View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2018 04:53 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Boyd White,

You assume the authority to speak for which people exactly? In other words who in your opinion is "we" in the context of your intended message? Or is yet again other words what qualifies someone so as to belong in this group you speak of when you use the word "we"?

Example: "...we would have to agree upon a charter of Laws and/or process to determine law within a jurisdiction/territory..."

Who determines what the following words mean; which we?

"...the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. " Crime Scene Evidence Euphemistically called The U.S. Constitution of 1789

So...trial by the country, trial by jury according to the common law, is still the law of the land according to those words?

That "according to Law." is quoted from a criminal document brought forth by fraud, the document known as the Constitution of 1787 and 1789. None of the people who were fooled by that fraud agreed to it. If you claim that any of the people fooled by that fraud - treasonous fraud - could possibly agree to something that deceives them, then you are either one of the deceivers, and/or you are one of the deceived. To claim that victims of fraud agree to being victims is absurd, or willful deception.

If that criminal document eluded to a "process to determine law within a jurisdiction/territory" in those words stating "...be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law..." then who (and what army) determines what is done to indict, try, judge and punish anyone, let alone those who claim the authority to employ government offices so as to perpetrate treasonous fraud?

How about the following possible details that may help narrow down the many possibilities as to what is or is not this process (law) eluded to in the criminal document?

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." Failed Attempt to Amend the Criminal Document of 1789

Grand juries were the law of the land previous to that so-called Constitution. Previous to that criminal document, the document used to enslave millions of people, the law of the land was (and still is) the common law with trial by jury; trial by the country. Despite those failed attempts to amend that criminal document, those criminals using that criminal document set about on their criminal path.

How about the following process?

"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace." Articles that confederated the federation of independent Nation States during the War of Aggression perpetrated by Criminal British forces. Those are the words quoted from the text that gave anyone authority to do anything in the name of a federated (voluntary) mutual defense association called The United States of America.

"The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America"."

So what happens in cases where an officer of the government perpetrates treason, felony, or breach of the peace? What process is used in that case? What process have "we" agreed upon?

What about the following 2 agreements?

"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

"...And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual. "

Does the word "alteration" mean the same thing as replace? Have "we" agreed upon those meanings of words? It is not treason for slave traders, warmongers, and central banking frauds to replace the perpetual federal union with an all-powerful Nation State dictatorship so long as words can mean anything to suit the occasion, depending upon which "we" you plant yourself into by your willful actions?

Those criminals called themselves congress, which they were not, and while impersonating congress those criminals claimed to alter the perpetual union, which they did not, they replaced it, and those criminals actually got away with subsidizing African Slave Trade for more than half a century. And people today have the temerity to claim that such crimes are the law of the land; still?

Whining and criticizing? How about explaining what "we" mean when we use the word "naturalization"?

The laws of any land are the laws of nature, acknowledge by people capable of doing so, and thereby employed by people for our mutual defense against all enemies of freedom, including slave traders, warmongers, and central banking frauds domestic. Any one of the criminals in counterfeit public office since 1789 can be tried for treason, or just disturbing the peace, if people stop believing these absurd lies. SMH