THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf added gun stores to the list of businesses allowed to stay open during COVID-19 coronavirus restrictions following emergency litigation filed by FPC Law and Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, Firearms Policy Coalition announced today. The Governor’s revised order and related case documents are available at FPCLegal.org.
On March 19, 2020 Governor Wolf released an Order, requiring the closure of all “non life-sustaining businesses.” Included in the list of businesses to be closed were firearms retailers, as apparently Governor Wolf doesn’t consider the Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms ‘life-sustaining’. Firearms Policy Coalition’s Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut, along with well-known firearms attorney Joshua Prince, immediately challenged Gov. Wolf’s order directly at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, invoking the Court’s King’s Bench jurisdiction.
While the State’s Supreme Court denied the King’s Bench petition on Sunday, Justice Wecht, joined by Justices Donohue and Dougherty, filed a strongly worded opinion in favor of protecting the right to keep and bear arms.The forced closure of gun shops throughout the entire Commonwealth, they said, was an “impermissible intrusion upon a fundamental constitutional right,” and that local gun shops could make accommodations in the name of social distancing just as other necessary, life-sustaining businesses have done.
Following that guidance, Governor Wolf reversed his gun store ban and published an updated “Industry Operations Guide” which now makes clear that firearms retailers are considered ‘life-sustaining’ and may remain open as long as they practice common public health measures.
“We appreciate that the Governor heard the voices of Justices Wecht, Donohue, and Dougherty and will now allow gun stores to remain open and serve the public,” said Kraut. “The right and ability to protect yourself and your family, particularly in times of crisis, is the very definition of ‘life-sustaining’ and unquestionably protected by both the Second Amendment and the State’s constitution.”
“As we have said before, there is no ‘except in emergencies’ clause in the Constitution and the government cannot shut down the People’s right to keep and bear arms,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Our FPC team will continue to fight for the rights of individuals and work to ensure that the People can continue to access and exercise their human rights.”
About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.
Source:
https://www.spreaker.com/user/1061420...
This week, a federal district court judge in New York struck down conscience protections for health care providers whose sincere religious beliefs convict them not to participate in abortion, gender reassignment procedures, or dispense birth control.
“Health care is a basic right that should never be subject to political games," said New York Attorney General Tish James, who brought the case, according to Politico. "Once again, the courts have blocked the Trump Administration from implementing a discriminatory rule that would only hurt Americans."
The rule administered through the Department of Health and Human Services threatened to curtail federal funding for institutions that refused to allow providers to opt out of such procedures on grounds of their conscience. Judge Paul Engelmayer agreed with state and local officials and groups like Planned Parenthood.
But defenders of free religious expression are furious.
"This particular ruling is absolutely outrageous," said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver. "They're not going to lose any federal funding as long as they simply do what they're supposed to and that is to honor the constitutional protection to free exercise of religion."
Listen to the full podcast to hear Staver explain that the Trump administration's rule is not some radical departure from precedent but is actually restoring a long-held precedent reversed during the Obama administration. He also shares how he thinks this issue will be resolved on appeal.
OBAMA APPOINTED JUDGE STRIKES DOWN "HHS" RULE PROTECTING HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS WHO DECLINE TO PERFORM ABORTIONS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
MANHATTAN —A federal judge nominated to the bench by then-President Barack Obama has struck down a rule recently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that sought to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals and others who have objections to abortion or physician-assisted suicide.
Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York concluded that the new rule too rigidly places states at jeopardy of losing federal funding for non-compliance with the conscience protections.
“The rule … newly conditions all HHS funding, regardless of source, on compliance with the Conscience Provisions. And, by adding the substantive conditions announced in the rule, the rule exposes a state to a heightened risk, in the middle of a funding period, that funds previously allocated will be withheld or terminated,” he wrote.
“A state that has organized its programs (e.g., its Medicaid program) in anticipation of a promised outlay of funds could find all its HHS funding streams cut off for its failure to adapt,” Engelmayer worried. “The state, however, had no way to know at the time it accepted such funds that HHS would later claim the right to close these spigots based on a breach of a Conscience Provision.”
He also determined that the government could not provide enough proof that the rule was necessary.
“HHS, in this litigation, admitted that only a tiny fraction of the complaints that its rule invoked as support were even relevant to the Conscience Provisions,” Engelmayer wrote. “HHS’s central factual claim of a ‘significant increase’ of complaints of Conscience Provision violations is flatly untrue. This alone makes the agency’s decision to promulgate the rule arbitrary and capricious.”
As previously reported, HHS issued its “Conscience Rights in Health Care” rule in May, which was to have taken effect on Nov. 22.
“This rule ensures that healthcare entities and professionals won’t be bullied out of the healthcare field because they decline to participate in actions that violate their conscience, including the taking of human life,” Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Director Roger Severino said in a statement. “Protecting conscience and religious freedom not only fosters greater diversity in healthcare, it’s the law.”
The updated rule provided clarification on existing federal conscience protection laws as passed by Congress, and required healthcare entities to keep records documenting compliance with such statutes, as well as to to submit certifications to HHS that they are indeed following the law.
OCR said that the rule was necessary as some remain confused about whether or not federal or state laws require individuals to participate in abortions or sterilizations, despite the existence of protections such as the Weldon Amendment and the Coats-Snowe Amendment.
“For instance, some advocacy organizations have filed lawsuits claiming that federal or state laws require private religious entities to perform abortions and sterilizations despite the existence of longstanding conscience and anti‐discrimination protections on this topic,” the department outlined in its rule explanation.
“A patient also sued a secular public hospital for accommodating doctors’ and nurses’ religious objections to abortion in alleged violation of a state law, Washington’s Reproductive Privacy Act,” it stated.
However, several lawsuits were soon filed against the new rule, including a legal challenge led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. More than a dozen other states joined the complaint, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Oregon. California filed its own lawsuit separately.
“Health care is a basic right that should never be subject to political games. Once again, the courts have blocked the Trump Administration from implementing a discriminatory rule that would only hurt Americans,” James said in a statement on Wednesday.
“The refusal of care rule was an unlawful attempt to allow health care providers to openly discriminate and refuse to provide necessary health care to patients based on providers’ ‘religious beliefs or moral objections,’” she added. “We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to protect access to health care and protect the rights of all individuals.”
However, religious liberties organizations, such as Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) expressed disappointment following Engelmayer’s ruling, noting that protecting the rights of all must include those with religious convictions — and it is people of faith who are rather being discriminated against.
“Medical professionals should never have to sacrifice the core convictions that led them to enter medicine, in order to serve in that very field. This HHS Conscience Rule clarifies and implements more than 30 laws protecting conscience rights in health care, including some protections that have been in effect for decades,” said legal counsel Denise Harle in a statement.
“The district court’s order vacating the rule strips the federal government of its ability to meaningfully interpret and apply these critical conscience protections ensuring that health care workers can live and work consistently with their consciences, without fear of discrimination,” she lamented.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Calling out inept, traitorous, and corrupt politicians among Europe's ruling class online is officially banned, worldwide. After usurping authority over the peoples and nations of Europe, a European Union court just ruled that U.S.-based social-media companies must comply with anti-free speech decrees by European authorities. Under the ruling handed down by the so-called European Court of Justice last week, judges made clear that the criticism of a fringe political figure must be censored all over the world — not just inside the EU or in the specific nation where authorities consider the speech illegal. Critics called the move Orwellian and crazy.
The case in question involved Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, a far-left Austrian politician with the totalitarian Green Party who was ridiculed on Facebook by her critics. Among other criticism, she was referred to online as a “corrupt oaf” and a “lousy traitor of the people” for her extreme political views. Obviously these were the opinions of the authors. Another critic blasted her Green Party for being a “fascist” political party. Apparently Europeans thought her demands for never-ending tax-funded welfare payments for refugees were ridiculous, among other positions. But expressing that opinion publicly is now illegal, worldwide, under the ruling from the Luxembourg-based court.
Glawischnig-Piesczek filed a complaint in Austria's courts, alleging that the opinions expressed by her critics were “defamatory.” Facebook complied with a court order to remove the criticism. However, the social-media giant, which has developed a global reputation for its hostility to free speech and support for left-wing politics, only censored the offending views within Austria. That was not enough for Glawischnig-Piesczek — she did not want anyone, anywhere on the planet to be able to read what people thought about her, or to post anything similar. So she appealed. After winding its way through that nation's legal system, the Austrian Supreme Court asked the European Court of Justice to take up the case.
Oral arguments were heard in February. And last week, the ECJ, as the court is known, ruled that if speech is ruled illegal in one EU member state, then technology companies must censor it all over the world. The ruling also noted that duplicate or identical content posted in other countries must be removed, too. That means, for instance, that certain Eastern European governments still largely under the control of “former” communist tyrants will now be able to censor their critics and prevent foreigners from learning the truth. Even Americans may be banned from posting it. Companies will not be held liable, though, as long as they delete the content or “equivalent” opinions “expeditiously” upon being ordered to do so.
In a statement issued on behalf of the EU's top court, the judges said that under the ruling, EU member states were free to order Internet companies to censor “information [deemed unlawful] worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law.” EU member governments are supposed to take that international “law” into “account” when ordering companies to block access to the material. Officially, there is no way to “appeal” the EU court's ruling, although it is not clear how the outfit may be able to enforce its rulings on the U.S.-based firms.
In an incredibly Orwellian response, the radical politician claimed the ruling was “a historic success for human rights against web giants.” As analysts pointed out, though, real rights include the right to hold and express an opinion about politicians. On the other hand, there is no right for politicians or anyone else not to be offended. Meanwhile, the victory was not against “web giants,” but against everyday citizens seeking to express their opinions about a Green politician working to rule them and hand their hard-earned money to foreigners.
The claim that the ruling against free speech was somehow a victory for “human rights,” though, does contain truth if one uses the "international" definition of human rights. Unlike in America, where the Founding Fathers said it was a self-evident truth that God created people with certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, property, and so on) and that government is instituted to protect those rights, under the human rights vision advanced by the United Nations and the EU, there are no God-given rights, or any rights at all, actually. As the UN explains in Article 29, your “rights” may in “no case be used contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
So in a twisted sort of way, global censorship of political tyrants is actually a “historic success for human rights,” as Glawischnig-Piesczek put it. As the UN has made clear for years, it considers the unalienable rights guaranteed to Americans under the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions — free speech, self-defense, gun rights, due process, and more — to be violations of the UN's “international human rights law.” Even laws restricting the killing of unborn babies have been attacked by the UN as a “violation” of “human rights.” So it is no surprise to see totalitarians claim that censorship of political discourse is also needed for “human rights.”
In a bit of unintended irony, a U.K.-based free speech group named “Article 19” — a reference to the UN's “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and its article on free expression — slammed the controversial ruling. “This judgment has major implications for online freedom of expression around the world,” Article 19 Executive Director Thomas Hughes was quoted as saying in the media, with legal analysts quoted in various press reports noting that the ECJ ruling would apply in the United Kingdom, despite Brexit.
“Compelling social media platforms like Facebook to automatically remove posts regardless of their context will infringe our right to free speech and restrict the information we see online,” continued Hughes. “The judgment does not take into account the limitations of technology when it comes to automated filters. The ruling also means that a court in one EU member state will be able to order the removal of social media posts in other countries, even if they are not considered unlawful there. This would set a dangerous precedent where the courts of one country can control what internet users in another country can see. This could be open to abuse, particularly by regimes with weak human rights records.”
In a statement after the ruling, Facebook expressed concerns. “It undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country,” the company complained. The judgment also raises questions about free expression and “the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country.” During a meeting with employees after the decision was handed down, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg reportedly said: “I think it’s a very troubling precedent to set.”
Of course, as regular readers of this magazine know well, the Big Tech social-media giants — especially Facebook — hardly needed to be coerced into helping globalists and totalitarians censor the Internet. In fact, the U.S.-based technology giants willingly joined hands with both Brussels and the UN to squelch voices they disagreed with. As The New Americanreported in June of 2016, the Big Tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (owned by Google), Microsoft, and more signed on to the EU's “Code of Conduct” promising to censor everything from criticism of Islam and concerns about mass migration to support for marriage and biological reality on gender. Just last month, the technology companies joined with the UN to censor “extremism” online.
DARMSTADT, Germany, July 4, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A family court has decided that a married homeschooling couple should be allowed custody of their minor children.
Homeschoolers Dirk and Petra Wunderlich lost legal custody of Machsejach, Joshua, Hannanjah and Serajah in August 2013 when police removed the children from their home. Thanks to the recent court decision, the guardianship of Hannanjah and Serajah, now the only minors in the family, has been returned to their parents.
The girls have indicated that they want to be educated at home.
According to CBN News, a Christian news website, the judge who ordered the removal of the children in 2013 was replaced in the case “on the grounds of bias.”
