deliberating now. They spent two hours on Friday doing so and will return on Monday morning to continue. The fact they did not reach a verdict quickly means that at least one juror is arguing for Doreen, for sanity and for common sense to prevail. There is hope in the world! A jury is the conscience of the people and the last bastion between tyranny and the accused. This is why the Founders included the right to a trial by jury in the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If this judge and the IRS get away with dictating testimony, there is no end to the tyranny that will ensue.
Footnote: Doreen’s husband, Pete, wrote a book a few years ago called Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America. The IRS tried to ban the book for years, suing Pete four times. It was unsuccessful. They did get to put Pete in jail for 3 years convicting him of filing fraudulent documents. Now they are going after Doreen. The IRS is desperate to shut these people up. Why? My husband was at the trial and will write a firsthand report to be posted shortly. I gotta say it: if you aren’t outraged, you are not paying attention. If you pray, please pray for Doreen.
Sally Oh is a native Kentuckian, wife, mother, blogger, homesteader, chickenista, recovering REALTOR® and future nutritional counselor. That’s her falling down a rabbit hole.