Bitcoin Forum

http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/

For any who have read Cracking the Code,
or
Hates the IRS,
or
loves liberty...


This is awesome news.   This isn't quite an example of Jury Nullification, but it is a great example of how just a single person can make a difference.

The government ran a second trial since they failed the first time.  They gave the jury two odd instructions, I think the judge went in and talked with the jury after the trial while they were supposed to be deliberating, and they got their conviction on the second try.

The woman was sentenced to prison for refusing to perjure herself (http://libertycrier.com/t/woman-sentenced-for-thwarting-irs-attempt-to-suborn-perjury/300/14).

The whole story is here (http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/DoreenAssault/RegardingTheAssaultOnDoreen.htm).

Time for a relative of hers to go after the people in government who deprived them of their property - Doreen. Sue them for cash until they return their property... Doreen out of jail.

Jury nullification includes not having to obey anything that the judge or prosecutor says.

:)

Through the same legal system that "stole" her?

Yes and no.

Yes.
The same courthouse (maybe), the same judge (maybe).

No.
The same venue, no.

The various courts have various kinds of venues. Two of the kinds of cases that Federal (U.S.) District Courts hear are administrative and common law. The hearings might be in the same building. The hearings might be with the same judge, wearing a different "hat" so to speak.

The two greatest words in common law (man to man) cases are "property" and "wrongdoing." When they hold a person like Doreen without having a human being who was harmed, they are holding someone's property without right. The man/woman whose property (Doreen) they are holding, needs to demand their property back.

More than likely, the court judgment against Doreen is a void judgment - http://voidjudgments.com/. If her husband or children (whose property she is) require their property returned in the right way, the courts will have to return her to them.

Listen to this audio to understand how this works - http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-676216.mp3.

:)

American cases are, nationally, an enabler of the U.S. Supreme Court's informal powers of "judicial review" (i.e., autocratic "rule from the bench" by the global, undeclared plutocracy).

The greatest concept in American law is the 9th Article to the Bill of Rights. This is that no laws within, or stemming from, the Constitution can deny the rights that people had before the Constitution was enacted. This means that common law is the supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court is for hearing government law, not people cases.

:)

(Strikethrough mine.)

You don't decide that: nationally, within the U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court decides that - that's "judicial review"! (In order to declare a law "unconstitutional," one must, first, determine what is "constitutional".) (Recall, however, that, if you should disagree, you could appeal the case up to them, and have them decide whether they do or do not.)

It is possible for people to behave in a way which degrades their influence.  Those who want to rule us have been working on minimizing this effect because they know that when their influence is weak enough, they will have to become honest and hardworking like everyone else in order to enjoy material success.

One of the most effective methods of reducing the effect is to increase fear.  This explains why the CIA and FBI have hired thousands of agents to provoke young, impressionable, and idealistic Muslim men to engage in acts of terrorism despite the gross immorality of such entrapment.

Another method for reducing the effect is to take children away from their parents, fill their heads with useless distractions, and indoctrinate them into an ideology that resistance is futile and also counterproductive.  This is why public education is so crappy: it does well what it was designed to do, retard children's maturation and keep them in a state of dependence, replacing their parents with the state.

Some of us, but not enough just yet, recognize these efforts to increase fear and dependence and decrease intelligence.  So really, you're both right, but SCOTUS has to be careful in how brazenly it "decides that."  They have already lost the respect of a significant portion of those for whom their judgements are important.

A large part of the reason they didn't just throw Doreen in jail without any trial at all is that they have to maintain appearances.  This requirement for appearances explains why the mainstream accounts of the story all misrepresent the facts the same way the government lawyers and the judge misrepresented them.  It also explains why they tried to get her to perjure herself.

If you want to go that route, you may. And certainly most people do. But it is not the only way. The way I have been expressing leads to virtually complete freedom from government law.

Few people do it my way. The reason is that they mostly don't know about it. But it has been there all along. It was used big time before the Civil War, even though few of the people understood the significance of it back at civil War times. However, people of Revolutionary War times understood it extremely well for common people. Why? Because back then EVERYBODY was looking for legal ways to get out from under King George. Everybody was a lawyer back then.

I'm not saying that there won't be resistance from the courts and government. But they don't have authority over you if you stand as a man/woman, unrepresented in any way.

It's okay if you don't like this. But you are missing it if you bypass it.

Listen to all the Karl Lentz tapes at http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html to understand how this works. Like at the time of the Revolutionary War, it must become a lifestyle for you until it becomes the main way.

:)

Hey man, THANKS!!  I just subscribed to Karl's podcast.

As were economies that bred stalwart populaces, rifles that were not fully automatic (or accurate to >1500 [milli]meters), cannons that were not self-propelled, vehicles that weren't unmanned, and bombs that did not level entire cities.

Which ways are those - any that lead to one's "termination"?

However, same Constitution, and even the same dictionaries with the same word meanings applying to the Constitution.

If we get rid of the Constitution without applying the common law of the 9th Amendment, we are getting rid of the greatest freedom from government that we have. Rather, let's wake up and use the freedom to put government and the crooks who often use it, back into the box in which it is supposed to exist..

:)

"Justice" John Marshal (and the consent of his contemporaneous "America") established that your "Constitution" does not invest legal powers in your "dictionaries" but in whatever (the "judicial branch" of) the U.S. government says it does (and, furthermore, only those powers that the body determines it did).

LOL. Fuck the IRS! Fuck the FRS! Those are same mothefuckers control both. America is the land of the free. So be free! Fuck yeah! Protect yourself! Own a gun!

Certainly, murderers have more influence over other people until they are discovered to be guilty of murder.  This is true even for state employees, though they suffer less, at least ostensibly, than private individuals who commit that crime.
Or perhaps you mean to ask if people whose behavior degrades their influence get terminated for that behavior.  Well, remember Julius Caesar?  I think that happened to him.  In some ways such behavior increases influence, and in other ways, it decreases it.  The net effect, if it does get you killed, is that you no longer have influence.

Well anyway, maybe you're asking in what ways people can act that degrade their influence.  Primarily, they can make judgements that are disagreeable to those relying on them to make good judgements.

Here is exactly the point.

It is not my Constitution. It is the Constitution of those who take the Oath of Office (required for all government people when they become government people). It is in some ways the Constitution of all people who claim it is their Constitution IF government accepts their claim as valid. The 14th Amendment makes their claim valid. But government wants their claim to be valid anyway, so that government can get more slaves by it.

Since the 9th Amendment is part of the Constitution, the people who take the Oath must uphold the Constitution by following it. This means that anybody who wants out of the slavery need only apply all the rights he had before the Constitution was formed, and he is out.

If people don't understand this difference, and dabble in attempting to handle corporate government matters regarding themselves when they shouldn't be, government can do nothing other than what the Constitution and laws that flow from the Constitution say that should be done. They have to treat the people as though they were in government.

The only way people can dabble in government matters is when they take the Oath of Office after being elected or appointed. Thus the dabblers have no rights except whatever the government says they have.

The way out from under government is to assert the rights had before the Constitution was formed, and to do it in ways that do not dabble in government law. This is common law. It was there before government and the Constitution, is upheld at least by the 9th Amendment (thus government upholds it, even against itself at times), and exists to be used by any people who want to use it. It isn't part of the Constitution or government... although government has created a thing that they call common law, which is not the same as the original common law of the people.

:)

EDIT: Government people who attempt to not allow non-government people out from under the 14th Amendment when these non-government people use the common law to attempt to get out... these government people are criminals, and should be treated as such by their own government.

I did not receive the meaning of your statement that you had intended: I took your statement to say that the public can reduce the influence of its government (to which I responded that any "credible threat" to do so would be met with [state] lethal force).

What you fail to understand (or refuse to acknowledge) is that the U.S. government decides the legal meaning of the text of the U.S. Constitution. For example, if it should decide that "All dogs are red" means "Few oranges behave ethically," then that is, in the context of U.S. law, what the statement should mean, for it is government that determines what is and is not, in the context of law, absurd.

What you seem to fail to understand is that the meaning of the Constitution is set in stone. The Constitution allows government to make many different laws regarding itself and the people within its jurisdiction. So, to the people within its jurisdiction (the 14th amendment slaves) it looks like government can decide on the meaning of the Constitution and law any which way.

The people who stand as men and women outside of government authority have no such controls on themselves, just like the U.S. doesn't have any authority over any other government.

Because of the freedom allowed to the U.S. government today, because the people are ignorant about how to stand up and be free of this government, the U.S. government goes around the world sticking its nose into anything it wants.

If the people in America realized that almost nothing in government or the Constitution or the laws that flow out of the Constitution... almost nothing applies to them if they don't want it to, they could set up another government in a moment and override the first. It is simply that they don't know how the Constitution is telling them that they can do this.

:)

Thank you, username18333. It is happening right now with cops harming people, often for no reason at all. Simply Google "police brutality" for about 14,800,000 hits, or Youtube search the same for loads of police brutality videos. Also, look at http://copwatch.org/.

It's time to start asserting our rights in the way that works. Listen to the links at the right side of http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html to see how.

:)

Thanks again, username18333.

There are many in the U.S. and State governments who are doing just like Hitler, even though it often is on small scale. Germany of Hitler's day wasn't a common law nation. The didn't have the rights of the man built into the basics of their government. Thus it was easy for Hitler to take over.

Yes, it is time that we each do the thing that has nothing to do with politics, but is the individual thing that we are doing all the time, already, anyway. This is to sue every man/woman who harms us and will not make it right.

The advantage of doing it this way is, we don't have the problem of actual, physical fighting going on. Nobody gets hurt. Government people will want to go back into their little niche willingly when we do this, and the law of the land will be put back into the thing that it formerly was, and that it should be, namely, that each person is the king of his castle.

Start studying now, at the link I listed above. Our freedom is built right into the U.S. Constitution.

:)

You are talking about government against government. I am talking about man against man. According to Constitution - 9th Amendment - man has authority over government. But he has to exercise it properly for it to work.

:)

According to Andrew Jackson, a court decision is only as binding as the force wherewith it is enforced (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/might+is+right). (E.g., if a court commands John Bureaucrat to pay you damages and, instead, he kills you where you stand [note: no one acts to stop him {perhaps, for fear of state retaliation}]—then you will not receive your court-ordered redress.)

That's why people need to bring their own court cases, define the rules of their case that the judge is only a bystander, and get on with a man-to-man case. If the judge interferes against the rules of court, the force of government is against that judge. It stems from the 9th Amendment.

The strongest amendments are the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th. This is because they use the power of the U.S. Government to take the power of the U.S. Government away from itself and give it to the people, individually.

:)

Should the government of the court assassinate you—illegally—for doing so, what, then, shall a "man" (BADecker) do? Shall you have a court issue a powerless order to its government to "cease and desist" therein?

When you bring the court, it is your court. If you issue a "cease and desist" you shouldn't call it that except that you have declared first that you are not speaking legal language in any way. If you speak legal language, you have moved yourself into their court.

The whole idea of holding court is to do things peacefully. Obviously, if the judge, the bailiff or anyone else gets out a gun and shoots you to death in the courtroom...

Well, you wouldn't have to worry about it any more.

:)

How is the system you espouse relevant if it does not account for a concerted effort, on the part of a nuclear superpower, against the administration of its courts' rulings‽

I don't understand what you mean.

The system I espouse (to use your word) is the system of the United States Government, and that of the States.

If somebody nukes America out of existence, then the system is gone, except that it has survived elsewhere.

Certainly you are welcome to talk in riddles or language that is not understandable, and even ask dumb questions.

:)

The system of government in the United States is kinda unique. It lets people act within it, or without (outside of) it. If the people want to act without it, and express such properly, then the government of the United States enforces this.

:)

You are welcome. I hadn't seen your post earlier.

