Sherry Peel Jackson Conviction -- Reports from Trial

[Dr. Caligari]

One of the resident geniuses at the ever-amusing Cornforth Strategies Yahoo group has it all figured out:

No Suprise:Tax Honesty Advocate Sherry Peel Jackson Gets Railroaded!

Let's See:

BIG MISTAKE:

PUTTING TRUST IN AN ATTORNEY (OFFICER OF THE COURT)

NEWLY CONVICTED Sherry Peel Jackson
NAIVELY hired an OFFICER OF THE COURT,
(Over-Rated/Over-Paid IMHO)Lowell (Larry) Becraft
to "RE-PRESENT" Her in Court, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY Granting the Court
the PERSONAM JURISDICTION IT WAS PREVIOULSY LACKING!


Then TRUSTS same Attorney/Officer of the Court,

(WHOSE FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE COURT & NOT HIS CLIENT!)

WHO UNDOUBTEDLY FAILS TO MENTION TO HIS CLIENT HOW HE JUST
BACKDOORED A PERSONAM JURISDICTIONAL GRANT LEADING TO THE DEMISE OF
HIS CLIENT,

to Defend Her Non-Recognized RIGHTS in a SHARK INFESTED STAR CHAMBER!


No Doubt Ms. Jackson was also unaware that her Attorney of Choice is
CLUELESS (Whether by a Defect in His Intelligence or Perhaps even a
Far More Sinister Explanation) concerning the FRAUD that transpired
back in 1948 concerning the 18 USC 3231 Criminal Jurisdiction
Allegation and therefore would undoubtedly FAIL to Effectively
Challenge Jueisdiction on those grounds.

That's Right! When I Recently discovered Mr. Becraft openly
displaying his ostensible IGNORANCE & APATHY concerning 18 USC 3231
I was Blown Away and was compelled to Contact Him privately
concerning Same only to be further blown away by his Asinine
Response, which only further validated the Wise Words of Warning by
Learned Men in Law such as Chief Justice Berger, Yale Law Professor
Fred Rodell, and R. Kessler, Dean of Fordham University Law School.

GEE HOW IS IT that an Attorney being an expert in Law, Not Only
Managed to have Every One of His Motions (including (?)JURISDICTION)
DENIED, FAILED To Get His Client a STAY of Trial Pending the Outcome
of Appeal on his Denied Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,
before the District Court of Appeals???

Since Way Back before the advent of the Internet, before Larry
Becraft, or ANY PAYTRIOTS FOR PROFIT GURUS appeared hawking their
flawed theories and snake oil cure alls,
the IRS/DOJ/USDC LOST BIG TIME TO A MERE PRO PER IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS ON THESE VERY SAME JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS AND THEIR
BOGUS FELONY & MISDEMEANOR CRIMINAL CHARGES EVAPORATED LIKE DRY ICE
ON A HOT SUMMER'S DAY.


FYI-BIG MISTAKE NUMBER 2:

UNWISELY HIRING AN ATTORNEY AND THEN NOT LISTING/MAINTAINING ONESELF
AS "CO-COUNSEL"

Should One Ever Be Faced with a Situation whereby an Attorney either
refuses or fails to Properly argue ALL Jurisdiction Challenges
before Trial, or One simply can no longer afford to Keep Paying the
Attorney, ONLY by maintaining "Co-Counsel" Status, Can One Argue
One's Motions/Case at the Appellate Level!


"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers"
William Shakespeare, King Henry VI Part II, Act IV, Scene II

[Famspear]

Wow, what a delusional, self-centered, narcissistic blowhard. I looked for something coherent in the above mess, and I actually found something:

Then [Sherry Peel Jackson] TRUSTS same Attorney/Officer of the Court,

(WHOSE FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE COURT & NOT HIS CLIENT!)

That's right, you dimwit.

For example: In Texas each person, upon being admitted to the Bar, takes an oath to do four things:

1. To uphold the Constitution of the United States;

2. To uphold the Constitution of the State of Texas;

3. To honestly demean himself/herself in the practice of law;

4. To discharge the duty to his or her client to the best of the attorney's ability.

--summarized from Tex. Gov't Code sec. 82.037.

Essentially, swearing to uphold the law is first on the list. Swearing to uphold the law is also second on the list. Essentially, swearing to uphold the law is also third on the list. My client's interests, while very important, are not first. My client's interests are not second. My client's interests are not even third.

And that is as it should be.

[Famspear]

This idiot essentially claims to know more about the law than the lawyers, but doesn't know the difference between personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction, and refers to a non-existent Federal court called the "District Court of Appeals". Tax protesters need more people like this guy advising them. What a treat.

[Dr. Caligari]

His blather about 18 USC 3231 is, I believe, a reference to the scam I posted about here:
http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1594

[ASITStands]

Since Way Back before the advent of the Internet, before Larry Becraft, or ANY PAYTRIOTS FOR PROFIT GURUS appeared hawking their flawed theories and snake oil cure alls, the

IRS/DOJ/USDC LOST BIG TIME TO A MERE PRO PER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ON THESE VERY SAME JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS AND THEIR BOGUS FELONY & MISDEMEANOR CRIMINAL CHARGES EVAPORATED LIKE DRY ICE ON A HOT SUMMER'S DAY.

Who was the "pro per," or what was the case? Any idea?

[Nikki]

The pro per victor goes by many names: Yeti, Sasquatch, Bigfoot, Jersey Devil, ...

[Doktor Avalanche]

Sherry Jackson...



And you've been shown the law. Be happy.

[.]

Virtually no comment about Jackson at libertypost or freedumb4um.

Usually they get really bent out of shape whenever another TP moron bites the federal dust. Not this time. Maybe she's the wrong color.

[Agent Observer]

. said:

Virtually no comment about Jackson at libertypost or freedumb4um.

Usually they get really bent out of shape whenever another TP moron bites the federal dust. Not this time. Maybe she's the wrong color.

Possibly in some circles, but I think the sentiments expressed in the Makethestand (or should I say, MaidMarionStand, since she's about the only one that posts there anymore) post below are probably responsible for a lion's share of lack of response:

http://makethestand.com/ftopict-1081.html

She was one of THEM. One of the oppressors. An IRS thug. As sad as I am that the cause has lost another champion, I'm a little happy to see a former gangster get a taste of her own medicine.

That said, we'd better find some new champions. We're running out of heroes.

_________________
RON PAUL 2008

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing" -- Thomas Jefferson

[.]

Possibly in some circles

There's a fairly heavy stench of StormFront/Aryan-type attitudes around the forums I mentioned.

I'm a little happy to see a former gangster get a taste of her own medicine.

Certainly a good rationalization.

[gezco]

Some people never learn.

We marinate those people in canned roast beef hash for three days and then we put them out on the back porch like you can do to grapes to turn them into sun-dried raisins and then throw them into a tank of hungry sea monkeys and let them swim for their life.

As it turns out, it doesn't help them learn anything. But it's fun to watch. I love sea monkeys. Except when they beat me at poker. Bastards. They can bluff like nobody's business. Like that time thirty years ago when they swore that if I didn't bring back their pink fluffy bunny slippers that they'd write really provocative things about me all over the bathroom walls of America. Well, I dyed their slippers black and shaved them (those little bunnies bite hard so if you're going to try this at home, be sure to wear gloves) and left them on the monkeys' front stoop in the rain overnight.

I'm really popular now. Can't figure out why.

You really need to consider dumping the accounting career and start writing for a living.

[Demosthenes]

What not to do before sentencing...

-----Original Message-----
From: Freedom Above Fortune [mailto:automailer@freedomabovefortune.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:15 AM
Subject: FORMER IRS SPECIAL AGENT AND OTHER TAX HONESTY FIGHTERS COMING TO DALLAS

FREEDOM ABOVE FORTUNE NEWS

FORMER IRS SPECIAL AGENT AND OTHER TAX HONESTY FIGHTERS COMING TO DALLAS

Dear Friends,

The opportunity has arrived to meet individuals Attorney Tommy Cryer, Robert Lawrence and myself who have achieved victory over the IRS in court. Freedom Law School is sponsoring a conference featuring many interesting speakers at the upcoming 2007 Texas Justice, Peace and Freedom Conference on November 16-18 in Dallas, Texas. The other knowledgeable and informative speakers are former IRS Revenue Agent and whistle-blower Sherry Jackson, 9/11 National hero William Rodriguez and Sherry Jackson's attorneys Larry Becraft and Jeff Dickstein (who was my attorney as well).

