|Moderated by: Joe Kelley|
The common law rancher, who was born naturally with a name, a good name, was not going to wait for the cows to come home, he went out and saved those cows from the evil bandits before those criminals could slaughter and bury the evidence, covering up their heinous crimes.
A steward of all that is good, nurturing, providing, helping, earning good life on earth had his, and his loving families sustenance stolen from him.
And then a modern standoff at a modern OK Corral ended as the good guys dodged that bullet.
It was a close call.
It was broadcast live to the whole world.
It was another Ruby Ridge, another Waco, set into play by the criminals running that show.
This time too history is written by the winners of that battle, but this time the criminals did not get away with their stolen loot.
This time too history is written by the good guys.
The battle is not over.
|Cut and Pasted from e-mail:
A Letter to Sheriff Ward
I promised to keep you updated. Please read this copy of a letter I recently sent to Sheriff Ward regarding the Hammonds.
Dear Sheriff David Ward,
I have received information through multiple sources that you, in conjunction with federal agencies, have enlisted, the state, and five surrounding counties to come to your protection. That officers and military equipment have been transported to Harney County to aid in your personal security. That these officers have been heavily armed, and that the personnel involved have been put on high alert and briefed to use force upon the people as they see fit. It is to our understanding that this call out to your brothers in blue is being justified because of a personal threat directed to you, by way of an email, that you do not know who made the threat, and have no lead other than the email source.
It is this over reaction for your personal protection that we write to you in disgust. Why have you placed yourself higher than the Hammond's and higher than the people of Harney County? Why will the brothers in blue waist no time, spare no expense, and leave no effort untouched for the protection and defense of each other, meanwhile, completely ignore the very people that they are charged to defend? Why do the brothers in blue take the people's money by force and purchase military equipment and arms in the name of protecting the people, only to use it on the people themselves?
The irony is too strong to ignore. The danger is too real. The Hammond's have been unjustly charged as "terrorists"... they are ranchers. Their safety and well-being has been directly threatened by a federal agent in an open manner. They have been subject to double jeopardy. They have been sentenced to a cruel and unusual punishment. In an effort to put in duress, they have been required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in a very short period of time. Their private water sources have been fenced off. They have been threatened with unauthorized force if they put to use hundreds of acres of their own private property. All of this has transpired right before your eyes and you lift not even a brow in their defense. You have never even been to the Hammond's home or ranch to find the truth; you have yet to go where the fires occurred to understand the circumstances. You have exhausted minimal resources, if any at all, to get to the bottom of what is going on. And yet an email, which probably came from clear across the United States, from a half witted keyboard warrior, made an idle threat to you, and immediately the feds, the state and five county departments come unglued and tactically assemble in an unstable manner with weapons pointed at the people.
It is shameful that someone as powerful as you act the way you have. It is alarming that you make no effort to uphold the duties and obligation of your office. Almost your entire adult life, you have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. You have also been appointed to protect the lives, liberties and property of the people who live and come into Harney County. When we called upon you to provide that protection, you refused-and instead chose to seek more favor and power by collaborating with the violators, forgetting your duty to the people.
I offer awareness to you and other government personnel that lead or follow your example. The people are in unrest, because of these types of egregious actions. The establishment and purpose of government is to protect and uphold the inalienable rights of the PEOPLE, not to defend itself against the people. It is our duty and obligation as individuals to defend our God-given rights if our government representatives fail to do so, or tries to discard them. We as a people desire to live in peace and tranquility, but will defend our freedoms if necessary, in order to do so. We call upon you Sheriff Ward, and all civil servants, to honorably and effectively uphold the oaths and duties of your sworn offices-to turn your weapons in the defense of the Hammond's rights and truly be a representative of the people, by the people and for the people.
My comment sent 4-4-2017.
When people trust a system built by deception, what can be expected? If people were knowledgeable about the accurate accountability process, known as trial by jury (according to the common law), also known as trial by the country, also known as trial by jury in a court of conscience, also known as the law of the land (even in America), instead of people being ignorant about this process where volunteers volunteer to hold each other to an accurate accounting through rule of law, then, having that power of knowledge, instead of powerless ignorance, the words written, and spoken, by people in this case would be words such as mixed war, in documents such a solemn recognition of mixed war. Why sugar coat the facts? Who is served by such deceptions?
|1. The law of the land in America is checked and balanced by the people themselves with their own common law at their disposal, their command, themselves. Not a request by the people to be allowed to have, hold, secure, protect, employ, and utilize a voluntary process by which the goal of mutual defense is achieved, through a process that holds each other to an accurate accounting of the facts.
First Congress of the founding, forming, grass-roots voluntary defense against criminal aggressors, Oct 14, 1774:
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
2. Criminals, and especially criminals under the color of law, make false claims about their criminal authority, even while criminals openly torture, plunder, rape, enslave, and mass murder their victims, and victims are often "made" to believe such lies, despite the mounting evidence proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the claims of lawful authority are lies.
Notes by Thomas Jefferson recording deliberations concerning the official indictment, public notice, solemn recognition of mixed war, proposed as a declaration of independence, SATURDAY, June 8, 1776:
That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
3. While American, unique, adaptive, common law due process was developing, there were cases tried by the revolutionary defenders, as the offending parties were still plundering, raping, enslaving, torturing, and mass murdering innocent people whose crime was to say no more will we believe in fraudulent authority. This case was demonstrably not an English Common Law Court Case, this was an American Common Law Court Case, with or without errors made by the people who constituted the court, and the people who proceeded according to the American common law, which was, is, and can still be the law of the land in every republic (state) in the federation of states.
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE, 1 U.S. 35 (1778)
1 U.S. 35 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
September Sessions, 1778
This was an indictment for High Treason, which was set forth in the following words:
Another American Common Law Court Case, demonstrably not a British Admiralty Court Case, nor an Equity, Exchequer, Nisi Prius, or other Summary Justice Case, and the American magistrate, judge, justice, office holder, who is not a British subject, offers logical, reasonable, information concerning the duties, powers, limits, accountability, and responsibility of American Common Law Grand Juries, and American Common Law Trial Juries (petit juries), according to the American, adaptive, grass-roots, defensive, voluntary, common law due process: law of the land.
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
After some conversation with the Grand Inquest, the Attorney General informed the court, that a list of eleven persons had been presented to him by the Foreman, with a request, that they might be qualified and sent to the jury, as witnesses upon a bill then depending before them. He stated that the list had been made out by the defendant's bail; that the persons named were intended to furnish testimony in favor of the party charged, upon facts with which the Inquest, of their own knowledge, were unacquainted; and he concluded with requesting, that the opinion of the court might be given upon this application. The Chief Justice, accordingly, addressed the Grand Jury to the following effect:
Explanation of a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, as the concept relates to the concept of Bonding public officials, which is a means by which the public liberty is insured against loss, when public officials injure instead of defend individual members of the public.
9.2 - Escalation
Further, reinforcing, information, voluntarily offered, in the effort to educate, inform, empower, individuals who make up the entire public group of individuals, including those individuals who are given official work in official offices for our mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic i.e. the government.
In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right.
Further evidence offered in history concerning the demarcation line between the people themselves, and their power to government themselves, and the segment of the people who constitute the government itself.
The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal.
Trial by Jury explained by a famous American whose fame is not accurately accounted for in false versions of American history.
FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
Forwarding to modern evidence, and leaving behind vital information concerning the time and place when the criminals took over the American Federal Government, so as to enslave everyone, is the following warning about Agent Provocateurs, or "black hats" working side by side with "white hats" in a world where the people no longer use their power to hold each other to an accurate accounting of which people, in which places, at which times, are guilty (black hat firmly on), and which people, in which places, at which times, are voluntarily working expediently, effectively, in our mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic.
This last effort here and now is a link to information that exposes the sorry state of ubiquitous ignorance concerning the concept of the law as an process that establishes lawful facts.
Every individual is their own gatekeeper holding back from their view all the information that does not interest, entertain, concern, validate, aid, help, protect, defend, involve, or otherwise affect each individual.
When each individual gatekeeper allows false information to be believed as true information there is a potential for the individual to then become their own worst enemy, and that is because one of the messages that constitute false information is a message that inspires the individual to believe that it is in their own best interest to reject (bar the gate) against information that asks the individual to question authority internally, and externally (domestic, and foreign).
People subjected to this particular, specific, falsehood are no good for their own defense, and by extension they are also no good for the defense of anyone else, against powers (such as deception) which render individuals powerless, in their own defense.
Therefore, with that understood, working in an individual mind, whereby the individual mind has a working, nurtured, conscience, it can be then understood that this information above, is powerless to each individual whose mind has been rendered subservient to - at least - the one deception mentioned above in this summary.
Are there any people remaining, after all the people whose minds are compromised by falsehood - all those dumbed down people - have been accurately accounted for, are they any remaining, and if so, from those remaining people, is it possible to actually form a common law grand jury, or a common law trial jury, and who will work to reach that goal, assuming that it is even possible, when accurately accounting for the fact that so many people have had their moral conscience effectively turned off by one obvious, demonstrable, lie?
How is that lie demonstrated, in time, in place, without controversy? In the Jesse Ventura Video above, the lie is demonstrated when a statement is made concerning the routine murder of people who are dark skinned, and how that information of that routine murder of people who are dark skinned, is then turned into an indictment against people with white skin, as those white skinned people are prepared to risk their lives protecting all people, no matter what may be the color of their skin.
Normally I leave the information as an open question, that is how I do things normally. This time I am going to spell things out in more detail.
The routine murder of dark skinned people ADDS to, and does not SUBTRACT from, the demand for, the vital need for, people to step up and challenge, question, the claims of authority being made by those who enable, allow, aid, abet, finance, support, those who routinely (caught red handed) murdering people, even when the murdered victims are dark skinned.
|The original (not the counterfeit) meaning of democracy was the meaning exemplified by the following quote: "That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority." The modern (counterfeit) definition of democracy is a spin on the might makes right claim made by all would be tyrants. The original meaning of republic is also opposite many modern attempts to counterfeit, or re-define, the original meaning: res (thing) public (people as a whole), or republic, is the whole people as one forming a government. So...democracy and republic were once shared meanings, which is exemplified by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, when they formed a political party in opposition to the falsely named Federalist Party. The party formed to oppose Nationalism hidden behind a false front of Federalism was the Democratic Republican Party, specifically formed in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Read the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions offered by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. How can people join in their mutual defense when communication is rendered powerless by duplicitous words?
|As to the origin of rights, or governments, the order follows the creator creation order. The creator of rights is not the constitution, certainly not the fraudulent one of 1789. The Bill of Rights was an effort to dispel the notion that the creation of man (a constitution) is somehow able to "give" people rights.