In sham hearing, judge-sullied jury convicts Doreen Hendrickson of integrity
Are you next?
Simple as that. The comparisons to the Salem Witchcraft trials are apt, where people accused by the church elders of being witches were obliged to either:
- admit to witchcraft (~ Doreen falsifying a tax affidavit form) and throw themselves on the mercy of the court to perhaps only suffer imprisonment (in Doreen’s case, resulting in stating income—federally privileged earnings—which the government might then assert to require a tax payment), or
- deny being a witch (~ Doreen filling out a tax affidavit form legally and truthfully), from which the judges assume defiance, and thus conclude the person is a very dangerous witch who must be killed (in Doreen’s case, be torn from her family and home to a federal facility in Virginia for several months).
[Note: Pete Hendrickson’s background writeup on his wife’s prosecution contends her trial is technically more of a heresy trial in the classic Galileo Galilei vein. Nonetheless, parallels exist between heresy and witchcraft accusations, both assert harm to the collective consciousness. But the excesses in Salem, 1692-1693, seem more pertinent to me as a) being of American origin and b) being a foundational horror that the 1st Amendment was constructed to vigorously prevent.]
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” — Mark Twain
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi
“The defendant is charged with knowingly and willfully disobeying a lawful court order.”
Brief Day-to-Day Summary
Note: Up front let me tell you that I’ll be composing a short book (same title as this column) to try to turn Doreen’s persecution into a cause celebre, that I hope will reignite the enthusiasm of patriots everywhere to throw off, not only the shackles represented by the judge-prosecution team attack in US v. Doreen, but the entire Egg-Plant-that-Ate-Chicago-sized tumor that the US federal government has become. I aim to turn this legalistic scourge, slamming of a wonderful woman, wife, and mother, into a catalyst of American Liberation. Even the Mafia does not stoop to attacking a family’s women! NOW… WE… WIN.
The Theodore Levin Courthouse in Detroit is 27 miles away from where I live, but having never been there I was filled with the normal amount of travel apprehension. But that concern proved unfounded; getting to and from the court was relatively easy and hassle free… which may stand me in good stead if I ever feel the urge to drop in again as part of a civics assignment. Seriously, it’s quite a building, and this experience has eliminated all the concerns I have ever had about contacting any of these government officials at any time… say, about convening grand juries for heinous state crimes.
Monday 21 July 2014, 0930 to 1400—Doreen’s Peanut Gallery: 10
Reaching court shortly into the proceedings, it is immediately pounded home to all the little boys and girls that the prosecution and judge are, indeed, on the same team. The cooperation is so blatant, it’s like a baseball umpire calling every pitch 10 feet away from the batter a strike when his team is in the field and a ball when his team is at the plate. Even a juror with the attention span of a TV remote-control and the IQ of zucchini realizes the obvious; these two restrictions I observed in the courtroom before the jury was picked:
- Motion by prosecution (PM) for jury to not be informed of hung jury on trial 1, approved by judge (ABJ), no objection by defense (NOBD).
- PM that the lawfulness of the judge’s order to Doreen be disregarded ABJ, NOBD—though I think Doreen or Doreen’s court-paid legal advisor—I believe his name is Andrew but let’s just call him “Lumpy”—may have tried to keep the lawfulness of the order relevant.
Then as a defense witness I had to remain outside until being called on Thursday. Bummer. From the gitgo, everything I saw was stacked for the space-lizard tag team. Reasonableness of pointing out lawlessness of a judge suborning perjury—the essence of the case and Doreen’s true defense (for refusing to lie and thereby commit a major felony crime)—was somehow not to be presented as such to the jury. [Fortunately, we were able to emphasize refusal to commit perjury several times throughout the week, maybe due to the judge’s occasional mininaps or the DC prosecutors’ Wile E. Coyote daydreams.]
Two other witnesses were posted outside the chambers with me, and these men—let’s call them A and B—proved wonderful sources of knowledge and inspiration for the week. A has considerable courtroom knowledge and B has a long and supportive background with the blossoming Cracking the Code (CtC) movement. The rest of the morning in the courtroom is jury selection; I’m sorry to miss it. Fodder for the book. Attendance of supporters is disappointing, but maybe I can rattle some pans out on the sidewalk.
Tuesday 22 July 2014, 0900 to 1330—Doreen’s Peanut Gallery: 06
Another day into the breach. Again for me it’s all cooling heels and chitchat with the others outside the courtroom. Not a large enough pool to seat a jury yesterday, with all the challenges exercised by both sides; this morning the final two jurors are picked. Government testimony starts, it’s distressing how few Doreen supporters are here: the CtC community is large and thousands of individuals across the country have received tens of millions of dollars in refunds for inapplicable tax payments. You’d think a few of these beneficiaries of Pete’s knowledge, passion, and patriotism could afford a bus ticket to Detroit to help his wife in her hour o’ need and official trashing.
We all realize the badgering and hostile legal attacks against the Hendricksons—none of which challenge CtC’s discovery of the true nature of income—are merely to make examples of them and frighten their adherents who have learned the ‘fascinating truth.’ But the attacks will backfire; the movement will only get stronger no matter how the cookie crumbles this week: As it says in the Bible, “We shall know the truth… and we’re definitely not going back to Kansas.” The gummint wants to distract the jury by making this about taxes. I see through the windows the Munsters hovering and yammering over stacks of six-inch-spined notebooks that they claim show improper form filling, disobedience, etc., for years in the background (2002, 2003, 2007, 2008). Yikes, it’s a G-man paperfest!
To get more people to attend the trial, that night I go home to rally the troops with a column: Still Time to Stand Up for Doreen Hendrickson! Between David Lonier of Auburn Hills and my mailing lists, Facebook Groups, and so on, perhaps 4K to 5K people are pinged.
Wednesday 23 July 2014, 0900 to 1330—Doreen’s Peanut Gallery: 12
The gummint witnesses and prosecutors continue muddying the waters, wearing the jury down with tax-form minutiae. Unfortunately, Pete and Doreen cannot afford—or probably even find—a ‘real’ attorney who a) understands the law generally, b) has the balls to assert CtC’s rational interpretation of the tax code, and, most important, c) has a full command of courtroom thrusts and parries. Lumpy offers nary an objection or substantive defense-helpful motion for the entire week: “Hi, I’m from the government and I don’t do jack.”
The only real issue of this trial is whether a person may be ordered to affidavit untruthfully by a judge. The only answer to that question is NO! [And, of course, a grand jury indicts the judge for suborning perjury, and said judge, after a speedy trial, is headed off to the iron-cage country club.] Thus, Doreen is tried and acquitted same morning, jurors go home, missing rush hour traffic… which is all they ever wanted to do anyway. Ah, how wonderful and easy the world will be when Toto pulls back the curtain on the Tired Old Wizard of the Church of State!
But I’m jarred back to current Bizarro World…
Overall impression I get from some of the peanut gallery is that Doreen is struggling and being worn down, Judge Roberts is approving all the myriad prosecution objections, and letting the Munsters steamroll her. Others contend that Doreen is still making strong points and counterpoints on the tax documentation. Overall sense among the team is dreary and down. Plus, still only 12 today in the peanut gallery.
Thursday 24 July 2014, 0900 to 1330—Doreen’s Peanut Gallery: 24
We witnesses thought yesterday would be our time on the stand, alas, we wait until today. I figure to be fourth behind Doreen’s daughter Katie, A, and B. But surprises lay in store. First, Katie is held up in traffic and I arrive later. A takes the stand, then B, then Doreen’s ex-husband Tony Wright shows up to go third. Until you testify, you don’t get to join the card game. I can tell A is a bit rattled from the Munsters’ cross exam. I know what he’s thinking, that the state will come after witnesses, too. Still, I look at that prospect this way:
I conjure up the scene in the Charles Bronson movie Mr. Majestyk, where Majestyk (Bronson) is sitting at a table in a restaurant when the Mafia goomba walks in. Mafia goes on and on about what Mafia is going to do to Majestyk for causing Mafia so much trouble:
“I’m going to grind your gonads into horse radish, end your days in a river of pain, laugh while you beg for mercy. What do you think about that?!”
Majestyk stares at Mafia calmly for a few seconds, then like a thunderclap stands and delivers a punch to Mafia’s jaw, knocking him out cold. Majestyk says, “Guess there’s no sense getting on your good side.”
I tell B:
“You know, I just turned 65. Fact is, unless we can turn back the broad categories of government assault on humankind inside the next two years, we’re all going to be dirt poor, poisoned, dead, or languishing in the FEMA camps. Like Omar Mukhtar (Anthony Quinn) in Lion of the Desert, I say let the Great Spirit come and take me; I’m going for it. Carpe diem, MFs! All I hope for is a year or two to put my Good Neighbor Libertarian plan into motion.”
Today is turning out to be good and hopeful from my perspective. The main point of the witnesses is to a) confirm Doreen’s state of mind and quandary about how to obey the order while not committing the crime of perjury and b) corroborate that one of the federal orders reveal blatant ignorance of what CtC says about income. I am astonished that Doreen is able to question me without interruption by the Munsters or their teammate on the bench; Doreen voices all the main points eloquently.
On cross, Myrtle (not her real name) asks me if I wrote the following sentence in this column on my Website: “…this is a Kangaroo court with a capital K, before a control-freak judge and prosecution with the moral conscience of the Israeli Army at a Gaza day-care center.” I answer yes… exuding a fair amount of artistic pride. M obviously thinks my statement so wildly despicable that she’s scored a knockout punch with the jury; she finishes with a smug smile, “That is my only question.” Funny, I feel just the opposite, that the jury will appreciate my colorful metaphor that reaffirms what’s so patently obvious.
Katie Hendrickson’s Grand Slam
Okay, ego aside, I give my performance 3 out of 5 stars for at least appearing normal, human, and amiable while facilitating clear powerful statements in Doreen’s defense. But compared to Katie Hendrickson, Doreen’s daughter and next witness for the defense, I’m a third-string right-fielder. Katie is attractive, smart, fresh, and sparkles with confidence that people are good and worthwhile and can grasp clearly expressed thoughts.
Doreen asks Katie the same questions I got. Further cementing the obvious to the jury: that Doreen is solely on trial for refusing to obey an unlawful order and that the gummint completely misunderstands the CtC discovery of the legal nature of income. Myrtle refers to Katie’s blog and Facebook page, as well. Then unbelievably, Myrtle notes to the jury in a disparaging tone that Katie believes in FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association). Oh… my… god! This is like the fox letting the chickens out of the coop, then calling the farmer over and handing him a rifle.
Prosecutors and judges in all jurisdictions go to great lengths to prevent jurors from even dreaming they possess the ultimate legal authority in a case. Juries absolutely do have the authority… as Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) in the 1988 movie, The Verdict, advises his jury: “You ARE the law.” FIJA has been working to let defendants inform juries of their power—over the fervent resistance of the judicial pathocracy—to judge both law and fact, to acquit if they regard the law unjust, inapplicable, or its penalties too extreme. And today, a high-ranking poobah of that pathocracy has just said to Katie, “Here, why don’t you explain jury power to my 12!.” I think I just died and went to heaven.
Bam, home run, upper deck.
Katie polishes Myrtle off with a flourish and a smile, and no true free citizen-jurist of salt can possibly identify with these government shills as people or with their mercenary life-and-liberty destroying mission. “Hi, we’re from the Holy Imperial Inquisition, Doreen is a witch, and you need to follow orders to help us kill her,” has to be falling on deaf ears here in this 21st-century courtroom… especially after seeing the bright, shining option on the hill projected by young Katie. [Three vigorous young men, 20-35, sit on the jury, and two or three young women in that age range; of that contingent, unless I’m missing something, it’s 4-2 for acquittal, minimum.]
Naturally, I’m elated, the others as well. Not only have we turned back the tide of lies, distraction, and judge favoritism, we’ve made our case in sharp, glowing terms. A verifiable throng of supporters of all colors, genders, and conditions fills the benches for Doreen today. The energy for liberty and law has reached a crescendo.
Friday 25 July 2014, 0900 to 1345—Doreen’s Peanut Gallery: 15
The court is finishing up Doreen’s testimony this morning, and it’s really the first time I have personally observed the level of abuse inflicted on Doreen by the DC Munsters and their partner, Judge Victoria Roberts (her real name). My sole experience with federal court is from movies and TV, so the slow-stepping Kabuki drama I’m watching this morning reminds me of, say, Tucker, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Snopes Monkey Trial (Inherit the Wind), or even My Cousin Vinny. From Wikipedia on the nature of a kangaroo court:
“A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice…. Merriam-Webster defines it as ‘a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted.’ A kangaroo court is often held … to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations.”
So when I wrote my column three days ago referring to these proceedings in Room 226 as a kangaroo court, I wasn’t exaggerating. More from Wiki: “the phrase [kangaroo court] could refer to the pouch of a kangaroo, meaning the court is in someone’s pocket.”
Those (especially of course Doreen and Pete and Katie) who have had to sit thru three full days of the space-lizard tag team’s coordinated, constant mugging of a magnificent lady—”objection,” “sustained,” “objection,” “sustained,” (~500 times), “Mrs. Hendrickson: stop talking, you’re making no sense, you’re trying my patience, you have no case, I’m tired of explaining it to you, don’t even think of going there, how can you be so dense, jury will disregard everything Mrs. Hendrickson says about <anything that exonerates her>, you’re interrupting by nap, you’re giving me a headache, I’m coming down with a cold, I think I split a nail, how dare you talk over me, how dare you claim to know the law…”—have my deepest sympathies. I’ve really only witnessed this Bizarro World behavior since late yesterday, and now I’m worried that here in the courtroom I’m going to hurl chunks and call out obscenities.
So I’m sitting here simply floored that the pathocracy tag team has the audacity to interrupt Doreen’s closing argument… several times, once with a judge-granted request for a five minute side bar!!! I have never, ever, in all my years of watching courtroom drama, seen a court interrupt a closing argument… for either side. These statements, especially for the defense, are sacrosanct. To my mind, they’re the essence of American freedom and jurisprudence: we all get our day in court and THE STATE MAY NEVER INTERRUPT OUR FINAL PASSIONATE PUBLIC DEFENSE OF OUR OWN PRECIOUS LIBERTY… EVER… FOR ANY REASON.
The reader can probably discern where I’m heading now. Leading up to the jury deliberations, I’m sitting in the front pew on the left and taking notes on each juror. The details will await my book, but I can tell you straightaway I assess fully half of the 12 to have both the perspicacity and the moral courage to stand for the defense, for acquittal, the only logical, lawful act of conscience, justice, and compassion. Three as an absolute minimum. By the way, the two individuals who were dismissed (yesterday and today, respectively) of the 14 original jurors I had noted as strongly in favor of acquittal.
A little bit after 1:00, after 20 minutes of Roberts’ boilerplate jury instructions, many of which—such as needing to conclude Doreen did not make a ‘good faith effort’ to comply with Judge Edmunds’ order—actually were encouraging, the jury enters the jury chamber. They haven’t had lunch yet, nor have they picked a foreman.
Much of the peanut gallery hangs out in the hallway, or goes downstairs to grab a granola bar or a sandwich from the concession store. [Pete has gone to his car to try to find the fraudulent document purportedly contradicting defense testimony—cunningly not entered into evidence—that Myrtle has used to blindside Doreen on cross-examination.] A few decide to exit the building to forage for more substantial foodstuffs. “It will take at least an hour for the jury to reach a verdict, and that’s after they’ve had lunch, themselves,” seems to be the consensus.
Also the consensus of our more court wise liberty contingent is that the quicker the verdict the less likely a positive outcome. [We’re still too deep in the blind-obedience-to-authority social pathology, and most people simply lack the spiritual depth to think for themselves and stand by it.]
And that’s what comes to pass. Slightly before 1:40 we are informed the jury has reached a verdict. Doreen and those of us who have stayed in near the courtroom quickly file in to get the decision. Unanimous: guilty as charged. I don’t need to tell you how the wind has been knocked out, Doreen remains standing though reeling. Pete shows up toward the end of the official discharge process to share in the Quick-Draw McGraw bad news.
Post Mortem: Evidence and Affidavit of Court Misconduct
[more to be in book]… fast forward to later at the Hendricksons’ home in Commerce:
Doreen is crushed. We’ve all been through the mill. My own thoughts have taken a turn toward the dark side: I did not believe, even with sophisticated filtration by the Munsters, that a jury of our peers would en masse lack such a degree of consciousness to fail to produce two or three persons of the courage of rational conviction. But my general spiritual state this week has stayed connected to Source and Being; if in fact no such brave rational individuals exist, I’ll deal with it in the grand scheme of the cosmos and be at peace. Fortunately, though, I chat tonight with Katie, who noticed something to restore my faith in human nature, ironically, because it suggests a literal ‘fix’ did take place.
