|
A Question Of Who's Going To Rule - The People, Or The State
The State wants the answer to be this: In the end, State dictates must be obeyed, no matter what, no exceptions; the limits imposed on its power by the Constitution be damned. Its minions have unswervingly pursued this end.
Date: 6/29/2014 7:00:09 PM ( 10 y ) ... viewed 1286 times Dear Readers,
I never thought I would see the day in this country when I could be ordered to sign my name to words dictated by the United States government, not to mention words I believe to be false. I've seen this sort of thing on TV where American hostages are giving testimonials with ski-masked, armed captors ensuring that the Americans spoke the words that would spare their lives.
With considerable dismay, I now see our judiciary employing the same tactics that terrorists impose on their victims. Doreen Hendrickson has been ordered to perjure herself, that is to sign her name to documents that say things the government wants said, even though she believe these things to be false.
Seven years ago, Federal Judge Nancy Edmunds (ED Michigan) ordered Doreen to make this false testimony, and to declare that it is her own testimony. Three-and-a-half years later Edmunds added a requirement that the fact that the testimony is coerced and not Doreen's own be concealed (as asked of her by the IRS and DOJ).
Doreen now faces trial on charges of criminal contempt of court for resisting these plainly illegal orders. This is not the first trial, though-- it is the second government shot at Doreen.
The trial judge in Doreen's first trial last October actually ordered the jury to disregard the unconstitutionality of the orders Doreen is accused of "criminally resisting" (at the request of the team of attorneys from Washington flown in to prosecute her). Doreen, completely a legal amateur in every way, took on the government's conviction-by-any-means-necessary specialists all by herself. Still, the government could not get the jury to convict.
Despite the huge effort put on by the team of three DOJ attorneys during the four-day trial, at least some members of the jury recognized that the law and the facts are entirely on Doreen's side. But the government desperately wants this conviction. It views the preservation of certain key myths about the income tax to be at stake, and so it is coming back at Doreen again.
Let me be clear. Doreen is not being put through this for refusing to testify. She HAS already testified. The government just doesn't like what she said, and is trying to coerce her into saying things more to its interests. (Can you say: suborning perjury? How about: raw, banana-republic-level corruption?)
Though the testimony involved is on tax returns, this fact is not relevant. The only relevant issue is that a federal judge has completely overstepped her authority.
No one in this country can legally compel custom testimony...Not on a tax form...Not on a contract... NOT ON ANYTHING!!!
Please help to uphold the principles on which this country was founded. Today, it's Doreen and a tax form. Tomorrow...
Please join me in taking serious notice of this precipitous descent into Stalinism in an America already dangerously far down the road to complete lawlessness and barbarism.
Read the document (via the following link). Some of the material will be easy, some will call for a little more effort, but all will be crystal clear, even the legal briefs linked at the end.
Remember, in this country, the law is YOUR law, and the only ones who can enforce it against government operatives who take liberties with the rules are the rest of us. The "government operatives" can't be relied upon to police themselves, as what you are about to read will make obvious.
Sincerely Yours,
Chef Jemichel:
http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm#1
My comment just posted to the whole entire presentation.:
I am grateful for the information that is generously presented here!
It appears that there has been an "acceptance" of personal jurisdiction under this particular "court" with its federal judge. Is Doreen a "citizen of the United States"? What is the basis in law for personal jurisdiction here?
Can we acknowledge all four Organic Laws? Does the acknowledgement of freedom begin with both the first Organic Law: "The Declaration of Independence (1776)" (as our independence from an external government) as well as the second Organic Law: the "Articles of Confederation (AoC)" with its recognition of "free inhabitants" (those who retain their freedom from government)?
The attempt to restrain government based primarily on the "Constitution" may certainly be a step-up from legalized "victimization" (as well as the entropy, inertia, compromise, indifference, co-dependence, dishonor, addiction, failure, forgetting, weakness, exhaustion, oppression, inadequacy, reaction, corruption, limitation, confusion, and the like among the people) however "The Constitution of September 17, 1787" was not adopted by a President and a Congress, so the United States of America remains a Confederacy.:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lawmen/9khnRrcrz5g
As the Confederacy (according to the first two Organic Laws in existence through the AoC) there is no written law that automatically subjugates the "free inhabitants" to what amounts to as a foreign government! These two Organic Laws stand as the truth in Law for the American people. The "free inhabitants" in America are those individuals who retain the exact same freedom that the American people had at the conclusion of the war of independence. "The Constitution of September 17, 1787" did not convert the "free" status to any other status automatically subject to external government! "The Constitution of September 17, 1787" did not abolish the "Articles of Confederation (1777)" as there is no authority given by the people to abolish the union and its written Organic Law with all that it stands for - most importantly the freedom that required a war to fully reject external government.
"The May 25, 1787 Constitutional Convention was officially charged with revising the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, so it is illogical not to examine the Constitution of September 17, 1787 for evidence of those parts of the Articles of Confederation, which made provision for change. Article IX and X made provision for change provided nine States called for it.
Article VII of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 provided that nine States would be sufficient to establish that Constitution among those States, so ratifying. ... the Constitutional Convention actually carried out its official duty.
Nine States established “this Constitution” for all the States that ratified it, but those States could not force those persons who were to be the government under the authority of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 “to support this Constitution” by taking and subscribing the Article VI oath “to support this Constitution.” Not that the First Congress had any intention of “Adopting this Constitution.” The first act of the First Congress was to create a substitute oath to prevent the “Adoption of this Constitution.”
When correctly understood, the Constitution of September 17, 1787 creates a Senate in place of an Article IX Committee of States, an Executive officer of the Articles of Confederation, extends the House of Representatives from the Northwest Territory to the rest of the States of the United States of America and gives citizens in the States of the United States of America a voice in the making of laws for the “We the People of the United States,” who could “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” but who could not themselves elect voting Representatives.
Do not allow yourself to be taken prisoner by a piece of paper." - Dr. Rivera
June 30th -
“The question uppermost in the world of thought today is whether a man has the capacity, equipment, and power to control his life; whether he can be what he wants to be; or whether he is a drop in the great ocean of life. ..." -
Raymond Holliwell
**********************^**********************
August 5th -
"The only legitimate government is the one which
protects your right to be free."
Dr. Ed Rivera
"A morally legitimate government protects the fundamental moral rights of those it rules.":
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/courses/lockelimited.pdf
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