Since this Conference is FREE to anyone who is under 22 years old or is under 26 year old and a full time student, please bring with you your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews.

For more details please go to http://www.livefreenow.org and click on the 2007 Texas Justice, Peace and Freedom Conference or, call Freedom Law School at (760) 868-4271 for the color brochure of the Conference.

[Imalawman]

What not to do before sentencing...

-----Original Message-----
From: Freedom Above Fortune [mailto:automailer@freedomabovefortune.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:15 AM
Subject: FORMER IRS SPECIAL AGENT AND OTHER TAX HONESTY FIGHTERS COMING TO DALLAS

FREEDOM ABOVE FORTUNE NEWS

FORMER IRS SPECIAL AGENT AND OTHER TAX HONESTY FIGHTERS COMING TO DALLAS

Dear Friends,

The opportunity has arrived to meet individuals Attorney Tommy Cryer, Robert Lawrence and myself who have achieved victory over the IRS in court. Freedom Law School is sponsoring a conference featuring many interesting speakers at the upcoming 2007 Texas Justice, Peace and Freedom Conference on November 16-18 in Dallas, Texas. The other knowledgeable and informative speakers are former IRS Revenue Agent and whistle-blower Sherry Jackson, 9/11 National hero William Rodriguez and Sherry Jackson's attorneys Larry Becraft and Jeff Dickstein (who was my attorney as well).

Since this Conference is FREE to anyone who is under 22 years old or is under 26 year old and a full time student, please bring with you your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews.

For more details please go to http://www.livefreenow.org and click on the 2007 Texas Justice, Peace and Freedom Conference or, call Freedom Law School at (760) 868-4271 for the color brochure of the Conference.

And that should ensure the maximum sentence right there...

[LPC]

From Trialogs:

Sherry Peel Jackson Trial - Comments From Observer
Written by djahn
Saturday, 03 November 2007

The following was posted in our forum by someone who had attended Sherry's trial.
--------
I arrived Tuesday mid-morning when Larry Becraft's direct examination of Sherry was in progress and in its second day. Sherry's responses were level and clear, except for a few moments when she started choking up but quickly regained her composure. This was doubtless from the intimidating presence of all those federal minions bent on retribution ("You quit the company and then had the nerve to tell others about the fraud!") and her destruction.

The short, pugnacious prosecutor was at all times very wooden and halting in his delivery, not the eloquent defender of rights and firebrand that Larry is. The prosecutor also got an audible guffaw out of the packed gallery at one point when he spoke of Sherry's reliance on "old obscure Supreme Court cases"! Supreme Court decisions "old" and "obscure"Huh!!!!? I was surprised the judge didn't bristle at this eruption. I've heard of judges going ballistic and threatening to clear the courtroom but then at this -- only my second attendance at a federal tax trial -- what goes on at trial bears little resemblance to Perry Mason. In fact, the

prosecutor almost sneered every time he mentioned the phrase "Supreme Court cases" (the law is what WE say it is!). The judge also followed a fairly predictable pattern during the testimony phase of the trial: overrule the prosecution's objections when defense was questioning, overrule defense's objections during prosecution's cross.

Although the jury's makeup (reported by another observer) suggested an above average level of intelligence and experience (many job titles sounded white-collar to me and most jurors appeared to be from the private sector), the prosecutor applied the KISS principle in his attack by not distinguishing for the jury finer points such as:

* the difference between "liability for" versus "imposition of" a tax (to the Dept. of Justice, they are one in the same)
* differences between "gross income", "gross receipts" and "taxable income"
* the Constitution's distinction between direct and indirect taxes
* the difference between everyday uses of words like "individual", "income", "person", and the very limited, strict redefinition of those same words when used in statutes
* what activities an excise, impost or duty can be levied on, versus what can be taxed directly by the government

All the complexities and pitfalls of the statutes were studiously avoided. When the prosecutor would accuse Sherry of having "income" and, further, having made "income" "above the threshold amount", there were no objections. I know Larry and the rest of the defense team were aware of the differences, but perhaps opted not to muddy the waters and leave the jurors' heads spinning and totally baffled. It really drove home how, once you enter the federal zone and adopt their words of art and artifice, you are truly living in a "hall of mirrors".