The surprise decision follows the Wunderlich family’s unsuccessful attempt to regain custody of the children through the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) earlier this year. The court refused to concede that parents have the right, under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, to educate their children exclusively at home. Refusing to send children to school is against the law in Germany.
Robert Clarke, director of European advocacy for ADF International, was the lead counsel for the Wunderlich family at the ECHR. In response to the German court’s new ruling, Clarke reiterated that parents have the right to determine their children’s education.
“The right of parents to direct the education of their children is a fundamental right, protected in international law,” Clarke said.
“We are pleased to see that the German court respected this right and acknowledged that the Wunderlich children are doing well,” he continued.
“As we wait for referral to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, we hope that, there too, the rights of the Wunderlich family will be safeguarded,” Clarke said.
According to the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, the Wunderlichs’ long struggle with the German justice system began in 2006 when a court fined the parents “several hundred euros for homeschooling.”
In 2008, the devout Christian family left Germany to continue homeschooling in France. In 2009, after intervention by the German government, French authorities removed the Wunderlich children from their home but returned them a few days later. In 2012, after being unable to find long-term employment, the Wunderlich family returned to Germany.
That October, a German district court took legal custody of the Wunderlich children away from their parents and gave it to German social services.
In August 2013, the children were removed from their home for three weeks.
Dirk Wunderlich described his anguish on that occasion to Deutsche Welle this January, saying “August 29, 2013, as 40 officials stood before our door, was the most horrible day for us.”
Apparently, the authorities had been contacted by neighbors who claimed Dirk had said he would rather kill his children than send them to school. He called the allegation “nonsense” and “invented.”
On September 19, 2013, the children were returned to their parents on condition that they attend public school, and their passports were revoked. The following August, the passports and custody of the children were returned to the family by order of a German court. The following month, the Wunderlichs resumed homeschooling.
Then in April 2015, both the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International filed an application at the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the Wunderlich family. The following year, the ECHR decided to take the case. In January 2017, the German government presented its defense to the ECHR. In April 2017, the HLDA and ADF presented their response to Germany’s arguments.
However, on January 10, the European Court of Human Rights sided with the German government against the Wunderlich family. According to newsmagazine Deutsche Welle, the court found that the family “had not provided sufficient evidence that the children were properly educated and socialized” and “that a government removing children from their parents to ensure they receive an education did not violate Article 8” of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In an interview with CBN News, the older Wunderlich children indicated that they thought their stint in public school was a waste of time.
“When there are so many children and they are talking about all kinds of things, it’s really loud,” Joshua said.
“In homeschooling, I felt like we were able to learn a lot more in a shorter time,” Machsejach added. “In school, they always make it so long and still you learn less than in homeschool.”
(Publisher’s comment: We carried the original story when these precious children were removed from these stalwart Christian parents. We are so happy to be able to report on these happy results. We commend those who stood by them in prayer and support.)
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A Canadian medical committee has ordered a chiropractor to pay $100,000 for sharing “anti-vaccine” views on social media.
The ruling, publicized Thursday, orders Dr. Dena Churchill of Halifax to pay the Nova Scotia College of Chiropractors for “professional misconduct” after she shared “her personal views that vaccinations could be harmful.”
“Dr. Churchill’s conduct brought the profession of chiropractic into disrepute,” the committee wrote.
The college maintained social media posts Dr. Churchill made in 2018 were an “egregious breach” of the national chiropractic association’s guidelines, which reportedly order chiropractors “not to discuss vaccines in any capacity,” according to the CBC.
“Dr. Churchill was responsible for social media posts outside her scope of practice which were harmful to the public,” the committee wrote, noting she was defiant of regulators and refused to delete certain posts.
“Dr. Churchill maintained significant social media activity which is outside the scope of practice of chiropractic in Nova Scotia despite direct instruction to stop. That is egregious conduct.”
The committee also noted that Dr. Churchill refused to bend to pressure, maintaining, “Her personal views are her personal views,” and that she “does not retreat from those views” that vaccines can cause harm.
“The entire matter could have been avoided if Dr. Churchill deleted offending posts from her social media account, the committee admits, adding, “She refused.”
“Dr. Churchill has been found guilty of the charges that have been filed against her,” the Hearing Committee wrote.
After taking her finances and health into consideration, the committee decided to allow Dr. Churchill to pay $100,000 over the course of 10 years, maintaining that if she didn’t pay “at least a total of $30,000 by January 2, 2022,” she’d have to pay the total in full.
In a Facebook post Friday, Dr. Churchill thanked the CBC for its coverage of her story.
“My sincere hope is that my example will awaken more of the public to the control and manipulation of the medical industrial complex,” she wrote.
“[T]he article is perfectly correct in that I have no remorse and I would do it all over again if I had the opportunity,” said Dr. Churchill.
“VACCINES ARE DANGEROUS educated people know this if they study the research. ‘Anti’ is a word used to divide the population, I’d encourage you to BE VACCINE INFORMED.”
“Silencing us doctors in any discipline is against the charter of rights and freedoms,” she added. “And to silence us when we are trying to relate dangers to public based on research is criminal!”
Dr. Churchill did not immediately respond to Infowars’ request for comment.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Supreme Court has rejected challenges against a federal law that restricts the ownership of silencers and suppressors.
Without comment or recorded dissent, the court declined the appeals of Kansas army surplus store owner Shane Cox and customer Jeremy Kettler who were both convicted for being in violation of the National Firearms Act for possessing “unregistered” gun silencers.
Their lawyers argue the 1934 act, that requires a background check and payment of a fee to purchase a silencer, violates their clients’ Second Amendment rights.
“Kettler’s attorneys argued he believed the ‘purchase, possession, and use of such a suppressor was entirely lawful,’” reports the Washington Examiner. “Lawyers for Cox told the Supreme Court in filings he never would have made or sold the suppressors had he not thought it was legal to do so under a Kansas gun law passed in 2013.”
Kettler, who purchased a silencer from Cox’s store in 2014, was interviewed by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) after he posted himself using the new gun accessory on Facebook.
“[I did] nothing wrong,” said Kettler to ATF agents, according to his lawyers.
Kettler was convicted with “possession of an unregistered firearm” and Cox was convicted of five counts of “transferring an unregistered silencer,” both activities a crime according to the National Firearms Act.
An appeals court had ruled that silencers are not protected by the Second Amendment because they’re not “bearable arms,” distinguishing that “firearm accessories” are not a “weapon in itself.”
The Monday SCOTUS order comes on the heels of President Trump saying he would “seriously look at” a ban on silencers and suppressors during his recent visit to the U.K.
Alex Jones Warns Trump: 1776 Will Commence Again If You Take Our Guns
Meet the Founders: JoAnn DeBartolo & Tom Ravana. They were the Chairmen for the Collier County TRUMP for President Campaign. Trump's successful win in 2016, led them to keep the momentum going by creating the Collier for Trump Club. Learn more here: http://ow.ly/yVk630jMyNv.
SEE: https://www.collier4trump.com/ J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK PURSUES FORECLOSURE & SEIZURE OF HOME OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS YEARS AFTER MORTGAGE SATISFIED BY GOOD SAMARITAN~COUPLE'S CAR RAMMED BY ILLEGAL; HOSPITAL, INSURANCE & LEGAL BILLS
PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR GO FUND ME ACCOUNT
Joann Debartolo & Tom Ravana were hit by an illegal alien and due to medical bills they are now at risk of losing their home. They join Roger Stone via Skype to discuss the details.
FIRST COURT SIDED WITH THEM. APPEALS COURT REFUSED TO ADMIT THEIR EVIDENCE; ONLY THE BANK'S.
JoAnn & Tom were the Chairmen for the Collier County Donald J TRUMP for President Campaign. With the successful & unprecedented win in 2016, they decided to keep the momentum going by creating the Collier for Trump Club, Inc.
Through their hard work & commitment, Collier County was the #1 County in the State of Florida as a percentage for get out the vote in the Florida Primary. JoAnn & Tom built a network of loyal Trump volunteers over the 15 months of campaigning. These volunteers are still loyal to the Republican cause and come out to support any Donald Trump events they sponsor.
On Illegal Immigration...
JoAnn is extremely passionate about the status of illegal immigration in our country today. A few years ago, she was involved in a terrible accident, where her car was struck by an illegal immigrant. As she lay in the hospital for almost two months, she began her hard, long road to recovery and learning to walk again. While she still suffers with pain today, she still considers herself blessed. JoAnn hopes that through stronger illegal immigration practices, no one else will have to suffer the way she did, and hopes to end illegal immigration for good.
The allocution of Doreen Hendrickson of Michigan, detailing the crimes against her First and Fifth Amendment rights involved in the charges against her and in her subsequent trials, read for the camera by Katie Hendrickson.
WOMAN JAILED FOR REFUSING FEDERAL ORDER TO COMMIT PERJURY
When a federal court and the federal government ordered Doreen Hendrickson to sign a form under penalty of perjury that she believed to be inaccurate, the mother of two initially refused to comply.
Eventually, she obeyed but noted that the sworn statement was being made under duress.
Now, because of that decision, she is sitting behind bars for “contempt of court.”
A federal appeal is being considered in what sources called an “unprecedented” case, with arguments from both sides presented last month.
The case’s has broad implications for free speech and due process.
Hendrickson’s saga officially began in 2006, when the Internal Revenue Service claimed that refunds it had issued to her years earlier were mistakes, according to the family and official documents reviewed by WND.
In 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice went much further, asking a federal court to sign an order purporting to force Hendrickson to repudiate her previous tax returns and sign new ones.
However, she was never even accused by the government of tax evasion or filing false returns, much less convicted.
The DOJ, however, wanted her to replace her original returns – signed under penalty of perjury – with new documents in which the content would be dictated by the IRS, also signed under penalty of perjury. They flew in prosecutor Melissa Siskind from Washington to pursue the case.
Hendrickson believed the information dictated by the IRS was incorrect, so she could not sign it without an explanatory note pointing out that it was made under duress, she explained.
Indeed, no U.S. government official was willing to swear under penalty of perjury that he believed what the government wanted Hendrickson to swear she believed.
Because the new return would also have to be signed under penalty of perjury, had Hendrickson complied without indicating the coercion, she would have essentially admitted to perjuring herself on the original return.
The dispute has observers and legal experts baffled.
“I can’t say in 30 year[s] of practicing law that I’ve ever seen anything like this,” Hendrickson’s appellate attorney, Mark Cedrone, told WND over the phone.
The case
In short, the federal government put Hendrickson in a Catch 22 situation and appears to have violated constitutional protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, including the First and Fifth amendments.
Fundamental free speech rights and due process are at issue in the case.
In what observers and attorneys believe is unprecedented in American history, federal prosecutors sought to compel a person not only to speak, but to affirm under penalty of perjury the truthfulness of something the person did not believe to be true, all to advance the government’s desired narrative in court.
The Justice Department did not respond to repeated requests by phone and email for information from WND.
Husband Pete Hendrickson, however, told WND the government was trying to coerce his wife into committing perjury, using threats, in a manner that would financially benefit the government.
“Further, Doreen was ordered to conceal the fact that the false testimony was coerced,” he said. “She was ordered to render it in such a fashion that anyone seeing it would conclude that the testimony was entirely Doreen’s freely made of her own accord and representing what she really believes [to be] true.”
In what her husband called “ironic” and “chilling,” the indictment against his wife for refusing to say what the DOJ wanted her to say came at almost the same time as the Supreme Court ruled yet again that the First Amendment “prevents the government from telling people what they must say.”
In the summer of 2013, federal agents took her to a federal facility in downtown Detroit on an indictment of “contempt of court” for refusing to go along with the demand.
“I don’t want my kids to grow up in a world where they’re afraid to say what’s true, because the government wants them to say something different,” Doreen Hendrickson says in a video posted online. “That isn’t any way to live.”
When she still refused to comply with the court order instructing her to sign the declaration without reservations noting the coercion, she was convicted of “contempt of court” and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
She could go back for more time if she does not comply with what the Hendricksons contend are illegal orders upon release late this year.
The first trial ended in a hung jury after Hendrickson was allowed to read Supreme Court rulings about speech rights. But in the second, she was prevented from doing so, and the government was successful in securing a conviction.
In the trials, the judge instructed the jury, “properly” according to the federal government’s appellate brief, that the legality of ordering Hendrickson to sign something she did not believe to be true was not at issue.
Pete Hendrickson, outraged, blasted the “co-conspiring judge” and the controversial instructions given to the jury, which are an important element of the appeal.
“This is utterly offensive to the constitutional protections of speech and conscience, and of due process, which provides that anyone in a legal contest with another party – even when that other party is the United States [government] – is entitled to make their own claims, to argue their own facts, and is under no circumstances obliged to endorse the views of their opponent,” he said.
“The assault on Doreen Hendrickson is an assault on every American,” Pete Hendrickson told WND. “What’s being done to this good woman undermines the very rule of law which is the only thing keeping us from arbitrary and despotic government.
“No one can be told what to say by the government,” he continued, “and especially not what to say she believes true.”
The First Amendment “says this in as plain a way as it can be said,” Pete Hendrickson said, adding that “the amendment means what it says,” as “has been endlessly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court and all other courts of every kind throughout the country and throughout our history.”
“This is perhaps the most well-settled point in American legal history,” he added, referring to speech rights.
In her statement before sentencing denouncing the “illegal” schemes of the government and the court, Doreen Hendrickson lashed out at the prosecutor for her “lies” and lambasted the “criminal” process used to secure her conviction.
“No one, not even the government, gets to preemptively evade the contest or control its outcome by taking, or being given, control of what its opponents say – even if it really thinks what is being said or might be said is wrong,” she told the court. “Both sides must rely on the strength of their own arguments to overcome those of their opponent, and are prohibited from using strong-arm tactics against each other. In fact, efforts to secure favorable testimony in such a contest by threats or coercion are crimes.”
Hendrickson also noted that she expected to prevail upon appeal and outlined the reasons why.
A book on the ‘witch trial’
Observers who witnessed the trial also expressed outrage over what they saw and contend that Hendrickson was railroaded in a sham proceeding that was rigged from the start.
Brian Wright, a longtime liberty activist who attended the trial, was so moved by the “travesty” he observed in the trial that he decided to write a book, “The Motor City Witchcraft Trial(s),” outlining alleged abuses behind the case.
“I knew from day one – from the blatant, self-righteous hostility of the judge, from her constant badgering of Doreen, from the assignment of an incompetent legal aide to supposedly help Doreen with her case, from the manner of the prosecution’s presentation of their ‘case’, from instructions to the jury, from the open collaboration of the judge with the prosecution, and later from obvious judicial tampering with the jury – that the fix was in,” Wright told WND.
“This was not a court of law, but a tribunal of Soviet-style justice: guilty regardless of anything,” he added.
He said the case was not a tax case but rather a case of whether government and the courts can compel a person to commit perjury and attest to something she or he believes is false, “such as whether she’s a witch.”
The abuses were so serious, Wright continued, that there should have been a grand jury investigation to “indict all these government officials for the crime of suborning perjury.”
The order given to Hendrickson to “perjure” herself was clearly unlawful, Wright argued. However, he recalled the judge in the case demanding, including to the jury in the instructions, that the most crucial issue not be discussed.
“Clearly, justice requires that Doreen be released, her record expunged and that she receive restitution for the crime of false imprisonment,” the author and activist said.
He also called for all officials involved in the “crime of suborning Doreen’s perjury” to be indicted, convicted and imprisoned for their “heinous act of violence.”
The reason? Tax book, critics say
The reason the federal government was so adamant in pursuing Doreen Hendrickson, according to sources who spoke with WND, centers on a book written by Pete Hendrickson called “Cracking the Code.”
The book claims it can show readers how to legally avoid paying income taxes in some cases.
WND has not reviewed the book nor its arguments. But in court documents seen by WND, including the government’s appellate brief, the federal government says it rejects the “frivolous” “theory.”
Still, for reasons that remain unclear and officially unexplained, Doreen Hendrickson was never charged with filing a false return, tax evasion, lying on her tax filings or anything similar.
Instead, the only charge was not obeying a court order to sign the revised form with content dictated by the IRS.
The Hendricksons, along with many of their supporters, contend that the government went after Doreen Hendrickson primarily in a ham-handed effort to discredit the claims in the book, retaliate against those making the claims and deter future cases based on those arguments.
“This entire affair is an effort to discredit my book,” said Pete Hendrickson, adding that many Americans had successfully used the arguments he advances and posted the evidence of success online.
The federal government has sought to stop Pete Hendrickson, unsuccessfully so far, in court.
In her statements to the court prior to sentencing, Doreen Hendrickson chastised the judge and prosecutors, saying their real agenda was to “chill” the free speech of Americans.
“Everyone in this room knows the government’s call to [U.S. District Judge] Nancy Edmunds to issue her orders to me was wrong and lawless – as are the orders themselves – and that the pretense of a legitimate government interest in chilling the free expression of other Americans was even more broadly and darkly criminal,” Doreen Hendrickson said. “It does not speak well of Nancy Edmunds that she didn’t refer [government agent] Mr. Metcalfe for prosecution upon being presented with his demand and its revealing justifications.”
Blasting the government’s argument that she be sentenced harshly as a “deterrent” to others as “demented, un-American and Constitution-defying,” the Doreen Hendrickson said it could not be a deterrent to “resisting government-requested orders from a court dictating what they must say they believe to be true and correct.”
“No such orders have ever been issued to anyone in American history before this was done to my husband and me, and none have never been issued since,” she continued, noting that that was not surprising, considering that such orders are “illegal.”
“Therefore, what the government must mean is to deter other Americans from testifying freely and honestly on their own tax forms, or anywhere else they are asked or expected to say what they believe to be true and correct, or have a need to make claims on their own behalf or assert and defend their interests in a legal contest,” she continued. “Thus, the government’s call for a harsh sentence is a call upon this court to use a sentence upon me to commit a crime against the speech, conscience and due process rights of other Americans – indeed, all Americans.”
A family devastated, seeking justice
For Katie Hendrickson, Doreen Hendrickson’s 24-year-old daughter, the whole experience was traumatic and shocking.
“I’ve seen corruption in government through many lenses, professional and personal alike,” she told WND. “At my jobs, I saw it more from a distance, it being an ethereal thing that went bump in the night, with no real form or head, just a mammoth to battle. In the government’s various battles with my parents, however, I’ve seen the corruption up close and personal, in but a few of its many forms and bodies, face-to-face. I’ve seen what weapons the status quo will use to defend itself against all attacks, even if those attacks come by way of truths revealed.”
Katie said it was hard to face the reality that “our” government is willing to “lie and cheat” to protect its own interests, even at the expense of law-abiding citizens.
It is especially difficult to see the dark times Americans are living in for “a relatively idealistic person like me,” she continued.
“My mother is in prison for refusing to lie in order to allow the government to cheat,” she said.
But the suffering goes far beyond just what has happened to Doreen Hendrickson, Katie said, noting the imprisonment has “worn on all of us.”
“People have a tendency to think that someone being imprisoned affects the prisoner most of all, but I would counter that the punishment, while different, is equal,” she said. “You see, the prisoner is kept confined and monitored, and often mistreated, and of course, that’s painful for them. But the family left behind, waiting for them to come home, suffers through constant reminders that things are not what they should be, that something is wrong.”
When asked what she hopes will come out of the ordeal, her answer was simple.
“Honestly, I hope for justice,” she said.
“I want the American people to be made aware of what their money has supported, and for them to realize how wrong it is, and for them to act on that realization and take a stand against the government’s stubborn protection of its own assets, no matter the cost,” Katie continued. “What’s been done to my family, wrongful imprisonment for refusing to support corruption, is an outrage. I want simply for those responsible to be held accountable and tried for any crimes they’ve committed in pursuit of this end, and for justice to be carried out accordingly.”
“That’s all I want: justice,” she concluded.
Appeal process
The Hendrickson case is currently in the appeals process, with arguments having been heard last month.
The defense argued, among other points, that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury concerning critical issues.
Also at issue is Doreen Hendrickson’s First Amendment right to say what she believes, the appellate brief contends.
Finally, the manner in which the case was charged and prosecuted was defective, according to the defense.
Love him or hate him, Dinesh D’Souza is already an American legend, and you can get his bestselling films and books direct from WND!
“Today Doreen Hendrickson sits in a federal prison for having the temerity to disagree with the government and expressing her disagreement,” Doreen Hendrickson’s attorney for the appeals process, Cedrone, told WND.
“As required under the court order for which she stands convicted of violating, on two occasions, Mrs. Hendrickson submitted amended tax returns,” he explained. “In doing so, she reported as income earnings that she truly believes are not properly subject to tax. Since tax returns require one to affirm her subjective belief of the accuracy of the recorded information, Mrs. Hendrickson qualified her filings by stating her disagreement with the compelled characterization of certain items as income.
“No one disputes that Mrs. Hendrickson believe[s] what she claims to believe,” Cedrone added. “Instead, our constitutional government has unilaterally decided that her good efforts to comply with a court order are simply not good enough because she expressed her sincerely held view that the items she was required to declare as income are not income.
“This represents a shameful abuse of public authority,” the attorney added.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/woman-jailed-for-refusing-federal-order-to-commit-perjury/#sTbjQWkZZj7EF3k2.99
