Legislative Hotline:
Hours: Mon-Fri 8-4:30

The IRS vs. Doreen Hendrickson: The Verdict

One of Doreen Hendrickson's jurors did not give in to evil!This morning, the jury in Doreen Hendrickson’s trial returned to the courthouse and deliberated all day. At around 5pm, they finally emerged and presented their verdict: hung jury. What a delightful victory!!!

At least one juror (and possibly more — we just know about one) stood up to the others, stood up to the IRS (no small undertaking) and to the judge who was clearly making decisions on the side of the IRS.

Judge Roberts admitted all the IRS’ evidence and almost none of the defendant’s. Her instructions to the jury were unconstitutional at best, criminal at worst. She should be removed from the bench and disbarred.

One principled juror was even called out and grilled about his decision. He was not swayed by the badgering: “I just wasn’t convinced.” Thank you! Neither were we.

And, yes, I’m saying the other jurors weren’t principled. Unless supporting thuggery is principled? Suborning perjury is principled? Obeying an IRS demand even if it is unlawful and unconstitutional is principled? Being ignorant of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and jury nullification is principled?

I think not. As our masters are fond of telling us, being ignorant of the law is no defense. That blade cuts both ways.

Let the low-information jurors go home to Dancing with the Stars. Maybe one day, they will wake up. I’m grateful for the jurors who trusted their guts: thank you for being the conscience of the people.

“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, Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence

Footnote #2: What Happens Next

The IRS can call it quits and move on. Or it can re-try Doreen and waste even more taxpayer money.

If they try again, the Hendricksons will be even more prepared for the shenanigans. The news about jury nullification is spreading. As the economy falls further into the toilet, Americans are waking up to what is going on and who is benefitting.

More and more people are questioning the IRS’ tactics if not the entire institution. Calls to “Audit the Fed!” are heard more and more often…

Not that any dose of sanity will stop the DOJ drones. They have nothing to lose — ain’t their money they are spending to persecute a tiny woman for not obeying their order to sign the damn form and perjure herself. They get paid regardless, right? Get their pensions and benefits regardless, right? Right.

Paying Taxes: the big picture Doreen HendricksonThe only person who can stop them is YOU. We are gathering names and addresses for letters and emails to TPTB. At least one juror sent a very strong message today. Let’s not leave him and Doreen to stand alone.

I know from Facebook, online news sources, activist groups like Oathkeepers and the shares of these articles that everyone who reads about Doreen’s trial is outraged. That is cause for hope. Thank you!

Sally Oh

Sally Oh

Sally Oh is a native Kentuckian, wife, mother, blogger, homesteader, chickenista, recovering REALTOR® and Functional Medicine Practitioner. A liberty activist and registered voter, that’s her falling down a rabbit hole.
Sally Oh

20 comments to The IRS vs. Doreen Hendrickson: The Verdict

  • […] Update to last week’s “IRS perjury” story. […]

  • taranisx

    Doreen or anyone can easily shame any court into silence with the No Jurisdiction defense here It’s the Only method that will work frankly and it’s very plain and simple and it’s free. Don’t play their game. Play your own game.

    • Thank you, we’ll definitely check that out. Having been to tax court and in trouble with the IRS for many years, I can tell you without hesitation they will roll over this as though it were a flea. Jurisdiction schmurisdiction. They are a lawless organization staffed by actual thugs. You are absolutely 100% correct: the IRS and its codes have no jurisdiction on the everyday citizen. The Service can never admit this, however, because they’d have to cop to the tremendous lies and fraud they’ve perpetrated on Americans since just after WWII… but I will read the site. I love knowing that other people know. Thank you.

      • taranisx

        You’re welcome and agreed. There should come a time when the critical mass of those who know exposes the system to the masses, hopefully.

  • RetSquid

    She was convicted in 2014.

  • […] You might have read about Doreen Hendrickson’s last trial here and here. […]

  • […] News Article from the Kentucky Free Press (obviously not lamestream news) The IRS vs. Doreen Hendrickson: The Verdict […]

  • […] here for the verdict in the Doreen Hendrickson trial. Also read this firsthand account from the […]

  • OwenCrump

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

  • ticked off

    What is remarkable is that the other 11 STOOGES (F-ing idiots) had no clue what they were doing or looking at. Thank that juror for legitimate justice being served. Those bastards in Washington and their hoods the IRS can go you-know-what themselves.

  • kathy n

    FANTASTIC! It is time to take this country back, put those that work for us back in their place and start to make the laws work for WE THE PEOPLE and not the other way around. So much has been lost over the centuries. We forgot who we are and how things are to be run. Good bye greed and corruption. The people remember.

  • Carroll Price

    Unfortunately, when “tax laws” come into conflict with Constitutional and statutory law, judges invariably rule in favor of tax laws. This is primarily due to the fact that virtually all judges (state and federal) owe their jobs and livelihoods to various unconstitutional tax laws and systems they must rule in favor of even when doing so puts them in direct violation of their oaths of office. We should all give a word of thanks to the informed juror who, in this case threw a big fat wrench into the government’s illegal tax system

  • Carroll Price

    Unfortunately, when it comes to legal contest where tax “laws” are in direct conflict with Constitutional law and statutory law, judges will invariably rule in favor of tax laws. This of course is primarily due to the fact that virtually all judges owe their job and livelihood to the same “tax laws” they s a result, it will be increasingly necessary for citizens (like the individual on this jury) to become aware of what

    • Sally_Oh

      All true. It’s also true that judges didn’t used to pay taxes. Now they do… they are just as enslaved as we are and just as afraid of the IRS thugs.

  • robertsgt40

    Hats off to the lone, honest juror. I expect he/she will be contacted shorty….by the IRS(the collection agency for the criminal Fed). The same IRS that will be overseeing Obamacare. The same Obamacare that will not apply to the IRS or Congress/Prez.


      Background Back to Top

      The Affordable Care Act adds section715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and section9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code, and make them applicable to group health plans, and health insurance issuers
      providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans. The PHS Act sections incorporated by this reference are
      sections 2701 through 2728. PHS Act sections 2701 through 2719A are substantially new, though they incorporate some provisions of prior law. PHS Act sections 2722 through 2728 are sections of prior law renumbered, with some, mostly minor, changes.

      Public law 93-406 ERISA, is an amendment to Title 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE , section 3121 (L)



      Subtitle A – Income Taxes


      Subchapter D – Deferred Compensation, Etc.


      Subpart A – General Rule

      *Sec. 406 – Employees of foreign affiliates covered by section 3121(l)

      Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

      Public law 93-406 Employees Retirement Income Security Act

      Amendment by section 1016(a)(4) of Pub. L. 93–406 applicable, except as otherwise provided in section 1017(c) through (i) of Pub. L. 93–406, for plan years beginning after Sept. 2, 1974,but, in the case of plans in existence on Jan. 1, 1974, amendment by Pub. L.93–406 applicable for plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 1975, see section1017 of Pub. L. 93–406, set out as an Effective Date; Transition of Rules note
      under section 410 of this title.

  • Debbie Voss

    Awesome article and awesome news!

  • Kathy Gornik

    I am so happy to hear this news. I will be sure to send a link to IJ so they can rejoice with us.

Leave a Reply