Another cheap courtroom tactic by the prosecution was intimidation of the jury and actually the gallery as well. During the whole time I was there Tuesday, there was (I assume) a government agent -- a real by-the-book pencil neck type -- sitting or standing against the far wall of the courtroom directly opposite the jury, glaring at them in stony menacing silence the whole time. Occasionally he would direct his steely gaze at the gallery, which appeared mostly filled with Sherry sympathizers, although prosecution witnesses were present and doubtless government plants sprinkled throughout. The only time this robotic figure ever cracked a smile or lightened up was after the government's rebuttal witnesses, which were 4 current or retired IRS agents who denied ever having discussed with Sherry her research into the law and questions about liability, and one of the partners in her CPA firm who raised the spectre of misappropriation of funds in the business. This was the character assassination that did the most harm to Sherry. The defense maneuvered adroitly to do damage control after this ambush, recalling Sherry to explain that the disagreement was eventually resolved and the partners continued working together, but the damage was done. The ex-partner was a distasteful physically repugnant character, and none of Sherry's supporters would have had a moment's hesitation dismissing her motives and deviousness, in fact her whole testimony.

But the agent's change in demeanor telegraphed to many of us that the death blow to Sherry's defense had been delivered. The fact the judge allowed this blatant tactic to continue throughout Day Two in her courtroom pointed up how -- despite all appearances -- the judge really is on the same "team" as the prosecution.

A lot of time and angling was spent by the prosecution and defense over jury instructions. Each time, with the jury out of the room, we in the gallery got to watch the maneuvering by both sides to get their separate sets of instructions into the judge's charge to the jury. I didn't realize until I saw it myself how critical the judge's charge is (specifically when a judge tells juries that they HAVE to accept the law as the judge gives it, and what they are allowed to consider in their deliberations). The need for a fully informed jury (it has the power to judge the facts AND the law) is more critical than ever. The judge seemed to reject many more of the defense's requested instructions than the prosecution's.

Larry's closing argument was fiery and moving. He tried to impress on the jury their role as the "fourth" branch of government, being the last check against excesses in the three explicit branches. He even invoked the persecution of Galileo for daring to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice-versa, much as Sherry kept insisting that she couldn't find "liability" for the income tax in Title 26. The prosecutor called it a rehash of his opening statement but it was powerful to my ears and eyes, nonetheless. The prosecutor also acted really childishly as Larry spoke, rolling his eyes, spinning in his chair to face the jury box, pursing his lips and slapping his armrest, as if to say, "Jurors, can you believe this crap?"

I left after the jury had been sent out to begin their deliberations and while the defense team registered their objections to the jury instructions. This was odd to me (what point objecting to jury instructions after the jury has heard them?) until someone explained the defense was laying the groundwork for appeal. This turned out to be prescient, as I got a call on the way home while still sitting in rush hour traffic, telling me the jury had ALREADY returned a guilty verdict. Crushed, all I could think was, "My God, they didn't deliberate Sherry's fate for scarcely an hour, if that much!" (It turned out to be less than that: 45 minutes.)

[The Observer]

Sherry's responses were level and clear, except for a few moments when she started choking up but quickly regained her composure. This was doubtless from the intimidating presence of all those federal minions bent on retribution...

It was more likely due to Sherry actually having a moment of clarity and realizing how deep in trouble she was.

I've heard of judges going ballistic and threatening to clear the courtroom but then at this -- only my second attendance at a federal tax trial -- what goes on at trial bears little resemblance to Perry Mason.

Uh, here is a little information for you. All trials bears little resemblance to what you might have read or seen in a Perry Mason story.

The judge also followed a fairly predictable pattern during the testimony phase of the trial: overrule the prosecution's objections when defense was questioning, overrule defense's objections during prosecution's cross.

Yeah, that kind of stuff goes on all the time at trials. I am going to bet that you never saw that on a Perry Mason show.

All the complexities and pitfalls of the statutes were studiously avoided. When the prosecutor would accuse Sherry of having "income" and, further, having made "income" "above the threshold amount", there were no objections. I know Larry and the rest of the defense team were aware of the differences, but perhaps opted not to muddy the waters and leave the jurors' heads spinning and totally baffled.

No, Larry and the "rest" knew better than try to pull some stupid crap in the courtoom by trying to argue that the word "income" doesn't mean what everyone thinks it means. After all, they have their law licesnses and practice on the line.

