Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact

How Pathetic To Have To Pretend That These Are Real Questions...

And isn't it time for every self-avowed liberty-activist to be shouting "NO!" in answer?


1. Can orders of a court commanding false speech-- and particularly false testimonial speech-- resistance to which has prompted a prosecution for alleged criminal contempt of court, be shielded from appellate Constitutional analysis and determination by application of the “collateral bar” doctrine?

2. Can a jury instruction removing from the jurors’ consideration and determination the statutory element of “lawful,” and explicitly instructing the jury that the unlawfulness or unconstitutionality of a court order is not a defense to a charge of criminal contempt, be properly shielded from appellate review by application of the “collateral bar” doctrine?  


Read it and weep for the corruption that has taken hold of our institutions of government while too many of us were letting our "public servant" chauffeurs do all the driving instead of staying actively in charge ourselves.

Read it, and get scared-- because you should be. For yourselves and for your children.

DOREEN'S CASE IS THE MOST OVERT and unmistakable case of raw judicial corruption and systemic assault on the Constitution and the rule of law that has ever been seen. A lot of bad rulings have happened over recent years. But there have been no others in which, to take one example that you just saw in reading the petition, a federal appellate court has actually argued in a written, published ruling that a statute which reads, "Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command," doesn't actually include "lawfulness" as an element of the offense (and that someone can be punished for failing to obey an unlawful order).

Here's another good example: In no other case in American history has a federal court deliberately-- and in a formal "finding", no less-- misrepresented the content of a book.

So the lawlessness is unprecedented. But on the other hand, so is the reason for it. This unprecedented lawlessness is meant to suppress an equally unprecedented opportunity for the American people.

What all this unique government lawlessness underscores is the fact that CtC presents the American people with the one and only way that Leviathan can be cut back down to safe and tolerable size, and true federalism and the rule of law can be restored. CtC is the red-pill the masters of the matrix have been hoping for 75 years would never appear.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE a pretty darn hi-falutin' claim, doesn't it? Well... maybe so, but the evidence lies right before you. In fact, you just looked at it.

How do you tell which plane is right above the target? It's the one getting the heaviest flak.

We all expect to see corruption in government pretty much every where we look these days. But there has never been anything done before anywhere by United States officials as has been done in Doreen's case, and in all the preceding events related to Doreen's case.

Never before has a DOJ attorney flatly lied in a complaint about the grounds for a suit, with a federal judge repeating the lie in a formal "finding". Never before has such an attorney resorted to presenting an "informal examination report" as "support" for an allegation of tax liabilities in a civil lawsuit.

Never before have a federal trial court judge and government prosecutor flatly lied to a jury in open court about the content of a statute, while actually holding in their hands the complete and accurate text of the statute they were misrepresenting.

And, of course, never before has anyone been ordered, on pain of imprisonment, to withdraw claims against the government and replace them with government-dictated, government-serving, false sworn declarations of belief.

GET THE MESSAGE BEING TELEGRAPHED by all these unique, ongoing, and otherwise inexplicable events. What all these one-off crimes are being committed to suppress IS A VERY, VERY BIG DEAL.

You don't even have to understand why CtC's revelations are a big deal, or how they are the sharpened stake poised above the vampire's breast. All you need to see in order to know that it is that sharpened stake is the unprecedented thrashing and gnashing of the vampire itself.

And all you need to DO in order to drive that stake home, restore the real liberty and rule of law for which you have been praying and struggling your entire adult life, and halt America's descent into twilight is help others see the thrashing and gnashing, and then send them here to learn the cause.

I hope you will.


Doreen's Supreme Court Petition Gets Denied

Even as yet another federal judge condemns the orders she was "convicted" for resisting...

ON OCTOBER 20, 2016 THE CLERK of the Supreme Court recorded a denial of Doreen's petition for cert. This doesn't mean that Doreen's appeal was adjudged meritless,* just that the court felt that 74 or 75 other cases were more worthy of its attention. Of the 10,000 or so petitions filed each year, the court only grants and hears about 75.

Ironically, just four days later federal district judge Marcia Crone of the Eastern District of Texas said again what has been said in hundreds of cases throughout America's history without the slightest deviation ever-- except when it comes to Doreen Hendrickson:

It is well settled that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but also the right not to speak. For this reason, government compulsion of speech has repeatedly been found to violate the Constitution. See Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 797 (1988) (overturning law requiring fundraisers to disclose retained revenues to potential donors); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977); W.Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); see also Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006); Tex. State Troopers Ass’n v. Morales, 10 F. Supp.2d 628, 634 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (“[T]he First Amendment requires that the State not dictate the content of speech absent necessity, and then, only by means precisely tailored.”*) (citations omitted).


Once First Amendment rights have been chilled, there is no effective remedy, and it is well established in the Fifth Circuit that infringement of First Amendment rights, standing alone, constitutes irreparable harm. See Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 539 (5th Cir. 2013) (“We have repeatedly held . . . that the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”) (and accompanying citations); accord Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279, 295 (5th Cir. 2012).

ASSOC'D BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS OF SE TEXAS, et al. v. ANNE RUNG, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, et al., EDT NO. 1:16-CV-425 (2016)

*This quoted language doesn't really reflect some kind of exception allowing the dictation of speech content if deemed a "necessity", or for any other reason. Like the Riley case also cited, Tex. State Troopers Ass’n concerned a mandatory disclosure requirement imposed on solicitors-- that is, a requirement that certain subjects be spoken of to prospective donors in exchange for permission to conduct solicitations. Notwithstanding the rather odd language used, the ruling had nothing to do with an actual dictation of words that must be spoken and declared to be believed true, as in Doreen's case.)

Is the manic evil of what is being done to Doreen (and threatened against all Americans) not clear? The fundamental law of this country-- thoroughly well-settled in its construction by endless judicial rulings-- including last Monday's by judge Marcia Crone-- is that a person can't even be compelled to say what she agrees is true, with or without any attestation of belief in the veracity of the statement.

Dramatically more a violation of the law is a compelled declaration of what someone DOESN'T agree is true. More so still is such a compelled false declaration which must be accompanied by a sworn attestation of belief in the truth of the false dictated speech.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE LEGAL COMMUNITY IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT IT IS NOT DENOUNCING WHAT IS BEING DONE TO DOREEN AND RISING EN MASSE IN HER DEFENSE?! The silence of that community, and of the media as well, is despicable. I say to all of them: When your time comes, and you are made to drink from the bitter cup you are blithely permitting to be brewed without protest, you will have no one to blame but yourselves.

*"[I]t is elementary, of course, that a denial of a petition for certiorari decides nothing." Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. 409 U.S. 363, (1973); see also United States et al. v. Carver et al., 260 U.S. 482, (1923) (""The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.").


  • Doreen was ordered, as the requested "remedy" in a faked-up DOJ lawsuit, to make government-dictated, government-serving declarations; to swear that she believes these dictated declarations to be true; and to conceal the fact that she was ordered to make them and does NOT believe them to be true.

  • The declarations Doreen was ordered to make and swear she believes are that her earnings as a tutor and that mine as an executive at a property-management firm during 2002 and 2003 qualify as the special kind of "income" that is subject to the income tax. The government itself does not believe this to be true.

  • The other order made to Doreen is designed to put a falsehood about CtC's contents into circulation, and does so over the signature of someone who years later admitted to never having read the book.

  • Desperate to get a conviction in order to pile more pressure on Doreen to produce the false testimony it needs to cover-up its crimes in 2006 and accomplish the suppression of CtC, the government asked for an unprecedented jury instruction that the unlawfulness or unconstitutionality of the orders Doreen was accused of criminally resisting was not a defense to the charge of contempt.

  •  Also, desperate to get that conviction, both prosecutor and judge actually lied outright to the jury about the text of a statute during trial.

  • Also desperate to get that conviction, both prosecutor and judge participated in a fraud on the court by misrepresenting documents introduced by the government at the last minute before cross-examining Doreen. (See the first issue in this motion, and in this reply to the government's creepy and mendacious efforts to evade culpability.)

  • After accomplishing its by-hook-or-by-crook conviction of Doreen for refusing to produce the false testimony it so desperately wants, the government asked the sentencing court to order Doreen to speak its dictated lies or enter prison sooner than she would otherwise have to. Anticipating that Doreen would resist that pressure, government also asked that Doreen be returned to prison even after suffering her full sentence unless she speaks its self-serving lies upon being released.

  • Throughout all the horrendous assault on Doreen, and the corrupt expenditure of probably $1 million over the years since 2006 in the government's effort to force her to speak lies its own officials can't bring themselves to say and which purportedly is over an alleged tax liability of a mere $20,000, a few hundred thousand complete refunds have been made to Americans who have filed returns effectively identical to those the government is demanding that Doreen be made to repudiate.

THIS IS JUST a partial list of "highlights" of this remarkable, unprecedented case. But these points should be enough to equip everyone to raise public consciousness wherever the opportunity arises. I'll be grateful for anything anyone is able to do. 

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams