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/ht...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 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.