Doreen Trial Set for August 20, 2013

[rogfulton]

A wild guess.
You think Pete and Doreen have only engaged in negligence?

We think they have engaged in what they were convicted of.

[The Observer]

And I think there has been an misinterpretation of UNA's original remarks. His "they" were referring to Pete and Doreen engaging in all sorts of fraud, not the government.

[Famspear]

I'd like to clarify for the record that while Pete Hendrickson has been convicted of several federal crimes and has served two terms in the federal prison system, Doreen has never been convicted of any crime, to my knowledge. She is facing a trial coming up in October.

[LPC]

I'd like to clarify for the record that while Pete Hendrickson has been convicted of several federal crimes and has served two terms in the federal prison system, Doreen has never been convicted of any crime, to my knowledge.

She was charged in the smoke bomb incident back in 1990, but the charges were dropped before trial.

Not for lack of evidence, however. My recollection/understanding Doreen had used her position as a teacher to obtain the phosphorus used in the incendiary device, but that the charges were dropped as part of a plea deal under which Peter pled guilty and provided tape recordings of the other defendants making incriminating statements. .

[notorial dissent]

...Doreen has never been convicted of any crime, to my knowledge.

A status however, that it appears she is preparing to remedy.

[Famspear]

Doreen's trial date has been changed from October 29 to October 30, 2013.

[Famspear]

At codebusters dot org, a user called "Shadowkat91", who apparently is the Hendricksons’ daughter, posts this, dated October 23, 2013:

Thank you all SO much for your support and well-wishes. I would also like to say thank you for reaching out to us in our time of need, and for staying strong in this fight. On behalf of my mother, I apologize to those whose outreaches went unanswered while my dad was away, but, as you can imagine, she was in quite a state at that time. However, we are doing much better now, as a unit. We're still a bit stressed, but feeling more confident than before, as this should be SUCH a simple matter. The trick will, of course, be to get the jury to pull away the veil of tax law and get to the matter at its core, namely: that this order in which my mom has been accused of being in contempt is a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

At this point, getting the word out about this will be most helpful, to bring it to the public eye and put pressure on the establishment. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, again.

http://www.codebusters.org/post1914.html#p1914

User TDL (“transcripts don’t lie”), who I believe is the administrator of the forum, responds on October 24:

....i/we hope that your presence will be ongoing; feel free to post links to your mom's papers, and/or bring updates/news (as the case may be) to our attention. Moreover, i'd suggest you also post in our "Members-only" subforum (not being harvested by the search engines) information of a more sensitive nature, i.e. your folks' redacted transcripts. I think it would be highly educational to us all to line up those transcripts with your folks' trial-timelines and expose auntie's behind-the-scenes manipulations/fabrications.

My Best Wishes to you and your folks....

[notorial dissent]

That is just truly sad, and pathetic. It is quite obvious that a rash of sensibility isn't going to break out over there and that Doreen is set to follow if Prattlin' Pete's footsteps. The jury isn't going to see anything different than the jury that canned Pete saw, they aren't going to peel away something that isn't there, and Doreen is going to get to go to the slammer. Just plain pathetic.

[LPC]

The trick will, of course, be to get the jury to pull away the veil of tax law and get to the matter at its core, namely: that this order in which my mom has been accused of being in contempt is a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Frank Zappa once ended a concert by telling the (mainly middle-class) audience that, if their children ever found out how lame they are, they would murder them in their sleep.

I don't think that the Hendrickson children will ever murder their parents in their sleep (and nor would I want them to), but I do wonder if they will ever realize (a) how delusional their parents are and (b) how much unnecessary suffering it has caused them, and if they will ever be able to forgive their parents for it.

And, speaking of delusional:

I think it would be highly educational to us all to line up those [Hendrickson tax] transcripts with your folks' trial-timelines and expose auntie's behind-the-scenes manipulations/fabrications.

Snide remarks fail me.

[LPC]

Shadowkat91 [Pete Hendrickson's daughter] also has an explanation for why his forum gets "wiped":

Part of why PH seems so self-righteous is because he hears the same arguments against his own so often. Many of those who actually have trouble with the IRS, even after filing CtC, have trouble because they tried those other tactics beforehand.

Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. If you do something wrong, and then you do it right, it's still wrong because of the "aura" or "penumbra" of the previous wrongness.

You see, the IRS will follow the law if you file a "correct" return, because then you're uttering the right magic words, but if you previously uttered the *wrong* magic words, then all bets are off and the IRS no longer needs to follow the law.

[.]

Doreen's trial date has been changed from October 29 to October 30, 2013.

Can't imagine that this is going to take much more than 10 minutes to convict after she gets done pontificating endlessly about various rubbish and frivolous garbage.

Any updates?

[Famspear]

....after she gets done pontificating endlessly....

In other words, this one might last longer than the O.J. Simpson trial did......

[LPC]

There's nothing about the trial on PACER, and a Google search didn't turn up any recent news reports.

I did find a couple of things that might be of interest.

Hendrickson's most recent newsletter froths at the mouth about the rule of law, but this time, he's against it:

How About THIS Assault:

The Government Wants The Jury To Be Told It CANNOT Judge The Law!

(Updated below)

ANYONE KNOW PEOPLE AT THE FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION (FIJA)? Give 'em a call.

Along with all the other unprecedented things being attempted by the feds in their desperate effort to attack CtC through the current assault on my wife Doreen, a new front against the rule of law has been launched. Recognizing the hopelessness of their case if not girded about by corruption and lies, the government's attorneys have asked the judge handling the case to specifically instruct the jury that it CAN'T consider the lawfulness or Constitutionality of the orders Doreen has resisted!

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 12
CONTEMPT – DEFENSE

It is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order was unlawful or unconstitutional.

Unbelievable! It's one thing that the federal courts have for years operated under a rather grotesque doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the 1890s that judges don't have to let defendants inform the jurors of their absolute right and authority to judge the law as well as the facts involved in any case. But now we have an effort to actually tell them that they cannot do so-- a full-scale assault on the principle of the jury. Call the FIJA people. Call the ACLU. Call IJ. Call somebody. These are YOUR rights being stolen.

Update!

How About That! It Gets Deeper And Darker And More Desperate Still...

October 28: Perhaps after seeing this posting on Wednesday, October 23, on Thursday the 24th the government attorneys filed two documents with the court. One is a "Trial Brief" in which an argument for the request above is made directly-- just outright asking the court to direct a conviction by removing "lawfulness" from the trial (in effect, excising the word from the statutory specification: "18 U.S.C. § 401(3): Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command"). The other is a revised and final "Proposed Jury Instructions" in which the language cited in the original version posted above is slightly changed, to:

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 12
CONTEMPT – DEFENSE

It is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the defendant thought the court order was unlawful or unconstitutional.

Talk about doubling down! And talk about corruption!

Now the government is trying to evade TWO of its burdens of proof-- the statutory specified "lawful" element as an objective issue, and also the "willfulness" element! Furthermore, this effort is being made by the misrepresentation of a ruling from the Sixth Circuit, in an apparent desperate attempt to mislead the court into imagining that some authority exists for this lawlessness!

To add a bit of irony (or poetic justice, perhaps), the misrepresented case actually stands explicitly against the government's position. See the government's filing here, and the response filed this afternoon detailing and derailing it all (if there is a scrap of justice to be had), here.

The "here" links to a copy of the government's trial brief, which Hendrickson has copied to his website.

Also, Doreen filed a motion in limine "to Bar Inadmissable Out-Of-Court Statements and Evidence," which was denied. The court's order is somewhat interesting:

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (DOC. #34 and #35)

Doreen Hendrickson is charged with one count of criminal contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) for failing to comply with a court order entered by Judge Edmunds in a 2007 civil action. Judge Edmunds found Hendrickson liable for filing false tax returns for the years 2003 and 2004; Hendrickson reported zero income for those years allegedly because she believed she was not subject to federal taxation. Judge Edmunds ordered her to stop filing false tax returns.

The Government alleges that in 2009 Hendrickson again filed a false tax return; she reported zero income on her 2008 tax filing. The Government seeks to introduce: (1) Hendrickson’s 2002, 2003 and 2008 filings, (2) Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) records reflecting Hendrickson’s filings, (3) IRS refunds, (4) Hendrickson’s 1099 form, (5) Form W-2 and payroll records from a company that employed Hendrickson in 2008, (6) Judge Edmunds’ order, and (7) correspondences between Hendrickson and attorneys from the Department of Justice to establish guilt.

Now, Hendreickson has filed two motions in limine to preclude the introduction of all of the Government’s documents. Hendrickson says these documents are not relevant, but if they are relevant, they are more prejudicial than probative. She also says this is improper character evidence; and, this trial is about whether Judge Edmunds can prevent her from exercising her constitutional right of free speech.

This is not a constitutional case. No evidence concerning the constitutionality of Judge Edmunds’ order will be put on by either party. This is a criminal case and only concerns whether Hendrickson willfully violated Judge Edmunds’ order.

Section 401(3) says: “A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and one other, as . . . (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”

In order to prove that the defendant violated § 401(3), the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) a “court's writ, process, order, rule, decree or command [has been] resisted or disobeyed; . . . [2. T]he act of disobedience or resistance was a deliberate or intended violation, as distinguished from an accidental, inadvertent or negligent.” In re Smothers, 322 F.3d 438, 441-42 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

Judge Edmunds’ prior order and Hendrickson’s prior tax filings are relevant and more probative than prejudicial to the Government’s case. Further, these documents are not improper character evidence. The Government must show that Hendrickson knew she was filing a false return when she reported zero income on her 2008 filing. Being sanctioned for essentially the same filing in 2003 and 2004 establishes knowledge. A violation of Judge Edmunds’ order is central to the dispute; it is necessary to inform the jury what Hendrickson was ordered not to do.

Hendrickson’s motions are DENIED. These documents are more probative than prejudicial.

[.]

These documents are more probative than prejudicial.

Too bad this judge isn't exercised enough about this time-wasting baloney to go beyond mere adherence to the probative/prejudicial standard and be a bit more honest, while perhaps deviating a bit from exhibiting the usual, cautious "judicial temperament."

Say, by stating something along the lines of "These documents are not just highly probative and not the least bit unjustly prejudicial, rather, they are damning evidence of guilt and defendant continues to waste the court's time and taxpayer resources on fabulist, frivolous motions in pursuit of a totally hopeless cause."

Maybe I'm going as bit overboard, but it would be accurate. Not to mention a breath of fresh air and a warning to the few remaining unincarcerated TP nincompoops.

[Famspear]

Yes, with respect to Peter Hendrickson, we have some serious "frothing" going on here.
The spectre of the Bloviating Blowhard's decompensation once again rears its ugly head!

Prevaricatin' Pete is worried that Doreen might be convicted and sent to the slammer. With his wife in jail and his daughter possibly off at college, that would mean that Pete might have to wash the dishes every night!



Oh, wait. Maybe he'll make his son do the dishes.

[LPC]

New item on the docket: The judge approved lunch for the jury on 11/1.

Which leads me to believe that the jury was deliberating on Friday.

But no sign of any news of a verdict.

[LPC]

October 28: Perhaps after seeing this posting on Wednesday, October 23, on Thursday the 24th the government attorneys filed two documents with the court. One is a "Trial Brief" in which an argument for the request above is made directly-- just outright asking the court to direct a conviction by removing "lawfulness" from the trial (in effect, excising the word from the statutory specification: "18 U.S.C. § 401(3): Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command").

[snip]

The "here" links to a copy of the government's trial brief, which Hendrickson has copied to his website.

Doreen has filed a reply brief, which asserts that the government has the burden of proving that the order Doreen violated was "lawful."

I have to admit that the issue is somewhat interesting. (And Hendrickson raised it? Even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.)

My understanding of Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967), is that the validity of the court's order can NOT be raised in a contempt proceeding. But I may look into this further.

[LPC]

My understanding of Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967), is that the validity of the court's order can NOT be raised in a contempt proceeding. But I may look into this further.

A better authority is United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258 (1947):

we find impressive authority for the proposition that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.[58] This is true without regard even for the constitutionality of the Act under which the order is issued. In Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-90 (1922) this Court said:

"An injunction duly issuing out of a court of general jurisdiction with equity powers upon pleadings properly invoking its action, and served upon persons made parties therein and within the jurisdiction, must 294*294 be obeyed by them however erroneous the action of the court may be, even if the error be in the assumption of the validity of a seeming but void law going to the merits of the case. It is for the court of first instance to determine the question of the validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by itself or by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are to be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its lawful authority, to be punished."[59]

Violations of an order are punishable as criminal contempt even though the order is set aside on appeal, Worden v. Searls, 121 U.S. 14 (1887),[60] or though the basic action has become moot, Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911).

We insist upon the same duty of obedience where, as here, the subject matter of the suit, as well as the parties, was properly before the court; where the elements of federal jurisdiction were clearly shown; and where the authority of the court of first instance to issue an order ancillary to the main suit depended upon a statute, the scope and applicability of which were subject to substantial doubt.

But what about the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) that the writ or order that is violated be "lawful"? One court addressed the issue this way:

Second, "lawful," as used in § 401(3), does not have the meaning that defendants attribute to it. Defendants appear to be arguing that in order for a court order to be "lawful" for purposes of § 401(3), it must be correct in all respects. This argument, however, is directly contrary to the collateral bar doctrine. Under the collateral bar doctrine, a defendant may be held in criminal contempt under § 401(3) even for an order that is later determined to be invalid or incorrect. Thus, the word "lawful" in § 401(3) cannot mean that the order must be free from all error. It simply means that the order must be free from such plain jurisdictional defects as to render it manifestly inoperable.

