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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by ManOntheLand
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
Once you file an income, the contract is formed.
You REGISTERED.
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.
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."
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
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.
Last edited by ManOntheLand; 07-12-13 at 04:58 PM.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote