My new years resolution is to keep track of all the times BADecker ignores a direct question in response to one of his ridiculous claims and shifts the topic to something equally ridiculous but different. Here's two to start: ~ Ammon Bundy didn't know what he was doing in court. The jury simply liked what he did in the wildlife refuge takeover. The jury freed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html. The jury has the authority to vote how they want regarding any case they hear... provided it is a jury based on the 6th or 7th Amendments. There is evidence of court cases all over the place, where juries even reversed the charges in some cases, so that the plaintiff had to pay the fine.  You: "juries can strike down laws" Me: "No they can't" You: "Juries can vote how they want" Me:  Are you confusing 'striking down a law' with jury nullification? You know just because a guilty person is acquitted or has a hung jury doesn't mean that law they broke is struck down, right? Did OJs jury strike down the law that makes murder illegal? Not at all. But you seem to be confusing what I said with both, striking down laws, and jury nullification. If the law in a school zone is 15mph, and a driver drives through at 120mph, and a cop pulls him over and it goes to court in a jury trial, the jury can strike down the law with regard to the driver so that he gets off totally free. Generally a jury won't do this, because the jury has friends and family with kids going to the school. But they can do it if they want, even if there is no good reason. It's up to them, totally. This does not strike down the law for anybody else, however. For every other person who breaks this law, it's a totally new court case. If, however, there are bunches of people who drive 120mph through this school zone, and the juries for most of them declare these drivers innocent, the city or state just might change the law so that the speed limit for this school zone is no longer only 15mph. The reason might be that it's an old, condemned school that is not being used, and has a chain link fence around it, and the school zone speed limit SHOULD be removed. The point is that the jury rules in a trial-by-jury court case. In general, when they strike down a law, it's for that court case only, not for the whole country... although other court decisions might base themselves on this one to some extent. I think you're confusing fantasy land of make believe (Badeckerville) and reality. But maybe I'm wrong. Give me one example (in the real world, in a real federal or state criminal trial) of a jury "striking down a law".
Powell SHOULD apologize for the mistakes she made in not helping the people of Georgia. She did it wrong, and did not take down the corrupt government of Georgia because she did it wrong. So, she harmed the people by not straightening Georgia out. I think she knows that she did it wrong. But I don't think that she has learned how to do it right, yet. Perhaps she will learn the right way to do it sometime. The real question is, will YOU ever even look in the direction of the right way to do it? Do you mean it was wrong to make up a story and convince people like you that Dominion and Smartmatic had a secret algorithm from Venezuela that was designed to switch votes, and the only reason it was caught was because Trump got so many votes the algorithm just didn't know what to do and so the evil dems, disguised as honest poll workers, had to swoop in and change the votes themselves? Should she have not lied? Or should she have come up with a better lie? Should you have done a little more critical thinking before spreading her lies? |
|
|
|
Since 13 months!!! I demand compensation for the unjustifiably lost 30,000 USD at Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system and all responsible parties like the alleged Stake "Legal Department", managing director Xecutive Corporate Management B.V., the 8048/JAZ license holder Antillephone N.V. and the Curacao Gaming Control Board ignore me!
 Stop crying. You're embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
|
Anyone know where the provably fair implimentation is posted for the $3.3m race multipliers? I can't seem to find any details other than in the "how it works" modal, which includes: Each revealed multiplier is completed in a transparent and provably fair way. This means it's completely random for each account!  When you click "verify fairness" under the calendar it just expands to this:  There must be an explanation on how the multipliers are calculated and other details/terms somewhere.....right? So looks like it's not actually transparent or provably fair. Was probably just an oversite but still disappointing to see. Do better rollbit! |
|
|
|
~ Ammon Bundy didn't know what he was doing in court. The jury simply liked what he did in the wildlife refuge takeover. The jury freed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html. The jury has the authority to vote how they want regarding any case they hear... provided it is a jury based on the 6th or 7th Amendments. There is evidence of court cases all over the place, where juries even reversed the charges in some cases, so that the plaintiff had to pay the fine. You: "juries can strike down laws" Me: "No they can't" You: "Juries can vote how they want" Me: Are you confusing 'striking down a law' with jury nullification? You know just because a guilty person is acquitted or has a hung jury doesn't mean that law they broke is struck down, right? Did OJs jury strike down the law that makes murder illegal? Not at all. But you seem to be confusing what I said with both, striking down laws, and jury nullification. If the law in a school zone is 15mph, and a driver drives through at 120mph, and a cop pulls him over and it goes to court in a jury trial, the jury can strike down the law with regard to the driver so that he gets off totally free. Generally a jury won't do this, because the jury has friends and family with kids going to the school. But they can do it if they want, even if there is no good reason. It's up to them, totally. This does not strike down the law for anybody else, however. For every other person who breaks this law, it's a totally new court case. If, however, there are bunches of people who drive 120mph through this school zone, and the juries for most of them declare these drivers innocent, the city or state just might change the law so that the speed limit for this school zone is no longer only 15mph. The reason might be that it's an old, condemned school that is not being used, and has a chain link fence around it, and the school zone speed limit SHOULD be removed. The point is that the jury rules in a trial-by-jury court case. In general, when they strike down a law, it's for that court case only, not for the whole country... although other court decisions might base themselves on this one to some extent. I think you're confusing fantasy land of make believe (Badeckerville) and reality. But maybe I'm wrong. Give me one example (in the real world, in a real federal or state criminal trial) of a jury "striking down a law". |
|
|
|
Anyone know where the provably fair implimentation is posted for the $3.3m race multipliers? I can't seem to find any details other than in the "how it works" modal, which includes: Each revealed multiplier is completed in a transparent and provably fair way. This means it's completely random for each account! When you click "verify fairness" under the calendar it just expands to this: There must be an explanation on how the multipliers are calculated and other details/terms somewhere.....right? |
|
|
|
~
Make America full of Gangsters Again. MAGA
Poor Trump. He worked so hard to make America great again. And now you are using his slogan to support Biden. Shame on you. Though, the most popular and satirical use of the MAGA slogan I have seen on the internet is: Make Attorneys Get Attorneys; in reference that several of the lawyers who had worker for Trump have ended up in such dire legal situation they (as attorneys) need to hire others with then same professional background so they have a chance to escape the from whatever bad place Trump put them in. It is quite clever if you think about it and also ironic, how one person could so easily break the law, after studying it for years as a way of living. Also, Trump is anything but poor, or at least that is what he wants us all to believe. I would bet if he could listen or read to you he would not feel comfortable with the fact you are saying he is poor, regardless You are saying in the context of alledged political witchhunt. I believe at this point he is not running for the sake of the best interest of the American people, but to try to stay out of prison, he did not manage to deliver many of his campaign promises during his first presidential period anyways. Look, I know that History is not popular in the Tik-Tok, 6 seconds message era, but this is nothing new. Julius Cesar made so many enemies in the politics of Rome that he had as only solution to overtake the government by using his loyal legions or he would have been exiled or killed. It worked well, I mean, until he was killed anyway. The problem was that after him, what was a Republic became an Empire and never returned to any short of participative regime (to note, the Republic was not like a modern one, but at least there were elections). does any of this sound kind of familiar? I mean, let's say Trump skips over all the legal problems and becomes president. do you think he could ever leave it without being them prosecuted and jailed? do you think he would not try something ... you know... I am not pro-Biden @dumbass BA, I am anti mafia. Other Republican candidates could actually be working to sew the seams of the broken US and make it strong instead of Make America full of Gangsters Again. Unfortunately, only Biden stands in Trumps way as of today so... Remember, you're talking to a Putin fanboy and MAGAtard that thinks Stalin and Hitler "had the right idea".... The fact that Trump is going full dictator and has a real shot at the White House is a dream come true for him. |
|
|
|
It's the US who has caused supreme suffering in Ukraine... and essentially its destruction.
Actually Russia invaded Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Powell SHOULD apologize for the mistakes she made in not helping the people of Georgia. She did it wrong, and did not take down the corrupt government of Georgia because she did it wrong. So, she harmed the people by not straightening Georgia out. I think she knows that she did it wrong. But I don't think that she has learned how to do it right, yet. Perhaps she will learn the right way to do it sometime. The real question is, will YOU ever even look in the direction of the right way to do it? What specifically should she have done differently? Do you mean it was wrong to make up a story and convince people like you that Dominion and Smartmatic had a secret algorithm from Venezuela that was designed to switch votes, and the only reason it was caught was because Trump got so many votes the algorithm just didn't know what to do and so the evil dems, disguised as honest poll workers, had to swoop in and change the votes themselves? Should she have not lied? Or should she have come up with a better lie? Should you have done a little more critical thinking before spreading her lies? |
|
|
|
If the house edge is 0.5%, that means, in the long run you're expected to lose 0.5% of the amount you wagered.
Do you disagree?
Yes. My rewards were around 0,5%, so I was expected to lose nothing (0,5% house edge - 0,5% rewards = 0). I've already explained what's wrong specifically with your calculation (you ignore the fact that black jack pays 3:2, and calculate it as if every win pays even money).
If Stake "Statistics" calculates a Black Jack win as 1 bet won while I won 1,5 bets, then you just confirmed that their in-house Black Jack system is rigged! But your "calculation" clearly results in the player having a significant edge. No, my calculation clearly results in the player having no edge: My rewards were around 0,5%, so I was expected to lose nothing (0,5% house edge - 0,5% rewards = 0).
0 = no edge for the player. Rewards are separate and dependent on which games you play and how much you've won or lost at each point.
0,5% house edge minus 0,5% rewards = nothing to lose instead of 30,000 USD lost! I'm just talking about your "math".
It is not "my" math, it is public math. Stake is a public company which has to follow public math and the public math says: Info 1)If you take a look at my statistics here https://ibb.co/Hxf8NpR you can see the following total numbers: Bets: 180,904 Wins: 78,285 Losses: 86,612 If we reduce the number of wins from the number of losses, we can see that I lost 8,327 bets (86,612 minus 78,285 = 8,327) Losing 8,327 bets out of 180,904 bets placed = 4,6% of the bets lost. Info 2)The advertised house edge for the Stake in-house Black Jack is 0,5%, which means longterm I will lose 0,5% of all bets placed. Losing 0,5% out of 180,904 bets placed = 900 bets lose. If you compare Info 1) with Info 2), you can see that I lost 8,327 bets instead of the 900 bets I should lose = 9 times more! While there is a deviation from the expected outcome, it can not be 9 times more after 180,904 bets! Info 3)When the house edge is 0,5% and you placed 180,900 bets, you will lose 900 bets and the remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips. The remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips, because they are neutral and you will win 50% = 90,000 bets and lose 50% = 90,000 bets. 4,6% of the bets lost while I should lose only 0,5% means my experienced deviation of the 180,000 coin flips is 4,1%! Now let's take a look at the standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips: A) Standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 212 coin flips = 0,12% (In 68% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0,12%) My experienced deviation of 4,1% is 34 times higher than the standard deviation (4,1% : 0,12% = 34) B) 3 times standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 0,36% (In 99,7% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0.36%) My experienced deviation of 4,1% is 11 times higher than the 3 times standard deviation (4,1% : 0,36% = 11) Info 4)The Stake bet transaction history only states 180,000 single bet events and no overview of my experienced house edge. To get my experienced house edge from the bet transaction history, I would need to take a look at all 180,000 bets and calculate it manually! If the cards were dealt fair and I lost only 0,5% of all bets placed while the statistics states that I lost 4,6%, then the Stake statistics is rigged! In either case, the Stake in-house Black Jack system is provably rigged and Stake has to compensate at least the 30,000 USD I lost from my pocket. Their strategy to ignore me, while they are clearly at fault, will fail!  The calculation you keep repeating does not factor in black jack paying 3 to 2. You've known this for months. A hand of black jack is not the same as a coin flip. The player wins less often, but that's made up for by allowing the player to increase their wager after seeing their hand in certain circumstances (split and double) as well as pay 3-2 for black jacks. You win less often, but on average you win more than 1x your bet + bet back. It literally says it right on the table. Go see for yourself.  |
|
|
|
Get into the Bible to find out about God, and the basics of right and wrong and salvation... before it's too late. I wonder if Queen of the Kraken Sydney Powell has leanred about right and wrong and salvation. Here's the apology letter she wrote to the citizens of Georgia after pleading guilty to "intentional interference in the execution of an election".  How about you BADecker? Have you learned any lessons after so many of your claims involving the 2020 election and the Kraken have been proven to be lies? |
|
|
|
We would like to remind you about our slots race. Join the $15,000 slots tournament!
