Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Redoubt  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Mar 5th, 2019 01:50 am
  PM Quote Reply
121st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"We live in the land of plenty. There are no shortages of anything except common sense and critical thinking."

That is why people are still refusing to resort to violence. That is therefore why the enemies of liberty foreign and domestic are still working to impoverish everyone, to bring everyone to the point of resorting to violence.

However, if you are fooled into thinking that this despotic government was created by Woodrow Willson or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then it might be a good idea to learn better from worse, so as to avoid repeating very destructive errors.

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037

The central bank (under the color of law) scam goes way back in history, probably before the money changers in Biblical text, and to presume, or to conclude, without investigation, the determination that all this evil started in America in the 20th century is - in my opinion - criminally negligent.

“...thank that bastard Woodrow Wilson for the Federal Reserve,”

Who created a dictatorship in America from which a dictator could make all Americans pay for the crime of African Slavery, and all Americans can pay for the Central Banking Fraud, and all Americans can be conscripted (enslaved) to crush any failure to pay the false federal (national) extortion fee?

"Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands." Philadelphiensis IX, February 06, 1788

See also the work of Anthony Sutton; please.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Mar 10th, 2019 03:10 am
  PM Quote Reply
122nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
“But that it was clear that no act they [the state legislature] could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

“But that it was clear that no act they [the state legislature] could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

______________________
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."
_______________________ <----that was missing from the post for some reason


At the (false) "federal Convention" the smoking gun of criminality (quoted above) was entered into the official record. Those who were trusted with the power to remain inside the powers freely given to them (in liberty) employed deception, a threat of harm, and demonstrations of harm to the innocent, so as to usurp their voluntary powers given to them for our mutual defense, and to proceed from that usurpation to create a profitable monopoly out of a genuine government for our mutual defense.

That actual law of the land, meaning the grass-roots, organic, natural law, moral, law of the land, based upon scripture, does not allow an involuntary association created criminally; meaning the creation of slaves and masters of slaves by fraud, by extortion, by torture, or by any aggressive violence initiated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims under the color of law.

The actual law is very simple, and very clear.

“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”

We govern ourselves, we are not governed by an elite, special interest, slave trading, war-mongering, central banking fraud “elite.”

If “we” are claiming to be governed by criminals, then "we" are fools. We are victims of criminals, not citizens being governed by our "elected" representatives.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Mar 10th, 2019 03:22 am
  PM Quote Reply
123rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

That is the quote that is the smoking gun of criminality during the usurpation in 1789, much like the explanation offered in the following words:

“But that it was clear that no act they [the state legislature] could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

See, please, Quo Warranto

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Mar 29th, 2019 02:35 am
  PM Quote Reply
124th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Failed to publish 6:31 pm 3-28-2019:

“Simple questions of WHO is sponsoring the bill? and WHY, are pretty easy to figure out. The reason for the emergency clause is likely to thwart the upcoming initiatives being marketed to raise minimum wage and other liberal policies that have destroyed other states economies.”

If the people who constitute America, as in The United States of America, enforce their democratic republics, which are now at least 50 in number, democratically, those people who constitute those republics (States) could federate into a democratic federation, which would also be a republican form of government.

To be clearer it is vital to attach commonly understood meanings to these often misused words.

Democracy, for example, means rule by the people themselves. At the beginnings of democracy, for example, the people knew that electoral politics was anti-democratic.

"In the Athenian state, as in any other, we can distinguish legislative, judicial, and executive functions. The Athenian legislative branch consisted of two bodies, a Council of 500 and an Assembly of 6000. At first glance, this system resembles the American bicameral legislature, with a small, select upper house and a larger, more popular lower house. But this appearance is deceptive.
To begin with, neither the Council nor the Assembly consisted of elected representatives. The members of the Council were selected not by election but by sortition — i.e., by lot. In other words, the 500 Councillors were selected randomly from the (male) citizen population. (And no Councillor could serve more than two terms.)
The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
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."

http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Mar 29th, 2019 03:25 am
  PM Quote Reply
125th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
“A direct democracy where the people make the laws for themselves.”

When the people constitute independent grand juries, those people represent the whole people in a process by which all enemies foreign and domestic are investigated when anyone has probable cause to suspect wrongdoing: even so-called “prosecutorial misconduct.”

When the people constitute independent trial juries, those people represent the whole people in a process by which all enemies foreign and domestic are subject to rule of law, even the so-called “elite” in the so-called “government.”

When criminals in government claim to be immune from the rule of law, then it is up to the people as a whole to check that false claim, to investigate any wrongdoing, and to put the suspected criminal on trial by the country.

All this talk about what is or is not a democracy, what is or is not a republic, what is or is not a federation, is beside the point at which the criminals enforce those immunities whereby those criminals in government can do whatever they please to anyone, anytime, with impunity. When criminals in government get away with conspiracy murder, for example, it is organized crime, it is not government.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed May 29th, 2019 12:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
126th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
This is perhaps one of those wild coincidences as I nearly added a quote from Calhoun in the previous reply. I had just started reading the work of Calhoun 3 days ago.

Example:
A DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT
"But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal interpretation of the major, when the one would have all the powers of the government to carry its construction into effect—and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction? In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. At first, they might command some respect, and do something to stay the march of encroachment; but they would, in the progress of the contest, be regarded as mere abstractionists; and, indeed, deservedly, if they should indulge the folly of supposing that the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution."

In my effort to communicate I find that I use some of the tactics used by Calhoun, such as adding terms and words to the effort to communicate accurately. Calhoun invents (or borrows) the term Concurrent Majority in his effort to warn against a very serious deception concerning this false idea that the thing called the Majority is a thing unto itself. This thing unto itself - according to the deception - takes over voluntary defensive government and turns voluntary defensive government into Mob Rule a.k.a. dictatorship.

There is another, older, term for this thing that is created by deception so as to fool people into moving into a powerless and defenseless state. That older term was offered up in the warnings of the 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled Richard Henry Lee.

"The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . ."

My warning then is such that the Legal Fiction in Richard Henry Lee's words is the same fraud as the Numerical Majority in the words of John C. Calhoun's warnings.

We are at war in our minds first with those who deceive, which is often ourselves, and if we are going to win this war for the facts that matter in any case, such as the Finicum Case, then we ought to look for a process by which the actual goal is to discover and employ the truth, not to create and maintain a legal fiction that just so happens to enrich and empower very few evil people at the expense of everyone including their own dark souls.

The common law fought over in the Revolutionary War is not a trademarked gift handed down to the angry mob by the established elite. The common laws of free people in a perishable liberty is a direct result of the fact (a fact that matters in any case) that we the people have been created with the capacity for moral conscience, a force that only works when it is fed facts, not falsehoods.

Take care, and thanks for the reply.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 30th, 2019 09:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
127th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
In order to comprehend a comprehensive reality, we the people can share our less than perfect viewpoints as we reach for the goal of weeding out the distortions in favor of clarity.

In the founding generation, there were a number of people (less than the whole number of people) who constituted the worst of the worst, and this exceptional elite group of individuals did what those of their kind always do, which is well recorded, extensively studied, meticulously documented accurately, for those who may want to know, so as not to repeat the same path through man-made hell on earth. Some of those records are actually in the so-called law books.

Example:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

Those who usurp the common laws of free people in perishable liberty commit treason against innocent people. Innocent people are targets, always, and without an effective defense, innocent people will be consumed rapidly, slowly, or very slowly.

There is a law power (voluntary association for mutual defense) and then there is counterfeit. If a single individual takes absolute power from the people as a whole, is that not treason? If the dictator issuing edicts through a system of summary justice claims: "anyone failing to agree is a traitor," is it a good idea to obey without question? When does a voluntary association for mutual defense turn into factions seeking to gain absolute power over factions, by any means necessary?

Back to Calhoun for another view from another angle:

"But the difference in their operation, in this respect, would not end here. Its effects would be as great in a moral, as I have attempted to show they would be in a political point of view. Indeed, public and private morals are so nearly allied, that it would be difficult for it to be otherwise. That which corrupts and debases the community, politically, must also corrupt and debase it morally. The same cause, which, in governments of the numerical majority, gives to party attachments and antipathies such force, as to place party triumph and ascendency above the safety and prosperity of the community, will just as certainly give them sufficient force to overpower all regard for truth, justice, sincerity, and moral obligations of every description. It is, accordingly, found that in the violent strifes between parties for the high and glittering prize of governmental honors and emoluments—falsehood, injustice, fraud, artifice, slander, and breach of faith, are freely resorted to, as legitimate weapons—followed by all their corrupting and debasing influences."

The technological means to reach either goal (evil or good, counterfeit or the real thing) with voice, paper, or digital data, and a pointed stick, or an assault weapon's ban, changes - the means to the opposing ends change - while the fundamental principles remain in force on both paths toward or away from both goals and all the assaults and defenses failed or succeeded in between can proceed slowly, rapidly, or now all at once in the evil, all-consuming, direction: Mutually Assured Destruction. What would an accurate lie detector app, applied to all digital data transfers, do to modern politics? Talk about weapons of mass destruction: destroy the power of lies. Why not destroy the power of lies? What is common law if not that very thing? Are too many people now preferring to be deceived? How did mass deception happen exactly?

