Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 105

Thread: Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

  1. #21
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post

    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.

    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
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  2. #22
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    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"

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The State of Soleterra
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyn View Post
    blocked Pete from getting the "law" into evidence.
    What evidence?
    Law is fiction.

    The system is slick.

  5. #25
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by walter View Post
    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".

  6. #26
    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.

  7. #27
    Any bets on whether or not I get banned on Pete's forum after I posted this?
    Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by ManOntheLand View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by John Howard View Post
    Any bets on whether or not I get banned on Pete's forum after I posted this?
    He might let that fly..

  10. #30
    I am registered there and can read. But after all these years, my account is still "inactive"?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •