Doreen Trial Set for August 20, 2013

[Dr. Caligari]

We don't know (or at least I don't know) what the evidence at trial was. Did Doreen testify? If she did, and testified, "I was willing to file the way the judge told me to, I just wanted to add a rider that says that I'm following the judge's order but I don't agree with it," I can see that garnering some jury sympathy.

[Famspear]

We don't know (or at least I don't know) what the evidence at trial was. Did Doreen testify? If she did, and testified, "I was willing to file the way the judge told me to, I just wanted to add a rider that says that I'm following the judge's order but I don't agree with it," I can see that garnering some jury sympathy.

I agree with that. I don't recall the exact language the judge used, but had I been the judge, I would have restricted my comments to explaining that Doreen was required to file a correct tax return -- which means a return following the real law, not her husband's "Cracking the Code" interpretation of the law -- and that a correct return would require the exclusion of any language included with (or any any way attached to or appended to) the return that attempted to modify the standard language of the jurat. I think the judge's comment made confusion and problems more likely.

[LPC]

We don't know (or at least I don't know) what the evidence at trial was. Did Doreen testify? If she did, and testified, "I was willing to file the way the judge told me to, I just wanted to add a rider that says that I'm following the judge's order but I don't agree with it," I can see that garnering some jury sympathy.

I think that the judge did create some confusion about what Doreen was allowed to append to her return (from the 6/10/2010 transcript: "I am giving you the option of filing an affidavit, or anything you want, with your tax return, but you are in contempt if you don't file it."), but I thought that it was later clarified, she was given a second chance to file a correct return, and she still didn't file a correct return.

So I think that the government has ample evidence that she had every opportunity to comply with the court's order, and that she simple refused to do so.

[LPC]

Or maybe that one juror just had a conscientious reasonable doubt.

Unless the juror speaks up, or we hear of the events in the jury room from other jurors, we have no way of knowing.

The report in the "Kentucky Free Press" included the following:

The lone principled juror was even called out and grilled about his decision. He was not swayed by the badgering: “I just wasn’t convinced.”

That suggests that the court questioned the dissenting juror in open court (do they do that?), and that the answers were not particularly illuminating.

[wserra]

That suggests that the court questioned the dissenting juror in open court (do they do that?)

Short answer: Hell, no. The court will only question a juror about something that occurred during deliberations if there is a question of some kind of misconduct, and then it will be in robing room, not open court. Just being the lone dissenter is hardly misconduct. Every now and then, the rest of the jury will send out a note that one juror is simply refusing to deliberate, and the court will get involved, but there is no info that happened here.

[Cpt Banjo]

An earlier article in the "Kentucky Free Press" reported that Doreen was being asked to sign tax returns showing no tax due:

Doreen cannot sign the 1040 because she doesn’t believe it to be true, correct, and complete. That is because the IRS made her fill it out with their numbers, not hers. 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.

http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/dore ... testimony/

Where did this stuff come from? It's my understanding that Doreen filed returns with zeros and was ordered by the court to prepare and file correct returns. What am I missing?