Topic: You’re Guilty of Acting Guilty: Why Is It a Crime to Evade Government Scrutiny? (Read 496 times)

Actually, you might find yourself actually wanting the surveillance. Here's why.

If anybody wants to get some money out of you by framing you in a court of law, he just might be able to do it. If he has some "stuff" that he can use as evidence against you, even though you are innocent, you might be pronounced guilty if you don't have an evidence-proof alibi. Actually, this is happening all over the place right now regarding mortgages.

So, what might your strong alibi be? The surveillance tapes. If your whole life were under surveillance from every angle, all you would need do is bring up the surveillance tapes to show that you were innocent.

I predict that as the world becomes more and more a sue-happy place, and a place where evidence can be created, everyone will WANT the surveillance. Consider how many people could have been free from prosecution if they had a surveillance tape of how the cop lied about the circumstances of their arrest, but the cop turned the dash cam and his vest cam off.

Surveillance is peace. Privacy is slavery. Facebook is strength.


The problem is the surveillance state is gradually being outsourced to the private sector, soon it wont matter whether you live in a country with a big or small government.

There are only a few ways that you become guilty. I might miss some, but here is a list.

1. You are guilty if you say you are.
2. You are guilty if somebody who is stronger than you says you are.
3. You are guilty if you do harm or damage.
4. You are guilty if you break a contract (harm or damage).

That's about it.

In America, the bottom line law is based on man-to-man relationships (women included). This means that the government or anybody else, must face you man-to-man regarding any claim of legal or lawful a government official makes about you... if you demand it. It's the same regarding claims that you make about anyone else.

Such thinking is based in the 9th Amendment, which allows individual people to overrule government. The rights of the people are what they had been before the Constitution and government were installed/initiated/created/formed.

This thinking is true about every government in the world simply because no government does anything except that people do it in positions of government. However, most of the other governments don't have the easy freedom for their people that America has, because it is not stated as such right in the foundation of the governments like the American 9th Amendment is in the U.S.

So, what is the claim of illegality that anyone makes against you? It is based on your self incrimination. The U.S. courts slyly attempt you to get you to incriminate yourself. You incriminate yourself when you make any kind of agreement with them, verbal or written. How does this work?

Because the government is paperwork, because it is agreements, if you make an agreement with anyone and bring it to court, there is a "fight" between the agreements. Don't make agreements with the court... not so much as between yourself and an attorney, or between yourself and yourself (self represented), or between yourself and the judge, or between yourself and anybody else.

In America, you aren't guilty unless you physically harm somebody, or unless you injure him by damaging his property, or unless you break a contract (which is harming somebody or damaging his property). When you make any agreements, with court or otherwise, the only way you can truly defend yourself is to get out of the agreements. If the courts say you have an agreement with them, you have to show that you don't. The way to do this is to bring it man to man, using the 9th amendment to show government people that government has no claim and power over you, by its own admittance, in the 9th Amendment.

You are only guilty in America through harm or damage, or if you say you are by agreement. You can force EVERYTHING into a man-to-man confrontation in the courts. Where is the injury or harm to the man who is accusing you?

His whole point is that the act of avoiding surveillance itself is beginning to become criminalized.

It's not a crime, but it makes you look suspicious. The government is a species which always wants to get bigger and bigger, and that means individuals are getting smaller and smaller, with their full life under control.

That said...


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/leaked-tisa-documents-reveal-privacy-threat-1080281

You are guilty if you break an agreement.

Rather than staying inside the broken agreement, as a man/woman, rescind your signature off the agreement.

If anyone other than yourself says you are guilty of anything that has not caused harm to a person or damage to property, they are simply another man/woman observing or creating some hearsay. In that case, they are the ones doing the harm or damage... to you.

Why do you want to maintain yourself as a citizen of the United States or any other country if it is going to throw you under their bus? Rather, be domiciled on the land. Maintain citizenship only for the moment and purpose of voting. Then rescind your signature off anything that says you are a citizen.

What will happen to your vote if you rescind your signature off the voter registration until next time? Nothing, because you voted in private, and they don't know which way you voted.

[..]
It isn’t illegal to withdraw money from the bank, nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms, nor to be the victim of a blackmail scheme. So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government? The alarming aspect of this case is the fact that an American is ultimately being prosecuted for the crime of evading federal government surveillance.

That has implications for all of us…

Again, the payments weren’t illegal. But as it turns out, structuring financial transactions “to evade currency transaction reporting requirements” is a violation of federal law.


[...]
Imagine that a documentary filmmaker like Laura Poitras, whose films are critical of government surveillance, is buying a used video camera for $12,000. Vaguely knowing that a report to the federal government is generated for withdrawals of $10,000 or more, she thinks to herself, “What with my films criticizing NSA surveillance, I don’t want to invite any extra scrutiny—out of an abundance of caution, or maybe even paranoia, I’m gonna take out $9,000 today and $3,000 tomorrow. The last thing I need is to give someone a pretext to hassle me.”*

That would be illegal, even though in this hypothetical she has committed no crime and is motivated, like many people, by a simple aversion to being monitored.


[...]
What if the government installed surveillance cameras on various streets in a municipality and then made it a crime to walk along a route that skirted those cameras?


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/when-evading-government-spying-is-a-crime/394640/