…by Sofia Smallstorm
(The following are two sections of half a dozen offered by Sofia Smallstorm. The others will follow separately but shortly. The Law, Obamacare, the IRS…like a 1970s Key Party, everyone is in bed with everyone else. Editor)
A Little Matter of Tampering
You could call it putting words in someone’s mouth, which is far too mild. Or you could call it witness tampering, which is what it is. And if the jury had not hung itself, as I like to put it, and created a temporary lull in what may play out to be an even bigger deal than 9/11 and Sandy Hook, we would not have still another few months to potentially turn the tables … Those tables are very tough to budge but we can absolutely try, folks!
Let’s hear it from the husband of the defendant (transcribed from an October 28th radio update with Jim Fetzer–see RadioFetzer.blogspot.com):
Pete Hendrickson: My wife Doreen was indicted in June on a charge of criminal contempt of court for having refused to let the government stuff words in her mouth and make her regurgitate them over her own signature, under oath, while concealing the fact that the words had been forced upon her. A truly bizarre and unprecedented event in American jurisprudence, to my knowledge.
The government effected this by requesting a court to make this order to my wife seven years ago … and the court did [so] six years ago. And since that time, my wife has exercised her First Amendment rights, not to mention due process rights, because the words the government has asked her to be made to say involve testimony in a civil action in which the government is a party and from which it would benefit if she were made to say what the government wishes her to say.
Fetzer: Peter, as I understand it, the government is asking your wife to make an admission that is contrary to her own belief and knowledge – in other words, the government is trying to compel her as a witness to give false testimony under oath.
Hendrickson: That’s exactly correct.
Fetzer: That is just stupefying! I mean, what has become of our whole legal process and system that an absurdity of this character can take place?
Hendrickson: Indeed. The fact is that the government recognizes that there is a huge issue at stake here, and that is its ability to continue prosecuting its income tax scam – which is to say the manner in which it successfully exploits the ignorance of the American public about the true nature of the income tax–and this order to my wife is an effort to shut her mouth, basically. It isn’t only that the government is demanding that she say the words that it wishes her to say, but it’s actually also demanding that she repudiate her previous freely made testimony about the issue involved here.
And that’s because her freely made testimony thwarts a government effort to impose the tax on earnings of my wife’s that do not qualify for the tax. What the government has asked the court to do is make my wife declare her agreement that her earnings do qualify for the tax, sparing the government any obligation to prove its allegation – an allegation, by the way, which it has never dared make over its own signature – anywhere.
My wife’s earnings don’t happen to qualify [as taxable income], which is why there has never been an assessment against her in all of those years, and we’re talking 11 years back now, by the way, from the time that this freely made testimony went into the record, and in all that time there’s never been any dispute about the fact that she owes no tax and received nothing that was subject to the tax in that period. … [The government is] attempting to force a litigant in a legal contest to agree with its version of the facts.
The principle that’s being violated here is not a principle that only has relevance in this immediate circumstance. This is a principle that has relevance in any litigation. If you think about this, anytime the government would now want to do something to somebody, and do it by way of the fiction of a court proceeding, it will be able to ask the court to force its opponents to agree to its version of facts. Meaning that there is effectively no litigation. Anything can be done at that point.
This principle will not be limited to tax cases. If the government decides it wants to take your kids, it now has a precedent by which it can have a court order you to declare yourself an unfit parent. It can have a court order you to admit to abusing your children. It can have the court order you to declare anything.
What is the limit here? There is no limit. Should it come to pass – Doreen is going to trial two days from now …
The Ancient Art of Self-Defense (The Trial)
And it was a trial in which she defended herself. It is becoming increasingly recognized among us that attorneys work for the system, not for their clients (except perhaps when those clients are part of the system). An email report from a supporter who made the trip to the Theodore Levin federal courthouse in Detroit:
The trial was intense. I attended all three days. The emotional exhaustion was far greater than any physical exhaustion I have known. Trying to sit motionless, resisting the urge to show reaction to the behavior of the criminal actors for three days was a real challenge. Doreen ran the show for her defense and used her [public defender] attorney sparingly and wisely. I have never seen such composure and gentle confidence as I witnessed in Doreen. Being charged with disobeying a court order to bear witness against herself and falsify a document, she stuck to her guns and refused the court’s order to purge herself. Of course the criminals tried every which way to turn that around and make it look like she was in contempt, which the evidence clearly showed she was not.
Tasked with having to make a jury discern truth from fiction, I must say Doreen did a heroic job. Any reasonable person [unwilling to] succumb to intimidation [could] arrive at only one conclusion: that Doreen is innocent of the charge.
If it was hard for an observer to sit and watch the ordeal, imagine how it was for Doreen! To read her opening and closing statements, please go to http://www.veteranstoday. com/2013/11/03/bizarre-jury-instruction-you-cannot-consi der-the-constitutionality-of-the-law/ … I believe that last word “law” in the VT article title should be “order” or “court order,” as explained by Pete in the Fetzer radio update:
Hendrickson: It gets worse. The government has asked the court to rule that the unlawfulness or unconstitutionality of the order given to Doreen be kept from the jury’s consideration. That’s bad enough by itself. …
In addition, the government, a few days ago, asked the court to prevent the jury from considering Doreen’s perception of the order as unlawful! If a judge told you to go rob a convenience store, would you do it? That’s pretty much what was happening, and here is how Doreen explained the case in her opening statement (all of which you can read at the Veteran’s Today link above):
I am accused by the government of having committed a crime for refusing to obey an order to swear to facts I do not believe are true. I agreed to obey the order if I could also simply add to my signature that I had been ordered by a judge to swear to the facts. That didn’t suit the government however. Not only must I obey an order to swear to something I do not believe, but I am not allowed to indicate that I’ve been ordered to swear under threat of imprisonment. This began more than seven years ago. The government did not like testimony I had given by affidavit in an income-tax-related civil case.
Attorneys from the Department of Justice asked a federal judge – by way of a lawsuit – to order me to abandon my testimony and replace it with words they dictated to me. The judge – without ever having laid eyes on me, without reviewing any evidence, and without holding any hearing at all–signed a ruling that was written by a government attorney. The Court ordered me to say what the government attorney wanted me to say. The Court ordered me to swear to it under penalty of perjury. I was to put these dictated words on a legal document that was part of a civil case in which the government was a party, and by which the government would benefit. The Court offered no explanation of its authority to dictate sworn testimony. I was ordered to say what the government demanded I say. I was ordered not to say what it didn’t want me to say. I was ordered to sign a sworn statement declaring that I believe what I was being forced to say. I was ordered to lie about the fact that my statements were completely coerced. […]
Frankly, every single person to whom I’ve ever explained this case finds it inconceivable that such orders have been made to an American. Equally incredible is that an American could be threatened with prison for insisting on her right to control her own statements and beliefs. As best I have been able to discover, no American court has ever made an order like this before; nor has anyone ever before been subjected to criminal charges for refusing to swear to testimony dictated by the government. Luckily, the jury could not agree on what the court and government wanted, which was a criminal conviction of Doreen. At least there are one or two regular Americans (we don’t know how many jurors went which way) who aren’t asleep at the wheel.
The jury did ask to read Doreen’s husband’s book Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Income Tax In America, and they were allowed to do so. I asked Pete how this was possible, and he said it had (finally!) been admitted into evidence. I mused aloud about what they could have gotten out of it in such a short time, and he said: “Enough not to convict her.” So someone was wondering, which resulted in the calling of a mistrial and a stay until May which is when the new trial is scheduled. How many people can wake up in the next six months, I am wondering … enough to deny the Beast its weekly meals of paycheck withholdings, volunteered quarterly bonuses, estate taxes and all the other goodies we provide it because we simply don’t realize?