Another cheap courtroom tactic by the prosecution was intimidation of the jury and actually the gallery as well.

It wouldn't be a typical TP trial unless this unfounded charge was made. After all, you do have to be able to explain why an jury seen as having above-average intelligence would rule against poor Sherry.

The judge seemed to reject many more of the defense's requested instructions than the prosecution's.

Maybe because the defense was trying to insert more garbage into the instruction to make up for the garbage arguments they knew they couldn't make in court.

He [Becraft] even invoked the persecution of Galileo for daring to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice-versa, much as Sherry kept insisting that she couldn't find "liability" for the income tax in Title 26.

Ah yes. The other requirment for TP trials: the inevitable comnparison of the accused to Galileo.

The prosecutor also acted really childishly as Larry spoke, rolling his eyes, spinning in his chair to face the jury box, pursing his lips and slapping his armrest, as if to say, "Jurors, can you believe this crap?"

Everyone has their limit of how much crap they can take in one trial. Apparently the jury's tolerance level wasn't much more than the prosecutor's.

[Quixote]

Sherry's responses were level and clear, except for a few moments when she started choking up but quickly regained her composure. This was doubtless from the intimidating presence of all those federal minions bent on retribution

Occasionally he would direct his steely gaze at the gallery, which appeared mostly filled with Sherry sympathizers, although prosecution witnesses were present and doubtless government plants sprinkled throughout.

Was she intimidated by the presence of the prosecution witnesses, all three of them, or does she have the TP skill to tell government employees on sight from reporters and fellow TPs?

Was that why the government plants were there? Because I can't think of any other reason to pack a courtroom with government employees.

[Demosthenes]

The witness could also have been a bailiff or marshal, which is not unusual during a tp criminal trial lately.

[Dr. Caligari]

Sherry should have spent more time studying things like:

* Rule 9(a) of FRCP,
* Subject matter jurisdiction and how it is conferred,
* Nature and cause of any action,
* What constitutes a justiciable controversy,
* How entities like UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can sustain injury,
* How such entities could possibly have "standing" to complain against
anyone,
* What happens if it turns out that a plaintiff DOES NOT have standing
to complain
* What happens when the plaintiff CAN NOT rebut an affidavit of
negative averment that specifically calls to see evidence of the
plaintiff's existence,
* Who is the injured party
* Who has a valid claim against her
* Whether she is innocent until proven guilty
* Whether she is innocent of every element of the charge
* Whether jurisdiction is one of these elements that she is innocent of
* Whether there is a conflict of interest since the judge is actually
paid by the "so-called" plaintiff
* Whether it is possible to find a judge who isn't paid by the
"so-called" plaintiff
* What constitutes a valid arraignment,
* What it actually means to "Understand the charges",
* What it means to have the "charges" certified under penalty of
perjury into the court record,
* Who would be capable of doing that other than the plaintiff who does
not exist,
* The difference between an article 3 and article 1 court,
* The proper response when a judge offers to enter a plea against your
will
* The ramifications of HJR-192 on any corporation, including
government corporations, participating in the federal reserve system
(see HJR-192 to see what an "Obligee" has a right to demand as payment
under Public Policy),
* The definition of the term "Dummy" in Black's law dictionary and how
it relates to court cases such as Sherry's i.e. the defendant does not
"exist" until it "Appears" or someone else "Appears" to stand in for
the defendant,
* What constitutes an "Appearance" in court

and on and on.....

[Kimokeo]

I suspect this is what would be preferred...


http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#jury

Jury of Peers

People often say "I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!" when there is no such right in the Constitution. The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Note that no where is a jury "of peers" guaranteed. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing - in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew up from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by "peers."

Today, the American ideal dictates that we are all peers of one another, that regardless of gender, race, religion, social status, or any other division (except age), we are all equal. In this ideal, since we are all peers, a guarantee of a jury of ones peers would be redundant. While some argue with this ideal, it is the most democratic way to approach the subject. Juries need only be impartial, and not made up of one's peers, else the jury system would be unworkable.

[grammarian44]

Sherry should have spent more time studying things like:

<piffel>

Idiot at Cornforth Strategies appears to take the approach of Marc Stevens and others at Adventures in Legal Land.