By Pete Hendrickson
HAVE YOU EVER FOUND YOURSELF IN A DEBATE with someone who just can't wrap his or her well-conditioned mind around the fact that the US executive agencies and the federal courts are corrupt? It can be hard.
Usually you're faced with the uphill climb of coaxing the skeptic into learning some complex backstory, following your logic and drawing inferences that support your case. It's only occasionally that you'll be given the kind of time and honest attention necessary to get there using such delicate tools. But now you don't need to rely on mere argument-- concrete proof is at hand!
Whether you're trying to explain "false flags" or election fraud, or support any other good reason Americans should be skeptical of government claims, one single sentence from a federal trial transcript provides you with an atom-bomb of evidence. You will never again have even a single person walk away shaking his head, unconvinced.
Here it is, the best new resource for the entire "truth" community:
|It is not a defense to the crime of Contempt that the Court Order that the Defendant is accused of violating was unlawful or unconstitutional.|
WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE is an instruction requested by the US Department of Justice in each of the two trials of Doreen Hendrickson (in 2013 and 2014). Doreen was being tried on a DOJ-brought charge of "criminal contempt of court" for refusing to commit perjury as ordered by a court in 2007 at the agency's request.
This instruction (see the actual transcript pages here) was issued by the trial court (over Doreen's objection) and subsequently upheld as valid by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016. But as is obvious to any kindergartener, this instruction is invalid on its face.
An unlawful order-- by its inherent nature-- imposes no legal duty. Disobedience of an unlawful order cannot be a contempt under ANY circumstances.
So, no leap of logic is needed here. The unlawfulness of an order plainly and unmistakably is a defense to a charge of contempt; indeed, it is the most fundamental kind of defense to such a charge.
In fact, the statute defining criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 401(3), specifies that it only applies to "lawful" orders, to ensure that even the most mentally-challenged among us can't misunderstand this fact: “...Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”
Plainly, this jury instruction is invalid. Plainly, the request for it, its issuance, and it being upheld are all acts of executive and judicial corruption.
This instruction is the "red pill" with which any doubter of the government's willingness to lie and break the law can be easily awakened to reality. Use it that way yourself, and share it around with everyone-- even those with no interest in the truth about the income tax, but with other causes in which government corruption is a factor.
NOTE: The instruction discussed here would be invalid in ANY contempt prosecution. The details of the charge involved are irrelevant to that point.
But just so everyone using this weapon of truth is fully-equipped if the question should arise, I'll explain that the orders involved in this case command Mrs. Hendrickson to testify over her own sworn signature using expressions dictated by government agents which she does not believe to be true and which directly contradict her previously- and freely-made testimony on the same subjects. (Further, the dictated expressions are meant to be used as evidence against Mrs. Hendrickson for the government's financial benefit.)
Thus, the orders involved in the case in which this instruction was given ARE, in fact, unlawful, and everyone knows it. It was to overcome that problem and allow a false conviction to be accomplished that this corrupt and inherently invalid instruction was sought and issued.
It was to sustain that false conviction that the instruction was upheld by the Circuit Court panel in a ruling in which it also declared that it would not address the constitutionality of the orders themselves. Both those decisions were based on the pretext that unquestioning respect for the "authority" of a court and its orders (even illegal ones!) outweigh the Constitution (by misapplication of the vague judicially-created "doctrine" known as "collateral bar").
Learn more about that appellate decision at http://losthorizons.com/