Chris Hansen Under The Gun

[futop]

Considering that the gubmint is not going to let any truth come out of this "trial" and this is really all smoke and mirrors, I would suggest Chris look into this as it may be the only thing left that keeps him out of the grey bar hotel.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/law/allocution.htm

I'm not positive but I think this is a way to "not contract" into going to the "prize zone" a.k.a. prison. Don't they have to get you to agree/consent/contract or else be surety for the strawman/legal name?

The only other thing I can think of is doing something through the Admiralty jurisdiction but I am extremely novice with that approach and it may be too late since the case has already started, or maybe not?

[scottinalaska]

I can't say I have ever used that! But if its all going to hell in a handbasket, why not!??!!

I like it. THanks for posting the info/link.
scottinalaska

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Francis, you are correct. But reality of it is becoming that the judge chooses to ignore what doesn't fit his paradymical wonderworld and the jury most often falls in step. I am bewildered at what more can be done. It is like playing basketball and the other team begins to make up rules like, "Hey, you're not allowed to shoot in EITHER hoop. Now that that is settled, let's keep playing and see who wins."
You respond with, "Hey, that's not fair." He responds with his usual fiat decree, "That's frivilous! Let's play ball!"
Sorry for the negative tone, but how can one get to a remedy if the sickness isn't even recognized? It's like watching our brothers getting burned alive starting at the feet and all we seem to do is try and learn from them and Monday morning quarterback it. Still, many of us pray for them and that is the least we can do.
scottinalaska

Yes, this seems to sum up what is going on in the current hearing regarding Chris Hansen. Fortunately, unless I have missed something, the issue in question is if the government will shut down Chris' website "Family Guardian". I don't think that his personal freedom is at issue.

Of course, this is an attack on Chris', and everyones, First Amendment, free speech rights. If the government is allowed to shut down the Family Guardian, how long will it be before they start closing other websites that may not support the government view? How long before this website is attacked?

B. Whether the Complaint Must be Dismissed


Hansen argues the statements made in the Complaint are without any foundation, not taken under oath or penalty of perjury, and not provided in the proper form under Civil Local Rule 7.1(f). This argument does not persuade the Court to dismiss the Complaint.

Emphasis added.

What a load of crap! There is no evidence against Chris, there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Period. Can you say k-a-n-g-a-r-o-o court?

[Ice]

Hansen argues the statements made in the Complaint are without any foundation, not taken under oath or penalty of perjury, and not provided in the proper form under Civil Local Rule 7.1(f). This argument does not persuade the Court to dismiss the Complaint.

Did the Judge make mention any further than this? The Judge ignored his own rules.
Chris should also raise the IRS rules which requires actions to be approved, aythorized and signed by real men before they can go after people.

In this case it would be prudent to object and make use of the interlocutory appeal... would it not?

Ice

Dear friends,

Chris Hansen here. Someone pointed out this thread to me. I normally don't follow this forum because too busy with research and supporting my own forums at:
http://famguardian.org/forums/

A number of misconceptions have occurred here that I wish to clarify:
1. I do not work for the government. I was TERMINATED for my stance on the tax issue.
2. I am not a programmer, I am a network and security engineer with a degree, who now is self-supporting rather than "employed".
3. Family Guardian is not the subject of the DOJ Complaint, SEDM is (http://sedm.org). Family Guardian is not at risk of being shut down because it is not involved in commerce of any kind.
4. Even if the government liars and thieves get an injunction, it will not affect Family Guardian or any of the mirrors because:
4.1 It is outside the country.
4.2 I do not own the domain name, but someone else does.

5. None of the charges, not even one, are true. Look at the materials yourself. The government is trying to use sovereign immunity as an excuse to violate the copyright software license for the materials on the site. The license at:
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm

says that anyone who litigates against the author agrees to substitute themself as defendant. Martin Shoemaker, the government attorney, is therefore the Plaintiff and the Defendant and is prosecuting himself with my compensated assistance. He will have to pay that bill. The copyright/user license agreement also says he waives all sovereign immunity and agrees that he is acting as a private individual and not a government employee. The only way out of this for the government is to not use anything on the Family Guardian Website or the SEDM website and no communications associated with either. That means they will have to proceed without evidence. If he attempts to quote anything from the website, he can't get it admitted into evidence without revealing where he got it in order to establish a foundation for the evidence he is going to use. As soon as he does that, he will have to admit that he is subject to the License agreement. Imagine trying to prosecute without evidence. The judge cannot interfere with the license agreement because he can't interfere with the right to contract under the Constitution. I don't see how they could possibly prevail under the circumstances.

For those of you who want to follow the progress of the case, I've been posting the pleadings at:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...isH/Chrish.htm

Finally, for the gentleman who called me a "dweeb", would you kindly elaborate? That's not exactly a descriptive term..about as descriptive as the word "frivolous". Are you a government mole? It is precisely the kind of bigoted, presumptuous misinformation from people like this gentleman, in fact, that is the reason why I don't frequent forums like this more often.

Chris Hansen
http://famguardian.org

[BOBT12]

Thank you for the updates and corrections.

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

Dear friends,

Chris Hansen here. Someone pointed out this thread to me. I normally don't follow this forum because too busy with research and supporting my own forums at:
http://famguardian.org/forums/

A number of misconceptions have occurred here that I wish to clarify:
1. I do not work for the government. I was TERMINATED for my stance on the tax issue.
2. I am not a programmer, I am a network and security engineer with a degree, who now is self-supporting rather than "employed".
3. Family Guardian is not the subject of the DOJ Complaint, SEDM is (http://sedm.org). Family Guardian is not at risk of being shut down because it is not involved in commerce of any kind.
4. Even if the government liars and thieves get an injunction, it will not affect Family Guardian or any of the mirrors because:
4.1 It is outside the country.
4.2 I do not own the domain name, but someone else does.

5. None of the charges, not even one, are true. Look at the materials yourself. The government is trying to use sovereign immunity as an excuse to violate the copyright software license for the materials on the site. The license at:
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm

says that anyone who litigates against the author agrees to substitute themself as defendant. Martin Shoemaker, the government attorney, is therefore the Plaintiff and the Defendant and is prosecuting himself with my compensated assistance. He will have to pay that bill. The copyright/user license agreement also says he waives all sovereign immunity and agrees that he is acting as a private individual and not a government employee. The only way out of this for the government is to not use anything on the Family Guardian Website or the SEDM website and no communications associated with either. That means they will have to proceed without evidence. Imagine trying to prosecute without evidence. The judge cannot interfere with the license agreement because he can't interfere with the right to contract under the Constitution. I don't see how they could possibly prevail under the circumstances.

For those of you who want to follow the progress of the case, I've been posting the pleadings at:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...isH/Chrish.htm

Finally, for the gentleman who called me a "dweeb", would you kindly elaborate? That's not exactly a descriptive term..about as descriptive as the word "frivolous". Are you a government mole? It is precisely the kind of bigoted, presumptuous misinformation from people like this gentleman, in fact, that is the reason why I don't frequent forums like this more often.

Chris Hansen
http://famguardian.org

Chris Hansen

Much respect!

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Bill Smith

Chris Hansen is a dweeb who works for the government as a programmer, BTW. Shed no tears when he goes down, hard.

Dear Chris,

Bill Smith has been banned from this forum due to his disruptive behavior, as factually displayed in the above example. In my humble opinion, the site administrators work hard in keeping this website a fair place to visit. Everyone's opinion is respected, unless or until, they show no respect!

Of course, I am a happy member of this forum, as well as the Family Guardian forum.

[iamfreeru2]

Chris,

I too, welcome you to this forum and hope you will find time to visit more often. As do most on this site, I support you whole heartedly. I believe you to have one of the best sites on the web and I know that YHWH is very pleased with you and I pray His continued blessings on you and yours. I applaud you for your stand against tyranny and oppression. You are indeed a true patriot.

[weishaupt1776]

Chris, we do appreciate your clearing things up. Your site opened my eyes to alot of different angles concerning the Law

I REALLY like this:

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

says that anyone who litigates against the author agrees to substitute themself as defendant. Martin Shoemaker, the government attorney, is therefore the Plaintiff and the Defendant and is prosecuting himself with my compensated assistance. He will have to pay that bill. The copyright/user license agreement also says he waives all sovereign immunity and agrees that he is acting as a private individual and not a government employee. The only way out of this for the government is to not use anything on the Family Guardian Website or the SEDM website and no communications associated with either. That means they will have to proceed without evidence. If he attempts to quote anything from the website, he can't get it admitted into evidence without revealing where he got it in order to establish a foundation for the evidence he is going to use. As soon as he does that, he will have to admit that he is subject to the License agreement. Imagine trying to prosecute without evidence. The judge cannot interfere with the license agreement because he can't interfere with the right to contract under the Constitution. I don't see how they could possibly prevail under the circumstances.

weishaupt1776 and iamfreeru2 and BOBT12,

Thanks for the encouragement and support!

Chris Hansen
http://famguardian.org