Either naturally born morally conscious individuals cooperate agreeably for our mutual defense in tried and true methods that are designed to adapt to fit each case - the law - or we allow the worst of the worst to do to us what they do best, in every single, individual, case, everywhere, every time, all the time. Those are the goal posts.

Too many of those in the founding generation joined what I call the cult of might makes right, as oligarchs, aristocrats, central banking whores, warmongers, slave consumers, and other so-called tories or counterfeit patriots. They, like many of us today, fell victim to the involuntary association dogma - produced by members of The Cult of Might Makes Right - and too many then and now set upon the path that consumes all innocence. Technology accelerates the process in either direction.

I don't know what force is at work (other than to say generally the force of willful ignorance) which prevents people from understanding when, why, how, and by who specifically, these people in these places called America went from Liberty into Despotism. It happened in 1789 on the official record, available to anyone who cares to know. Few care to know, many are inspired to repeat obvious falsehoods. Some do their homework as they alone see fit.

Perhaps there are too many words that mean the same thing, adding to the difficulty in presenting the facts that matter in that case when the true law power was outlawed in 1789.

List of names for good government:
1. Liberty
2. Freedom
3. Voluntary Mutual Defense
4. Common Law (actual not counterfeit) - the people as a whole above the government
5. Democracy (actual not counterfeit) - the people rule as one, not so-called might makes right
6. Republic (actual not counterfeit) - the public thing, not the special interest's legal fiction thing
7. Federation (actual not counterfeit) - voluntary association for mutual defense, not Nation State for subsidizing slavery
8. Anarchy (defined by modern day proponents such as ancaps or libertarian socialists)

List of names for evil government:

1. Arbitrary
2. Tyranny
3. Despotism
4. Empire
5. Monarchy
6. Aristocracy
7. Oligarchy
8. Plutarchy
9. Communism (also known as Marxism)
10. Socialism (also falsely known as communism)
11. Nationalism (also known as National Socialism)
12. Anarchy (as defined by anyone other than proponents of life without so-called - counterfeit - government)
13. The Cult of Might Makes Right (my term)
14. Organized Crime Under The Color of Law (my term)

Many more labels circulate for the same principle things.

1. Voluntary Association
2. Involuntary Association

In my opinion, you ought to be a member of a true Grand Jury in your county, you do the work, why not get the credit? Why not act upon the information? Why not put the accused on trial according to common laws of free people? Counterfeit laws do what they are designed to do: disenfranchise. People can read the Constitution when it gives them the power to subsidize slavery, but people can’t read the Bill of Rights when a slave seeks equal protection under the law?

"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."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

You and people similarly constituted in capacity are vital parts of the device that nullifies all those who join the cult of might makes right. You merely hold people who probably cause injury to innocent people to account. If the criminals had not taken over in 1789, natural laws could work to bring those accused to a point at which they are afforded actual (not counterfeit) due process. Who on earth would not want that afforded to them too?

Perhaps people have lost sight of actual, true, law, and perhaps the only thing most people can see when they look at the power of law is the criminal - counterfeit - product. They then see organized crime under the color of law, they see the work done by members of The Cult of Might Makes Right, and they see pending hell on earth; rightfully so.

The accused can be either proven guilty or the accuser is, perhaps abusing power. Who is empowered to move an accusation from an individual into a process of finding the truth in that case?

I will stop here; refraining from borrowing from Roger Roots in his book The Conviction Factory.

I wish you well, and thanks for adding to the clarity.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 31st, 2019 03:49 pm
  PM Quote Reply
128th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
I sent a reply yesterday continuing the effort to improve the data flow on these facts that matter. That comment was not published here for some reason.

I have been censored by many, a long list including specific people at The Mises Institute, John Birch Society, Free State Project, Fully Informed Jury Association, National Liberty Alliance, Bundy for Governor Facebook Page, and now this Public Access Media competitor.

None of my comments call for involuntary association of any kind, the opposite is true. If there is nothing in the data I sent for publication that is the least bit harmful to innocent people, then why is it blocked from public publication? In my experience, those who censor never attempt to explain their reason for censorship. To do so would amount to a confession. Members of the Cult of Might Makes Right know that falsehood must be maintained by any means necessary.

__________________________________

Above is not yet sent to Redoubt.

