Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

[David Merrill]

For Contempt of Court.


Attached below.


This is likely why I never write a formal book. That seals me into a doctrine when I am still developing and learning about American Remedy in the Federal Reserve Act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-notes.html

[Brian]

He never re-examined his initial material to find what he missed. He still refuses to acknowledge what is discussed on this forum.

[John Howard]

What do you suppose would happen to me if I reported for jury duty in this case with my copy of the internal revenue code under my arm?

[David Lyn]

I would hope you wouldn't show up initially with the IRC. Bring it AFTER you get on the jury

[David Merrill]

Thanks for the update Brian. This is probably why I do not write a book. I keep updated backups of the Suitors Broadcasts on the brain trust in the hands of some of the suitors in case they would like to collate and compile a biography of how remedy described here on this website developed.

If I were to write a book about this I feel the dynamics would cease. I would be sealed and obligated to protecting any errors in the book.

[John Howard]

I would hope you wouldn't show up initially with the IRC. Bring it AFTER you get on the jury

Exactly. If I actually wanted to be on the jury I would need to use my best poker face and try to look as "sheeplish" as possible.

[David Lyn]

Exactly. If I actually wanted to be on the jury I would need to use my best poker face and try to look as "sheeplish" as possible.

Good plan!

[ManOntheLand]

For Contempt of Court.


Attached below.


This is likely why I never write a formal book. That seals me into a doctrine when I am still developing and learning about American Remedy in the Federal Reserve Act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-notes.html

Before I saw this, I had just finished posting (on the Response from The Secretary thread) a little analysis of Pete's criminal trial as seen through the lawful money paradigm. Pete and Doreen seem to have had little grasp of how a Federal Court's jurisdiction works when they were involved in the civil proceeding that led to these charges. They incorrectly believe their rebuttal of W-2 forms on forms 4852 removed all presumption of IRS jurisdiction. They incorrectly believed they could enter a Federal Court's Article I jurisdiction as defendants in a revenue case and still have constitutional rights within that venue. They were ordered to file amended returns and refrain from filing CTC returns by a legislative tribunal, not by an Article III court.

Being ordered to fill out a tax return a certain way seems outrageous if you don't understand that you are being presumed to be under a duty as an officer of the federal corporation. Pete and Doreen are presumed by the Court to know, understand and accept that duty (even if they really don't). They are obligated under that presumption to provide CORRECT information and swear to it on the 1040. Unless one is redeeming lawful money, or establishes the amounts reported on W-2 are wrong (not just that they are not "wages") the W-2 is presumed correct information. Arguing that it is not correct based on ANY legal argument is frivolous in the eyes of the Article I court, because you are presumed to be OBLIGATED.

[David Merrill]

Before I saw this, I had just finished posting (on the Response from The Secretary thread) a little analysis of Pete's criminal trial as seen through the lawful money paradigm. Pete and Doreen seem to have had little grasp of how a Federal Court's jurisdiction works when they were involved in the civil proceeding that led to these charges. They incorrectly believe their rebuttal of W-2 forms on forms 4852 removed all presumption of IRS jurisdiction. They incorrectly believed they could enter a Federal Court's Article I jurisdiction as defendants in a revenue case and still have constitutional rights within that venue. They were ordered to file amended returns and refrain from filing CTC returns by a legislative tribunal, not by an Article III court.

Being ordered to fill out a tax return a certain way seems outrageous if you don't understand that you are being presumed to be under a duty as an officer of the federal corporation. Pete and Doreen are presumed by the Court to know, understand and accept that duty (even if they really don't). They are obligated under that presumption to provide CORRECT information and swear to it on the 1040. Unless one is redeeming lawful money, or establishes the amounts reported on W-2 are wrong (not just that they are not "wages") the W-2 is presumed correct information. Arguing that it is not correct based on ANY legal argument is frivolous in the eyes of the Article I court, because you are presumed to be OBLIGATED.

This article (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) calls that irrecusable obligation.

[John Howard]

If I were to write a book about this I feel the dynamics would cease. I would be sealed and obligated to protecting any errors in the book.

"When you read a book, you are receiving a glimpse into a person at a certain point in their evolution. It should in no way reflect on their entire evolution, nor your own. Which is why finding an author and adopting their belief system is detrimental more than beneficial. Open mindedness and entertaining ideas beyond your field of vision and against your preconceived notions is the path to self discovery."

[Jethro]

A grand jury indictment for contempt? Aren't contempt proceedings typically handled only by a judge, via show cause proceedings?

[David Merrill]

Irregular at best.

It strikes me that the prosecution (judge) is trying to avoid trying Doreen for the same drawn out accusation. Contempt is typically between the judge and a party in the courtroom. But I have never studied up much about contempt specifically. This sort of thing might go on all the time.

[ManOntheLand]

Irregular at best.

It strikes me that the prosecution (judge) is trying to avoid trying Doreen for the same drawn out accusation. Contempt is typically between the judge and a party in the courtroom. But I have never studied up much about contempt specifically. This sort of thing might go on all the time.

Contempt is a criminal offense, even though it arises from an interaction between the court and a party in the courtroom. So as much as a slam dunk as it may seem to be, she is nonetheless entitled to due process of law--i.e. grand jury indictment, presumption of not guilty, opportunity to defend, etc.

[David Merrill]

I have looked at it simply. Contempt is when the party is holding up proceedings in the court. So it may not stick at all. It may be completely misapplied.

[walter]

contempt (n.)
late 14c., from Latin contemptus "scorn,"

scorn (n.)
c.1200, a shortening of Old French escarn "mockery, derision, contempt," a common Romanic word (cf. Spanish escarnio, Italian scherno) of Germanic origin, from Proto-Germanic *skarnjan "mock, deride" (cf. Old High German skern "mockery, jest, sport," Middle High German scherzen "to jump with joy").

Probably influenced by Old French escorne "affront, disgrace," which is a back-formation from escorner, literally "to break off (someone's) horns," from Vulgar Latin *excornare (source of Italian scornare "treat with contempt"), from Latin ex- "without" + cornu "horn."



carry a horn in your back pocket if you are in a court room that way the judge can never find you in contempt.

[Michael Joseph]

contempt (n.)
late 14c., from Latin contemptus "scorn,"

scorn (n.)
c.1200, a shortening of Old French escarn "mockery, derision, contempt," a common Romanic word (cf. Spanish escarnio, Italian scherno) of Germanic origin, from Proto-Germanic *skarnjan "mock, deride" (cf. Old High German skern "mockery, jest, sport," Middle High German scherzen "to jump with joy").

Probably influenced by Old French escorne "affront, disgrace," which is a back-formation from escorner, literally "to break off (someone's) horns," from Vulgar Latin *excornare (source of Italian scornare "treat with contempt"), from Latin ex- "without" + cornu "horn."



carry a horn in your back pocket if you are in a court room that way the judge can never find you in contempt.


Walter this is just what some man has thought the term meant. Lets not concern ourselves with the leaves but rather with the root. And here is the root. If one makes a promise, then one is bound [legally bound] to perform the promise so as to convey equity upon the one who is promised. Now if one Undertakes then one makes a promise.

Can God lie? The answer is no. Therefore it is a crime for man to lie or said another way for man NOT to keep his word. Therefore if you make me a promise I intend to hold you to it. And if you will not perform, then perhaps we shall seek a court that has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Now then what is the evidence says the judge. Well that one is easy - there is a joint return.

For what cause is there a return except that a trustee is providing the books for inspection to the beneficiary.

Here is one asking Yehovah to UNDERTAKE on his behalf:

Isa_38:14 Like a crane or a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward: O LORD, I am oppressed; undertake for me.

A choice to Undertake or not.

[ManOntheLand]

Irregular at best.

It strikes me that the prosecution (judge) is trying to avoid trying Doreen for the same drawn out accusation. Contempt is typically between the judge and a party in the courtroom. But I have never studied up much about contempt specifically. This sort of thing might go on all the time.

I think you are right that they are trying to avoid charging Doreen with filing false documents as they did with Pete. They certainly could charge her with filing false documents, but they are going for the easy win with contempt. They cannot risk losing in court against visible people in the "tax protestor" community like the Hendricksons especially. I think Pete's trial was a bit of a scare for them, when Pete challenged jurisdiction on the basis that he is not a "person" as defined in the Code. It took five months for the judge to come back with a denial of that motion.

In Pete's criminal trial, they used the same court orders that Doreen is now accused of being in contempt of, to prove that Pete was put on notice that his returns violated the law, so they could establish "willfulness" necessary for Pete's criminal conviction. But Doreen may appear a more sympathetic figure to the jury than Pete, so to ensure a win they are keeping it simple--either she obeyed the court's order, or she did not. If she did not, does she have any defense that makes the violation not "willful"?

If anybody thinks Pete or Doreen would listen at this point, she may be able to defend herself by refusing to enter a plea until she understands the nature and cause of the charges, she could challenge jurisdiction based on the lack of any knowing, voluntary waiver of rights per Brady v. United States. People always assume they "understand" the charges against them. But they really don't, and should not say that they do. Force those who seek to enforce a contract to reveal the contract. Case dismissed!

[John Howard]

But Doreen may appear a more sympathetic figure to the jury than Pete, so to ensure a win they are keeping it simple--either she obeyed the court's order, or she did not. If she did not, does she have any defense that makes the violation not "willful"?


She could say that she does not understand how she can change her testimony and not be perjuring herself.

[ManOntheLand]

Great point John Howard!

I have been discouraged from ranting at this site about the "corruption" of the system, but it is illuminating to see the tactics that are sometimes resorted to by the system's gatekeepers (the courts) when someone pushes up against the walls of "the matrix". Doreen's case is a great example. The issue is one easily understood by any one--does a Court have the right to dictate your testimony? If so, what is the point of having you testify at all? Or anyone else?

Not everybody will be able to grasp, accept or embrace the remedy of redeeming lawful money at first. But even a child can see that the emperor has no clothes on this one. For those who have not yet gotten on board with remedy, the ability to articulate to a jury that the emperor has no clothes may be enough to get IRS to leave you alone.

The point you make about testimony, John Howard, brought to my mind one of the fundamental Achilles heels in the federal tax scheme. At 26 CFR 301.6203-1, it states that the amount of assessment of tax "shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown". This is the same language that appeared in the first income tax act of 1862 (long before the Federal Reserve, the 16th Amendment or the 1933 bankruptcy). The Secretary literally has never had authority in the tax law to assess any amount other than what you state your tax is on the return!

However, what you "owe" by your own agreement (or agreement by default) with IRS is another matter. This is how IRS ended up being pretty much an intimidation and extortion racket. They are operating only under the law of necessity, and enforcing "public policy" which is that as many people as possible must be encouraged (through presumption, deception or intimidation) into "voluntary compliance".

This dissonance between the law as written and the way it is enforced is a big clue to show people that all is not what it seems with the income tax scheme. For those not yet using remedy, it is important if one finds oneself charged with violating IRC to be able to articulate that dissonance to a jury, since the average American on a jury will have never attempted to read any of the income tax code. Pete's jury actually asked to see the Code definitions of "employee" "wages" etc. but Pete screwed up by not putting this into evidence himself for his defense--he was upset that the judge did not show the Code sections to the jury, but that is not the judge's job.

This is not to advocate for Pete and Doreen's position, by the way--I think they would do well to study redemption in lawful money. But I give much credit to Pete for his work examining the Code and pointing out the huge discrepancies between the law as written and the way people typically think the income tax works.

David Merrill is right that this case has nothing to do with Cracking the Code doctrine per se. It is more fundamental than that. Does a Court have the right to tell you how to testify? Logically, it would seem obviously not. What is the purpose of any testimony if the Court can dictate what that testimony is to be?


It could be argued that the court's use of coercion to try to affect Doreen's testimony (amount of tax to be shown on the return) constitutes tampering with a witness in a federal proceeding, a crime under 18 U.S.C., or subornation of perjury.

This might go right to the legal maxim that the law cannot require the impossible. It could be argued it is not possible for her to comply with the court's order without committing perjury.

Neither can a contract (or a court order) be valid if it requires one to commit a crime (perjury). I have often thought, if I am required to do these things, then why do they need my signature? She should make the jury ask themselves the same question.

This may not get her out of the Court's jurisdiction, and the Court will no doubt instruct the jury that she violated its order--but when it comes to the jury evaluating her intent--even on a common sense level to an average juror, it may seem utterly crazy to force someone to testify to something they do not believe under penalty of perjury "because we said so!"

Doreen could say she relied on the federal laws against witness tampering and subornation of perjury to treat the judge's order as unlawful. They will argue that she has every reason to know she is wrong, so her belief reflected on her return is "not reasonable" and therefore insincere. But how reasonable is it to force her to sign testimony other than what she already willingly signed, especially in light of 26 CFR 301.6203-1?

Normally they would just audit such a return and attempt to get agreement or default on a re-assessment of the tax (and/or impose a frivolous return penalty). But they want to make an example of Doreen, as they did with Pete. Another part of the "public policy" they are enforcing.

This is regarding orders made over 5 years ago? I am sure they did their homework and sized her up as a target before they made their move. But they might have overplayed their hand on this one. I hope she doesn't pull a "Pete defense" and argue only that "the plain language of the law" proves her CTC returns are correct and the judge is wrong. At the very least she should have those laws she relied on to enter into evidence so the jury can see them--this is probably where Pete lost out the most on an opportunity for a hung jury or even an acquittal.

Tom Cryer tried to unite tax honesty factions under the one idea he believed they could all agree on: "there is no law that makes Americans liable for income tax". Which is oversimplifying and misleading. However, I think we can all see that something is rotten in Denmark with Doreen's case. We can probably all agree on that. It might serve as a bridge for educating the average person that all is not what it seems with the income tax laws, to open them up to the idea of remedy.

Maybe the right to exchange labor for property per Coppage v. Kansas and the principle that waivers of rights must be knowing voluntary acts per Brady v. U.S. are ideas that everybody can agree on, even Pete and Doreen Hendrickson and any other tax honesty person with a pet theory for getting themselves out of the system. I think remedy is the correct way to opt out. But even for Doreen, pointing out these bedrock principles of a right to labor for money to a jury may cause them to question this whole thing enough to get her an acquittal if not a dismissal. And perhaps open some eyes.

[David Merrill]

It strikes me like the time the judge wanted to jail me for contempt. He asked if I understood my right to an attorney. I said, "No."

He explained it again. I said "No." He asked me why he should not jail me for contempt of court. I said that was only for somebody who was holding up the proceedings. He said that is exactly what I was doing.

He asked me again. I said, "You have asked me and I have answered that at least three times. How come you keep asking me if there is only one acceptable answer?"

[Michael Joseph]

He asked me again. I said, "You have asked me and I have answered that at least three times. How come you keep asking me if there is only one acceptable answer?"

Yehoshuah was tempted three times by one practicing the art of Devilling. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devilling)

Are you sure you want to stick to that position? This is the art of casting doubt and fear? Surely you don't want to do that? Surely God did not say....

Shalom,
MJ

[ManOntheLand]

It strikes me like the time the judge wanted to jail me for contempt. He asked if I understood my right to an attorney. I said, "No."

He explained it again. I said "No." He asked me why he should not jail me for contempt of court. I said that was only for somebody who was holding up the proceedings. He said that is exactly what I was doing.

He asked me again. I said, "You have asked me and I have answered that at least three times. How come you keep asking me if there is only one acceptable answer?"

"Understand" is a widely misunderstood word in legal context. More than just an expression of cognitive ability, "yes I understand" in legal context means "yes I stand under" the terms and conditions (even unstated ones?) of the venue. One is presumed to know what one is doing. Mostly we do not, and we pay the price for claiming that we do.

[David Lyn]

I don't know the situation, but the very well might have blocked Pete from getting the "law" into evidence. They don't like juries seeing "law"

[walter]

blocked Pete from getting the "law" into evidence.

What evidence?
Law is fiction.

The system is slick.

[ManOntheLand]

What evidence?
Law is fiction.

The system is slick.

Yes it is. The defendant is not permitted to argue about what the law says. However, he is entitled to make an affirmative defense. If he can create reasonable doubt as to whether he willfully violated the law, the jury may acquit. To that end, a defendant may enter into evidence any citations of law, court decisions or other authorities he relied upon to establish his basis for his belief as to what the law required of him. Willfulness is an essential element to tax offenses, and it requires violation of a "known legal duty".

[David Merrill]

However those are few and far between - those wins. The monopoly on them seems to be from Larry BECRAFT who doles them out apparently according to judges' direction. He would have slam-dunk acquittals all day long otherwise. I sense he protects his career by coming off the patriot attorney but only uses the above tact enough to keep his reputation. Otherwise he sells his clients to the prison system regularly.

[John Howard]

Any bets on whether or not I get banned on Pete's forum after I posted this? (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2982)

[David Lyn]

Yes it is. The defendant is not permitted to argue about what the law says. However, he is entitled to make an affirmative defense. If he can create reasonable doubt as to whether he willfully violated the law, the jury may acquit. To that end, a defendant may enter into evidence any citations of law, court decisions or other authorities he relied upon to establish his basis for his belief as to what the law required of him. Willfulness is an essential element to tax offenses, and it requires violation of a "known legal duty".

I'm gonna tell you right now, the jury doesn't have ANY idea what known legal duty and willfulness mean. It's Friday, they want to go home and the fastest way to do that is find you guilty. After all, you didn't pay your taxes, and they did.

[David Lyn]

Any bets on whether or not I get banned on Pete's forum after I posted this? (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2982)

He might let that fly..

[David Merrill]

I am registered there and can read. But after all these years, my account is still "inactive"?

[John Howard]

I am registered there and can read. But after all these years, my account is still "inactive"?

His roof, his rules. He would certainly be welcome here.

[John Howard]

I just invited (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2983) him.

Howard: of Saxon origin, meaning boldness.

[David Merrill]

Either way, if he were to admit he has missed remedy (according to law) with CtC there would be a lot of benefit and less victims.

[John Howard]

Two questions:

1: How many CtCers are here?

2: How many CtC victims are here?

[David Lyn]

And why does the savings to suitors club attract so many CTCers? I found this place from Johnny's posts over there


Two questions:

1: How many CtCers are here?

2: How many CtC victims are here?

[Brian]

And why does the savings to suitors club attract so many CTCers? I found this place from Johnny's posts over there

Because CtC leaves a large hole in the middle requiring further research. It creates a great framework but falls short in putting it into practical action. Pete always talked about the "piece of the action" thing, federal privilege thing. What he overlooked like the majority of Americans is the money. Cui Bono. The "money" being paid to you has a large federal privilege that attaches to it. Like being paid in money substitutes issued at the discretion of the Federal Reserve board and NOT congress. THIS CAN BE TAXED as an excise. see: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/75/75.US.533.html

The remedy is via the demand that you know what their game is by invoking 12USC411 and your right to be paid in the proper medium of exchange authorized by article 1 section 8 clause 5 and therefore is protected by the direct tax provisions.

PS: JH he will probably ban you, like he did to others on this forum. Especially if you continue posting links to here..case in point "libre".

[David Merrill]

SDR's (http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg) are the measure of a society's conditioning for its people to endorse private credit from the local central bank.

Suitors and people like you are the reason that an alternative SDR system arose - we devalue the confidence in the local SDR system. It is called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

[docfate]

I don't know about the Corporate (FEDERAL RESERVE) money article that you posted.

This just seems to be a stretch. Having a private corporation or government entity issue private money, and that being the reason that the income tax can be legal seems like a stretch.

What about what the supreme court has said on similar things like this?

In Thomas v. City of Richmond, 12 Wall. 349, 20 L.Ed. 453, Thomas brought his suit to recover on notes issued by the city. As in the instant case, it was criminal both for the city authorities to issue them and on the part of the party who paid for them. Of this the Court said in 12 Wall. at page 356, "* * * The issuing of bills as a currency by such a corporation without authority is not only contrary to positive law, but, being ultra vires, is an abuse of the public franchises which have been conferred upon it; and the receiver of the bills, being chargeable with notice of the wrong, is in pari delicto with the officers, and should have no remedy, even for money had and received, against the corporation upon which he has aided in inflicting the wrong * * *." (Emphasis supplied.)

[David Merrill]

I don't know about the Corporate (FEDERAL RESERVE) money article that you posted.

This just seems to be a stretch. Having a private corporation or government entity issue private money, and that being the reason that the income tax can be legal seems like a stretch.

What about what the supreme court has said on similar things like this?

In Thomas v. City of Richmond, 12 Wall. 349, 20 L.Ed. 453, Thomas brought his suit to recover on notes issued by the city. As in the instant case, it was criminal both for the city authorities to issue them and on the part of the party who paid for them. Of this the Court said in 12 Wall. at page 356, "* * * The issuing of bills as a currency by such a corporation without authority is not only contrary to positive law, but, being ultra vires, is an abuse of the public franchises which have been conferred upon it; and the receiver of the bills, being chargeable with notice of the wrong, is in pari delicto with the officers, and should have no remedy, even for money had and received, against the corporation upon which he has aided in inflicting the wrong * * *." (Emphasis supplied.)

Welcome to the forum Docfate;


I am not sure what link you mean, or if you are talking to me?

Interesting citation though... about a city issuing notes. The Fed is sanctioned by Congress so from what I can tell that would be the difference. The City is sanctioned by METRO organization, the nature of which is discussed fully around here including my narrative reading of a 1960 METRO book (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?766-Terrible-1313-Revisited-by-Jo-HINDMAN).

[John Howard]

This just seems to be a stretch. Having a private corporation or government entity issue private money, and that being the reason that the income tax can be legal seems like a stretch.

Have you seen this (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think)? Everyone has doubts at first. :cool:

[John Howard]

Doreen's motion to dismiss (http://losthorizons.com/Documents/PostDoreenMotionAndAffidavit.pdf) has been posted.

[John Howard]

Is our illustrious government allowed to suborn perjury? I sincerely hope not!

[bobbinville]

I think that what the government is saying is that Doreen has no legal basis for believing that she is filing correct returns, and that while she may still truly believe that she is filing correct, CtC-educated returns, she is legally barred from doing so unless she can enunciate a legal basis for convincing the government otherwise. That's the way that the court system works, my friends; and unless you can set forth a compelling legal argument during your appeal, you are going to lose, no matter how fervently you may believe in CtC or anything else. You may believe that the courts have been consistently wrong on CtC; but unless you can convince them otherwise, you are going to pay the price. Pete did; and it looks like Doreen will do that as well.

[John Howard]

What country is this? I thought it was America. I thought we lived under the rule of law. "Ve vill tell you vhat to believe!" No legal basis? You could say that, if you did not read the motion.

[JohnnyCash]

Kudos to Mrs. Hendrickson for standing up for what she believes in!


I think that what the government is saying is that Doreen has no legal basis for believing that she is filing correct returns, and that while she may still truly believe that she is filing correct, CtC-educated returns, she is legally barred from doing so unless she can enunciate a legal basis for convincing the government otherwise. That's the way that the court system works, my friends; and unless you can set forth a compelling legal argument during your appeal, you are going to lose, no matter how fervently you may believe in CtC or anything else. You may believe that the courts have been consistently wrong on CtC; but unless you can convince them otherwise, you are going to pay the price. Pete did; and it looks like Doreen will do that as well.Bobbinville, do you have some experience with how the court system works? The option to redeem lawful money (http://jesse2012.com/slavefree.jpg) is a compelling legal argument that worked for me (6 years running, thank you) and countless others here. I note your fearmongering but can tell you I did not lose & I have not paid the price for standing up to the banking cartel running this country. Your threats are empty.

[bobbinville]

I assure you that I am well familiar with how our court system works. As for the rest of your post -- I didn't come on here to stir up trouble or get into debates; so I'll just say that I disagree with you and leave it at that.

[bobbinville]

Well, you can believe that Jennifer Lopez is your lawful wedded wife, but that doesn't make her your wife. Likewise, Doreen can believe in the principles of CtC; but unless a court rules in her favor, that law is what the courts say it is, like it or not. The courts are essentially saying to her "you can believe X, but the law requires you to submit a tax return based on Y." She doesn't have to like it, and no one expects her to like it; but when a court tells her to file a tax return according to certain standards, and she insists that she can't do that because she doesn't believe that the court is correct, she is asking for trouble.

It's not what's in the motion that's important; it's what's in the court's decision that's important.

[JohnnyCash]

You are none too happy with Doreen, myself (http://jesse2012.com/refund.jpg), nor anyone standing up to the IRS, are you?

[John Howard]

I think I hear crickets...

[bobbinville]

You are none too happy with Doreen, myself (http://jesse2012.com/refund.jpg), nor anyone standing up to the IRS, are you?

Whatever floats your boat, Johnny. If you want to do so in a way which, like Doreen's way, is guaranteed to fail. go right ahead. Doreen can believe that the IRS and the courts are wrong, wrong, wrong when they reject a CtC-educated return; but unless she can come up with a way to make an appellate court see that her position is correct, she is going to lose again, and suffer in the process. The IRS and the courts are telling her that she has no legal basis for believing as she does; so unless she can convince them otherwise, she has as much of a chance to prevail, in this proceeding, as the Houston Astros have of winning the rest of the games in their season and sweeping their way to a World Series championship.

You don't have to like that; but that's the cold, hard way it is. I have no objection whatsoever to anyone standing up to the IRS; but I have little sympathy for someone who keeps on repeating the same old mistakes.

[John Howard]

I would believe that J-Lo was my lawfully wedded wife, if she and I had signed ze paper.

The law is not Bigfoot, it is not a space alien, it is not a secret, allowed to be viewed by only the favored few. It is written in English, and is readily available online for all to see, as are the court cases Doreen cited. Everyone can have their own opinion, but not their own facts.

[John Howard]

Granted, Doreen is in for a fight. No slave owner was ever happy when some presumptuous upstart said let my people go.

[JohnnyCash]

I assure you that I am well familiar with how our court system works.Rather than your assurances, do you have experience with how the court system works in some capacity?

[bobbinville]

Yes -- but that's only my assurance. I doubt that you'd believe anything I offered you.

As for your opinion/facts dichotomy: when it comes to court cases, the law is what the court decisions say it is - unless and if there is a new decision overturning the first one. Doreen can say all she wants; but until she can elicit a new court decision which overturns the previous adverse decisions, she is doomed.

[David Lyn]

The courts don't care what the law says. Anyone who thinks they do is kidding themselves. I have seen a judge personally say the "16th amendment gave Congress the right to tax income" in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court says ".... the 16th Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation.

[bobbinville]

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. If you operate on the assumption that the courts are corrupt, then arguing a legal principle in them, which they don't like, is like playing craps with someone who brings loaded dice to the game.

The problem is that judges don't like to overturn precedent; so Doreen's best hope may lie in the political/legislative sphere.

[David Merrill]

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. If you operate on the assumption that the courts are corrupt, then arguing a legal principle in them, which they don't like, is like playing craps with someone who brings loaded dice to the game.

The problem is that judges don't like to overturn precedent; so Doreen's best hope may lie in the political/legislative sphere.

My impression of the appeals process is much more that Doreen has to convince the appeals justices that there was a major flaw in the process of the trial court; which is to say an even tougher task. Especially considering the charge against her is more along the lines of contempt of a court order, which she pretty much admits to by signature on the papers.

[David Merrill]

Everyone can have their own opinion, but not their own facts.

I like that.

[David Lyn]

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. .

The courts don't care what the law says. They make bogus decisions. The Supreme Court has NEVER said that a direct yet unapportioned tax is constitutional, yet the IRS says this is what they are imposing on us. In fact the Supremes have said in Brushaber that a direct unapportioned tax is UNconstitutional. The courts can't let us know the truth.

[shikamaru]

The courts don't care what the law says. They make bogus decisions. The Supreme Court has NEVER said that a direct yet unapportioned tax is constitutional, yet the IRS says this is what they are imposing on us. In fact the Supremes have said in Brushaber that a direct unapportioned tax is UNconstitutional. The courts can't let us know the truth.

Income taxes are classified as excise and ultimately indirect taxes.

Only two items in federal history have been taxed directly, land and slaves (U.S. v. Springer 1880).

[David Lyn]

I understand that. I can't help what the IRS says. It CLEARLY states that Brushaber says the 16th authorized a direct unapportioned tax. Google "the truth about frivolous tax arguments" and scroll to the "some say the 16th amendment does not authorize a direct yet unapportioned tax" and see for yourself. I understand it is an indirect tax. I can't help what the IRS claims to understand. I can also find places where they say it is an indirect tax under Article 1 Section 8. They are, you might say, schizophrenic

[Brian]

Food for thought:

Article 44 of the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1915

”Full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the general court to impose and levy a tax on income in the manner hereinafter provided. Such tax may be at different rates upon income derived from different classes of property, but shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property. The general court may tax INCOME NOT DERIVED FROM PROPERTY at a lower rate than INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY, and may grant reasonable exemptions and abatements. Any class of property the income from which is taxed under the provisions of this article may be exempted from the imposition and levying of proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes as at present authorized by the constitution. This article shall not be construed to limit the power of the general court to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises.” (emphasis in caps added by me)

[David Lyn]

PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

If it is unalienable, it can't be taxed.

[ManOntheLand]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. The only relevant "rights" to the court are "contractual" rights per the terms of the contract. The confusion arises from presuming Doreen is in a court of public law. She is in a court of private law jurisdiction to decide if she violated previously established private law terms and conditions (i.e the orders of the court which she is charged with being in contempt of.) It appears that she has indeed violated those terms. However, it also appears that she is unaware of any contract, which means that no contract was actually formed. But until she makes this argument, the Court will silently presume the contract exists and hold her liable.

Doreen entered into a contractual relationship with the court that ended up ordering her to file tax returns a certain way. She entered into that contract when she answered the complaint originally filed against her. Appearance perfects jurisdiction in a federal court. By appearing before it, Doreen gave that court permission to exercise its equity jurisdiction to make orders binding upon her and the other party. Those orders (and the Court's jurisdiction) presume and depend upon already existing taxpayer obligations, such as filing an accurate reporting of income received. As far as I can tell, Pete and Doreen never disputed the amount of FRN's transferred to them. They only made legal arguments that such transfers were not "wages" and/or "income". The Court clearly did not see things their way.

Doreen and Pete insist on arguing the law when the contract they unknowingly entered into makes the public law irrelevant as far as their cases are concerned.

If you want access to your common law rights, the last place you want to be is in a Federal Court with regard to an income tax matter. I understand the feelings of outrage, but it is misplaced.

The real value of this case I think is to make very clear that you have no common law rights in the Federal Court. There is hardly a better way to illustrate that point than for a Court to order someone to testify a certain way on their tax return and to send that person to prison for failing to comply. From there, one should make an effort to understand how and when one waived one's common law rights. Instead Pete and Doreen beat their heads against the wall, insist upon their interpretation of the law, and whine and complain about judicial corruption, just as many have done before them.

The Supreme Court ruled in Brady v. United States that waivers of rights must be voluntary, as well as knowing intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences. I am sure Doreen (and Pete for that matter) did not voluntarily waive any common law rights, or knowingly enter a contract constituting a waiver of such rights. However, this defense will be unavailable to them until they get a grip on the real rules of the game they are playing.

[John Howard]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. The only relevant "rights" to the court are "contractual" rights per the terms of the contract.

If this is true then their right under the 6th amendment has been violated, specifically the right "...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." The secret contract would then have to be brought into evidence.

[walter]

The secret contract would then have to be brought into evidence.

Once you file an income, the contract is formed.
You REGISTERED.

[ManOntheLand]

If this is true then their right under the 6th amendment has been violated, specifically the right "...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." The secret contract would then have to be brought into evidence.

They were no doubt asked in Court if they "understand the charges" against them. If they answered yes, then their 6TH Amendment rights have not been violated, and there is no need to bring any contract into evidence. The Court presumes you know what you are doing. If you say you understand the charges, you have nothing to complain about.

You are correct that they have a right to know the nature and cause of the accusation. This is exactly why the judge asks if you understand the charges. Obviously one should NOT say that one understands the charges in Court if one does not understand the nature and cause of the accusation. Saying one does not understand the charges, and demanding a full explanation of the nature and cause may force the contractual obligation to be explicitly discussed, or for the case to be dismissed (to avoid any risk of exposing the way this all really works to the public).

The problem with Pete and Doreen is that they think they do understand the charges, because they think they are dealing with a court of law. Pete seems to remain baffled to this day by the amount of things the prosecution was not required to prove at his trial. He chooses to believe this is due to brazen judicial corruption, but it makes far more sense that the court is following special rules that allow for silent judicial notice of presumed facts, so the judge does not have to risk liability by doing anything illegal.

Likewise, it seems absurd and outrageous for a court to dictate someone's testimony by court order. But it makes far more sense that Doreen is presumed to have agreed to waive her rights and accepted the obligation to follow the Court's orders. As a presumed surety for the U.S. debt, Doreen's obligations trump her rights. She had additional obligations imposed on her by the Court that made the orders for her to stop filing CTC style returns. She appears to have violated those additional obligations.

[John Howard]

What if they only thought that they understood, but now they see the light?

[David Lyn]

They do not care if you understand the charges, you can stand in court and tell them you don't and they keep going.

[walter]

They do not care if you understand the charges, you can stand in court and tell them you don't and they keep going.

that's because you have no standing.

[walter]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

A significant economic injury or burden is sufficient to provide standing to sue, but in most situations a taxpayer does not have standing to challenge policies or programs that she is forced to support. In Frothingham v. Mellon, 288 F. 252 (C.A.D.C. 1923), the Supreme Court denied a federal taxpayer the right to challenge a federal program that she claimed violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states. The Court said that a party must show some "direct injury as the result of the statute's enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way common with people generally."

Although the Supreme Court made a narrow exception to this prohibition on taxpayer suits in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968), granting standing to a taxpayer to challenge federal spending that would benefit parochial schools, the Court has never gone beyond that. In fact, there is some doubt as to the vitality of the Flast decision. In 1974 the Court denied standing to a taxpayer who sought to challenge Congress's exempting the Central Intelligence Agency from the constitutional requirement under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, that government expenditures be publicly reported (United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 94 S. Ct. 2940, 41 L. Ed. 2d 678). Since Richardson the Court has continued to maintain the traditional barrier against taxpayer lawsuits.

[Chex]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. Once you file an income, the contract is formed.

I bet they do.

Excerpt from Uniform Commercial Code in a Nutshell, 6th ed. page 228: (With respect to negotiable instruments)

If A signs the name of A to an instrument and the signature is an authorized signature of P, the following rules apply:

1) If the form of the signature shows unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of P who is identified in the instrument, A is not liable on the instrument. [Sections] 3-402(b)(1), 1-201(b)(33). Example: Peter Principal Corporation, by Alice Agent, Treasurer.

2) If (i) the form of the signature does not show unambiguously that the signature is made in a representative capacity (Case #3 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2) or (ii) P is not identified in the instrument (Cases #1 & 2 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2): A is liable on the instrument to a holder in due course that took the instrument without notice that A was not intended to be liable on the instrument.

END OF EXCERPT

So basically Pete and Doreen are not really fighting the irs, they are fighting the private owned federal reserve bank because Pete and Doreen used their product and not paying for the usage of it.

