Sentencing for Doreen Hendrickson

[Famspear]

So, in all likelihood she will begin her prison time on or about May 9, 2015 and, if she's a good girl and serves only 85% of her 18 month sentence, I'm estimating that she should get out about August 28, 2016, give or take a few days.

[webhick]

"my jury" used several times. Le sigh.

Also, funny how she never uses her husband's name in her rant but not surprising since it's all "my" this and "my" that. Even "my supporters." No, sweetie, they're your husband's supporters. You're just a side project for them. It's all about Darth.

[LPC]

Apparently Her Highness has to report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons in sixty days, except that she must instead report in thirty days if, as His Haughty Hendricksonianness puts it, "she has not, by then, submitted the illegally-ordered perjurious "amended returns" the government is SO revealingly-desperate to get by any means necessary."

Doreen is never going to be able to serve one day of that that "supervised release." She's going to get the end of the 18 months, and they're going to slam the cell door in her face for continuing to be in contempt of court.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Apparently Her Highness has to report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons in sixty days, except that she must instead report in thirty days if, as His Haughty Hendricksonianness puts it, "she has not, by then, submitted the illegally-ordered perjurious "amended returns" the government is SO revealingly-desperate to get by any means necessary."

Doreen is never going to be able to serve one day of that that "supervised release." She's going to get the end of the 18 months, and they're going to slam the cell door in her face for continuing to be in contempt of court.

Welcome to self-imposed martyrdom.

What else is there for them?

[LPC]

What Doreen Said To The Court

This is a must read, all the way through the call to action, if you want to have any hope of preserving your rights

I have to begin by acknowledging Melissa Siskind's powerful effort to make me look like a terrible person. She is very skilled.

Okay, that's a bad start. You're not going to win any points with the judge by demeaning the US Attorney.

But I believe Ms. Siskind's studied hostility is really just a tactic.

Even worse. Now you're saying that she's not just vicious, but a hypocrite.

Judges have *no* interest in that kind of crap. Complaining about the lack of morality of the prosecutor is a waste of time. The judge wants to hear why the prosecutor is *wrong.* If you can't provide that, you're just wasting (or, even worse, annoying the judge).

I think she is implementing the concept that “the best defense is a strong offense”.

WTF? Now you're complaining about football (or military?) metaphors?

Ms. Siskind wants to drive from everyone's mind the fact that the verdict in my trial was achieved, in part, by her astonishing lie to my jury that early government efforts against my husband were just an audit.

Incoherent.

With that lie my jury was misled about the real background of events leading up to the production of the unlawful orders I resisted.

Great. More crap.

Now your complaint is that the government *started* the prosecution with improper motives?

That gets you *nowhere* unless you can show that the end result was unfair in some way. (Which you can't, or at least you haven't.)

And, really, "lie"? Claiming that the government had an improper motive doesn't negate the fact that, as a procedural matter, there might have been a audit.

With that lie my jury was given false cause to doubt my truthfulness. With that lie my jury was given false cause to doubt the legitimacy of my exhibits; and with that lie my jury was given false cause to doubt one of the bases presented for my good-faith conclusion that I was not under a duty in regard to these orders, which rested on an accurate picture of the sequence of events of which the issuance of these orders was a part.

Wrong as a matter of law. The "accurate picture of events of which the issuance of these orders was a part" is irrelevant. See Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967). If Martin Luther King Jr. can go to jail for violating an unconstitutional court order, so can you.

Under the influence of Siskind's lie I was declared guilty. I have to say “declared” rather than “found”, because due to a jury instruction Siskind persuaded the court to deliver, it cannot be known that a single juror found I had actually committed one or the other acts with which I am charged, and neither charged act can be taken as found by a unanimous jury. It seems that engineering verdicts against innocent women is another skill honed by Ms. Siskind.

Now Ms. Siskind hopes to continue her streak. She means to keep everyone, and especially you, Judge Roberts, from remembering her earlier lie, and from thinking about the fact that whatever you do today rests on the legitimacy of a verdict issued under the influence of that lie.

Yeah, great. Let the judge know you think she is an easily manipulated idiot. That always goes over great.