In re Crawford, 133 F.Supp.2d 249 (W.D.N.Y. 2001).

Similarly:

It is well-established that,

a party subject to a court order must abide by its terms or face criminal contempt. Even if the order is later declared improper or unconstitutional, it must be followed until vacated or modified.... A party may not violate an order and raise the issue of its unconstitutionality collaterally as a defense in the criminal contempt proceeding. Rather, the appropriate method to challenge a court order is to petition to have the order vacated or amended.

In re Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342, 1346 (1st Cir.1986), modified on reh'g en banc, 820 F.2d 1354 (1st Cir.1987), cert. dismissed sub nom. United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693, 108 S.Ct. 1502, 99 L.Ed.2d 785 (1988) (citing Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967); [additional citations omitted]. This is known as the collateral bar rule.[Footnote omitted]

This general rule does have an exception when the underlying order is "transparently invalid." Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. at 315, 87 S.Ct. at 1829; In re Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d at 1347. An order is transparently invalid when the issuing court

is acting so far in excess of its authority that it has no right to expect compliance and no interest is protected by requiring compliance.

The line between a transparently invalid order and one that is merely invalid is, of course, not always distinct. As a general rule, if the court reviewing the order finds the order to have had any pretence [sic] to validity at the time it was issued, the reviewing court should enforce the collateral bar rule.

In re Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d at 1347.

United States v. Terry, 802 F.Supp. 1094, 1101 (S.D.N.Y.1992). (The Second Circuit reached the same conclusion using similar language in a related appeal, United States v. Terry, 17 F. 3d 575 (2nd Cir. 1994).)

The fact that Doreen (and Pete) appealed the injunction to the 6th Circuit, where it was affirmed, and also to the Supreme Court, which denied cert., should be fatal to their defense because (a) the validity of the injunction became uncontestable under the doctrine of res judicata and (b) they had full knowledge that the injunction was "lawful" according to the courts.

Now, almost all of the cases cited above were appeals arguing that the invalidity or unconstitutionality of the order could invalidate the conviction as a matter of law. Doreen clearly wants to argue "lawfulness" to the jury as a factual issue. (Her reply brief goes so far as to cite the Sparf decision on juries being allowed to judge the law as well as the facts.)

I've found two court opinions that address this question in some way, and both reject the idea that the defendant can argue to the jury that the violated order was not "lawful."

We also reject the contention that the court failed to instruct the jury as to respondent's defense that the [order that respondent violated] was unlawful [in its scope or application]. Even the invalidity of an order need not provide a defense against contempt based upon violation of that order. See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 293-294, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884; Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210. Even assuming the existence of such a defense, however, it would involve a pure question of law whose determination is cognizable by the court and not the jury. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343; Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131, 134, 76 S.Ct. 685, 100 L.Ed. 1013.

United States v. Bukowski, 435 F. 2d 1094 (7th Cir. 1970 ).

Doreen is also going to have a problem with the very next observation by the Bukowski court: "Moreover, the asserted defense was utterly without foundation in fact." Show us the facts, Doreen. How could the order be invalid as a factual matter when the 6th Circuit had ruled that it was valid as a matter of law? Does the jury get to over-rule the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals?

The other case is United States v. Terry, cited above, in which the defendant argued that the injunction he violated "is unconstitutional because it prohibits him from exercising his First Amendment rights" (which Doreen has also claimed) and moved "for leave to present this constitutional argument collaterally as a defense at his criminal contempt proceeding," which motion was denied. The Second Circuit opinion (also cited above) stated that "We reject Terry's contention that the injunction is unconstitutional for the same reason the trial court denied his motion to present constitutional arguments as a defense at his criminal trial."

[notorial dissent]

I kinda sorta thought that the whole "lawfulness" issue of the court orders had been pretty well settled by the appeals court and the denial at SCT myself, since they let them stand, along with everything else. It would seem to me rather late to be chasing after a horse that is already long gone out of the barn, and I thought that the upper courts had held there was nothing wrong with the orders as such.

I suspect that your case examples are probably some of what they drew on, but mightn't it also be a case of this is already long settled and enough already?

As usual, I think the hilarious Hendricksons are busy chasing off after the wrong thing, and are going to totally miss the party once again when this current jury and judge bring the hammer down.

I just don't see Doreen getting out of this round unscathed. She got a by the last time around, but it isn't going to happen here, Prevaricatin' Pete's fulminations and protestations not withstanding. I think the only real question is going to be how hard she gets slapped, and I don't think Pete has helped that situation in the least with his advice.

[LPC]

From Activist Post on Saturday:

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!