Why Do Americans Continue to Tolerate the Income Tax Hoax?
How
About THIS Assault:
The
Government Wants The Jury To Be Told It CANNOT Judge The Law!
“While
Congress might be prohibited from controlling people's speech due to the First
Amendment, COURTS aren't prohibited from doing it at the government's request.”
ANYONE KNOW PEOPLE AT THE FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION (FIJA)?
Give 'em a call.
________________________________________________
Along with all the other unprecedented things being attempted by
the feds in their desperate effort to attack CtC
through the
current assault on my wife Doreen, a new front against the rule of law has
been launched. Recognizing the hopelessness of their case if not girded about
by corruption and lies, the government's attorneys have asked the judge
handling the case to specifically instruct the jury that it CAN'T consider the
lawfulness or Constitutionality of the orders Doreen has resisted!
|
GOVERNMENT'S
PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 12
CONTEMPT – DEFENSE It is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order was unlawful or unconstitutional. |
Unbelievable! It's one thing that the federal courts have for
years operated under a rather grotesque doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court
in the 1890s that judges don't have to let defendants inform the jurors of
their absolute right and authority to judge the law as well as the facts
involved in any case. But now we have an effort to actually tell them that they
cannot do so-- a full-scale assault on the principle of the jury. Call the FIJA people. Call the ACLU. Call IJ. Call somebody. These
are YOUR rights being stolen.
After all, the notion behind the prosecution in this effort to
frighten Americans away from the liberating truth about the tax (since the
state is unable to effectively resist that truth when it IS put into practice,
but really, REALLY wants to stop that practice at all costs) is that while
Congress might be prohibited from controlling people's speech due to the First
Amendment, COURTS aren't prohibited from doing it at the government's request.
So, under this doctrine, how secure are your gun rights just
because we have a Second Amendment? How secure are ANY rights under this
doctrine? It looks like the state is going to burn down the house, here, in its
desperate effort to keep its "ignorance-tax"
scam alive.
Doreen's jury selection begins on Wednesday, October 30th at
8:45AM EST in the courtroom of Victoria Roberts at the Theodore Levin building in downtown Detroit, with the trial
scheduled to follow immediately. I hope everyone reading this is there--
polite, well-dressed and courteous, but attentive and hard-eyed with jealous
regard for experiments on their liberties-- to show these thugs that Americans
still care about their rights, and aren't going to let them get stolen away in
a dark-alley mugging.
Journalists and legal specialists wanting to learn more and get
involved can write me at newscritter 'at' losthorizons.com.
Contributions to help defray the extra expenses we are necessarily
having to bear right now would be very welcome, too. You can send to Doreen
Hendrickson at 232 Oriole Road, Commerce Twp., Michigan 48382.
What are they so afraid of that they will dare try this kind of
stuff?
I GET CRAZY WHEN I SPEAK TO FOLKS WHO have not familiarized
themselves with CtC's revelations about the actual legal limits of the
income tax, nor come to understand how significant those revelations are to the
American people (and how threatening they are to the rogue state). These will
be the same folks who also have not taken in the now ten-years-and-counting government
campaign to suppress those revelations (even while the same government--
and more than three dozen state and local governments-- have been acknowledging
their accuracy on tens of thousands of occasions during the same period).
Too often an initial properly outraged response to Doreen's case
by these folks gives way to a kind of blank, hypnotic mental backstep when it
is learned that the government's violence to the law is being done in
connection with its tax scheme. It's like a
synapse misfires at that point, as though on programmed cue.
"Oh, it's about taxes..." gets muttered, as though that
really IS what it's all about, or as though "what it's about" in that
sense should make a difference regarding the lawfulness of what's actually
being done. The "taxes" connection invokes a kind of beaten-dog
conditioning that seems to shrink the correspondent's spirit and bring on a
mental fog and an edging away.
I want to propose a little analogy for those folks, if any of them
are reading these words, and for the use of everyone else in dealing with these
folks. Let's see whether that conditioning can't be successfully overcome.
SUPPOSE THE POLICE HAD SEIZED YOUR CAR on the allegation by an
informant that it was used in a drug deal. Imagine that you had gone down to
the police station and made a rebutting affidavit declaring under oath that you
had NOT engaged in drug-dealing, in the manner provided for such purposes by
the local authorities and after your affidavit was checked against the
allegation as provided for by law, your car had been returned.
Now imagine that a year or so later, the police (who get to keep
the proceeds of these "forfeitures") go to court complaining that
they had now decided they had returned your car by mistake. They don't accuse
you of perjury. They DO informally opine that your affidavit is false, but
decline to say so over anyone's signature.
The police also present nothing more in support of their informal
assertion than the same informant's allegation that had brought the matter up
in the first place. In lieu of such a REAL basis for their change of heart and
renewed claim against you, the police ask the court to order YOU to rescind
your affidavit and replace it with one on which YOU must declare under oath
that you WERE dealing drugs, that the police are entitled to your car, and that
you believe these things are true and correct. The judge in the case summarily
does this, without so much as a hearing, later adding on that you may not
indicate on the affidavit that you are saying what you are ordered to say on it
under duress and by order of the court.
You refuse (of course). Six years later you get charged with
criminal contempt of court for not creating the false affidavit.
WOULD YOU SAY THIS CASE IS "JUST ABOUT DRUGS"??!!
To see details of the assault on Doreen, click here.
You'll find links to filings in the case at the end of the article.
Want To Stand On The Side Of The Good Guys?
Learn The Liberating Truth About The Tax And Start
Upholding The Law
No comments:
Post a Comment