Just remember, if you go this route, learn it well ahead of time. We aren't used to flexing the muscle of the United States government individually.

If this becomes the common thing in America, and the U.S. government becomes a thing of little power, I don't know if I will like it. But at the moment, certain members of the U.S. government are exerting way too much power over the people of America. And it is only because of the ignorance of the people.

:)

As Andrew Jackson (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/andrewjackson), an “autonomous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomous#mwEntryData)” commander in chief (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commander%20in%20chief#mwEntryData), knew all too well (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html).

Again, I am not sure what you are getting at. Can you spell it out?

:)

A common law "man" could also happen to be the commander in chief (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commander%20in%20chief#mwEntryData) of an (in some instances, nuclear) armed force. Should one pursue that man under common law, he could overwhelm one's private court with his (under common law, private) military.

You paint the world so viciously.

It is entertaining, but a little disturbing too.

When I wrote that people can do things that degrade their influence, I was talking about going overboard with the ability to dominate.  If you read Franz Oppenheimer's The State, you will read about his finding that the state comes into existence, generally, because a conquering culture tends to have individuals within it who overplay their domination, and this creates blowback, which ruins the spoils of the original conquest.  The state is formed (in that case) to prevent individuals within the dominating people from overplaying their hand.

Most of what you describe are examples of such overplay.  The blowback comes no matter what, but usually in small fits and starts because there isn't a critical mass of awareness among the oppressed.  The critical mass that I see forming isn't violent blowback, but the kind of information I'm providing right now.  When enough people refuse to respect coercion, the (generally good) people on the payroll of the coercers (ie government agents) will stop doing their jobs.  The psychopaths at the top know this, so they are trying to avoid overplaying their hand, and that means respecting the common law about which BADecker is writing.

At which point, the rest will "trim the fat" and, with their Five Eyes, "kill every last one of them."

Every human being is first a man or a woman. Then, if he takes the office of some agreement that is formed between people, he is not only a man, but a holder of that office.

Until computers become sentient, every activity of an agreement is done by a man/woman. No agreement jumps up and does an activity by itself. The closest we have might be a sentient computer. But it would still be the activity of one or more people who created the computer.

The fact that common law exists doesn't make it automatically the thing that happens. People need to stand up as men/women and use it.

Ultimately, who is the law? The law is the one who has the most strength. As you say, if some military commander is stronger than the people and the government, he is the new government.

So far, common law has not been exercised fully because of the ignorance of the people about it, and because the government people like their assumed power and try to hide the common law of the people. They have gone so far as to create their own version of law that they call the common law. This is the court cases. It is not the common law of the people because it is under the administrative section of government rather than the pure actions and judgments man to man.

Might might make what exists. But might doesn't necessarily make right.

:)

That, however, is the best part: if PotUS asserted his pre-U.S. Constitution rights (while retaining his command of the post-U.S. Constitution U.S. armed forces) as a man (that "just so happens" to "have the run" of a massive nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenal), then the U.S. would become a military dictatorship - full stop.

I didn't realize that this was going to be so difficult for people to understand.

If a man inside government (a government agent, a military man, a governmental official), or if a man outside of government, harms another man or his property, it is man harming man. If the perpetrator is inside government, since government can't do anything except that it is activated by a man, it is the man that does it.

The injured man or his relatives can sue the perpetrator one of two ways. They can sue him via an administrative hearing. They can sue him via common law because it was a man that did it.

If the injured man or his relatives sue the perpetrator under administrative law, the whole case will be decided entirely by the government. The government can decide any way it wants, guilty or not guilty, or partially guilty. All the injured man or his relatives do is make noise in an administrative hearing.

In a common law hearing, there are three things that might happen:
1. The evidence and the witnesses might be overwhelming and the judge would be required to declare guilt (or innocence if there was no strength in whatever was brought against the perpetrator);
2. The judge might be given the authority by the people bringing the suit against the perpetrator, to judge according to the way the judge interprets the evidence and what the witnesses say;
3. There might be a jury trial where the perpetrator is judged entirely by the jury.

----------

Obviously, if the man doing that harm is personally strong enough, he might be able to thwart all governments and all people. We are talking sci-fi here, like Iron Man.

There are some people in, say, the military, that might be influential enough in military circles, that they can do harm and damage to the world without true governmental authority. Obviously, if such a man pulls some switches, and launches some nukes, the damage will have been done no matter how many times he is prosecuted, found guilty, and executed later.

:)

EDIT: In a common law of the people hearing, the people bringing the suit create the rules of court. Throw the government's Rules Book out the window.

Could PotUS assert that the accused must first subject himself to "a friend's" (i.e., his military's) "enhanced" interrogation?

The accused might make a counter claim as a man, wherein he could describe the rules of court. He might have as many friends as he wants to advise him. But he is the only one who can speak the actual accusation/defense, although witnesses may corroborate.

:)

I dont understand why there is a need for a jury system.

The population is idiot, no doubt, they are sheeple, obeying slaves and they are doing what they are told to.

If you select a jury randomly from these sheeple then your trial will most likely be fucked up. Why is a jury needed?

Would PotUS face legal repercussions if he, as common law's "man," were to have "his firends" ensure that no such "counter claim" (BADecker) were introduced?

If the counterclaim beat the claim, the original claimant could be made liable for all the "punishment" he was seeking against the counterclaimant.

:)

The jury system is the thing that gives the PEOPLE the control of government. In a trial, there are ways that the defendant can deny his right to trial by jury, and let the judge make the decision.

:)

That does not speak to what would become of a claimant that prevented, physically or otherwise, the introduction of counterclaims into his court.

I understand also that an only judge based trial can be risky because the judge can be bought of by the government and corporations. In many cases they are corrupted or "persuaded" especially in political cases, if/when they get blackmailed by 3 letter agencies, like as when the ICJ was surveiled.

Now i also understand that a jury system can be used to defend your rights if the court is corrupted, but not if the jury members are idiots.


Because it seems to me that in most cases the entire court is corrupted, while the jury is just persuaded to do whatever they are told to. And that is not a fair trial, definitely  :)

Can't do it, since the counterclaimant has the same rights as a man as the claimant. However, if it could be done - counterclaiming being blocked - the potential counterclaimant could start a new claim of his own.

:)

Here is the time when a judge-based decision might be better than a jury decision.

Lets say you were given a traffic ticket for speeding. You take it to trial. The people of a jury are going to convict you, because they don't want you speeding. However...

Let's say that you found a part of the law that would require the judge to dismiss the case.

Who would you rather have decide your case? The judge or the jury?

:)

You still aren't getting to the gist of the question. In an administrative proceeding, the government can't put snipers on a party because the government says it can't and, accordingly, would, effectively, stop itself. Ostensibly, however, in a common law hearing, the government would not be stopping itself, but a man would be attempting to stop government (and, thus, be "taken out").

This is half right. Even in an administrative hearing, people who have an interest might send in the snipers.

In a common law hearing, the same would apply.

:)

In my country you dont go to court for a ticket, you can resolve that dispute with the police by writing letters to them if you disagree. They dont even accept you in court for small shit like that, even if you have a legitimate case to be made.

But a criminal trial or a political case is always a dead end, because 90% chance that the judge will be paid off by the opposition, and probably the jury will be selecte from those guys too, so you are pretty much (with a better word) between a hammer and an anvil.

You could select a jury, if it's a civil case involving children, especially if the judge is a male, because you can go with appeal to emotion tactics, and the jury could fell for it, but in other cases, i dont see any use of it.

.....Until of course the sheeple wakes up, then fair trials could happen :)

I think that in a few short years, there will be cameras all over the place. And everyone will be happy with the idea of not having any privacy. Why? Because then they can be vindicated in court when they are accused.

If I accuse you of something, and I have some reasonable sort-of-like-evidence. The jury might convict you even though you are innocent. Cameras all over the place, even in your bedroom, might save your life.

Common law will become the in-thing. Administrative hearings will be for artificial entities.

:)

In America, it happens similar to this. But you can always go common law in America, if you know how, and for anything over $20.

:)

If there is no deterrent to the U.S. government's application of lethal force to those that utilize common law, why, then, would it allow the use of common law to undermine its authority?

I hope you were only joking, there are billion things that can go wrong with a surveilance state. Even if its controlled by the "good guys" which we know it isnt. They will then surveil your brain?

"Thought crime" , you randomly thought about a crime, and you go to jail. Most thoughts are also randomly happening, especially when you dream....

How is it justified to be guilty for something you have no control of.

Now i`m not a philosophical determinist, but there are a few deterministic elements in this universe, and i think laws as such should recognize it.

Surveilance also provokes fear in people and in some cases it might trigger involuntary things.


That sucks.

The current deterrent is the money of the wealthy. The wealthy don't want a system that is disrupted any more than necessary. It would detract from their profits. So, they direct the military and the President.

In a time when common law becomes the in-thing, things may change. See my post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=326266.msg11435280#msg11435280 on the previous page.

:)

Why does it suck? Anybody can stop the IRS by taking an IRS man or woman to court for stealing his property, his money, through some kind of lien or levy. I don't like my property stolen. Do you like yours stolen?

:)

No but i dont like the entire extortion racket at all, going to trial for 10$ fines is wasting of time, there should be no 10$ fines in the first place :)

Tyranny (i.e., the plutocratic enslavement of a populous by its oligarchy) only ceases to be profitable upon successful revolt. Accordingly, the U.S. military's capabilities far exceed those of the American public.

I think that you could do something that would make the case jump a little higher than $10 if you really wanted.

But you can still beat it if they attack you, because, standard law in America is that the plaintiff must appear. It doesn't say the plaintiff's representative. It says the plaintiff. He must get on the stand so that you can question him regarding the particulars of the case. It is your right.

When did you ever see the State of XXXXXX or the City of XXXXXX get on the stand to be questioned by anyone? The State or City doesn't appear, so you win.

:)

At which point, the "IRS man or woman" (BADecker) could seize the gavel of the judge and physically beat the "successful" claimant dead - the judge (i.e., government) being nothing more than an idle observer.

The real answer as to what will happen - who knows? The story of the frog in the kettle is how "they" have been bringing us out from common law into their administrative hearing courts. Knowledge of the common law will not hit all at once. It will hit slowly. This time "they" will be the frog in the kettle.

:)

Doesn't happen that way.

:)

If there is nothing in (common) law to stop it, it is but a matter of time until it does.

I believe trial is only necessary for serious thing like murder, phisical assault or other big violence.

Otherwise there should be private courts where you could dispute your small claims, i dont believe in extortion at all, thus all fines are robbery.

Yes that is a clever thing there, but i dont think that it's the 10$ fines that you should worry about, i heard that cops confiscate money, on spot, from drivers. Now thats is some highway robbery.

Those are much bigger issues. Like if i were to go there for vacation and i would have like 5000 € in my wallet because i woult not trust masonic-banksters to hold my holiday money, they would stop me and rob that 5000€ on spot?

Merely sue them as a common law "man" (but, of course, while toting a couple fully automatic AR-15's with beta magazines just in case they get wise to their free reign to kill any and all common law claimants they wish).  ::)

Yea but even if I sue and win, its still an unconfortable and unnecesary thing, why would i wase 1-2 days perhaps weeks to recover my own property? Why is it stolen in the first place?

It should be repaid with interest (counting the number of days between the theft and recovery, with the % intrest rate currenly available). That should be bare minimum.

Also the court costs should be paid by the losing half.

They have more firepower behind them than you could ever even merely hope to have behind you.

Yes, the battle might be fierce.

:)

Their firepower is divided, with us as well as against us.

:)

No, it is not: personnel might be divided, but the equipment is firmly there's.

This is true. You have to decide where the best benefit lies for you. sometimes the short term benefit is long term detriment.

:)