Then the hired irs the authorized representative http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/authorized-representative-hearing/ are seeking the damages from Pete and Doreen inflicted on the FRB because the FRB paper duped as money has not been paid for the usage of the product.

Funny how the same principal stands as the privately held Legal status of the ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership of the FRB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve_bank

Search (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7tgSRd1RixQARU1XNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2 NjY3OQRfcgMyBGJjawM0aGcwOXE5OHRxZzUxJTI2YiUzRDMlMj ZzJTNEcmQEY3NyY3B2aWQDX0NZUFNrZ2V1ckJJd0FuU1VkMUFv UUcwTW1hRTFsSGRSUklBQ3RIXwRmcgNpZTgEZnIyA3NhLWdwBG dwcmlkAzZmTjRleC5IUk1LeDdsZldRTGpWWkEEbl9yc2x0AzEw BG5fc3VnZwM0BG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcw MyBHBxc3RyA293bmVyc2hpcCBvZiB0aGUgZmVkZXJhbARwcXN0 cmwDMjQEcXN0cmwDMzcEcXVlcnkDb3duZXJzaGlwIG9mIHRoZS BmZWRlcmFsIHJlc2VydmUgYmFuawR0X3N0bXADMTM3MzQ1NTY4 MzcwOAR2dGVzdGlkA01TWTEwMg--?p=ownership+of+the+federal+reserve+bank&fr2=sb-top&fr=ie8)

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

Corporation Search Results aka the players http://www.corporationwiki.com/search/results?term=Federal+reserve+bank&x=0&y=0

Business is business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Castle_(restaurant))as in In 1933, Ingram bought out Anderson, and the following year the company moved its corporate headquarters to Columbus, Ohio.

The company remains privately held and its restaurants are company-owned; they are not franchised in the United States. Co-founder Billy Ingram was followed as head of the firm by his son E. W. Ingram, Jr. and grandson E. W. Ingram, III. http://www.whitecastle.com/faqs

The business keeps going http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/is-the-federal-reserve-act-going-to-expire.htm

But remedy has been given. http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

[John Howard]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. Once you file an income, the contract is formed.


"Once you file an income," I am not familiar with this phrase, do you mean once you file an income tax return?"

"the contract is formed." What contract? Where are its terms and conditions disclosed?

[Chex]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. The only relevant "rights" to the court are "contractual" rights per the terms of the contract. .

Exactly what contract and what does it say?

[walter]

"Once you file an income," I am not familiar with this phrase, do you mean once you file an income tax return?"

"the contract is formed." What contract? Where are its terms and conditions disclosed?

By filling UP the FORM you are making a "declaration and consent".

You are declaring that you are not exempt from the liability of paying tax's and grant consent to them to access your information so they can use it against you.

[JohnnyCash]

Walter, that doesn't jibe with my experience. See here I filled up the 1040 form (http://jesse2012.com/1040_1.jpg) (page 2 (http://jesse2012.com/1040_2.jpg)) that resulted in a full refund (http://jesse2012.com//refund.jpg). Subsequently the IRS never came back with penalties or anything.

[ManOntheLand]

Exactly what contract and what does it say?

In Doreen's case, she is presumed to be a "taxpayer" due to information returns issued by third parties. She is presumed subject to Internal Revenue Code, under which she has some statutory rights as a taxpayer. These are far inferior to common law rights of course.

Pete and Doreen argue that they have rebutted the information returns issued against them, but unwittingly contradict themselves by admitting that the amounts reported on the info returns are correct. They do not recognize the nexus conferred from the transfer of Federal Reserve Notes. Therefore the presumptions of taxpayer status stand unrebutted.

[ManOntheLand]

Walter, that doesn't jibe with my experience. See here I filled up the 1040 form (http://jesse2012.com/1040_1.jpg) (page 2 (http://jesse2012.com/1040_2.jpg)) that resulted in a full refund (http://jesse2012.com//refund.jpg). Subsequently the IRS never came back with penalties or anything.

An information return creates a presumption of "taxpayer" status and tax liability (at least potentially). Redeeming lawful money of all such amounts mathematically eliminates the tax liability. I think you are still presumed to be a "taxpayer" i.e. "subject to internal revenue tax" if you did receive a transfer of Fed Reserve credit because you would have had a liability if it were not for redeeming lawful money. They could conduct an audit if they require substantiation of your claims. (Probably unlikely that any IRS agent would bother with this.) This is why it is a good idea to have your evidence repository and save copies of your checks where you made your demand for lawful money etc.

Arguably the information return may not create obligation on you in the first place, due to no voluntary knowing waiver of rights on your part, economic duress (you have to work for a living and are in no position to reject payment in the form of Fed Reserve credit) and unconscionable contract (why would any one willingly exchange their right to work for a living for a taxable privilege, absent consideration?).

But it seems far simpler to just make the demand for lawful money and eliminate your tax liability that way than to argue with IRS about information returns. Pete and Doreen's method revolves around arguing about the information returns.

[John Howard]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. The only relevant "rights" to the court are "contractual" rights per the terms of the contract.

We are still waiting to see said contract. Please link us to it.

I believe Doreen submitted tax returns per the court order, with the notation to the effect "here is the perjury you ordered."

[ManOntheLand]

It seems the point I was trying to make about Doreen's cases has eluded you. If you read my posts again on this thread, you will see that I contend that no contract was actually formed, but Doreen's conduct implies that one was formed, and the Court presumes that one was formed.

In any case, a written contract is not necessary, as you seem to presume. Contracts may be formed by conduct, as when you sit down in a restaurant and order from the menu, forming a contract to pay the prices on the menu for the items you have ordered.

Contracts may also be formed by course of dealing over time. A person who has filed tax returns every year for several years has established a course of dealing, by which a contract may be inferred.

A contract may be silently presumed by a court, and in fact this is exactly what happens in the admiralty jurisdiction of a federal court in a revenue related matter.

Until Doreen recognizes the presumed contractual nature of her obligation to file the way the court ordered her to, she will misunderstand what is going on. Arguments about common law rights in her case are futile, irrelevant, even frivolous. She is presumed to have waived her rights, and presumed to know that she has done so.

I will be the first to agree this is deceptive, but it is how it works. We would all be better served to understand this and inform others than to just complain that the system is not how we think it should be.

I don't know whether Doreen complied with the court orders or not. I know the IRS frowns upon any additions or modifications to the perjury statement that constitute a negation. Referring to her own testimony as perjury is very likely to result in the return being considered a nullity, as though no return was filed. This is how Wesley Snipes ended up being convicted for willful failure to file, by negating the perjury statement.

[John Howard]

I don't know whether Doreen complied with the court orders or not. I know the IRS frowns upon any additions or modifications to the perjury statement that constitute a negation. Referring to her own testimony as perjury is very likely to result in the return being considered a nullity, as though no return was filed. This is how Wesley Snipes ended up being convicted for willful failure to file, by negating the perjury statement.

Let me offer a possible solution. The court wants certain testimony, then go ahead and declare her incompetent, then let IRS fill out the form, forge her signature on it, and let the fed pay the bill. They could then claim victory. :rolleyes:

[ManOntheLand]

Let me offer a possible solution. The court wants certain testimony, then go ahead and declare her incompetent, then let IRS fill out the form, forge her signature on it, and let the fed pay the bill. They could then claim victory. :rolleyes:

If you are suggesting the conduct of the IRS is ridiculous, I agree with you. IRS could have just audited Doreen's returns and recalculated her tax bills. But they obviously want to grandstand, probably in an effort to discourage Pete Hendrickson (since he has not given up on spreading his CTC dogma despite going to prison himself) by going after his wife.

[JohnnyCash]

I wonder why none of the lawyers here will admit they are attorneys? If I make it through law school I might be the first.

Pete has done a great and valuable thing by digging into the tax code, discovering it really has a narrow focus, but misapplied by the priesthood to things it shouldn't. And then he bravely shared that by authoring books. I applaud him for that. It's unfortunate he isn't open to the notion of a tax on currency issued by a federal instrumentality (Federal Reserve bank). You know the railroads were determined a federal instrumentality and gains from railroad investments are taxable. The combination of Pete's Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf?) and David Merrill's redeeming lawful money has been a 6-year winner (http://jesse2012.com/SSA_E3.jpg) for me.

30 minute video - Unlearning the Income Tax with Peter Hendrickson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHuxi2nP6ME)

[ManOntheLand]

I would admit to such if I were a lawyer, Johnny Cash. I guess I should be flattered by your repeated accusation. :) I am an informal student of the law, but I do take my study very seriously.

I learned much from Pete's work and agree with your take on him overall. I also learned a lot from Pete's criminal trial. It is unfortunate he is closed minded about the way the court system really works as well as the remedy we discuss here. It was the feeling of "just one more piece missing from the puzzle" that led me here. I am grateful for Pete for shedding light on such a big part of that puzzle.

[Goldi]

I contend that no contract was actually formed...

Oh really? Because a contract was formed with a W-4 creating a W-2 or a W-9 creating a 1099. Which one was it for Doreen?

[Goldi]

And all of the blathering and whining and nonsense is NOT GOING TO CHANGE A GOD DAMNED THING.

[ManOntheLand]

I contend that no contract was actually formed...

Oh really? Because a contract was formed with a W-4 creating a W-2 or a W-9 creating a 1099. Which one was it for Doreen?

I contend that no contract was actually formed. There is a presumed contract only. The fact people do not know there is any contract being formed is exactly my basis for saying no contract was actually formed.

Waivers of rights must not only be voluntary, but must be knowing intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences, per U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. United States.

For a contract to actually be formed (as opposed to mere presumption of a contract) there must be a meeting of the minds, intent to be bound, consideration, and most basic of all, DISCLOSURE THAT A CONTRACT IS BEING FORMED and a VOLUNTARY EXERCISE OF ONE'S FREE WILL TO ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT.

If you really had a choice explicitly offered to you, who would voluntary elect to receive Federal reserve credit in lieu of lawful money? Who would agree to convert his right to work and be paid tax free for his labor into a taxable privilege?

Economic duress, no practical alternative, absence of consideration and no disclosure whatsoever. Any one of these conditions may render any presumed contract voidable. However, the party presumed to be obligated has to first recognize that they are being presumed to be under contract, and then challenge that presumption.

In Doreen's case, a presumed contract will stand unless and until she recognizes that the Court presumes a contractual obligation exists (as opposed to obligation conferred by public law).

[John Howard]

The combination of Pete's Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf?) and David Merrill's redeeming lawful money has been a 6-year winner (http://jesse2012.com/SSA_E3.jpg) for me.

Your 6 and my 2 makes 8, anyone else? Please add your years to the scoreboard.

[John Howard]

And all of the blathering and whining and nonsense is NOT GOING TO CHANGE A GOD DAMNED THING.

Let me suggest that you find your happiness elsewhere.

[walter]

forge her signature on it,


no signature is needed,
better not to sign, no perjury,

[ManOntheLand]

no signature is needed,
better not to sign, no perjury,

IRS is not required to sign a substitute for return (which they prepare when a taxpayer fails to file.)
No signature from taxpayer on return=no valid return. In Doreen's case, failing to file would probably also be contempt of the court's orders, since she is presumed to be required to file.

[walter]

Walter, that doesn't jibe with my experience. See here I filled up the 1040 form (http://jesse2012.com/1040_1.jpg) (page 2 (http://jesse2012.com/1040_2.jpg)) that resulted in a full refund (http://jesse2012.com//refund.jpg). Subsequently the IRS never came back with penalties or anything.


Here is what a 19 year old gets from the government in BC.
It is when they transfer the medical over from parents to the grown child (adult)

1255

and backside

1256

pay close attention to the declaration.
especially the last line in the declaration.


that "declaration and consent" tells me that there is an Act that makes one exempt from paying income tax,
they also bring up a 'trust' by mentioning "beneficiary"

we sign this stuff when we are 19 years old and have no idea what is going on,

[walter]

No signature from taxpayer on return=no valid return.

i got a friend to stop signing income tax return forms and he did and his return goes through fine,
might be 5 years know of him doing it.

[ManOntheLand]

i got a friend to stop signing income tax return forms and he did and his return goes through fine,
might be 5 years know of him doing it.

You are apparently in Canada, so I am not sure if you are talking about 1040 tax return or not. Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6065 requires returns to be signed under penalty of perjury. Federal courts have ruled that a return not signed is no return at all.

Notwithstanding the alleged success your friend has had, IRS could at any time decide his returns are not valid. Since you allege that he has done this for several years, his failure to sign would be obviously deliberate, and on that basis they could determine his returns to be frivolous ($5,000 fine for each return).

Not to presume any ill intent on your friend's part, but if he is avoiding signing the returns because of false information provided on the returns, he may be technically avoiding perjury. But IRS may be able to go after him for fraud or tax evasion, even if he did not sign the returns.

I have seen returns sent back by IRS simply because the signature was a photocopy and not a wet-ink signature. I have no personal experience with unsigned returns. Why bother filing at all if you are not going to sign the return? If you are giving honest information then what is the harm in signing it? If you are not going to be honest, you would be better off not filing at all than to commit fraud or evasion by giving false information.

[Goldi]

Have you read the notes under 26 USC 6065? "Amendments: 1976 Amendments. Pub.L. 94-455, § 1906(a)(6), struck out provisions relating to the authority of the Secretary or his delegate to require that any return, statement, or other document to be made under provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be verified by an oath." I would agree that due to non disclosure one can alter the contractual nature of the W-4 or the W-9, but not under the Brady Doctrine which is about waiving a constitutional right. It's about forming an intent to attain purposeful availment. You cannot form an intent without full disclosure of all the benefits and detriments of what you are signing. You can pretty much say that about any form gov. has for you to sign.

[ManOntheLand]

Have you read the notes under 26 USC 6065? "Amendments: 1976 Amendments. Pub.L. 94-455, § 1906(a)(6), struck out provisions relating to the authority of the Secretary or his delegate to require that any return, statement, or other document to be made under provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be verified by an oath." I would agree that due to non disclosure one can alter the contractual nature of the W-4 or the W-9, but not under the Brady Doctrine which is about waiving a constitutional right. It's about forming an intent to attain purposeful availment. You cannot form an intent without full disclosure of all the benefits and detriments of what you are signing. You can pretty much say that about any form gov. has for you to sign.

I have not seen the notes under 26 USC Sec. 6065. I believe this amendment would have effect only for those who come under the purview of the publicly enacted revenue laws. Amendments of the publicly enacted law do not have any effect for those bound contractually by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The code itself IS the law for those bound by it contractually. Regardless of this amendment to 6065 you refer to, the code itself still requires a return to be signed (for those presumed to be contractually bound).

Btw, is signing a return and declaring the contents to be true and correct under penalties of perjury the same as being verified "by an oath"? Isn't it just an affirmation of correctness of the information?

If your position is that no one is required to sign a tax return, this does not jibe with decisions of federal courts declaring an unsigned return to be a legal nullity (understanding that in such cases the taxpayer is probably presumed to be contractually bound).

Re: Brady Doctrine: I invoke Brady based on the right to labor for compensation tax-free per Supreme Court in Butchers Union v. Crescent City and Coppage v. Kansas, which is being presumed to be waived by signing the W-4 or W-9. This right to tax free compensation for labor is included in the constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, secured by the 5th Amendment, and the right against involuntary servitude, secured by the 13th Amendment. I agree with you 100% about disclosure being required to form an intent. As such disclosure is not made with W-4 and W-9, you have impermissible unknowing waivers of those constitutional rights per Brady, as well as failure to form a contract.

[MaxF]

Man on the Land gets it, few do.

Lets look at the presumptions that no doubt were never challenged from the indictment.

1. DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON ("HENDRICKSON") was a resident of Commerce
Township, Michigan.

First is the woman known as Doreen Hendrickson or DOREEN HENDRICSON?
Second is the woman a "resident" of Commerce Township? I dont understand what those terms mean, i am going to need an admission that they mean.....

As Man-on-the-Land states appearance according to the court rules nullifys a challenge to jurisdiction. Is that true? Do rules of court count as law? Did a legislative body enact said law? Do rules apply to me?

There are so many frauds upon the court in any complaint or hearing minutes that its hard to mention them all.

The named party and post location will always be false and are used to establish jurisdiction. There will usually be a SSN or Drivers license number named on minutes EVEN THOUGH it was never produced as evidence or testified to so that is hearsay and inadmissable.

"I am John Doe, a Common-law-free-man, here under protest, by special appearance to challenge jurisdiction and service of process only in this court-of-record."
do you have a 21 silver dollar bond on file showing your not a pauper under the articles of confederation? Did you put an affidavit of corporate denial, statement of status, who you are and who you are not into the record as a plea in abatement? We can only guess what law they are opperating under because they will never openly state it. IS it Common-law, Equity, Maritime or Admiralty or some unConstitutional form of law? Whats a $?


Contempt is an abomination to the Consitution. The only reason for Contempt is when someone refuses to do what a jury sentences you to do. It's not contempt to ignore a judge cause unless you consent to having him make a judicial determination he cant do it under the Constitution. You cannot go to jail for peonage (owning a debt) so if you don't pay the IRS you cannot be sent to jail. So they got aroung that by making rules of court (not enacted law) that you can go to jail for any reason the judge decides is good enough. You can only do time for committing a crime and a crime by definition is an injury or loss to another man (not the State).

[John Howard]

Doreen's (http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm#1) case has gone to the jury.

[John Howard]

The verdict (http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/#.UnjsTnDGw6U)is in, 11 for slavery, 1 for freedom. Thank God for jury nullification.

[John Howard]

This (http://taxcourthelp.net/federal-assault-against-doreen-hendrickson/)is an excellent overview of the real issues in Doreen's trail.

[David Merrill]

I believe her fate will be called voir dire (questioning prospective jurors). And the judge will disallow Cracking the Code to go into evidence. After all, this is a contempt accusation, nothing to do with income tax law...

[John Howard]

"The only question before the jury is whether Mrs. Hendrickson has willfully disobeyed a lawful order.

Oh, but there is this one thing. The court has taken the word “lawful” out of the statute in charging Mrs. Hendrickson.

The law under which Doreen is charged says that the court may punish,

“Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”[1]

But astonishingly, the presiding judge, Victoria Roberts, has agreed to instruct the jury that the constitutionality or lawfulness of the court’s order is no defense to the charge. Judge Roberts is simply ignoring the troublesome word “lawful” in the statute.

According to the court’s jury instructions, the order Doreen is accused of disobeying can be completely unlawful, and unconstitutional to boot, and she still has to obey it or go to prison.

It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see the mischief such power might instigate."

Do you think the Department of Injustice will try again?

[David Merrill]

I hope not. I feel for Doreen. The DoJ really wants her conviction as a trophy though.

That is quite the Find, the lack of the term "lawful"! It would seem useful.

[John Howard]

Pete said "Folks, we don't know that the count ran 11-1. All we know is that one juror was singled out by the others at one point as being particularly adamant on Doreen's side. Others may well have been undecided at the point at which it ended, but when it became clear that one or more were not going to convict, and one or more apparently weren't going to go the other way, the jury declared itself deadlocked."

[Chex]

I know that Doreen decided not to sign the tax returns "under penalties of perjury" (26 USC § 6065 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6065)- VERIFICATION OF RETURNS) perjury jurat is mandatory only on statements that are required by an IRC statute or regulation) and the courts have ruled that such a verification renders such statements admissible evidence, then she would be a witness against herself.

In the beginning did the revenue agent assigned to Doreen’s case who looked at the voluntary self assessment tell Doreen to sign the forms or did the revenue agent (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenueagent.asp)file a complaint before a judge (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/filing-complaint)and have the judge summons her to court to sign the IRS documents?

You will not force me to sign a contract I do not agree with when it comes down to 18 USC § 1621 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621) made within or without the United States.

It had to escalate from there.

Was the proper procedure was done to Doreen? What was the argument between Doreen and the revenue agent before the court action was brought against her?

Did the revenue agent initiate the suit? I don’t see the revenue agent(s) name in the court document.

Is it true that the revenue agent can only go so far on anyone before any action is brought on the filer without a court order (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-court-order.htm#slideshow)?

By the book don’t you need a judge’s signature before any action can be imposed or does the revenue agent have the liberty to do what they feel like doing?

It states on the court document (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legal+document)that an indictment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment)from a grand jury charges (a group of people who deliberate whether a case has enough merit to warrant a trial) that Doreen filed a false and frivolous returns in 2002 and 03.

Who told the grand jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury)that it’s okay to be witness against oneself (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html)?

Did the revenue agent or the IRS lawyers tell the grand jury that the returns were false and frivolous (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Return-Errors-and-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments)? And why were they false and frivolous?

Did the revenue agent or the IRS lawyers file in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/DistrictCourts.aspx)where Judge Victoria A. Roberts (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Victoria_Roberts)received the case for Doreen to summons (http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO440.pdf)her to court and force her to sign the IRS forms and witness against herself?

Who is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filing the charges (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1229&d=1370897528)on the court document?

Is it the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (North America) the name of this country bringing on a civil action (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Civil+action)against Doreen or is it Title 28 15 ABC (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002)?