We would like to remind you that people who read this thread will be able to easily check your post history and reputation and therefore will be very unlikely to ever deposit on your site.  |
|
|
|
So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.
This doesn't work. It's been tried. The judge would just deny his stupid request like all the stupid requests he's made before. All the appellate courts would decline to intervene, including SCOTUS. If your theory worked, nobody would ever be prosecuted by DOJ for breaking federal laws. It wouldn't be a secret nobody knew about. It would just take one successful case, and then everyone would do it. The reason it doesn't work most of the time is that the so-called defendant didn't go far enough. A man/woman can't accept being the defendant, and stand unrepresented at the same time. The two are contradictory. But that's what most of them try to do. So, most of them lose by contradicting themselves. Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.
So how about some examples of a jury "striking down a law". That's not how it works. Congress (or state lawmakers) make laws. If they want to get rid of a law, they have to pass a bill, Judges interpret the laws. Executive branch enforces the laws....wait you learn better from youtube videos...I have two perfect videos for you, please watch: 3 Ring Government - Schoolhouse RockI'm just a bill - Schoolhouse RockAmmon Bundy didn't know what he was doing in court. The jury simply liked what he did in the wildlife refuge takeover. The jury freed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html. The jury has the authority to vote how they want regarding any case they hear... provided it is a jury based on the 6th or 7th Amendments. There is evidence of court cases all over the place, where juries even reversed the charges in some cases, so that the plaintiff had to pay the fine. You: "juries can strike down laws" Me: "No they can't" You: "Juries can vote how they want" Me: Are you confusing 'striking down a law' with jury nullification? You know just because a guilty person is acquitted or has a hung jury doesn't mean that law they broke is struck down, right? Did OJs jury strike down the law that makes murder illegal? |
|
|
|
So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.
This doesn't work. It's been tried. The judge would just deny his stupid request like all the stupid requests he's made before. All the appellate courts would decline to intervene, including SCOTUS. If your theory worked, nobody would ever be prosecuted by DOJ for breaking federal laws. It wouldn't be a secret nobody knew about. It would just take one successful case, and then everyone would do it. Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.
So how about some examples of a jury "striking down a law". That's not how it works. Congress (or state lawmakers) make laws. If they want to get rid of a law, they have to pass a bill, Judges interpret the laws. Executive branch enforces the laws....wait you learn better from youtube videos...I have two perfect videos for you, please watch: 3 Ring Government - Schoolhouse RockI'm just a bill - Schoolhouse Rock |
|
|
|
EIP surveilled hundreds of millions of social media posts
lol surveilled |
|
|
|
If the house edge is 0.5%, that means, in the long run you're expected to lose 0.5% of the amount you wagered.
Do you disagree?
Yes. My rewards were around 0,5%, so I was expected to lose nothing (0,5% house edge - 0,5% rewards = 0). I've already explained what's wrong specifically with your calculation (you ignore the fact that black jack pays 3:2, and calculate it as if every win pays even money).
If Stake "Statistics" calculates a Black Jack win as 1 bet won while I won 1,5 bets, then you just confirmed that their in-house Black Jack system is rigged! But your "calculation" clearly results in the player having a significant edge. Rewards are separate and dependent on which games you play and how much you've won or lost at each point. I'm just talking about your "math". |
|
|
|
^^^ But the world is rapidly getting one language. It isn't the language of one of the nations. Rather it is the super-language of combining all the computer languages into one between computers of the whole world. Why isn't it binary, the language that's been around for hundreds of years and used by pretty much every system in the world today. |
|
|
|
Stop crying because you did nonsense math and convinced yourself you could win long term at online black jack.
My math is perfect! Only because you are too stupid to understand basic math does not make my math nonsense: The Stake in-house Black Jack system is provably rigged and not provably fair! Info 1)If you take a look at my statistics here https://ibb.co/Hxf8NpR you can see the following total numbers: Bets: 180,904 Wins: 78,285 Losses: 86,612 If we reduce the number of wins from the number of losses, we can see that I lost 8,327 bets (86,612 minus 78,285 = 8,327) Losing 8,327 bets out of 180,904 bets placed = 4,6% of the bets lost. Info 2)The advertised house edge for the Stake in-house Black Jack is 0,5%, which means longterm I will lose 0,5% of all bets placed. Losing 0,5% out of 180,904 bets placed = 900 bets lost. If you compare Info 1) with Info 2), you can see that I lost 8,327 bets instead of the 900 bets I should lose = 9 times more! While there is a deviation from the expected outcome, it can not be 9 times more after 180,904 bets! Info 3)When the house edge is 0,5% and you placed 180,900 bets, you will lose 900 bets and the remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips. The remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips, because they are neutral and you will win 50% = 90,000 bets and lose 50% = 90,000 bets. 4,6% of the bets lost while I should lose only 0,5% means my experienced deviation of the 180,000 coin flips is 4,1%! Now let's take a look at the standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips: A) Standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 212 coin flips = 0,12% (In 68% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0,12%) My experienced deviation of 4,1% is 34 times higher than the standard deviation (4,1% : 0,12% = 34) B) 3 times standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 0,36% (In 99,7% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0.36%) My experienced deviation of 4,1% is 11 times higher than the 3 times standard deviation (4,1% : 0,36% = 11) Info 4)The Stake bet transaction history only states 180,000 single bet events and no overview of my experienced house edge. To get my experienced house edge from the bet transaction history, I would need to take a look at all 180,000 bets and calculate it manually! If the cards were dealt fair and I lost only 0,5% of all bets placed while the statistics states that I lost 4,6%, then the Stake statistics is rigged! In either case, the Stake in-house Black Jack system is provably rigged and Stake has to compensate at least the 30,000 USD I lost from my pocket. Their strategy to ignore me, while they are clearly at fault, will fail! So Bijan, Edward and Mladen are going the Changpeng Zhao route now, or what? If the house edge is 0.5%, that means, in the long run you're expected to lose 0.5% of the amount you wagered. Do you disagree? I've already explained what's wrong specifically with your calculation (you ignore the fact that black jack pays 3:2, and calculate it as if every win pays even money). But that aside, you understand that the house edge reflects how much the house expects to win, which is the same as how much the player should expect to lose...correct? |
|
|
|
Can you imagine that I try since one year to get my at Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack system unjustifiably lost 30,000 USD back and Bijan, Edward and Mladen follow the ignorance strategy?
Changpeng Zhao also followed the ignorance strategy and it became very expensive!
Why do they do this?
You wagered almost $10,000,000. The house edge is 0.5% Stop crying because you did nonsense math and convinced yourself you could win long term at online black jack. You should've lost more if anything. |
|
|
|
~ The "forgotten" part you mentioned, is only something that you have forgotten or never seen. Trump and his people tried to bring their evidence to the Supreme Court. But they were turned away because: 1. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to hear; 2. Cases that SCOTUS is designed to hear are man against man or man against artificial entity; 3. Artificial entity against artificial entity, if SCOTUS wishes to hear it; 4. Never artificial entity against man. All of Trump's attempts to bring an election fraud case were attempted as artificial entity against artificial entity. The 'person' of the representation that Trump used was an attorney-entity. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear an artificial entity bringing a case - 3 and 4 above. Since they wouldn't hear the case, the media forgot any evidence that Trump had. But if you do the right kind of searches on Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell and other of the Trump former team, you can dredge up the evidence that Trump was bringing. You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control. Actually, I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. My country has been under USA sanctions for years and we do not receive any economical aid from Washington, if anything both Trump and Biden would love to be the ones in charge when/if USA managed to overthrown our corrupt leaders and corrupt authorities. Also, it is not completely about the SCOTUS, I assume. Because in the 2 hours long call Trump had with the secretary of State of Georgia (who voted for Trump and is a long standing Republican), Trump tried to make the case ballots were scanned multiple times and the secretary of State told him that the video had been put out of context by Ruddy. So how come a Republican ally of Trump would not play along and call for the results of the election to be changed ? Perhaps he was an agent of the Deep state or simply did not want to break his loyalty to the office he assumed. It's easily understandable that you don't have any idea about what I say. To understand it better, understand this:gobbledygook gobbledygook gobbledygook : 1. gobbledygook 2. gobbledygook It is the same for your gobbledygook and all gobbledygook. The difference between gobbledygook is, some of the gobbledygook have it spoken/written out in the ope (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, the formal gobbledygook of India, Bangladesh, and a few others), while other gobbledygooks try to hide it, and the government people of still other countries break these two points by forcing their people into all kinds of things on the threat of punishment or death. Think deeply about this, and figure out how it works and why. It will give you the best understanding of the US gobbledygook, and your own country's government, that you will ever get. gobbledygookgobbledygookgobbledygook Oh hey that reminds me.... Jan. 6 rioter who used sovereign citizen 'gobbledygook' at trial is found guiltyA Jan. 6 rioter who represented himself during a jury trial and advanced sovereign citizen arguments that a federal judge described as "bulls---" and "gobbledygook" was found guilty Tuesday and ordered into government custody.
Taylor James Johnatakis of Washington state was arrested in February 2021 and went to trial starting last week. After just a few hours of deliberation, a jury found Johntakis guilty on Tuesday of felony counts of obstruction of an official proceeding, assaulting officers and civil disorder, as well as four misdemeanor charges.
Judge Royce Lamberth had grown frustrated with Johnatakis during a pretrial conference last week that took place the day before jury selection began. Johnatakis repeatedly said that he wanted to accept "full liability" for the charges. “I would like to come to a resolution,” Johnatakis said, though he refused to plead guilty to the charges.
Johnatakis “could get a lesser sentence" if he "weren’t so hardheaded," Lamberth said.
"I'm telling you the facts of life. You don't believe me," Lamberth said. "When they find you guilty, you're going to jail."
Once the jury trial began, Johnatakis didn't call any witnesses or put on a defense.
"I have repented all my sins," Johnatakis said during the trial, saying he requested that Lamberth "discharge" the matter — a common phrase from sovereign citizens — since, he said, there was no "controversy" before the court.
During the trial, Johnatakis questioned an FBI agent, Michael Kiley, on whether he accepted Johnatakis' apology for his actions. Kiley responded that it wasn't his place to accept Johnatakis' apology.More than 1,200 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol attack, and more than 400 have received sentences of incarceration. Online "Sedition Hunters" say about 1,000 additional rioters have been identified, but not yet arrested. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-rioter-used-sovereign-citizen-gobbledygook-trial-found-guilty-rcna126236PS: The Kraken lawyer has plead guilty conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties. After being charged with actual election fraud and a bunch of other felonies, she agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges and testify for the government in Trumps trial in exchange for 6 years of probation. That's the Kraken lawyer. The one you mentioned in the very first post of this epic thread. Here we go, boys and girls. The Kraken is finally starting to lift off the bottom. Click the links, and go to the site to show the many other links.
SIDNEY POWELL UPDATE |
|
|
|
The things you say aren't the only things that can be done. Even the IRS says in their pamphlets and paperwork that taxes are voluntary. If a person can volunteer in, he has the right to volunteer out. It's up to the person to find out how.
The things you say aren't the only things that are relevant. There might be a pamphlet from the IRS that says filing your taxes is voluntary (although I doubt that). In reality, if you don't file them, the government will file them for you - and if you don't pay the bill they send you, they can collect them by seizing your property or garnishing your wages. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