Evidence of the Big Kangaroo
“Think about it,” Katie notes. “The jury files out at roughly 1:00. First to have lunch, then to pick a foreman, then to deliberate. (Conservatively, lunch and picking a foreman require 30 minutes.) Shortly after the jury leaves, Roberts reads in court to her jury clerk a set of instructions to which the clerk must affirm compliance by oath; that takes 15 seconds. Then approximately 1:05, Roberts announces to courtroom that she should have read the clerk’s instructions in front of the jury, does anyone mind if she enters the jury room and reads the instructions to the clerk there. No objections. She enters the jury room at maybe 1:08 and doesn’t return to open court until 1:12 to 1:14. What was she saying to the jury for 4 minutes and 45 seconds?”
“Second, how long does it take for the jury to order food and consume it? 15-20 minutes would be on the very low side. Then, the jury has to pick a foreman, okay, maybe that takes less than five minutes. What if it takes 25 minutes to eat and one minute to pick a foreman. Add that :26 to 1:14 and you get 1:40 p.m., which is when the jury announced its verdict. So when did the jury find time to deliberate? To me it looks as if the jury did not deliberate, rather they were told the verdict to deliver. Guilty. And they did, out of fear of bucking the power.”
“Wow,” I tell her, “you’ve just made sense of my world again, Katie. At the very least we have grounds in blatant judicial misconduct to declare another mistrial.” I’m thinking, indeed, what did Roberts tell the jurors that produced such a lightning verdict (in a case of such magnitude and complexity): Did she tell the jurors how important it was for the government to win this case convincingly, did she make appeals to national security, patriotic duty, or faintly suggest consequences for would-be holdouts? Even if the judge simply made small talk to create sympathy, that’s still tainting; good feelings toward Roberts = good feelings toward the ones whose pouch she so clearly inhabits.
And I went home, having turned away from the dark side and then sleeping soundly.
Building a Suite of Affidavits of Judicial Misconduct
In addition to the potential bombshell misconduct that Katie has recalled, Pete has made a list of all the other irregularities he can think of here. He asks everyone who was present in support of Doreen to write up their own affidavits noting the gross misconduct and partiality of Judge Roberts. [Which of course is consistent with the suborning of perjury by Judge Edmunds in the original order. Though, I’m getting the feeling that when a judge suborns perjury it really isn’t suborning perjury. See, they adhere to different rules from you and me.] Deliver to him, as soon as possible, your notarized original at 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382.
“Now we win.” The Eve of Liberation
Just a paragraph or two for now. The book will devote several pages.
First, let me applaud and extol Doreen’s valiant, eloquent defense, which she managed to conduct under the most vicious attacks imaginable. I cannot see anyone doing any better. Her manner was intelligent, flowing, peaceful, and highly articulate. She demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not only not guilty of contempt, her educated tax filings and documentation were completely consistent with the law. She exhibited the patience of Job and the spiritual peace of Gandhi.
Finally, my recommendations and insights from the week:
- Anarchy/deconsent is looking better and better to me now, at least of the type that finesses the coercive state by denying consent and building free, benevolent alternatives that embrace the Nonaggression Principle. These court officials and prosecution minions have an extraordinarily high and delusional opinion of themselves. They honestly believe that we need them.A few years from now average people will look back at this period and wonder how such a socially diseased minority rose to such levels of authority and created a bizarre mutual admiration cult based on inflicting mayhem upon the people. This charming little video from Larken and Tessa Rose reinforces the simple observation made by my spirit-brother Russell Means: “When you have one another, you don’t need government.”
- Grand juries are also an urgent matter as we decent human beings deal increasingly with the primitive mob rule of government officials gone wild and running amok. In particular, a grand jury needs to investigate judicial misconduct in this case regarding the improper presence of the judge with the jury outside of the courtroom just prior to deliberation (if any). As a minimum, jurors must be subpoenaed and queried as to the content of the judge’s conversation during that time. Judges are not above the law, and they are not the law. Juries are the law. And grand juries are the method by which the people prevent corruption of their public officials. Jury Power!
- Buy Pete’s book, spread the word, join the truth force. We’re way past the time when libertarians and Libertarians can afford to ignore the insights of Cracking the Code and applying these principles in practice. I say this especially to the intellectuals and opinion leaders of the alternative media and to the whole of the Libertarian Party. Time to man up and stand up for the liberating truth that Mr. Hendrickson’s long years of painstaking research and crystal clear presentation have brought to us.
Calling all true patriots. It’s still the same old story: liberty or something very unpleasant.
 As a reasonable person I get the plausibility of a general rule declaring the irrelevancy of past activity, but not in this case where presumption of innocence of a defendant is buttressed by a former lack of unanimous consent. Further, if you can’t bring up past behavior, why do attorneys always try to discredit witnesses for being strippers or smoking dope?
 Characterization of the government ‘dream team’ in unflattering terms should not be taken personally; I’m speaking metaphorically. No I do not truly regard them as alien beings, only inhumane… manifesting no discernible compassion or useful behavior in support of natural, virtuous, honest, caring, and/or liberty-seeking members of our species. I assure you, “Lumpy and the Space Lizards” is benign compared to what they call us: To them, normal human beings are chattel, the IRS technical term is “scum.” They feel that any of us subhumans who questions their authority deserves to be slowly crushed to death by rocks… after being held in solitary confinement for decades.
 Cracking the Code: The fascinating truth about taxation in America, is the book that started it all. In this amazingly compact, exquisitely-composed work of simple genius, which recognizes the broad historical context of our vital political and economic ideas of human liberty, Pete Hendrickson (husband of Doreen) discovers and shares the plain truth of the American federal income tax statutory and regulatory code. It ain’t what they told us it was at our first job in junior high. No sir.
Simply put, the federal income tax is an indirect or excise tax applying solely to federally privileged earnings: employment by the federal government or any of its corporations or special business units, the profitable exploitation of federal or federally controlled property or resources, or any other gain-producing activity or benefit exercised by permission of the federal government.
That’s right, the tax does not legally apply to direct earnings for the great majority of us. It just doesn’t. Of course, this is like telling the pope in 1543 that the sun doesn’t revolve about the earth. Hence, all Pete’s dustups with the federales. Still, as with heliocentrism, truth will out… one of these days… I expect sooner rather than later. With your participation.
 I understand the argument for sequestering the witnesses, but I don’t agree with it. I just don’t see how having more information makes it less likely a witness will testify truthfully. As we’re going through the security checkpoint yesterday, there’s this really cute little defense attorney in front of me and I ask her why the exclusion. She gives me the standard answer, I counter questioningly, longingly, as I breathe in her designer perfume; just making the line go quicker. 🙂 [Only attorneys get to take cellphones and computers in, so she gets to keep her cell; Doreen, who is acting as her own attorney, has nonetheless been denied use of any electronics by Da Judge. Why? How is that just or fair?]
 Taking that back, in Detroit of the 1980s a friend of mine, mainly through casual indiscretion, managed to be brought before a federal judge for ‘failure to pay’ the federales. I believe the judge was Friedman, who upon sentencing stated something to the effect, “we have to make a lesson of those who refuse to pay the tax to assure voluntary compliance.” And who says judges aren’t master logicians!
 I have this theory about the kinds of persons who become prosecutors and judges—I mean the p’s and j’s who get their jollies destroying humans who commit consensual or political crimes (i.e. non-crimes):
In the Milgram Authority Experiments of 1961 at Yale, subjects were told to ask questions via a microphone to an actor in another room and if the actor gave the wrong answer on a screen, the subject was to administer a electric shock of increasing voltage. As the actor registered screams and protests over a speaker to stop, most subjects expressed hesitation to the authority in a white coat giving them instructions. The authority simply said ‘you have no choice but to continue,’ with no consequences threatened. Milgram found that 50 to 65% of the subjects continued to administer the shocks up to the maximum level. P’s and j’s are not only part of the weakminded 50-65%, they actually enjoy inflicting the pain—especially if you give them a reward (an attaboy, a title, a shiny new briefcase).
 Pete is assembling as many affidavits of people who witnessed the misconduct as possible, and referring to them in a vital motion to get the decision overturned. My own affidavit is posted here: http://brianrwright.com/Affidavit_BW_for_USvDH.doc. I’ve posted the original Word document so you can make a template out for your own.
This post has been read 1973 times!