irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[username18333]

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[username18333]

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.

Adolf Hitler's contempt for traditional German law had been manifest from his earliest days as leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). The NSDAP's Twenty-Five point programme of 1920 proposed that existing law 'be replaced by a German common law'. By implication the NSDAP believed that the primary purpose of law should be to serve a racially defined Aryan national community, enshrined in a 'strong central state power' that would replace the democratic Constitution of 1919. Hitler shared the Party's rejection of the principle of equality for all before the law. However, by 1921 he had confused the exclusivist principles of the Party by imposing one of his own, namely that the 'Leader Principle' (Führerprinzip) should be the law of the Party. It was the 'will' of the Party's Führer, and therefore the 'law' of the NSDAP, that the single-minded, ruthless acquisition of political power should take priority over other considerations.

[BADecker]

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.

Adolf Hitler's contempt for traditional German law had been manifest from his earliest days as leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). The NSDAP's Twenty-Five point programme of 1920 proposed that existing law 'be replaced by a German common law'. By implication the NSDAP believed that the primary purpose of law should be to serve a racially defined Aryan national community, enshrined in a 'strong central state power' that would replace the democratic Constitution of 1919. Hitler shared the Party's rejection of the principle of equality for all before the law. However, by 1921 he had confused the exclusivist principles of the Party by imposing one of his own, namely that the 'Leader Principle' (Führerprinzip) should be the law of the Party. It was the 'will' of the Party's Führer, and therefore the 'law' of the NSDAP, that the single-minded, ruthless acquisition of political power should take priority over other considerations.

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.

[username18333]

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.

[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

[BADecker]

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.

[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

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.

[username18333]

According to Constitution - 9th Amendment - man has authority over government.

According to Andrew Jackson, a court decision is only as binding as the force wherewith it is enforced. (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.)

[BADecker]

According to Constitution - 9th Amendment - man has authority over government.

According to Andrew Jackson, a court decision is only as binding as the force wherewith it is enforced.

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.

[username18333]

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.

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?

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[username18333]

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...

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‽

[BADecker]

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...

How is the system you espouse relevant if it does not account for a concerted effort, one 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.

[username18333]

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

[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

[BADecker]

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

[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[username18333]

If the people want to act without it, and express such properly, then the government of the United States enforces this.

As Andrew Jackson, an “autonomous” commander in chief, knew all too well.

[BADecker]

If the people want to act without it, and express such properly, then the government of the United States enforces this.

As Andrew Jackson, an “autonomous” commander in chief, knew all too well.

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

[username18333]

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 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.

[dscotese]

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 of an (at times, 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.