irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/

[LAMarcellus]

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.

[dscotese]

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.

The whole story is here.

[BADecker]

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.

[username18333]

Time for a relative of hers to go after the people in government who deprived them of their property - Doreen.

Through the same legal system that "stole" her?

[BADecker]

Time for a relative of hers to go after the people in government who deprived them of their property - Doreen.

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.

[username18333]

The two greatest words in [U.S.] law . . . are "[Supreme]" and "[Court]."

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).

[BADecker]

The two greatest words in [U.S.] law . . . are "[Supreme]" and "[Court]."

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.

[username18333]

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.

(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.)

[dscotese]

You don't decide that: nationally, within the U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court decides that

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.

[BADecker]

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.

(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.)

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.

[dscotese]

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.

[username18333]

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.

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.

[username18333]

It is possible for people to behave in a way which degrades their influence.

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

[BADecker]

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.

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.

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..

[username18333]

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

"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).

[cryptocoiner]

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!

[dscotese]

It is possible for people to behave in a way which degrades their influence.

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

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.

[BADecker]

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

"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).

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.

[username18333]

Well anyway, maybe you're asking in what ways people can act that degrade their influence.

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).

[username18333]

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.

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.