View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2018 09:44 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
The same authority that assumes a fictional power to speak for we now assumes a fictional power to judge my soul, and judge it to be poor. I had assumed that discussion would be civilized, perhaps it has been counterfeited.

"Have you no decency, man?"

Not only is "my" soul made poor by this judge, jury, and executioner but now he has executed all decency from "me". Despots think alike, act alike, that is what makes them despotic.

Grand Juries:

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Page 3

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

"But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."

As warned by George Mason, there goes trial by jury.

As to the dodged question concerning the relative importance of attending a federal (voluntary association for mutual defense) congress, to constitute a quorum, after having gone through a very costly defense against the largest criminal army of aggression for profit, the following was offered by the 6th President of The United States of America, Richard Henry Lee:

"The conduct of several legislatures, touching paper money, and tender laws, has prepared many honest men for changes in government, which otherwise they would not have thought of-when by the evils, on the one hand, and by the secret instigations of artful men, on the other, the minds of men were become sufficiently uneasy, a bold step was taken, which is usually followed by a revolution, or a civil war. A general convention for mere commercial purposes was moved for-the authors of this measure saw that the people’s attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system; and that, had the idea of a total change been started, probably no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could not have been admitted-a convention, therefore, merely for vesting in congress power to regulate trade was proposed."

That is called a con game, or deception, and at that level, that type of deception is treason; plain and simple for anyone who can clearly see the principle, which is a natural law. Principles can be seen, for those who seek the truth, or ignored, for those who wish to deceive or be deceived.

"what slander, this?"

Not only is "my" soul poor and "I" lack all decency but now "I" am guilty of slander. Ask any Jew, Gypsy, or other non-"naturalized" individual captured by the Nazi's if the so-called Nazi government was and all-powerful Nation-State, and what would a true Nazi say in reply? "what slander, this?"

Ask any of the millions of slaves enslaved by the all-powerful Nation-State criminally created in 1789 if they were free and at liberty to have equal protection under the law of the land, or was that "law of the land" for just them?

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10

"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

That is Thomas Jefferson, in the congressional record (previous to the criminal usurpation of 1787), explaining why his original Declaration of Independence was censored.

Here is the censored part:

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

" tar n’ feather me..."

Where? If you agree with subsidized slavery as being "the law of the land," then that is what you do, by your own admission; having nothing at all to do with me, other than the fact that I point that fact out to you, and anyone else caring to know the facts.

"Listen, civilization comes at a cost…it COSTS! Have you ever heard of the phrase “purchase your civil liberty?”

Who pays?

The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made, By Paul Finkelman
"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.

"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."

Who pays?

Address to the non-slaveholders of the South, on the social and political evils of slavery, 1849
"We ask your attention to the injuries inflicted upon you and your children, by an institution which lives by your sufferance, and will die at your mandate. Slavery is maintained by you whom it impoverishes and degrades, not by those upon whom it confers wealth and influence. These assertions will be received by you and others with surprise and incredulity. Before you condemn them, ponder the following considerations and statistics."

It costs says Boyd White, while ignoring the fact that "it" which he speaks about - with authority - is Nation Wide subsidized slavery, in a former federation of independent states. Those costs are profits on the end opposite the stinky end of that stick that was deceptively put into action in 1789.

For some people, civilization is this method by which poor working families are "taxed" to pay for all the costs of preserving the African Slave Trade, which hits those poor working families on two fronts. 1. Ends are already difficult to meet and add to the cost of making ends meet are these "taxes" that fund the competition which utilizes slave labor. 2. Competitors already taking a criminal advantage in cornering markets already render poor people poorer, now those poor people (rich souls) have to pay what little they have earned to the slave laborers.

That type of civilization costs a lot, including the cost of so-called Civilized War or Civil War. Aren't those people so clever with words?

Then the authority over what we think are laws offers Speeding Limits as an example of a Law? The right to travel is a natural born right, and the right to travel as fast as one might feel the need to travel, risking no one else's life in the process (within reason, and reason determined by the country in trial by the country according to the common law) is an act of being free in liberty. Blind obedience to so-called Speeding Limit Laws - without question - is either foolish, or someone writing more treasonous fiction.

" slander me with supporting the central banking fraud..."

I did no such thing, but you can read (or write) just about any fiction imaginable, the sky is no limit. If the shoe fits, then wear the shoe. If the shoe does not fit, don't wear it. On the other hand, you can just keep writing fiction.

"It is you and your assumed authoritarian power to pass judgement on my life by your Grand Jury that is the transgressor. "

I don't have a Grand Jury, Mr. Fiction writer, so if you find someone having one, then that shoe can fit them, truly, and you can then be telling the truth, instead of writing fiction.

"Two can play the baiting false umbrage game."

"shade or shadow, especially as cast by trees"

What is authored by me is published and on the public record thereby, and wherever there is an error, of any kind, or umbrage, or deception, or baiting, or switching, then said evidence can be examined and a remedy is possible. Where fiction is written there is no remedy, only more fiction. You can put any flaw into your man-of-straw at your exclusive pleasure, or take it away, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with me, other than you placing "my" name on your man-of-straw.