irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/ | Bitcointalksearch.org

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:50:24 PM

Quote from: username18333 on May 20, 2015, 07:46:41 PM

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:37:17 PM

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.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:57:44 PM

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

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: username18333 on May 20, 2015, 07:53:55 PM

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:50:24 PM

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.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: username18333 on May 20, 2015, 07:36:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:35:39 PM

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.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:50:24 PM

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.

GreenStox

sr. member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 252

Undeads.com - P2E Runner Game

Quote from: username18333 on May 20, 2015, 07:46:41 PM

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:37:17 PM

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

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:37:17 PM

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). Roll Eyes

GreenStox

sr. member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 252

Undeads.com - P2E Runner Game

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:32:05 PM

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

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:35:39 PM

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.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: username18333 on May 20, 2015, 07:34:16 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:23:35 PM

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.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: username18333 on May 20, 2015, 07:28:26 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:21:21 PM

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.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:23:35 PM

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

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:25:27 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:23:35 PM

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

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:21:21 PM

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.

GreenStox

sr. member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 252

Undeads.com - P2E Runner Game

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:23:35 PM

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

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:18:07 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:11:45 PM

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.

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:13:19 PM

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?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: username18333 on May 20, 2015, 07:15:58 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 06:59:08 PM

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11435280 on the previous page.

GreenStox

sr. member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 252

Undeads.com - P2E Runner Game

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:11:45 PM

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.

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 07:13:19 PM

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.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 06:59:08 PM

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?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 07:11:07 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 06:47:38 PM

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 06:39:46 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2015, 06:34:41 PM

Quote from: GreenStox on May 20, 2015, 06:26:14 PM

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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.

Topic: irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/ (Read 2982 times)