Topic: irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/ - page 2. (Read 3056 times)

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.

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

This is half right. Even in an administrative hearing, people who have an interest might send in the snipers.

In a common law hearing, the same would apply.

You still aren't getting to the gist of the question. In an administrative proceeding, the government can't put snipers on a party because the government says it can't and, accordingly, would, effectively, stop itself. Ostensibly, however, in a common law hearing, the government would not be stopping itself, but a man would be attempting to stop government (and, thus, be "taken out").

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?

Can't do it, since the counterclaimant has the same rights as a man as the claimant. However, if it could be done - counterclaiming being blocked - the potential counterclaimant could start a new claim of his own.

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 

That does not speak to what would become of a claimant that prevented, physically or otherwise, the introduction of counterclaims into his court.

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.

If the counterclaim beat the claim, the original claimant could be made liable for all the "punishment" he was seeking against the counterclaimant.

Would PotUS face legal repercussions if he, as common law's "man," were to have "his firends" ensure that no such "counter claim" (BADecker) were introduced?

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 accused might make a counter claim as a man, wherein he could describe the rules of court. He might have as many friends as he wants to advise him. But he is the only one who can speak the actual accusation/defense, although witnesses may corroborate.

Could PotUS assert that the accused must first subject himself to "a friend's" (i.e., his military's) "enhanced" interrogation?

I didn't realize that this was going to be so difficult for people to understand.

If a man inside government (a government agent, a military man, a governmental official), or if a man outside of government, harms another man or his property, it is man harming man. If the perpetrator is inside government, since government can't do anything except that it is activated by a man, it is the man that does it.

The injured man or his relatives can sue the perpetrator one of two ways. They can sue him via an administrative hearing. They can sue him via common law because it was a man that did it.

If the injured man or his relatives sue the perpetrator under administrative law, the whole case will be decided entirely by the government. The government can decide any way it wants, guilty or not guilty, or partially guilty. All the injured man or his relatives do is make noise in an administrative hearing.

In a common law hearing, there are three things that might happen:
1. The evidence and the witnesses might be overwhelming and the judge would be required to declare guilt (or innocence if there was no strength in whatever was brought against the perpetrator);
2. The judge might be given the authority by the people bringing the suit against the perpetrator, to judge according to the way the judge interprets the evidence and what the witnesses say;
3. There might be a jury trial where the perpetrator is judged entirely by the jury.

----------

Obviously, if the man doing that harm is personally strong enough, he might be able to thwart all governments and all people. We are talking sci-fi here, like Iron Man.

There are some people in, say, the military, that might be influential enough in military circles, that they can do harm and damage to the world without true governmental authority. Obviously, if such a man pulls some switches, and launches some nukes, the damage will have been done no matter how many times he is prosecuted, found guilty, and executed later.



EDIT: In a common law of the people hearing, the people bringing the suit create the rules of court. Throw the government's Rules Book out the window.

That, however, is the best part: if PotUS asserted his pre-U.S. Constitution rights (while retaining his command of the post-U.S. Constitution U.S. armed forces) as a man (that "just so happens" to "have the run" of a massive nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenal), then the U.S. would become a military dictatorship - full stop.

Every human being is first a man or a woman. Then, if he takes the office of some agreement that is formed between people, he is not only a man, but a holder of that office.

Until computers become sentient, every activity of an agreement is done by a man/woman. No agreement jumps up and does an activity by itself. The closest we have might be a sentient computer. But it would still be the activity of one or more people who created the computer.

The fact that common law exists doesn't make it automatically the thing that happens. People need to stand up as men/women and use it.

Ultimately, who is the law? The law is the one who has the most strength. As you say, if some military commander is stronger than the people and the government, he is the new government.

So far, common law has not been exercised fully because of the ignorance of the people about it, and because the government people like their assumed power and try to hide the common law of the people. They have gone so far as to create their own version of law that they call the common law. This is the court cases. It is not the common law of the people because it is under the administrative section of government rather than the pure actions and judgments man to man.

Might might make what exists. But might doesn't necessarily make right.

At which point, the rest will "trim the fat" and, with their Five Eyes, "kill every last one of them."

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.

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.