| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Subscribe to Law Dog Law Dog (my second edition) Report 2 How to handle a Judge in Court In other words, don't be a victim? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Report 2 CUT AND PASTED below from the link above. How the government solves its cases So the government wanted to make a deal with me. Little wonder. The government couldn‟t make a case without a deal. I remembered studying “Deals 301″ in law school. Professor George Washington Jones, the only black professor at the University of Wyoming, taught the class. “The government has merely fallen in line with the preponderant persuasion in America—that deals are what it‟s all about—mergers, takeovers, magical pa-per transactions that reap immediate wealth and make the dull and unproduc-tive instantly rich and famous. F**k this making stuff,” Professor Jones cried as he paced in front of the class. That‟s why Professor Jones always got the high-est student evaluation in the law school. The students loved to hear him use solid words. “F**k this work, for Christ sakes! Work is for (the n-word.)” The kids loved to hear him say the “n-word.” He was the only one who could say it. “The money is in deals. Deals, man! And that‟s how the government sees it too.” “Today, in modern America, the government pretends to investigate, but many agents tap phones and plant bugs under beds so they can listen to the snor-ing and love-making. They‟d rather hear a couple of (n-words) f**k than make an honest case,” Professor Jones said boost-ing his rating ten points. “Occasionally an agent subpoenas a document, and if things get boring a couple of honkies with the collars of their topcoats turned up and wearing snap-brimmed fedoras and imitation Porsche sunglasses corner a witness and scare the living shit out of him. But they don‟t engage in detective work. They are merely getting things set up to make a deal. “Now when the guy is „ripe,‟ as the Bureau likes to phrase it, when the pres-sure has been on the suspect for Lord-knows-how-long, and the poor bastard has laid awake for six months staring up at the ceiling wondering how to convince his wife and his kids and the old folks at home that he is really innocent, when he gets up in the morning and the first thing that hits him is a ghastly fear that makes his heart beat out of sync, then like the Chinese water torture, the fear dripping down, the terror of the unknown having captured his mind, the pain of it, minute by minute, hour by hour, day after relent-less day, wearing away at him until he has endured one drip too many, well, then he disintegrates into an inglorious pile of blubbering f**king rubble at the feet of the government , and he‟s ready for a deal!” At the conclusion of the longest sentence uttered by a professor in our law school career, we erupted in loud hoops and applause. Professor Jones bowed slightly and continued. “The government has several classes of deals available. The Class I deal is made with subjects who are guilty of nothing and against whom the Bureau has no case whatsoever. But they have been harassed so long they think they‟re guilty, or still believing themselves inno-cent, they‟re helpless to defend them-selves, and stupefied by fear, they‟ll tes-tify to anything or against anybody if the Bureau will only leave them alone. “But the government makes Class II deals, too. The Class II deal is for sub-jects who are actually guilty, but still running at large. Usually the more guilty you are the better deal you can make. The Class II deal might be more guilty than the guy they‟re after, but to nail the „target,‟ the Class II dealee can walk or take ‟short time‟ in exchange for his testimony against the target who will likely get twenty years to life. The target could be innocent. That is not the point. The point is the deal. The gov-ernment isn‟t in business to solve cases. It isn‟t in the business of bringing criminals to justice. The government has but one function and one function only—to make good, solid, saleable deals!” “Then there are the Class III deals—for inmates. Here the Bureau scrapes the bottom of the deal barrel. Everybody wants out of prison, and if an inmate can conjure up a good enough story against the target, the Bureau will make the inmate a f**king deal. I don‟t use the word loosely but with legal precision, because…” He paused with perfect timing, survey-ing the class. We waited, our hearts pounding with excitement. “Because the deal is to f**k your brother. Deals! Buying and selling!” That‟s what life in America is all about to-day. After the Class III prisoner testifies he‟ll be placed on the Witness Protection Program. A Class III deal is a peachy deal for convicts who have a good story and are good salesmen. Most crooks are. Most honest people are not.” We tried to write down every word the professor uttered. “The Class IV deal, the most common deal of all, is one in which the suspect is both the f**kee and the f**kor. He may be guilty or not. If he admits his guilt the government will be easier on him than if he makes the government prove its case by bringing in Class I, II or III deals against him. When you‟re the target it‟s pretty frightening. You‟ve been rotting in jail awaiting trial for eight months without a single ray of sunshine once touch-ing your sickly black hide, and they‟ve got you charged with something that pulls ten to life, and you‟ve got for a lawyer a honky public defender fresh out of law school with 150 other cases. You‟re just one more (n-word). You can get out in two if you plead guilty, and you get good time for the eight months you already spent in jail. You make a Class IV deal. I repeat: It doesn‟t make any difference whether you‟re guilty or not. The Bureau doesn‟t care. It‟s another case closed. What counts to the Bureau is that they made a deal! “ I stole a glance at the woman student sitting next to me. Her mouth was open and her lips wet like Marilyn Monroe‟s. Her eyes were filled with love or lust. In the excitement of the moment I couldn‟t tell the difference. Professor Jones continued, “If you want to be a success, specialize in making deals with the government. Besides, it‟s risky to try a case these days, because jurors know that the last innocent per-son in America was John Wayne.” ~Gerry Spence |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Report 3/4/2013 “Well, your honor, I’m an unenfranchised common law freeman. I’m not a participant in any tontine schemes and limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest requiring me to participate in these corporate ponzi schemes. I’m just a little Joe from Kokomo. I live on the block...I travel at the common law. “I have a right to travel freely and unencumbered pursuant to Shapiro v Thompson, and that right is so basic it doesn’t even need to be mentioned. That is Carl Miller Carl Miller And: Marc Stevens 3 part how to beat traffic court [this video does not exist] |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
This is another example of how the government accurately represents the "will" (I don't mean will, but I cannot think of the word I want on the fly) of the people it governs. In my personal experience, making deals is a common lazy man's way out in their interactions with one another. I try not to do such deal making. I hear it in my taxi constantly although I cannot think of an example to give you at this moment. I'll try to record the next one I encounter. Don't read too much into this statement. it's an observation I have not yet fully nailed down. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Jumping around a bit here, and this may help actually. From Tucker, back to Andrews on Proudhon is a sentence written by Andrews where Andrews mentions the Law of Three States. So...I look that up and find this: Law of Three Jumping down to this: The Three Gunas - Rajas, Tamas, Sattva. These are three states, or conditions, of the soul, made evident on the mental plane in the self-conscious mind.In the Sattvic state, the mind is intent upon goodness and truth, wisdom and love. This condition leads to the evolution of the higher (the buddhic) emotions, and to the Ideals (state of gods). In the Rajasic state, the mind is full of outgoing energy towards the acquisition of objects of sense, knowledge, fame, power, ambition, social benefit, etc. This condition leads to the evolution of the mental faculties in their widest range (state of men) and to the intuition of truth. In the Tamasic state the mind is sluggish, unaroused, stupid, ignorant and without zest in the pursuit of any worthy objects. This condition leads to the evolution of the desires, passions, and appetites (state of beasts). According to Manu, Sattva (goodness) has the form of knowledge, and induces a deep calm full of bliss, and a pure light. Rajas (activity) has the form of love and hatred, and induces pain and dissatisfaction, and an activity difficult to conquer, which draws embodied souls to the objects of sense. Tamas (darkness) has the form of ignorance, and is coupled with delusion unfathomed by reasoning. Every actionis really performed by the gunas. Man, deluded by his egoism, thinks: "I am the doer." But he who has the true insight into the operations of the gunas and their various functions, knows that when senses attach themselves to objects, gunas are merely attaching themselves to gunas. (Bhagavad Gita) Particularly this: "Tamas (darkness) has the form of ignorance, and is coupled with delusion unfathomed by reasoning." Back to my Political Economy: Those who are the most powerful among us, gain that power by targeting those who produce, stealing the surplus production, then use that stolen power to steal more, and one thing that they buy with that stolen loot is counterfeit guidance. The few most powerful are guiding the sheep, so to speak, into the slaughter house. How? They wash our brains. How? Going back to John Taylor Gatto, to find the methods to the madness, are two lists, and those two lists explain how the most powerful among us train their own selves so as to then be in positions to train the targets according to the other list. The first list is how the few most powerful among us EMPOWER themselves with genuine productive guidance. Here The first list is the list used at the most private schools where most of the most powerful people are guided. The second list is the list used by the most powerful people, handed down from the authorities to the vassals, so that the victims remain victims - those people you so often see in your daily routine. My point, and I keep on pointing this out to bear, the other person on this Forum, that it is a very effective lie, infecting almost everyone, that men are bad. Those people in your cabs are not torturing and mass murdering for fun and profit. Who is? There are millions of people being tortured - legally. Are they asking for it? There are millions of people being murdered - legally. Are they asking for it? Does the order, and the paycheck, flowing to the legal torturers and murderers happen by accident? I have this book written by Nicola Machiavelli and in the preface there is an explanation of ONE possible meaning of "Men are Bad" please see if it fits somewhere. The Prince Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual. The most powerful among us (Legal Criminals) know how to effectively subject the targets to powerful brainwashing/response conditioning/behavioral modification/false advertizments/deceptions/lies/misdirections to a point where the subjects are rendered powerless, as if the subjects are stuck in an animalistic state. A good study for this type of POWER (power of mass mind) is Edward Bernays who has been called The Father of Spin. The Father of Spin Where did Edward Bernays go to school? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Law Dog 3 What’s the first thing the cop says when he walks up to your window? “License and registration please”. When you comply, you are giving him jurisdiction over you, and you are waiving your rights, and it gives him the assumption that he has control and jurisdiction over you. Instead of instantly complying, you say “Officer, I pulled to the side of the road because I saw your emergency lights go on. What is the emergency?” “I pulled you over because you were speeding.” “Do you consider that an emergency?” “No, but you were speeding, and I am going to cite you for driving too fast.” (We haven’t researched this yet, but it could be something worth pursuing...) “So, I need to see your driver’s license and registra-tion.” “You are an officer of the law, right? Deemed to know the laws that you are enforcing, right?” Great! So you know that I am legally entitled to verify your identity and authority under USC Title 5, §552a(e)(3), and that if you refuse to answer these questions we cannot conduct business here, under-stand? At this point you pull out your clipboard and start asking the questions. He will not be a happy camper...In fact he will probably just tell you to slow down and be careful. By law he MUST answer all 24 questions and sign at the bottom. This rarely happens. If he is still hanging around after the q... |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
Here is title 5 552a(e)(3): (3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual-- (A) the authority (whether granted by statute, or by Executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary; (B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used; (C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and (D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information; I read this as meaning all the police officer has to do is say something (or have a card with it written out) like: by the power invested in me by the municipality of (whatever, Freehold in my case) you are required by law to provide your license and registration for which this information will be used to write you a traffic violation due to the fact that you were speeding and failure to provide this info carries a penalty of (whatever the penalty is for that jurisdiction.). Then follow with a brief privacy policy for the info. The officers ass would then be covered. It would be nice if every police officer used this tactic. I would feel better if an officer said this to me after pulling me over. Maybe I can take it up at a town meeting. BTW, what are the 24 questions? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The 24 questions, as far as I know, can be ordered here: Legal Crime Defense Package Mike, You may be still harboring the concept of peace officer while I see no such thing since I've found out enough information to convince me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the power of law has been, for the most part, taken over by criminals. The average Cop is a revenuer, a modern day licensed highway robber, a Union Man, and they hate competition. If you are in serious trouble with those criminals with badges they can now torture you right here, send you to another country to be tortured, you can be murdered on the spot, anything, absolutely anything, flies. On the other hand there are now non-union, competitive, people, still able to use the law power to defend against such things. Some are frauds, some are simply wrong, and some are creating a new supply to meet a new market that can be called non-union legal expertize. I know this person, in this next link, but he is dead now, he was shot by one of those who are in the Union of legal criminals, and so there is much to fear, much to be cautious about, and much to be avoided, and much to learn - in my opinion. Bill Foust Here, on the other hand, in stark contrast to my former friend, no longer my friend because he is dead, in stark contrast to the dead guy is this guy: Carl Miller Currently I'm looking into the Common Law jurisdiction of Land Patents, because I have specific need for that specific information, for reasons that may be obvious, and for reasons that can certainly be explained. I am working on this: Land I don't know what you think about all this, other than the few times we have exchanged words, symbols of English, and whatever else we have to connect our two souls, but to me this stuff is vitally necessary to save mankind from extinction, it is, in a word, competition. When and where there is competition there is no monopoly. Game over. This is new for me: Tape worm Economy Here is a follow the money effort to help uncover some of the accurate accounting: The Biggest Game in Town I can't express to you how all this works, as far as I know, in fewer words than one sentence. I need at least one sentence to explain to you what I think, what I believe to be, political economy. Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. From that I can elaborate too, but that will suffice, as far as I am concerned. EDIT: A reference and a quote: Case law precedent in California states even more strongly, in case there be any doubt, that officers have no discretion in the matter and that the motorist's demand for the County Seat is precisely that. It simply can't get any clearer than this, proving once again that the officers are not law enforcement agents, but rather revenue agents with disdain for the law and hatred for law-abiding people who dare to question their so-called "authority.": And bad things happen too often: Pregnant woman Hogtied by "Police" |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
I wonder, is it really so easy to stop being human? I still think of them as peace officers because I still witness them being helpful. But, yes there are times when they are not. I also know people who believe as you but at the first real sign of a problem which they are afraid to handle they never hesitate to call the police. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
I should add, that I know two police officers. They are Kathy's cousin's. They are caring people like you and me. I admit I do not know them very well in the sense I only see them at family get-togethers and such. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
I knew an FBI agent. He was a good friend in the Boy Scouting Days. A fine human being. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Mike, Peace officers are human beings being human, naturally, and you are one fine example if ever one existed. The vocation of "Officer of the Law" is, in this Nation State, for the most part Organized Crime Made Legal. When I express what I know I do not mean to categorically (prejudice) discredit anything anyone can do, a human being, while employed by The Union, or The FUND, or The Corporation, where all POWER flows from the Center, out through all the tributaries. There are still very many fine examples of human beings, doing what human beings do naturally, behaving themselves, learning how better to exist among each other, and even being very generous with their time and energy. Are you bonded? Were you ever bonded? Who is bonded? Why are they bonded? What happens if you, falling victim to someone working for the government, so called, as that human being injures you, and then you call and make a claim on their bond? That may seem like an off the wall, irrelevant, or odd question to ask, but it is a vital question where the accurate answers demonstrate specific things in specific ways that may shed a lot of light on this political economy stuff here in this Country where The People are being enslaved by a few people on one group. "I also know people who believe as you but at the first real sign of a problem which they are afraid to handle they never hesitate to call the police." Here is a 911 call to ponder: (in the context of "local police" and less so) Help! Who is trained to help in such cases? I called a phone number to join the armed march on Washington after watching on T.V. the Legal Criminals as they torched their torture victims. Despite the training, where people are trained in school to obey without question, there remains to be, even still, very good people, even when they are employed to obey without question? Which school did the individual go to, to learn what, exactly, and will they perform as ordered when ordered in any case whatsoever? Local or what is Local? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Are you and I speaking about two different things? Who says that "men are bad"? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
April Report 1 The Federal Income Tax Part I To understand the income tax, and determine our liability or non-liability, we must determine exactly who and what is being taxed. Way too many people learn a little bit and then go off half-cocked against the IRS and end up broke, in jail, or worse. Do not...I repeat DO NOT read part of this report and change anything you are doing because of what you read here. This will be at least a 3-4 part series. You MUST understand it completely before you take any action. Court Watch Reports This is a new section we will have every month where you can report court and trial abuse in your area. That way others in your area can become involved or called on for support. Imagine a web page based database of such things like Price Watch where a person can look up the latest abuses and figure out how to solve those problems? Like looking up the latest cure for a disease on a Medical Problems web page. Have you ever had a car problem, or an appliance problem, and so you search "The Internet" for someone having a similar problem, and with very little effort you have the solution before you, in color? 3 Special Research Reports In order to help you guys out more, starting next month we will be taking on legal research projects on subjects that YOU want or need to learn about. We are hooked up with many re-search resources including legal sites like Versuslaw and Westlaw, along with over 100 other search resources. If there is something you need re-search on, as long as it is relevant to this newsletter and the readers here, just send an email to me describing what it is you’re looking for and the reason you need it, and we will do the research and share it with all our subscribers. Just send your emails to: james@beatthecourt.com I am very interested in the Income Tax fight, not something I want to inspire anyone else to do, but there may be a future in my life where I again generate an income whereby I will then be targeted by The IRS, and so a defense in that future case is valuable information to me personally. The Girl Scouts Set the Bar again? Hello, my name is Ann Barnhardt, and I am apparently one of the very, very last people left in Western Civilization who possesses any quantity of brains and balls simultaneously. Mike, I am especially curious about your viewpoint on the video from Ann Barnhardt, if you can find the time to offer one. |
