irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/

[GreenStox]

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.

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.

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.

That sucks.

[BADecker]

In a common law hearing, the same would apply.

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?

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

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.

That sucks.

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?

[GreenStox]

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

[username18333]

The wealthy don't want a system that is disrupted any more than necessary. It would detract from their profits.

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.

[BADecker]

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

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.

[username18333]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

The wealthy don't want a system that is disrupted any more than necessary. It would detract from their profits.

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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 (and other court staff) being nothing more than an idle observer(s).

Doesn't happen that way.

[username18333]

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.

[GreenStox]

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.

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?

[username18333]

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). 

[GreenStox]

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 sporting 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.

[username18333]

Why is it stolen in the first place?

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

[BADecker]

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.

Yes, the battle might be fierce.

[BADecker]

Why is it stolen in the first place?

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

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

[username18333]

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.

[BADecker]

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 sporting 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.

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