Straw Man and Other Invitations to Trouble

Straw Man and Other Invitations to Trouble

The Straw Man Argument is more likely to get you into trouble than out.  You don’t want to go into court for any reason.  The legal system is a useful facade for the political elite as long as it is convenient.
As soon as any part of it becomes a liability, regulations are replaced, amended or ignored.
The politically powerful are criminals.  They are not children playing “Mother, May I?”
Adopting any set of rules in the belief they will protect you or provide you power through the legal system will generally meet with disaster.
Eddie Kahn chose the Strawman Approach combined with jurisdictional issues.  Eddie was one of the better researchers and quite capable at rules of procedure and remains in jail.
Larken Rose, also very well informed, went to jail and his wife.
Peter Hendrickson lost in court.
They were some of the best out there and they lost.
Vernie Kuglin is considered a success story; because, she was found “Not Guilty” and it made little difference because they auctioned off her possessions, took any cash they could find, and continue to seek more and more money from her turning her life into never ending battle with bureaucrats.
Joe Bannister won, sort of.  His life is now a never ending battle with bureaucrats determined to make him pay.  He has had to beg for money to pay for his legal bills.
Red Beckman was a great spokesman for himself and well versed in Law & Legal.  The politically powerful waited until he was away from home and bull-dozed his property.
Dr. Ward Dean, former Delta Force Flight Surgeon and then Navy Seal Dive Surgeon, and student of Law & Legal was given twice the legal sentencing limit.  He was sentenced to 6 years instead of the maximum of 3 years.
In another area, health freedom, Jay Kimball who developed Mild Protein Silver was attacked by the FDA and FTC.  The government refused to provide him an attorney, not even one of the flunkies who toil daily to expedite plea bargains.  They wanted him to liquidate everything which would have left his family without a home, money or a revenue stream if he got convicted and would have left him in debt even if he won.
His plight made it easy for the kangaroo court (speaking of Australia) to find him guilty.  The maximum sentence according to sentencing guidelines was 3 years and he served quite a bit of that waiting for trial. (If memory serves me correctly.)
So the judge gave him an additional 12 years on top of the 3 year maximum. Jay remains in jail despite appeals about the obvious illegality of the proceedings against him.
If accused and you are faced with defending yourself in court when your entire life’s savings, your ability to earn, your family’s safety, and your freedom are at risk; you are highly unlikely to be able to overcome the experienced team – who are also known to offer convicted lowlifes “get out of jail cards” in exchange for perjured testimony – in a courtroom where the judge and the prosecutor are working in harmony to destroy you.
If prosecuted and you seek an attorney, they require the entire amount and/or a small fortune up front.  The next step is the encourages you to take a plea deal so that they can keep the entire amount they are paid for a trial without doing more than getting you to plea guilty.
If the case goes to trial, you are generally not through paying your attorneys.
If you go to court:
  • Low level defense team is around $50,000 – $100,000
  • Medium level defense team is $200,000.
  • A top level defense team is $500,000 to over a $1,000,000+
That doesn’t include putting your entire life on hold for depositions and training for court.
You will spend more time than you would believe working with your attorney to prepare your performance for court.
If you win, it is more likely than not, you will win – sort of –  on the issue of “Intent.”
Did you have a real belief that you were not required to give your blood to the Political Elite for them to waste?
You remember the clauses in the “Supreme Law of the Land” against double jeopardy, they were just joking.  If you won – sort of – a criminal trial, you are now faced with civil proceedings.
Over time this will cost you as much if not more than the criminal proceedings; because, it goes on year after year until you’re dead.  Not only are the political elites taking your money, property and time by force, your lawyers are doing the same to protect you from them.
If you win the criminal charges, you are still faced with the civil.
The one thing I am pretty certain of about the Straw Man argument is that is does not protect you from criminal gangs who only pretend you have recourse in a court where the actors are restrained from doing whatever they wish.
Does that mean the courts should be abandoned as possible leverage point for change?
I don’t think so.
What I do think is; people need to go into that battle with an understanding they are challenging a corrupt system with a corrupted tool provided by that system to impoverish those attempting to use it and destroy them.
I consider the Straw Man argument dangerous because it provides a false picture that understanding the Straw Man will set you free.
Sometimes dangerous things may be a good idea; but, it would need a Hell of a lot better set of strategy and tactics than word play and someone’s belief that a corrupt system is going to be forced to kneel before you if you proclaim, “I know the secret handshake.  You are now my servant.”
The court is a reality on its own.  It is not bound by its own regulations for legal proceedings and certainly not bound by common or natural law.
Sometimes, you are told when the judge abuses due process, that you can always appeal if you don’t like his rulings.
The appeal is expensive and you are appealing to the same system that is protecting its power, prestige, paychecks, perks, and perversions.  Your odds are not good.
Anyone attempting to explain Strawman, the IRS Code Book, court case precedents, regulations, laws or the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or whatever is attempting to convince a jury of something – that requires time and research to understand – is flat out of luck.
The jury will assume that so many laws and cases are too difficult for them to understand and will believe the judge when the judge tells them he has decided on the law and that the state’s position is correct… Assuming he allows anything to be presented which might rock the legal boat.
In Vernie’s case, I don’t remember the wording but in general, the judge stated: “She broke the law.  She was required to pay taxes.  The only thing for you to decide is whether or not, she believed she was not required to pay taxes.  It makes no difference how ridiculous a belief may be.  If she believes the moon is made of green cheese.  It is the belief that matters and not how ridiculous the belief may be.”
One of my suggestions was for Vernie to tell stories.  One was Vernie, as a little girl, when she was questioning God and biblical references to questioning God, therefore, she should be able to question the IRS… “Objection!!! Your honor.”
The prosecution said Vernie couldn’t tell the story because of separation of church and state.
Much of that or any trial takes place in front of the judge where neither the jury nor anyone else in the courtroom may hear.
The judge ruled Vernie, who had to swear on the Bible to tell the truth, etc; could not tell this story which illustrated her belief about her right to ask questions and expect reasonable answers; because of separation of church and state.
In one of Irwin Schiff’s trials, the judge threatened contempt charges if the Constitution was mentioned again.
Irwin Schiff is still in jail.
It makes no difference if the Straw Man argument is correct or in the category of Green Cheese.
It is a pathway to disaster for anyone who expects it to provide a sufficient and affordable shield if attacked.
If, and I know of many people who have gotten in trouble using Strawman to justify their actions, there is anyone who has successfully used the Strawman for anything, it is still a very dangerous approach for most people.
Larry Becraft has documented on his website many of the disasters which resulted when people attempted to use different legal theories that were supposed to provide a Win in court.  It’s worth spending some time there if you thinking of doing anything which could end up in court.
Perhaps someone shows you 1 case or tells you of someone who supposedly persevered.
There were thousands fo checks sent to blacks because an organization in Florida told them they were entitled to reparation checks from the IRS because of slavery in the United States.
You could go online and see copies of the checks.  The employees in IRS processing centers have no knowledge of the IRS Code.  They only know how to read the totals at the bottom of the form and make checks.  Occasionally they may check the math.  They do not go to the code book to review every detail of the form.
The fact that Thousands of checks went out, proved nothing more than thousands of checks were being sent.
Currently the IRS is prosecuting those who helped prepare returns and seeking money and penalties from those who applied for the reparation checks.
In a nutshell, you are dealing with clerks who work for criminals… The clerks add and subtract, check numbers and do clerky things.
Eventually, if you have done something out of the ordinary, you can come to the attention of those who can and will prosecute you.  They don’t go after everyone.  They can’t.  But, if you are singled out…
If you start a process you cannot defend; it makes no difference if you lose from lack of money, lack of courtroom expertise, or because you are dealing with people who are not bound by rules… You are screwed.  The only question remaining is whether or not what you are going through was the wisest use of your time and resources.
I’m not recommending people capitulate.
I do recommend people use strategy and tactics that leave their time, money, and other resources intact for effective (Effective is a big question) methods of defending their lives and property; while laying a foundation to remove power from criminal gangs.
The gangs must be stripped of power.  There is no place to hide.  Everyone is a victim; because, the gangs are destroying progress, abundance and morality.  You may protect yourself from direct effects; but, everyone is losing.
The indirect effects harm everyone until we increase individual freedom, unfettered competition, the rule of natural law, personal responsibility, and the other drivers behind abundance, harmony, justice, morality, and unfettered opportunity for the pursuit of happiness.
You are probably better off discovering the most effective traditional ways of lowering taxes and use some time and money to do what you can to change the entire system.
There is an insurmountable problem that you cannot win.  It will destroy everyone but the political elite who control and manufacture monopoly money.
Follow this link for an excellent video presentation on how you have put into a situation where you will lose everything with no way out.

May You Live Long, Free & Blessed,
Don Winfield for
Liberty Marketing Network, Ent.

 

 

 

Share