|||||||||||
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
Wow. Mike's first impressions go like this: This woman is pissed. Very few difficulties are overcome or problems solved by angry rhetoric. Wow she's not about to calm down. Then she references a quote about accountability. No where in the quote did I hear "roll back first amendment", but then again I have not seen the Meet the Press interview she refers to. The back of my mind is telling me that I wish there was accountability too for people doing something as stupid and inflammatory as burning the Koran to make a point, but if that's what they want to do well... and then she goes on to explain the first amendment...nothing new here. Now I'm trying to listen again to what she is saying aware that I was momentarily lost in my own thoughts (it's hard for me to listen to anger speech) and she's saying, but I'm watching her eyes now. She teaches girl scouts? I think to myself... and then I turn the video off..It was like 3+ minutes in... couldn't take it anymore. but now that I know what to expect I will meditate before i watch again and attempt to see if she actually has anything of value to say. overall though I do not think she has spent any time LEARNING about the history of the Arab culture or Islam in an attempt to understand why they (the Arabs) behave as they do and perhaps find some compassion in her heart for the fact that they are so different from an American or a Christian. Does she have a point? I'll have to investigate the interview she refers to and listen to the rest of her tirade to find out. But I felt it important to quickly write my first impression thoughts. And I wonder how this woman would feel if a group of neo-nazis decided to march up her street waving flags emboldened with swastikas. In other words: she can dish it out sure enough, but can she take it? If she can, I'd be more inclined to listen but I have my doubts. I think my biggest concern in encouraging change is replacing the existing environment with one that becomes exactly like the original but wears a different face. To me, this woman simply has a different face. Please note that I wrote this to give you a more honest example of how my brain functions. I know that you know that I will not, I repeat, NOT rely on my first impression as being the truth of the matter. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Mike, I turned the second part off after a few pages were burned. The reference to The Girl Scouts is my own invention. I have this idea of a Warrior who Stands in Defense of Liberty and there are some examples I can offer of this picture, but not now, suffice to say that it should be a Man. The girls are stepping up the game, it seems, in the absence of testosterone. That was the reference to the Girl Scouts. Here, from other misdirected angles (I think we are all in a way misdirected) are more of the people I call The Girl Scouts (my literary invention): Wasfi Edmonds Fitts That is what I call the Girl Scouts: meaning those who risk something for something, even if they are mislead. We are all misled. The book being burned, on the other hand, to me is not a direct message from God, or is it, I don't know, but I would not take offense, it is ink on paper. The messages being burned, to me, are translations, copies, and the symbolism is offered as a challenge to specific people. I think the people being addressed are those people who supposedly have the authority to order The Military. Here is where I think the concept of The Military may be better understood to be anyone, anywhere, capable of Defending against aggressive, criminal, attack, by a large force, or military, and that includes anyone. A power struggle perspective. If there is a criminal power, what power can defend against it? The lady burning the book appears to be a typical military person who is mislead, recognized bad leadership, on the one hand, but fails to recognize bad leadership on the other hand, as I think you correctly point out. My point was to point out how boldly some people are, going against convention, going against such things as "Political Correctness", and speaking their minds, despite the risks. How about one of those male version of the Warrior, at this point? I can offer one, and if you can look in the mirror, please see one, and here is one that may have made many mistakes along the way, too, but one that appears to have taken a less conventional course, despite the risks: Bradly Manning For all I know, because that case is very publicly reported (not censored effectively despite much power available to do so), that case may be less than accurately reported. Next may be less well known - these days - or ever. Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. (One account reports Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians, but Thompson later said he did not remember having done so.) He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother. That is from here: Trial by accident? So I guess my point is to point out that speaking out, unconventionally, appears to have an appeal to me. |
|||||||||||
