Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

[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]

[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/aut...ative-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

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/searc...e+bank&x=0&y=0

Business is business 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/i...-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.