Siskind hopes to distract you with more bluster, misdirection and additional falsehoods into disregarding the facts and acting instead on her primitive, hind-brain proposition that it doesn't matter that the government couldn't honestly prove me guilty as charged, because I'm a terrible villain anyway, and ought to be locked up on general principle.

Here's a pro tip: Don't use sarcasm if there is any chance whatsoever that the judge will take you at your word.

The fact is Melissa Siskind doesn't know me at all, and I am not the bad person she would like you to imagine. I am just an American woman who believes she has a right to control the content of her own expressions, and a right to defend her own interests in any legal contest-- even a tax-related legal contest.

I want to explain what I believe is the legal dynamic of such contests, and what has been done to me that has led us to this day.

No, that's not going to work either.

Our legal system here in America is designed to protect everyone's right to make claims, rebut allegations and defend herself against the claims of others.

Until they are found guilty. And then they go to jail.

One of the key ways in which these paramount goals are accomplished is by providing that no one can be told what she must say in a legal contest.

I get to say my piece, and the other side gets to says its piece. Each of us get to say, without hindrance, intimidation or interference, whatever we think serves to support our claims. If what is said by the two sides is in disagreement, an appropriate and duly-authorized agency or tribunal makes a determination as to the outcome in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.

That's actually close to what is meant by "due process."

Which is probably coincidental.

No one, not even the government, gets to pre-emptively evade the contest or control its outcome by taking, or being given, control of what its opponents say-- even if it really thinks what is being said or might be said is wrong. Both sides must rely on the strength of their own arguments to overcome those of their opponent, and are prohibited from using strong-arm tactics against each other. In fact, efforts to secure favorable testimony in such a contest by threats or coercion are crimes. Both sides must rely on the threat of a prosecution for perjury as their protection against deceit.

That's how it works, that's the only way it can work, and that's the only way it is allowed to work under our law here in America, where a declared purpose of bringing the federal government into existence in the first place is identified in the preamble to the United States Constitution as being to “establish justice”. The First Amendment to that Constitution says no one can be told what to say, and the Fifth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to due process.

We can see where this is going, and this not going to end well, because you're working up to the conclusion that the court never should have ordered you to file correct income tax returns, because you believe that you have the constitutional right to file fraudulent income tax returns.

In keeping with these principles, prescriptions and proscriptions, not only is no organ of government allowed to order any person to relinquish her own claims, or to agree with another's, but none has any plausible reason to do so-- at least, no reason that is honest.

For me, though, eight years ago a judge issued just such orders, at the request of a government agency wanting to make claims to my property.

Yep. See? I knew where you were going.

I was ordered by this judge to repudiate my own freely-made testimony relevant to a couple of government claims and to create sworn declarations of belief that would instead validate the government's competing claims. In another order I was told to refrain from disputing any future government claims.

The absurd pretext used to justify these plainly illegal orders was that I was only being told to say what was “correct”, as though my rights to control my own expressions and advocate for my own interests evaporate whenever some government official decides my expressions and advocacy are “incorrect”. This is ridiculous, and it is wrong-- my rights are not subject to the whims of officialdom in this fashion.

And the meaning of the laws are not subject to the whims of your beliefs.

Further, I was NOT simply being told to say what Nancy Edmunds decided was “correct”-- I was being ordered to say that I BELIEVED what Nancy Edmunds decided was “correct”-- or really, what my government opponent simply TOLD Nancy Edmunds was “correct”, even though no government official, from the Secretary of the Treasury to a lowly IRS worker, had been willing to sign off on the government's assertions under any risk of penalty for being untruthful. Robert Metcalfe, the DOJ attorney who asked Nancy Edmunds to make me say I believed these assertions, had to resort to an unsigned, self-declaredly “informal” IRS examination report as his pretended evidence that the government itself believed this nonsense.

Nonetheless, without even so much as a single hearing of any kind, Nancy Edmunds ordered me to say I believed what she herself had no reason whatever to believe to be true, at the government's mere request, and over my objections and formal, sworn dispute of all its allegations of fact and law. As requested, Edmunds ordered me to say I believe that my earnings are of a taxable sort, suitable to declare to be “income” as that term is meant in tax law.

But I don't believe this. In fact, I know full well that it isn't true, just as the government knows full well that it isn't true, as is unambiguously proven by no government official being willing to declare it as a personal belief over a signature.

That a government official CAN make such a declaration is why government control of speech such as I am accused of criminally resisting is fundamentally and grotesquely wrong as a matter of law and principle.

Sophistry.

It is also why there is NEVER, EVER a legitimate government interest or necessity requiring or justifying this ugly mechanism for its fulfillment.

Yes, the administration of the tax laws.

It's this simple: If the government believes something is correct and needs to be said, it can have one of its own officials say it. In regard to the matters involved in this case, there is actually a statute that says not only that such a declaration MUST be made by a government official, but that when one is, that declaration is good and sufficient for all legal purposes.

More sophistry.

The laws require that you file an accurate return. The fact that there are mechanisms by which the government can assess and collect taxes despite your violations of the laws does not relieve you of your obligation to comply with the laws.

[Further crap snipped]

I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I'm not stupid, either, and yet I do not understand how I can lawfully have been put through what I have suffered already, much less anything further.

Then, contrary to what you believe (and assert), you are indeed stupid.

Judge Roberts, you are aware that I take issue with many aspects of my trial and the way its outcome was achieved.

Yes, and Judge Roberts doesn't really care.

I have detailed a number of those issues in post-trial motions, and alluded to others. I expect vindication in the appellate court

Further evidence that you are an idiot.

and I think you have to acknowledge that I have good reason for that expectation.

No. No, she has to acknowledge no such thing.

In light of this fact, for me to suffer punishment prior to having my opportunity to be vindicated by the appellate court would be a profound injustice.

For that reason, and for all the technical reasons that Mr. Cedrone has detailed in my sentencing memorandum and here in person today why it would be proper and appropriate even if no appeal were intended, I ask you to exercise your discretion here today with the lightest of hands.

Which she did.

[LPC]

First the packed courtroom (with spill-over into the hall-- thanks SO MUCH to everyone that came!) was treated to a twenty-minute reading of scripted lies and calumnies about Doreen in which the "CtC says only federal employees are subject to the tax" strawman was carefully repeated over and over, leaving any listener who knows better to wonder if George Orwell himself was exhumed to work on the thing, and to marvel at how desperate the "ignorance tax" schemers are to sustain and spread that fictional pretext for disparagement.

Yes, because corporate officers are also subject to tax, and that omission would cause George Orwell to turn over in his grave.

During this screed, Doreen's steadfast refusal to waive her rights and bow to "authority" was literally described as "dangerous to the community", and the deliberate intention of using a harsh sentence on her to chill others from exercising their own rights of speech and due process was openly articulated.

Yep. That's called "deterrence" and it's one of the purposes of criminal prosecutions.

SO, HERE'S MY CALL TO ACTION, PEOPLE.

Which you're not going to be able to discuss because I pulled the plug on the Lost Horizons forum. So you'll just have to do what I say (and *like* it).

This renewed, and now even more pointed assault on the speech, conscience and due process (not to mention self-incrimination) rights is exactly the kind of federal government violation of the law for which Jefferson and Madison advocated interposition by the states.

And please don't compare the government's "pointed assault on free speech" with my closing down the Lost Horizons forum. The two have nothing to with each other.

That fact that I have the right to shut down speech I don't want to hear, and that I have exercised that right, has nothing to do with the outrage I feel when the government tries to punish me or my wife for doing the things that I've been using my forum to tell you to do.

[Famspear]

How about trip down memory lane, back to June 8, 2013, before Doreen's trial:

Doreen
(sung to the tune of "Jolene," by Dolly Parton)

Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
I'm begging of you, please file your return!
Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
Oh, it's too late, now, and you might get burned!

You face a charge, now, of contempt!
Your pers'nal life is so unkempt!
You gotta fight these charges, now, Doreen!

Indictment is du-pli-ci-tous--
So now's your chance to make a fuss,
And get the charges dropped for now, Doreen!

Although they'd only re-indict,
You gotta show 'em you can fight!
I know that you can do it, oh, Doreen!

Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
I'm begging of you, don't rely on Pete!
Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
The Blow-hard-meister's always gettin' beat!

His legal knowledge ain't worth crap!
A two-time loser! What a sap!
That Felon-meister-loser is Absurd!

Prepost'rous Pete will never stop,
And C-t-C is such a flop!
Two prison terms! Will he make it a third?

In prison terms both one and two,
He should have been supporting you!
I hope you wake up some day, oh, Doreen!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9356&p=157943&hilit=Jolene#p157943


Unfortunately, sooner or later, this was going to be inevitable:


Doreen Part 2
(once again, sung to the tune of "Jolene," by Dolly Parton)

Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
It just won't do to whine and moan and wail!
Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
It's now your turn to spend some time in jail!

It's time for you to take your lumps!
You're lookin' at some eighteen months--
But less than that, if you could just behave.

I guess you won't be cleanin' house;
That chore devolves upon your Spouse.
I wonder if he'll rant and cuss and rave.

Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
Is this the way you realize your wishes?
Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
At least you won't be washin' all those dishes!

Yes, for a while, you won't be free;
You're breakin' up your family!
Is that what you were wantin', eh, Doreen?

Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
Your life is really hittin' all the skids!
Doreen!
Doreen!
Doreen, Dohhh-reeeeeeen!
Is this the thing that's right for both your kids?

Dohhh-reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen!

[Famspear]

Every time I begin to wax poetic, it reminds me of how fortunate I am to have a day job.

[Burnaby49]

Every time I begin to wax poetic, it reminds me of how fortunate I am to have a day job.

Keep it.

[notorial dissent]

Please!!!

[wserra]

Every time I begin to wax poetic, it reminds me of how fortunate I am to have a day job.

And that your "songs" are limited to electrons.

[jcolvin2]

I suspect that Doreen did not actually give the full speech that Pete reported. It is clearly designed for external consumption (followers and supporters) rather than for the court. I will wait for the transcript.

[notorial dissent]

At least, if she did, I would hope it was after the judge got done with sentencing.

The woman is not only stupid but self destructive as well, like this is really a surprise.

[Duke2Earl]

As Groucho might say...these people were vaccinated with a phonograph needle.

[Pottapaug1938]

The way I see it, she has no choice but to double and triple down on the stupid; because if she doesn't, and has even a glimmer of a suspicion that her Esteemed Legal Scholar of a husband is the teeniest bit wrong in his fantasies, the whole house of cards comes crashing down, and she will probably wind up in a locked ward somewhere for her own protection.

[notorial dissent]

The thing is, I'm just not altogether sure that she is just not natively stupid enough to do just that. And besides, if she hasn't figured out Pretentious Pete is full of it by now I doubt she ever will, besides, she started out hand in glove with him all those years ago, so I really don't think she is all that smart.

[Burnaby49]

The way I see it, she has no choice but to double and triple down on the stupid; because if she doesn't, and has even a glimmer of a suspicion that her Esteemed Legal Scholar of a husband is the teeniest bit wrong in his fantasies, the whole house of cards comes crashing down, and she will probably wind up in a locked ward somewhere for her own protection.

Or maybe she's just a fruitcake who truly believes it just like her narcissistic sociopathic husband. Two of a kind who were made for each other.

[The Observer]

Or maybe she's just a fruitcake who truly believes it just like her narcissistic sociopathic husband. Two of a kind who were made for each other.

I agree with Burnie. I used to think that maybe Doreen suffered from poor self-esteem and that is why she supported Pete and his narcissism. But after what I have seen over the last week, I am wondering if she was the one who brainwashed Pete instead.

[notorial dissent]

I still think you are/were right, the only addition I would make is that they are both equally tetched as my grandmother would say. I think Petey is the one who actually came up with the fantasy they are both living, but I think she willingly followed along.

[wserra]

I am wondering if she was the one who brainwashed Pete instead.

The transcript of Doreen's short Faretta hearing (permission to go pro se) is now available on PACER. One priceless exchange:

THE COURT: And now in conjunction with this motion that you have filed with the Court, have you ever studied law?
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Not really studied law, no.
THE COURT: What is your familiarity with the law as lawyers or Judges might know the law?
MRS. HENDRICKSON: I read a lot of court cases.
THE COURT: You read a lot of cases? What kind of cases?
MRS. HENDRICKSON: I watch Judge Judy.
THE COURT: You watch who?
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Judge Judy.
THE COURT: Judge Judy? Oh my God!

I somehow doubt that she was the brains of the operation.

Maybe the other operation. Or the other other operation.