I posted a link to Redoubt on may Facebook pages, and I added this comment to my Facebook pages:

"I post that because I am running into censorship again. In rare cases, those who censor will admit to the act. In most cases those who censor do not want to add any currency to the data that they censor, and admitting to the act of censorship does that very thing: adds to the currency of the data being censored. In other words: the decision to censor data can backfire on those who decide to censor data. People may want to know what is being censored, and that can happen when people did not previously want to read the data being censored. People might ask themselves why would that data be censored? So care must be taken when reaching for censorship. The true color of people can be made clearer when people see what is being censored by so-called patriots."

I will try to send a shorter comment to redoubt:

I sent a reply yesterday continuing the effort to improve the data flow on these facts that matter. That comment was not published here for some reason.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri May 31st, 2019 05:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
129th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
The moderated post was not loaded on my end yesterday. The moderated post was not loaded on my end this morning. The moderated post that is now published on my end above does not contain any links.

My interest in this transfer of data is very specific. The evidence in the videos is - to me - precisely what ought to be done by members of an independent (actual common law) Grand Jury in every single case that affects every individual constituting the group known as we the people. A threat to one individual that goes unaccounted for in fact is a threat to the next individual, and the next, on and on.

Borrowing from Roger Roots:

The Conviction Factory
Page 40
Private Prosecutors

"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's {notice the affect of misrepresenting here, as there were 13 nations that were founded, not one: nation supplants federation, or profitable monopoly supplants voluntary association for mutual defense} founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Borrowing from the ignored Bill of Rights:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It does not say: "Someone seeking redress of grievances will be shot for failure to obey without question."

There are precedents.

Example:

THE COURT: Let me ask you, do all of you
agree with this verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

THE COURT: In answer to the
question did Loyd Jowers participate in a
conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther
King, your answer is yes.

Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by
the defendant? Your answer to that one is
also yes.

And the total amount of damages
you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is
one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

It took how many days to decide to put Martin Luther King Jr. to death and then to execute that death sentence?

It took how many days to decide to put Lavoy Finicum to death and then to execute that death sentence?

How many days passed before a jury found the government guilty of conspiracy murder in the Martin Luther King Jr. case?

If conspiracy murderers in the government go free in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, is it a precedent?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jun 1st, 2019 07:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
130th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
When a number of volunteers filled those positions in actual government in the Bundy trials the outcome was something resembling trial by jury according to the common law; meaning trial by the country. The criminals in government were not allowed to continue to use kangaroo courts to persecute the Bundy patriots, at least not at that time, in that place, for now.

That is a serious precedent, as serious as the jury finding the government guilty of conspiracy murder in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, late in the day as it was.

What I don't get about modern patriots and their reliance upon counterfeit government is the lapses in moral conscience and the setting aside of Christian law (Mathew 7:12) in order to create (out of thin air) that reliance upon that counterfeit government power.

When criminals persecute under the color of law as a rule, maybe it is time to question the color of that law power.

Is Victoria Sharp afforded a remedy, or restitution, for having injury done to her by criminals with counterfeit badges? Shouldn't the real cops be interested in the case, if not alarmed: "one if by land, two if by sea"? Are those who perpetrated those injuries - under the color of law - joined in a conspiracy to add further injury to Victoria Sharp by obstructing the justice owed to her by those who claim to wield the power of government, if so who are those other conspirators?

Who is supposed to inform Victoria Sharp of her right to officially attest to the fact that she is, in fact, a victim of at least reckless endangerment in the first degree and depraved indifference to human life? Isn’t that the job of the county grand jury as they fulfill their duties, to care for those who are less versed in the law power? A presentment against the perpetrators by those common law grand jurors isn't prevented by the absence of an accusation affidavit, but why not write one up, file it, and then present the counterfeit government perpetrators with their opportunity to face the country in the form of a jury? The country, not a dictator, can find fact, or innocence, or guilt, and offer redemption of some kind, to allow those found guilty to volunteer to return to civil society.

Even if the victim is ignorant, confused, misguided, or guilty of any number of failures to do her own duty in a free country, isn’t it the duty of the government to protect and serve her, and since she was a victim of a crime perpetrated by a gang of criminals roaming the countryside, then isn’t it the duty of the government in that county to protect and serve all the other people in that county while that gang is rioting in the blood of the innocent in that county? Is it right to deport those criminals and allow those criminals to immigrate to another county without at least holding the perpetrators to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in the case? Those criminals might arm other criminals in other counties, doing so fast, and doing so furiously. Those criminals you set free may roam to other states, or other federations of states, or other dictatorships posing as republics. With a court of record documenting the facts about those criminals there is then a clear understanding of what is in store for those people in the other counties as those criminals are allowed to depart and immigrate hither. The facts are recording for public consumption, in courts of record, not fake news. Isn’t it the duty of the government to ensure that actual information that passes the actual will of the country through their representatives in a jury trial serve as a precedent for all?

Obvious to me there is no law in America, so where is this victim Victoria Sharp going to go to secure her remedy? Will there be another exception to the rule (there is no law in America) as was the case when the country was represented by trial jurors during the persecution case of the Bundy Patriots: a miracle? Instead, will some dictator with a fake gavel take more stolen loot out of the criminal counterfeit bank account and attempt to bribe the victim, censoring further investigation into the criminal matter?

“Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury." Conviction Factory, Roger Roots

Is that not simple enough? A civil case is where an individual has a conflict with another individual and the whole country of people are not endangered by either individual. A criminal case is a case where someone who willfully injures innocent people - with malice aforethought - is running amok in the area where good people have jurisdiction civil and criminal. Good people don’t allow evil people to get away with crimes. Good people hold criminals to account, and the law affords guilty criminals an offer to redeem themselves; all according to scripture by the way.

Evil is recognizable to some.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jun 3rd, 2019 03:03 am
  PM Quote Reply
131st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."
Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970

"Yes, the clauses and their genesis are often dry but the debate and posturing at the convention are rich with instruction showing us how we got the final document."

The document (assumed to be the so-called Constitution of 1789) is a documented crime scene.

The perpetrators knew that they were counterfeiting lawful government. For those who are ignorant, a lawful government is based upon Mathew 7:12, also known as The Golden Rule.

Those who are ignorant are those who are ripe for exploitation. Those who are ignorant are ripe for corruption.

The perpetrators who got rid of a Federation of free people in free states documented their crime on the official record for all to see. All who care to see will see, while all who wish to remain ignorant will get their wish, by the employment of their power of will.

Evidence:
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."
Source:
Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention in Philadelphia, 14 May, 1787.

Those who wish to get their acceptance into the Cult of Might Makes Right have to swear an oath to falsehood in order to get that acceptance into that cult.

This is - by the way - not news.

This is - for your information - verifiable knowledge offered by those who have documented their individual testaments of the facts that matter concerning our temporal salvation as a living species. Ignore at the peril of posterity, as you wish.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jun 4th, 2019 06:49 pm
  PM Quote Reply
132nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Sent 6-4-2019

“Nation Is Headed For A Moral Collapse”

The profitable monopoly which ended the federation in 1789, by design, heads for moral collapse, and this is not news.

June 17, 1788
George Mason:
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism
Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788
“Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.
That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. . . .
As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics . . . it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprizing ambitious.”

People sold out each other to a despotic legal fiction, giving up security, safety, freedom, and liberty, for counterfeits. The law of the land was, and still is, the common law. The common law affords everyone their vote of nullification as a matter of demonstrable fact, in each trial by jury processed duly according to the common laws of free people.

The road to moral collapse began in 1789, and that road included (so far) at least one internal war of aggression for the profit of a few at the expense of everyone including the perpetrators. There was nothing civil about the so-called (predictable) Civil War.

Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States of America)
October 16, 1787
“It cannot be denied, with truth, that this new Constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed, that a government of the few is, of all governments, the worst.”

A Disquisition on Government
John C. Calhoun, (Published Posthumously) 1851
"But the difference in their operation, in this respect, would not end here. Its effects would be as great in a moral, as I have attempted to show they would be in a political point of view. Indeed, public and private morals are so nearly allied, that it would be difficult for it to be otherwise. That which corrupts and debases the community, politically, must also corrupt and debase it morally. The same cause, which, in governments of the numerical majority, gives to party attachments and antipathies such force, as to place party triumph and ascendency above the safety and prosperity of the community, will just as certainly give them sufficient force to overpower all regard for truth, justice, sincerity, and moral obligations of every description. It is, accordingly, found that in the violent strifes between parties for the high and glittering prize of governmental honors and emoluments—falsehood, injustice, fraud, artifice, slander, and breach of faith, are freely resorted to, as legitimate weapons—followed by all their corrupting and debasing influences."

Followers of the lies that bind people into subsidized slavery are not - as a rule - taught the truth about those lies.

Garrison's Constitution
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."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jun 4th, 2019 08:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
133rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"But….our explanations have far exceeded the Liberal comprehension. We lost em’ when we went beyond a sound byte….."

A sound bite, to some:

“There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”

Is that too wordy still?

National government bad, federal government good.

How about that?

A National government (subsidizing slavery) employing any method imaginable to put the dictator at the helm of the dictatorship is bad government. A federal government (voluntary association, not a dictatorship) employing any method imaginable to put the employee in charge of the workload remains a good government.

Did I go beyond a sound byte?

People fighting over which dictator is put at the helm of the dictatorship is predictable.

Robert Yates, Brutus I, October 18, 1787:
"The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states."

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
“Concerned that the majority had violated federalism principles separating the federal government from the states, Stevens argued that the decision had undermined the authority of the state court system. He felt that popular confidence in the impartiality and competence of state judges would be unnecessarily eroded.”

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jun 5th, 2019 01:53 am
  PM Quote Reply
134th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
“Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.”

First, there is no such thing as a pure democracy, other than someone’s imaginary ideal.

Second, there is evidence suggesting that the organic, grass-roots, original version of democracy was not intended to place absolute, arbitrary, power in the hands of a few oligarchs.

The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
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."

Third, the so-called “founders” were at least 2 groups: 1. Federalists, 2. Nationalists hiding behind a false federalist label.

Suggesting that the “founders” who illegally usurped the existing federation are one group of people raises the vital question of which group?

The false Federalists managed to get their summary justice courts propped up over the common law jurisdiction. The true Federalists lost that battle. The false Federalists managed to get their subsidized slavery crimes against humanity secured for 20 years. The true Federalists lost that battle. The false Federalists managed to get their central banking fraud. The true Federalists lost that battle. The false Federalists managed to get arbitrary war profits flowing to them in “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” or variations on that lie. The true Federalists lost that battle. The false Federalists managed to get their “Mob Rule” under the pretense of a fraudulent democracy. The true Federalists lot the battle for equal footing which is the principle behind true federation, and true law for that matter. The false Federalists managed to get into every single individual's pocket at will, to steal anything worth stealing. The true Federalists lost that battle too.

The battle over the minds of people is demonstrably lost on the modern generation. Fake news prevails. Ignorance is bliss. Independent thought is against the fake law. Communicating independent thoughts is against the law, just ask Martin Luther King Jr. or Lavoy Finicum. Oh, wait, you can’t ask them, they were murdered by the criminals running the dictatorship.

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.”

Federalist Papers = CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, Facebook, Newsweek, and most of the propaganda spewed forth from Hollywood.

Submitted 6-4-2019, and once again not published.

First half published 6-10-2019, second half now awaiting moderation.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jun 25th, 2019 09:14 pm
  PM Quote Reply
135th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Moderated:

“Why – if the maintenance of the unswerving constancy of husband and wife can be safely intrusted to the guardianship of “their reciprocal inward sweetness or humanity,” with no “base legal bondage” superadded – why may not the care and maintenance of the offspring be, with equal safety, intrusted likewise to that same “inward sweetness or humanity,” without the superaddition of a “base legal bondage,” or “outward force?” If the first of these social relations may with safety, not only, but with positive advantage, be discharged of accountability to the police office, why not the second? Why, indeed, be at the trouble and expense of maintaining a police office at all? Indeed, if I understand Mr. J. rightly, after imposing this limitation upon the absolute freedom of divorce, or, in other words, upon the extinction of legal marriage – ex gratia modestiae [Online editor’s note: “for modesty’s sake” – RTL], perhaps, lest the whole truth might be fitting to be spoken openly – he again dispenses with the limitation itself, and delivers the parental relation over to the same securities to which he has previously consigned the conjugal; for, I find in a subsequent paragraph of the same article the following sentence: “It is obvious to every honest mind that if our conjugal, parental, and social ties generally can be safely discharged of the purely diabolic element of outward force, they must instantly become transfigured by their own inward divine and irresistible loveliness.” Here it is not Marriage only, but the maintenance of offspring also, which is to be intrusted to the “inward sweetness or humanity” of the individuals to whom the relation appeals, which seems to me much the more consistent view of the matter, inasmuch as, if the principle is good for any thing in one case, it is certainly equally applicable in the other. But here, again, we come back to the point I have made above – the query whether Marriage, discharged of all law, custom, or necessary perpetuity, remains Marriage at all? and if so, what is the essential and characteristic element of such Marriage? – upon which point I crave further information. ”
Love, Marriage, and Divorce (1853/1889)
by Henry James, Sr. (1811-1882), Horace Greeley (1811-1872)
and Stephen Pearl Andrews (1812-1886)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jun 29th, 2019 05:00 am
  PM Quote Reply
136th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Moderated:

ele,

The family has been a very strong collective power for ages, and for reasons that tend to move life forms from base, simple, and vulnerable, to moral, complex, and durable.

An example of this power is found in at least one study that was worth reading.

Those who wish to destroy instead of prospering are those who know well enough to target the family, to destroy the family, so as to reach the end goal: destruction.

My guess is that you know this, perhaps, and that is why you are asking those specific questions.

6-28-2019

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jul 8th, 2019 05:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
137th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"The Declaration of Independence – Full Text "

That is the half-truth since the “Full Text” original Declaration of Independence was edited according to the official record, for specified “reasons.”

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."

Why is it important to get the whole truth instead of the redacted half-truth?

Here are a few (of many) clear warnings:

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."

Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson:
"To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."

George Mason
June 17, 1788
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

People are build with a natural governing power called conscience, maybe it is worth knowing the facts that matter.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jul 9th, 2019 01:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
138th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Moderated 7-9-2019

“If politicians and their ballot boxes cannot or will not solve that problem, then what will?”

The Jury Box.

Not the counterfeit Jury Box administered by a counterfeit federal government, but the true Jury Box administered by the people themselves as exemplified in so many cases dating back through Ancient times.

George Mason
1787
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."

George Mason
1788
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

John Dickinson
1767
"The matter being thus stated, the assembly of New York either had, or had not, a right to refuse submission to that act. If they had, and I imagine no American will say they had not, then the parliament had no right to compel them to execute it. If they had not this right, they had no right to punish them for not executing it; and therefore no right to suspend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of New York cannot be legally taxed but by their own representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privilege of legislation, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in such a case, of the privilege of legislation, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny their assent to any impositions, that shall be directed? Or what signifies the repeal of the Stamp Act, if these colonies are to lose their other privileges, by not tamely surrendering that of taxation?"

Lysander Spooner
1852
“It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.“

Lysander Spooner again:
“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.

“Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty”—a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government—they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

“But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

“That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

“The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country”—that is, by the people—as distinguished from a trial by the government.

“It was anciently called “trial per pais”—that is “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”
“The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

“Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other—or at least no more accurate—definition of a despotism than this.”

Instead of the people forming grand juries, trial juries, and prosecutors ourselves, representing ourselves, to check the arbitrary power of government, instead, the criminals among us claim to be the government, and those criminals among us enforce their arbitrary will despotically upon us with impunity.

To claim that this reversal of fortunes happened because of the Civil War is to ignore the facts that matter in the case. Ignore Shay’s Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the forming of the Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to the Nationalist Loyalist Criminal Fake Federalist Party, and ignore all the warnings printed before 1789 about the Consolidation of arbitrary power into the hands of a few Oligarchs, Aristocrats, Monied Men, Warmongers, Slave Traders, Slave Carriers, and Central Bankers, taking over a former free people in emerging free nations under the common laws of free people in perishable liberty.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jul 18th, 2019 08:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
139th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"The right of the people to redress grievances was placed into the bill of rights when the Constitutional Republic was formed but is now being challenged in Montana."

The rights of the people are inalienable, so the rights of the people cannot be "placed" by people claiming to be forming a so-called "Constitutional Republic."

If people are duped by this fraud, as is happing all over the world, people are then investing in their own demise at the hands of the deceivers.

"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”
Source:
English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta,
The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes, Henry Care
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721

“By the late sixteenth century, and especially with the accession of the Stuarts, the court of chancery was closely associated with the royal prerogative and became the target of opposition. Equity was therefore disadvantageously contrasted with common law in an era when “ancient law” took on revolutionary constitutional overtones. The struggle between the two systems of law became explicit in Glandville’s case, the 1616 litigation, jurisdiction over which sought by Chancellor Ellsmere, who enjoined suitors from proceeding at law, and by Chief Justice Coke, who prohibited the same litigants from proceeding in equity, and in which James I finally intervened on the side of chancery. The common lawyers of the early Stuart period strongly objected to the prerogative character of equital law, but they also attacked particular abuses: the use of chancery jobs as royal patronage, the delay and expense of chancery proceedings, and the increasing formalism of equity litigation. At bottom, of course, they anticipated Selden, who sneered that “Equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. ‘Tis all one as if they should make the standard for measure a Chancellor’s foot.””
Source:
Perspectives in American History, Law in American History, Fleming and Bailyn

The ancient law is the law of the land, as the people themselves, not the government, decide any fact at issue in any conflict involving disputes over authority.

Every attempt to usurp the ancient law involves deception, the threat of violence, and executions of torturous, terrifying, and horrid violence against the innocent by the guilty.

“Affairs were in this situation when on the 28th of September last a resolution was proposed to the assembly by a member of the house who had been also a member of the federal convention, for calling a state convention, to be elected within ten days for the purpose of examining and adopting the proposed constitution of the United States, though at this time the house had not received it from Congress. This attempt was opposed by a minority, who after offering every argument in their power to prevent the precipitate measure, without effect, absented themselves from the house as the only alternative left them, to prevent the measure taking place previous to their constituents being acquainted with the business- That violence and outrage which had been so often threatened was now practised; some of the members were seized the next day by a mob collected for the purpose, and forcibly dragged to the house, and there detained by force whilst the quorum of the legislature, so formed, compleated their resolution." We shall dwell no longer on this subject, the people of Pennsylvania have been already acquainted therewith. "We would only further observe that every member of the legislature, previously to taking his seat, by solemn oath or affirmation, declares, "that he will not do or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state." And that constitution which they are so solemnly sworn to support cannot legally be altered but by a recommendation of the council of censors, who alone are authorised to propose alterations and amendments, and even these must be published at least six months, for the consideration of the people.- The proposed system of government for the United States, if adopted, will alter and may annihilate the constitution of Pennsylvania; and therefore the legislature had no authority whatever to recommend the calling a convention for that purpose. This proceeding could not be considered as binding on the people of this commonwealth. The house was formed by violence, some of the members composing it were detained there by force, which alone would have vitiated any proceedings, to which they were otherwise competent; but had the legislature been legally formed, this business was absolutely without their power.”
Source: The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention, Pennsylvania Packet (December 18, 1787)

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
Source:
George Mason, Objections to This Constitution of Government, September 1787

Your Nation-State, with that Summary Justice System of Extortion, is a lie that is wearing very thin, a lie that was, and will always be, self-confessing: a self-evident falsehood in the face of a self-evident truth.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 19th, 2019 05:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
140th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Clear to me, as someone not on a lawful jury, but as someone who has been on a jury, and as someone who is potentially going to sit on another jury, the criminals, in this case, are felons, because they counterfeit government, they are government imposters: treason.

Fraudulently using the power of government to gain personal advantage at the expense of innocent private individuals is organized crime under the color of law, it is subsidized slavery, it is not a so-called republic. Res-publica means the public thing, not the special interest con game.

If it were government then a member of the public could gain access to government and have these felons put before the country in a trial by jury. Anyone can authorize themselves to act in defense of anyone, anytime, anyplace, peacefully, and the government is in place to serve the purpose of securing innocent people in peace against these types of felons who are imposters falsely claiming to be the government.

The truth of the matter is clear when these imposters falsely claiming to be the government collude and cooperate with each other to effectively consume innocent individuals for fun and profit.

Anyone, anywhere, anytime can lawfully authorized themselves as a government agent, working for the protection of the public, in a republic, and at least discover, document, and place before the people’s panel (a grand jury) the facts that matter in any case: to prosecute offenders so as to protect the innocent, and to maintain the peace all the while.

If it is for the people, then the people decide if it is for the people, and they do so through their juries. If it is for the people, it is a republic.

That is the meaning of a republic: for the public, for the people who constitute The Public.

If it is for special interests, then it is counterfeit, fraud, and felony.

Claiming that it is a republic, against all the information that clearly proves otherwise, is either ignorance (actus reus), or falsehood out of malice (mens rea), but the false claim, either way, does the same damage, aiding and abetting the felons by giving support to their lies.

A simple test can prove the case.

Can someone gain access to a Grand Jury, in that county, to have independent Grand Jurors investigate the case, and potentially present the accused with a court date?

If the answer is no, it is not a republic.

If the answer is no, the grand jury in that county is controlled by a government prosecutor, then it is not a republic. In a republic the people determine the facts in any case, not the government. Especially in a case involving accusations against members of the government, it is not a republic if members of the government, not members of the people, determine the validity of an accusation against members of the government. How stupid can people get in fact?

If the answer is no, the felons who are perpetrating treason in that county will collude to protect and serve themselves and hand the productive people (The Public) in that county a bill for the costs of protecting and serving those felons with fake badges, then it is clearly not a republic and all the paperwork needed to prosecute the case is - in fact - written by the perpetrators themselves. The perpetrators confess by their words - in fact - and the perpetrators confess by their felonious actions, on official looking paper, and with official looking badges: in fact.

Clearly it is not a republic, what is the cause for falsely claiming that it is? What is the motive for falsely claiming that it is a republic when clearly it is not a republic? Does it depend upon what the word is: is?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 04:23 pm Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Redoubt Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems