Power Independence Home 

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley  
AuthorPost
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/changing-us-constitution/#comment-4233


Boyd White curiously references the work of James Madison.

James Madison was a pro-slave trading "Constitution" man during the crime that turned the federation into a corporate nation state. That crime scene is documented on the official record to this day, so the need to reference anything else, other than the hands firmly recorded - on the official record - in the cookie jar are not needed, yet Boyd White does reference James Madison’s “The Notes of the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787," which will afford the reader of that work a measure of evidence concerning what went on in those closed door, secret (gag orders issued), "convention" of representatives from 12 Nation States.

Rhode Island refused to attend: they smelled a rat. The fact that Rhode Island refused to attend nullified any proposed changes to the existing Federation of States under the common law, and under The Articles of Confederation. The Nationalists went ahead and broke the statute that gave them authority anyway.

James Madison soon jumped from the Nationalist ship to form an anti-nationalist group calling themselves the Democratic Republican Party. James Madison along with Thomas Jefferson published The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which clearly express specific crimes perpetrated by the Nationalists.

As to the claims (accusations) made against Lysander Spooner, the claims that to me amount to libel, the accused won't get his lawful remedy in that case. For one thing Spooner is long gone, and for another thing the Nationalists have been stacking juries since 1789.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Libel Exhibit A:

"Spooner goes above and beyond to misconstrue the facts of the creation of the Constitution; there is no excuse for that since Spooner published “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” in 1867..."

The above is hyperbole and ad-hominem. The libeler may have failed to actually understand the work of Lysander Spooner, and rather than find out who is actually guilty of misconstruing the readily available information, said libeler goes on the attack, whereby the victim of the attack is claimed to be failing an intelligence test of some kind, a test offered by the libeler after the target of the libeler has already been in the grave for over a century.

Then said libeler goes from ad-hominem to hyperbole with the additional false claim that his victim had "no excuse" for the fake crime of misconstruing an intelligence test offered to the victim by the victimizer over 100 years after the death of the victim.

The tester (libeler) offering the test to the victim (Lysander Spooner) apparently assumes dictatorial powers as judge, jury, and executioner concerning what is, or is not, a lawful document: such as in this case a contract, or "Constitution."

The actual jury is still out on this, so the law of the land, which is trial by the country, has yet to try the case. None-the-less, said libeler speaks for someone, or some group, with an air, or a color, of authority.

Apparently the libeler has claimed - in so many ambiguous words - that the target of the libel is guilty of misconstruing the Slave Trading Constitution with a "contract." Proof of this crime of "misconstruing," according to the libeler is that those Slave Traders who didn't want the Pro-Slave Trading Constitution signed, were against signing it, or some other reason.

Example:

Mr. Govr. MORRIS “…He remarked that the signing in the form proposed related only to the fact that the States present were unanimous.”

Again, in defense of actual law, and in defense against further deception, the confession exists in that quote. All the States were not represented during the closed, secret, gag orders issued, conspiracy to throw out the voluntary mutual defense association - federation - and replace it with a slave trading, central banking fraud, war mongering, Nation State, and since all the States were not present the said Pro-Slavery Constitution was null and void as it sat without signatures, or with signatures.

Signing the Pro-Slavery Constitution - as a matter of fact - identifies the conspirators for their conspiracy. George Mason refused to sign it.

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."


George Mason:

"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 {442} 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?"

As to the actual crime perpetrated - on the official record no less - by the Slave Traders, War Mongers, Central Banking Frauds, and others in the first "Convention:"

“Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

One of the most important requirements demanded by those representatives in most of the states was that their consent was as powerful as the consent of any other state. Rhode Island refused to attend the conspiracy, on many grounds, and therefore the crime here is that all the other representatives in the other 12 states who signed the Pro-Slave Trading document were willfully perpetrating a crime against the will of those who agreed to form the original, grass-roots, organic federation on that specific, demanded, condition of equal protection under the law: consent.

If the libeler misconstrues this fact, unknowingly, out of ignorance, that is one thing. If the libeler knows this fact, and attempts to further deceive other people, then that is all together different. The responsibility of knowing better is born by each individual.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The "facts" according to Boyd White versus the official record (court of record in common law terms) can be a method of gathering evidence for individuals who may want to know better.

Example:

Luther Martin

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."

Those are the words of someone who was at the first Con Con Con Job.

Compare that to the offering offered by Boyd White.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/legal-gibberish-challenge-jurisdiction/

This take over by legal fiction was predicted. It was predicted by a number of people, before it happened. One of the people predicting this take-over by legal fiction was the 6th President of the United States of American in Congress Assembled. That president was Richard Henry Lee.

Example:

"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

"If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

"If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

"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. . . ."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"The word “democracy” never appears in the constitution. That was by design, as the framers did not want a democracy, they wanted a “republic” because they knew that majority rule was dangerous to individual freedoms and could turn into a mobocracy or rule by mob."

That is demonstrably false. The word magic at play here concerns original, grass-roots, organic meanings of words and - opposite - counterfeit meanings.

Democracy - for example - is a word that once meant the opposite of "electoral politics" see for example the democracy exemplified in Athens Greece during the Golden Age of Greece. There was no election of anyone unless the election was done by sortition: random selection from the whole number of people.

See also the perversion of the term Republic to mean anything that a despot may want it to mean one day, and then it may mean something else the next day. The original meaning of republic - in Latin - is THE PUBLIC TING: not special interest dictating whatever they want to everyone else: as they please.

The example that ought to be understood here is the example provided by the joining of a former Nationalist James Madison with a true Federalist Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson was falsely labeled an "anti" federalist), with their formation of the Democratic Republican Party in opposition to the Aristocratic Party (Nationalist Party falsely claimed as The Federalist Party) whose crimes included the First Fraudulent Bank of The United States Corporation, the Whiskey Excise Tax to pay for the fraudulent bank, The Whiskey Rebellion Aggressive War for Profit, and the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The democratic republicans (opposite meaning to the modern counterfeit meanings) wrote The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which entered into the common law court of record the crimes perpetrated by the first 2 criminal Administrations of the Corporate United States (tm).

See also Thomas Paine's reports of these matters, in at least 2 published works.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/changing-us-constitution/

If fraud is legal, then what else can be claimed as legal: slavery? I have a very hard time listening to people who patently justify every kind of evil on a nebulous “legal” authority they imagine themselves, or are told to “believe” because some how, some way, some time, some one once said this or that crime is legal, and therefore justified.

All moral people have a hard time with this type of rationalization, covering-up, aiding and abetting, criminal acts perpetrated by criminals with (or without) badges.

All immoral people require this type of fraud, this type of excuse, this type of fake justification, this type of covering-up of their crimes, but only because there are moral people. If there were no moral people then eating babies for fun, or harvesting babies for profit, would be no different than sitting down in a chair.

All amoral people sit on an imaginary fence put in place by immoral people, and maintained by amoral people, and maintained by immoral people, so as to prevent any action taken that causes moral people to volunteer to work effectively for their own defense against immoral people, and their amoral counterparts.

That is why I have a hard time with those people who actually work at “justifying” the crimes perpetrated by the extremely immoral people.

Jefferson – in the first draft to the Declaration of Independence – offered the following (cryptic) message:

“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.”

Thomas Jefferson also entered into the official record (common law court of record) the following confession concerning why the indictment against African Slavery was taken out of the Declaration of Independence. Also, the Declaration of Independence is Statute #1, a common law document, recording (in a common law court of record) a declaration of Mixed War against the British aggressor criminals. Statute #1 for the voluntary mutual defense association – federation – of independent states under the common law.

“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.”

The closed door, gag ordered, secret, nefarious, deceptive, extortive, coup d’état, crime scene is only called a “Constitutional Convention” so as to cover-up, “justify,” “legalize,” “legitimize,” a crime scene whereby those who profit from crime are then able to accomplish the task of weakening the people in the states that were moral: and against slavery. What does augmentation mean: as in the warning by the founder of the Bill of Rights George Mason’s words: “augmentation of slaves”?

It means this:

“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.”

That from this:

Garrison’s Constitution

The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made

Winter 2000, Vol. 32, No. 4

By Paul Finkelman

So called Liberals, Progressives, and those on the so called Left may call harvesting babies stolen from moral parents by so called Child Protective Services legal today. How is that any different than a so called “Federalist” in 1787 calling their Slave Trading “Constitution” legal?

So…today someone claims that the “founding fathers” were one group of like minded people, all of which were in favor of a Constitutional Convention so as to legally, lawfully, justify the removal of the existing federation and putting in place a corporate Nation State Dictatorship. That is a lie made out of either ignorance or malice.

So in the future the people looking back at us today may claim that everyone was 100 percent behind the founders of the new “Constitution,” and whatever may be in that new “Constitution” is “legal” because we all agreed to it, or some other pretend justification? All those against it here and now are sent to the memory hole?

There isn’t any room here to explain to you, or anyone else, the actual law, which is the common law, whereby the entire country is represented by 12 randomly selected people, in tribunals concerning any conflict, and unanimity is required before any action is taken to restore the victim, or redeem the criminal, in a case where the whole country, through the jury, unanimously determines that the individual criminal, in that case, has perpetrated a crime.

If, on the other hand, the paper here says that eating babies is OK, well, then let them eat babies.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
See also court transcripts during the Revolutionary period: challenging the so called British (criminal) "jurisdiction."

Example:
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

"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."

Also see the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial. If the question is: "Is It Legal Gibberish To Challenge Federal Jurisdiction?"

Then, by example, here is an answer:

"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 government 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)."

See also recent verdicts in the Bundy cases.

See also an explanation of the meaning of federation in the First Congress of the United States of America during the meeting to decide on a Declaration of Independence:

"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:

"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

See also Bonding Code:

"9.2 - Escalation

Further:

"A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).

"When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."

See also innate, moral, common sense. When those claiming to be protecting and serving everyone are caught red handed protecting and serving only themselves at the expense of everyone (including themselves) it is past time to judge the matter factually; for Christ's sake the "federal" government has already been caught red handed in conspiracy murder.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If Boyd White, or anyone else for that matter, has volunteered to see nothing, and know nothing, other than what they are told to see and know, then that is their individual business deal that they have made with whatever power they agree to make such a deal.

"Ok, take a deep breath and say, “The U.S. Constitution is legal BECAUSE ALL 13 STATES RATIFIED IT!” That is the only reason it is legal; not because some people signed it; not because some people said so."

The criminal take-over was very well documented as such. The mountains of evidence include the illegal creation of a slave trading document against the nullification done by the people of Rhode Island (through their representatives) who refused to attend the nefarious Con Con Con Job, as they smelled a very stinky rat, and therefore there was no legal way for the criminals to create a new National government out of the existing, grass-roots, organic, voluntary mutual defense, federal, confederacy of independent states.

The crime included the creation of the National Constitution, done so illegally, so there was no legal step made, from which to launch a RAT-ification process.

Again, if anyone fails to get that fact straight, then they do so out of either ignorance, or malice. The evidence exists right there on the official record.

All that legalese is beside the principled point. How about allowing the people of Rhode Island to explain the principle point?

"No. 15 – Rhode Island Is Right!

"This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-American Intelligencer?)

"The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

"They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

"The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes - the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) - would be doubled or trebled.

"The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it - for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time-serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.

"The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds - That it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/legal-gibberish-challenge-jurisdiction/

A rational equitable allegiance is a voluntary one. The point offered, or the principle offered, in the ancient common law is voluntary mutual defense, where the people as whole, through juries, consent to, or do not consent to, anything claimed to be "a rational equitable allegiance" or otherwise. Spelled out well enough by Lysander Spooner, the principle of consent, or voluntary association, is supreme, as in the supreme law of the land, which renders all government offers on an equal footing basis: let the highest quality and lowest cost alternative win the competition.

That is also well explained in the following work:

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
How about a comparison of judgments?

Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia:

"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."

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788):

"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.

If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land.

This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country.

Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation.

But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed."

Above are judgments offered on the public record before the criminal Constitution of 1787/89 which subsidized the African Slave Trade, and gave carte blanc to the War Mongers.

Below is a judgment since the take-over in America by the criminals.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT

First National Bank of Montogmery, Plaintiff
vs Jerome Daly, Defendant.

12/18/2003

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it.

"Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

"See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318.

"The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."

Ask, perhaps, why "The Federal Reserve" has not been indicted?


Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Criminals do not obey laws, and often criminals pose as the one, and only, protector of innocent people from guilty people.

That leads to 2 conclusions. 1. Innocent people do not need government. 2. Criminals need government.

If people are going to do what they do naturally, which is live and let live, and do so without government, then people need to teach criminals that crime does not pay: innocent people need to teach the criminals that their criminal choices will not result in any benefit realized by the criminal: at all.

When government was called Legem Terrae, before Magna Carta, in England, the routine was for judgment to be determined by the whole country, unanimously, through their juries. Judgment was typically limited to a fine offered to a convicted criminal; an amount of cost to the criminal that constituted a redemption offered to the criminal, to allow the criminal to return from outside the law - a voluntary choice was made by the criminal to step outside the law - and a judgment was offered by the whole country, through the jury, to afford the criminal a choice to return back inside the protection of the law.

Law was (still is) to offer those who choose to step outside the law a choice of redemption; which is also considerable as a choice to restore the injured, innocent, victim in any case.

Criminals refusing to pay the fine, which was a fine that did not cripple, destroy, or ruin the offender's capacity to live free in liberty, would be a choice made by the criminal to thereby volunteer to remain outside the law.

Someone outside the law, voluntarily, is someone who refuses to pay the judgment, and that is someone who is taught to know that if the outlaw is found dead by the obvious hand of another man, that killing of that outlaw is not considerable as a crime: no more than finding a dead Mad Dog would be considerable as a crime if the Mad Dog was found shot to death today; perhaps in the school playground, perhaps shot by a parent maintaining the right to be armed.

Someone refusing to pay the judgment, or refusing to accept a trial by the country, would then be someone unprotected, and likely threatened, if not killed, and thereby inspired to make a better choice, such as attend his trial, and such as pay the fine to restore the victim, or pay the fine to redeem himself; all of which is done voluntarily.

In that context offered in those words above, which are merely my own words, not the words of George Mason, or Thomas Jefferson, or Lysander Spooner, just my own words, but the message is similar, if not exactly the same, based upon a simple, voluntary, principle - with that in mind - what place does the following belong?

"The most obvious hurdle is what protections, duties, and obligations are to be attributed to the dissenters (Those who won’t sign/contract) who reside within the jurisdiction/borders?"

Do you mean to ask something else? For example: do you mean to ask moral, honest, innocent, non-criminals, if something ought to be done with criminals who, with malice aforethought, perpetrate crimes upon innocent people?

Which contract does someone have to sign? Is there a contract that says "I will not be a criminal."?

Criminals will sign that contract; it is a perfect cover: fingers crossed.

"But a “Term of Allegiance” does not solve the first hurdle…what obligations can, without being offensive, be attributed to the dissenters (Those who would not sign)?"

In England, during the common law period, as described in the Essay on The Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner, the tax demanded by the people as a whole was for people to volunteer for jury duty, and for people to volunteer for military service (any service, in any way possible, by each volunteer, at a minimum, the service of refusing to aid and abet the enemy) during aggressive war for profit (rape, pillage, pogrom, "colonization," "empire building," whatnot), while the enemy is past the gate, in the playground, and doing what criminals always do so well: horrify, terrify, torture, enslave, extort, deceive, mass murder, and demand oaths of fealty to the new boss; same as the old boss.

Those dissenting (not going to jury duty, and not in some way defending against invasion during invasion), if caught, would be subject to their trial, and if found guilty, would they pay a fine?

If the jury, in that "traitor" case was not representative of the whole MORAL people, then said jury catching a jury dodger, or traitor, might decree something worse than a fine. People are not perfect, therefore voluntary government will not be perfect either. Involuntary government, on the other hand, is merely crime with a fake name.

Why is it a given that the wheel must be invented anew? A wheel is always round. Voluntary association, or law, is always what it is, not the opposite of what it is: not square.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
More of the same justifying slavery done once again by someone living today. How is it possible? I don't know. I can ask.

How do you, someone living today, Boyd White, find cause to aid, abet, cover-up, justify, "legalize," or otherwise support the crime known as slavery?

Then, setting that obvious aid to slave traders aside, and moving from principle to legalese, it is instructive to point out, once again, that there was no legal way to change the government from a voluntary mutual defense association, under the common law, documented with The Articles of Confederation, without unanimous agreement from each State's representatives.

There was no provision agreed to originally, by which some of the state's representatives, working against the other state's representatives, could legally, lawfully, rightly, or morally, discard the Articles of Confederation, and write-up a criminal (slave trading, slave trade subsidizing, usurping of the common law) "constitution." Not having that legal avenue available to a portion of the state's representatives agreed upon, there was no validity to that slave trading constitution. It was a confidence scheme, albeit a very effective one, to then claim that the Slave Trading Contract can be ratified, or not ratified.

Once again:

1. The Constitution fails lawful justification because The Constitution falsely claims to make the subsidizing of slavery legal. How many crimes are involved in just that single fact of crime?

Example:
"Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous."

It (the slave trading contract) fails the laugh test.

Look at the hoop jumping that must be done, even today, by people like this Boyd White apologist for slavery, to "justify" the false, fake, counterfeit, stealing of loot from productive people, so as to then finance, subsidize, the "crime against nature itself," to pay for out of the tax payers pocket,
"such a trade" that "is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind, as if none of that ever happened, or could ever happen today. See nothing, hear nothing, know noting about it, certainly not acknowledge it, not when the work being done is to "justify" it.

Hoop jumping: ignore just how ridiculous false patriotism is in fact.

So setting aside the morality of the crime in question, and then moving back to the illegality of it, as if the morality of the crime was somehow "justified," which it was certainly not, but for the sake of keeping the record straight, and asking the modern day version of a slave trade apologist a pointed question, concerning his claim of "legality" for the crime of the past millennium:

"“Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

Mr. apologist for slave trading Boyd White, please inform anyone reading this as to what constituted agreement in a congress of the united states? What constituted agreement in a congress of the united states which thereby authorizes those in congress to agree to get rid of the voluntary mutual defense association, to turn it on it's head, and replace it with a document (a contract or not) that proposes to subsidize African slavery?

What is that process by which congress, under the Articles of Confederation, reach that goal of agreement, which then authorizes that change from voluntary mutual defense association, under the common law, turning that instead into involuntary dictatorship, above the law of the land, which included the extortion of productive capacity from producers in every state, and said loot stolen would be used to enforce the enslavement, abuse, and who knows what else, of millions of people from Africa?

"No. 3 - New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

"Like the nome de plume "Publius" used by pro Constitution writers in the Federalist Papers, several Anti-Federalists signed their writings "A FARMER. " While the occupation of the writers may not have coincided with the name given, the arguments against consolidating power in the hands of a central government were widely read. The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788. The true identity of the author is unknown.

"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.

"Whether any form of national government is preferable for the Americans, to a league or confederacy, is a previous question we must first make up our minds upon. . . .

"That a national government will add to the dignity and increase the splendor of the United States abroad, can admit of no doubt: it is essentially requisite for both. That it will render government, and officers of government, more dignified at home is equally certain. That these objects are more suited to the manners, if not [the] genius and disposition of our people is, I fear, also true. That it is requisite in order to keep us at peace among ourselves, is doubtful. That it is necessary, to prevent foreigners from dividing us, or interfering in our government, I deny positively; and, after all, I have strong doubts whether all its advantages are not more specious than solid. We are vain, like other nations. We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history. Should we not reflect, that quiet is happiness? That content and pomp are incompatible? I have either read or heard this truth, which the Americans should never forget: That the silence of historians is the surest record of the happiness of a people. The Swiss have been four hundred years the envy of mankind, and there is yet scarcely an history of their nation. What is history, but a disgusting and painful detail of the butcheries of conquerors, and the woeful calamities of the conquered? Many of us are proud, and are frequently disappointed that office confers neither respect nor difference. No man of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments - he will be respected in none. After all, what we call respect and difference only arise from contrast of situation, as most of our ideas come by comparison and relation. Where the people are free there can be no great contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter become slaves. In all governments virtue will command reverence. The divine Cato knew every Roman citizen by name, and never assumed any preeminence; yet Cato found, and his memory will find, respect and reverence in the bosoms of mankind, until this world returns into that nothing, from whence Omnipotence called it.

"That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal. The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to the hardy Helvetians alone.

"If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable - a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact.

"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.

"That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated, will not now be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance. Gibbon relates that some Roman Knights who had offended government in Rome were taken up in Asia, in a very few days after. It was the extensive territory of the Roman republic that produced a Sylla, a Marius, a Caligula, a Nero, and an Elagabalus. In small independent States contiguous to each other, the people run away and leave despotism to reek its vengeance on itself; and thus it is that moderation becomes with them, the law of self-preservation. These and such reasons founded on the eternal and immutable nature of things have long caused and will continue to cause much difference of sentiment throughout our wide extensive territories. From our divided and dispersed situation, and from the natural moderation of the American character, it has hitherto proved a warfare of argument and reason.

"A FARMER"

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://committee.org/Court/grandjuryduty.htm

"Requirements: Should have a sense of justice and understand that an Indictment is not an indication of guilt, rather, a determination of probable cause for the Jury to hear all evidence from both sides of in the matter. They should be able to work with the other Jurists (within the forum, so that a record of their business is made) to discuss and make a just determination as to the sufficiency of the Complaint, prior to issuing and Indictment."

So how does someone connected to that type of process rationalize the legalization of subsidized slavery? It is a powerful spell.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, for those interested in discovering the facts in the first nefarious case of "Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!", please do yourself a favor and get out of the STATE of ignorance, and get into the following information:

http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20ONLY%20Lawful%20Government.pdf

Please note that the above source is 1 of many competitive sources offered by real people whose real concern is similar, or precisely the same as: "Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!"

Perhaps much of the confusion, leading to apology for criminal slave traders, has to do with brain washing. I will address that brain washing factor directly, but first note the fact that the Con Con where the Con Job was perpetrated was not Congress. There was no agreement by Congress - stipulated in the Articles of Confederation (which is a contract, and if not a contract, a trust contract for example, then what is it?) - to replace the existing contract (trust contract?) with a new one: one that just so happens to create a Corporate Nation State out of a former Federation of Independent States.

The work done by the people in that link offered above includes the additional proof of crime, inculpatory evidence, that concerns Land Patents (law of the land is the common law), Allodial Title, and admission of new Territories into the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation Trust Contract.

Vermont was the safe haven for runaway slaves and runaway Patriots. Please note that fact.

So the slave trade apologists, the despotic Nationalists, the central banking frauds, and the war mongers did, in point of fact, counterfeit the Federation of Independent States in 1887/89, and they did so on the official record (court of record in common law terms), but the point to ponder now concerns the first 10 Amendments that offer to the people our common law remedy. When I say "our" what I mean is the people as a whole, but to be more specific - for Christ's sake - I mean the moral people as a whole, informing the immoral, and amoral, people, through true law (common law with trial by jury), that crime will not pay: it can't, as anyone with any true religious knowledge knows:

"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."

Those who are truly evil, those who are incorrigible, only God can save them, because they can't save themselves, and they don't want any help.

For those who stand on principle, which is law, our actions follow a Golden Rule, but we can use help to stay in that narrow boundary.

Bill of Rights.

How much more power - as if all the power has not already transferred - will quickly transfer from productive, moral, people in America, as power flows to the criminal elite, if those criminals can get rid of our common law trial by jury due process that applies to everyone all the time the same way: as a RULE.

Criminals do not follow rules.

On to Brain Washing 101.

From the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:

"Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has
been a long road -- how you regard -- what is
your explanation for the fact that there has
been such little national media coverage of
these -- of this trial and this evidence and
this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
which is the first trial ever to be able to
produce evidence on this assassination --
what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
is not sounding but is in fact totally
silent -- almost totally silent?

"A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be
deafening. Disinformation is not only
getting certain things to appear in print,
it's also getting certain things not to
appear in print. I mean, the first -- the
first thing I would say as a way of
explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
of disinformation over a long period of time
that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
official line has been that James Earl Ray
killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing
like the short period when the line was that
the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
did it all by himself.

"And when that is imprinted in the
minds of the general public for 30 years, if
somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's
a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99
percent of the people wouldn't believe him
because it just -- it just wouldn't click in
the mind. It would just go right to -- it
couldn't be. It's just a powerful
psychological effect over 30 years of
disinformation that's been imprinted on the
brains of the -- the public. Something to
the country couldn't -- couldn't be."

There you have it. The criminals took over in 1787/89, they stole the soul of America, but the true Patriots fought for and won back our common law remedies.

Those who have been brainwashed, generation after generation, for over 200 years have a rude awakening to deal with, or not. Ignorance is counterfeit bliss.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

"The primary objective of the Constitution was a self interested desire to break away from privileged rule. They did it for themselves…Caucasian males…with the long term hope the trend to liberty would prevail by creating a system of checks and balances where ratiocination would have a chance."

Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787

Page 13

Luther Martin

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

So...they resorted to deception, also known as fraud. When fraud is perpetrated by Federal officers, and their goal is as stated above, the crime is treason. Even if the officers are National officers, not federal, the crime is still treason.

Under the Articles of Confederation, which was under the common law, there was a check to balance criminal treason, despotism, tyranny, empire building, slave trading, central banking fraud, etc., and that process was (and still is) trial by jury according to the common law.

Articles of Confederation

"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."

All Thomas Jefferson had to do was to grow some balls and set in motion due process the very moment Jefferson encountered the slave traders who insisted upon subsidizing slavery; but then again Jefferson also had his hand in that cookie jar, even as he wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence: slavery is "a crime against nature itself."

Jefferson, or anyone else, had plenty of political leverage, help from every single state in the federation, to move forward with the indictment stated in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, to bring the slave traders to their trial by jury, and rescue millions of innocent people.

For people to fail to see that situation then is one thing, for people to fail to see the same situation now is another thing. People like Craig Sawyer stepping up to the plate, working to rescue millions of children, from the likes of the criminal Clintions, Bushes, etc., demanding PUBLIC TRIALS, isn't - in principle - any different than Richard Henry Lee, or George Mason, or any number of fellow abolitionists, working against the criminal powers, seeking to rescue those in need, in time, and in place.

The criminals must cover-up, weaken, render powerless, our common law due process, failure to do so ends their criminal careers.

Why is that difficult to see?

"Because I recognize the value of the Constitution in that regard does not mean I support slavery, indentured servitude, or corporal punishment…none of those three things the Constitution abolished."

Who anywhere, anytime, and anyplace, has the audacity to claim - with a straight face - that slavery is legal?

"Rhode Island RATIFIED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! There is no crime, there is no Con-Job, there is no conspiracy. You might not like, it might not be the best thing, but it was above board."

Boyd White did it.

"Results from Rhode Island’s State Ratifying Convention (5/29/1790):
"AYE: 34
"NAY: 32"

Boyd White identifies the inculpatory evidence proving the fact that 34 people, on the official record, makes that outrageous, ridiculous, criminal, false, claim that slavery is not only legal, but everyone in the new Nation State will have to pay for enforcing said crime against nature itself: or else.

Now this is telling:

"And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”."

That case of Machiavellian maneuvering can be compared to the following:

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-2.html

"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."

And this:

Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia

"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."

And this:

Declaration of Independence (before censorship by slave traders)

"he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by 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."

How is it that someone today cannot see this evil for what it is precisely? Not seeing it is one thing, now making claims that blowing the whistle on it is frivolous is another thing entirely: a malicious thing.

From Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:

Page 442

"The movement was aimed at reversing
that. King's motto was, the SCLC motto, it
was not civil rights, it was redeem the soul
of America. That was our motto.
So you see right away that that is
much larger than getting a hamburger at a
lunch counter."

So the student of Machiavelli resorts once again to this type of communication:

"And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”."

Frivolous in this case are those slaves not yet enslaved at that moment when The Dirty Compromise was at play in Philadelphia in 1787.

https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf

From nearly 1 million to almost 4 million (souls) victims of slavery between 1790 and 1860. But that is not the only victims. Everyone is a victim, including the criminals themselves. All things are relative, but the sum total of harm done, without question, falls disproportionately upon the helpless, innocent, apparently forgotten, children.

What do you think happens when a family exiled from Europe, rescued by a very costly trip to America, and said family encounters markets dominated by Corporate Subsidized Slave Labor? Does that sound at all familiar to anyone?

"So when you damn the United States for creating the Constitution in 1787 without fully acknowledging what else was happening in that era…including slavery and oppression in the domains listed above…there is a substantial amount of cherry picking."

OK, now this libel is entering the Man of Straw phase in earnest. Whoever those words are aimed at: it is not me.

This fellow Boyd White, if that is even a real name, is creating someone out of thin air, a fictional character, and he is attempting to brand me with that fictional character of his construction.

Who is guilty of the charge "you damn the United States"?

It is not me. Specific individuals were perpetrating specific crimes upon specific people in specific places, and they were called out for doing so, at the time the crimes were perpetrated. That is factual, and it is on the official record. That is a fact even if I do not exist. So why is Boyd White resorting to this type of Machiavellian maneuvering?

Then this Man of Straw (with my name on it) is guilty of "cherry picking"?

If I don't, for example, choose to add the information concerning the common law adjudication of Allodial Title to this dicussion concerning the first, and potentially a second, Con Con Con Job, discussion, I would not be doing so because I didn't want to pick that cherry, it is because there is a need for brevity. The subject of what is, or is not, moral, lawful, right, legal, conduct concerning land adjudication is vital information necessary in forming a comprehensive understanding of political economy; as vital as the information concerning labor, and the fruits of labor.

"But since the Framers did not give us the best Republic they could, only the best that was to be received, there is hope and reason to believe a better Republic can be created."

I suppose that those words could be interpreted as a pro-con con con job stance.

The "framers' then, like potential re-"framers" today are individuals, some are criminals because the pay is much higher for criminals who work under the color of law, compared to the lowly drone criminals paid for their work by the criminals in fake offices.




Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
That sure is an interesting choice made by P. Schreiber: to mention John Adams in the context of false patriotism.

John Adams was one of the false Federalist Party members whose goal was to recreate an American Monarchy in place of the organic American Federation; the Monarchy in America, according to the actions (not the lies) accountable to the membership of the false Federalist Party, was to be fashioned after the British Monarchy.

To see this clearly all someone has to do is look at the work done by the false Federalist Party members, such as The Judiciary Act of 1789, which was done before Amending the slave trade contract (Constitution of 1787/89) with the Bill of Rights.

False Federalist Party Monarchs = Judiciary Act of 1789
Actual Federalists like George Mason = Bill of Rights

What does one piece of work look like compared to the other work?

Which work looks like the work of British Monarchs, Oligarchs, Aristocrats, Despots, Tyrants, Slave Traders, War Mongers, Central Banking Frauds, and Top Down Dictators running a Dictatorship with Summary Just-us courts, legal fictions, standing armies, and excise taxes?

Which piece of work looks like organic, grass-roots, common law, law of the land, equal protection under the law, voluntary, mutual, defense, association?

1. Judiciary Act of 1789
Then later in time
2. Bill of Rights.

Also see Thomas Paine's letter "To the citizens of the United States"
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.

"As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.

"There is in America, more than in any other country, a large body of people who attend quietly to their farms, or follow their several occupations; who pay no regard to the clamors of anonymous scribblers, who think for themselves, and judge of government, not by the fury of newspaper writers, but by the prudent frugality of its measures, and the encouragement it gives to the improvement and prosperity of the country; and who, acting on their own judgment, never come forward in an election but on some important occasion.

"When this body moves, all the little barkings of scribbling and witless curs pass for nothing. To say to this independent description of men, "You must turn out such and such persons at the next election, for they have taken off a great many taxes, and lessened the expenses of government, they have dismissed my son, or my brother, or myself, from a lucrative office, in which there was nothing to do"-is to show the cloven foot of faction, and preach the language of ill-disguised mortification.

"In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness."

And also in the same letter by Thomas Paine:

"When the plan of the Federal Government, formed by this convention, was proposed and submitted to the consideration of the several States, it was strongly objected to in each of them. But the objections were not on anti-Federal grounds, but on constitutional points. Many were shocked at the idea of placing what is called executive power in the hands of a single individual. To them it had too much the form and appearance of a military government, or a despotic one.

"Others objected that the powers given to a President were too great, and that in the hands of an ambitious and designing man it might grow into tyranny as it did in England under Oliver Cromwell, and as it has since done in France. A republic must not only be so in its principles, but in its forms.

"The executive part of the Federal Government was made for a man, and those who consented, against their judgment, to place executive power in the hands of a single individual, reposed more on the supposed moderation of the person they had in view, than on the wisdom of the measure itself.

"Two considerations, however, overcame all objections. The one was the absolute necessity of a Federal Government.

"The other, the rational reflections, that as government in America is founded on the representative system any error in the first essay could be reformed by the same quiet and rational process by which the Constitution was formed, and that either by the generation then living, or by those who were to succeed.

"If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves.

"As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostasy of those who first called themselves Federalists.

"To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father's foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control."

"Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters."

See also the formation of the First Bank of the United States, Naturalization Act 1790, Excise Tax on whiskey 1791 to confiscate all specie, Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation to crush Liberty in Pennsylvania with a slave (conscript) National army 1791, and John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Acts 1798 to punish anyone daring to publish words that favored the French instead of the British.

That last one is very curious because it was the French that tipped the balance of Military Power in favor of a Victory for the Revolutionary side in the Revolutionary War against the criminally aggressive British Empire Builders.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/02/time-change-narrative/#comment-4385

The narrative can change officially when the people demand a return to rule of law, which is the common law, which includes some basic, common sense, principles. If any of these murders were to follow the due course of law, generating trial transcripts, then official facts would be public access information, which then supplies those facts to fill the demand for those facts, thereby changing the FAKE narrative (counterfeit) to fact based discussion.

As lies beget more lies, and as violence inspires more violence, the opposite direction works similarly, a smile is contagious, and the light of truth sparks a demand for more of the same.


If a public trial recorded information on public access transcripts, then the perpetrator of any murder, at a school or not, would afford anyone concerned about said murder the facts in that case. Was the murderer working for someone as a paid assassin? Was the murderer groomed for violence, including the use of drugs that are known to instill violent behavior into the individual? Were there more than one long gunman involved? Were there any military drills performed at that location at that time when the murderer, or murderers, murdered the victims? Where there any paid actors acting as "victims" or "witnesses" at that location, and if so who paid them to perform that service?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/02/defendants-drop-lawsuit-malheur/

Nobody,

My use of quotes are offered specifically for the purpose of validating the information that you offer at a crucial time. People reading this who are unfamiliar with such terms as indictment, True Bill, and presentment, may want something more than the words of someone responding to an article on the internet, to validate the information you have offered.

I think there is a remote possibility that the information you offer might actually help people who are in this specific situation where they seek actual due process of law. Rather than having financial transfers flowing from public funds: awarding victims of "government overreach," rather than that the true goal is to hold each individual perpetrator to account for the specific crimes perpetrated by those criminals; and if there is punishment then it is the whole country, through the petty jury, whose job is to decide on what constitutes redemption, remedy, and restoration. Punishment, or revenge, is not the goal.

I've heard this specific type of thinking expressed by Ammon Bundy in an interview with Kelli Stewart.

Wrong: Government entity pays damages to victims of crimes perpetrated by individual government agents: money is (counterfeited, printed out of thin air?) to pay damages to victims of "government overreach." The perpetrators are free to resume criminal activity under the color of law.

Right: Victims employ their "equal protection of the law" access to a (common law) Grand Jury: see Bill of Rights. Grand Jury is made up of people who are not affiliated with foreign corporations posing as legal experts (not BAR members), and the charges brought to them by Finicum or Bundy family members are investigated and in at least one case there is a confession of withholding evidence already on the official record, recorded by the "judge" (BAR member), the Grand Jury members (unless they are criminals themselves) would have a clear duty to move the course of due process (common law: see Bill of Rights) to the petty jury trial phase. The people as a whole are represented in the Grand Jury, specifically not BAR members, specifically not employees working for a corporate (for profit) business, and as such they are free, and at liberty, to see the facts before them for what they are, a clear case of - at least - withholding evidence, and that part of due process moves the accusation from mere accusation to the petty jury phase.

The trial then generates a public access transcript. An example of a public access trial transcript is The Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcript.

Example:
Page: 434

"Then when they had the
plea-bargaining business, I said to myself,
here is this justice system, the most
important American perhaps other than the
President of the United States has been
killed, and they are going to have a
plea-bargaining instead of a full-scale trial
so that a court of law can tell us, can give
us a full transcript of what that murder is
about."

Correctly pointing out that the victims in this or any case ought to attempt to gain access to the grand jury in their county so as to follow the prescribed due course of law is a very important point.

I had also heard during Interviews with the Bundy's that they were unaware of a system that would work toward the goal of holding the individual perpetrators to account, and that confession of ignorance reinforces the need to point out this specific step in due process.

If the judge is not a real judge, confessed by action if not words. If the prosecutor is shown to be a criminal in the official words of the judge. If the defense attorneys are unaware of, or failing to advise their clients of the purpose of a grand jury (according to the known common law principles, if not named as such) so as to validate the accusations against the members of "the government" who are accused of crimes, and put those individuals on their trial (according to the common law: see Bill of Rights), then it might become clear to more than a few people, that the government has been counterfeited.

If the government has been counterfeited, where then is the real government?

Is it true (or not true) that these specific people have tried to gain access to the local, county, grand jury, so as to move the real government due process through that crucial step?

I don't know.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Boyd White points out the fundamental fact of the matter when criminals counterfeit democratic republics formed into a federation under rule of law. Criminals replace "we the people" united in liberty with a divided "us and them" war zone.

Rather than a whole group of people existing within the boarders of a federation all acting as one to redeem, restore, and to deter crime with accurate accounting of the facts: the criminal element seeps in, like a cancer, and replacing redemption of the soul, and restoration of damage done by criminals charged to the individual criminals, the criminal virus works to blame every-one and no-one all at the same time, collectively punishing everyone for the crimes actually perpetrated by the criminals, and said criminals are never held to an accurate accounting: instead they are perpetually hidden behind their well maintained fake badges.

The group that enforces "their" decisions, when "their" numbers are the common law grand juries of non-BAR member people, investigating crimes perpetrated by criminals with fake badges, is the whole people as one, that is the enforcing group: we the people. We the people are represented by 12 randomly selected petty jury members, with each individual juror representing 1/12 part of the whole people, who then determine guilt based upon fact, and whose historical job was also to fix the sentence: seek remedy, and restoration.

When the whole people rule, not divisions of the whole set at each other's throats, it is democracy: not majority rule. Democracy is rule by the people themselves, not one group ruling another of various sizes.

When it is a republic it is the public thing. The public is the people as a whole.

When it is a federation, at least according to the first congress of the actual American federation as the federation was forming from grass roots organically, then a federation is a voluntary association.

The first Congress of delegates:

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:

That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:

Mixed war is a crime perpetrated by fake government agents, and it is known by the whole people who constitute the common law; or not.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
P. Schreiber "Presuming the doofus Ryan is on the General Election ballot, I’s be surprised if he gets over 1% of the vote."

That is an example of the common law crime known as libel.

Who says?

I do, but I am a potential juror (grand or petty) in California, not Nevada.

If Ryan Bundy becomes Governor (a real possibility for those who have followed such campaigns as Ross Perot, Ron Paul, and now Donald Trump), then Governor Bundy could return Nevada to a common law state, with grand juries made up "of the most discreet and honest inhabitants" "nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor."

As in:

"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." Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia.

See also:

"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law."

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

Page 3

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

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

When Oath Keepers warned Lavoy Finicum of the criminal government making moves to injure Lavoy Finicum they suggested that Lavoy Finicum move immediately to a nearby county where a "Constitutional" sheriff (common law sheriff) would protect Lavoy Finicum. Constitutional Sheriffs defend innocent people from harm done to them by anyone, including posers posing as law enforcement.

If Governor Bundy can influence (Bully Pulpit) people in each county of Nevada, it is conceivable that each county of Nevada can host common law Sheriffs, and common law juries both grand and petty.

If a fake government stacked jury can inspire the fake government "judge" (Navarro) to turn on the fake government "prosecutor" (Myhre) and call a mistrial in the Bundy versus the fake government kangaroo trial, then it is entirely possible that true rule of law can deter almost all crime, even libel.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The constitutional republics (13 at the time of the founding which was 1775 to 1789) formed a federation of constitutional republics. The federation was not by definition a (singular) republic, since it was, in fact, a federation of republics. A republic is the public thing, as in of the people, by the people, and for the people, which is also a democracy. Democracy is rule by the people themselves, not rule by majority, minority, special interest, or foreign agents hiding behind effective deception known euphemistically as word magic.

The constitutional republics were consolidated into one despotic Nation State by the (false) Federalist Party during the usurpation known as The Constitutional Convention and subsequent RATification of the Slave Trade, Central Banking Fraud, War Monger, Constitution of 1787/89.

The so called (falsely called) Anti-Federalist like George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee, worked to amend the Slave Trade Constitution with a Bill of Rights. That amending process was done, but it was done after the Judiciary Act of 1789, which put in place these kangaroo (Admiralty/Equity/Exchequer) summary justice courts, moving away from rule of law, and working to subject people to dictatorship instead of people enforcing rule of law with the common laws known as "the law of the land," and "legem terrae," which include such principles as trial by the country (not summary justice), which is trial by jury, and innocence until proven guilty, etc.

So that is what happened to constitutional republics formed into a voluntary federation for mutual defense.

https://redoubtnews.com/2018/03/what-democracy-looks-like/#comment-4538

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States) wrote a warning concerning the usurpation of rule of law by a National (not federal) Court System of crime under the color of law.

"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered...

"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. . . ."

George Mason, also against the usurpation in 1789 warned:

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."

What was the Dred Scott case? Was the Dred Scott case an example of criminals claiming to be National Judges, and their true color as criminals is confessed in that case?

If someone claims that you are exempt from the law of the land, either you can't be accused of a crime, or you have no protection at all, then it stands to reason that the one claiming such a libelous claim is confessing their criminal mind.

As to the usurpation of rule of law through campaign promises that sound reasonable on the surface, but are unreasable when considering the routine breaking of promises by politicians, those promises to get power, are unreasaonble, and once in power the criminals show their true colors:

"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

The move from rule of law that moved to rule by criminals under the color of law was 1787.

"...attributing the decline starting mid-1900’s is excluding some serious degenerations that happened before then."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.larryklayman.com/pdf/180808-Filed%20Comp.pdf

This is what happens when the criminals take-over government, and this was warned about by the so called founding fathers who were against that criminal take-over in 1789.

When the law of the land is in force by the people, then the people command all jurisdiction civil and criminal, in their county, common law, grand juries. The people have access to investigative powers, which include subpoena power, and if someone, especially a local county government agent, but including a national agent who enters the county to perpetrate crimes upon innocent people - if anyone - willfully causes injury to innocent people in that county, especially doing so with malice aforethought under the color of law, then the people can present the accused (presumed to be innocent) with their trial by jury.

The presumption of innocence is no longer a presumption when the people, through their trial juries, determine what is or is not guilt, what is or is not law, what is or is not fact, and what is or is not just as remedy, restitution, redemption, fine, or other forms of punishment.

Since the criminals have taken-over then the people have to pay these criminals (under the color of law) while they persecute innocent members of the people, and then when those victims hold those criminals to account, those criminals make the people pay more, so as to bribe the victims, and avoid lawful prosecution by the people, lawful prosecution where the criminals (under the color of law) are on trial for their crimes against the people under the color of law; in a word: treason.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Nobody wrote:

" This violation applies to those who work for the State not the people because the people did not oblige themselves to that duty, the government employees did."

The organic federation was formed before 1789. The usurpation of that organic federation between 1787 through 1789 was a crime scene on the official record. To then point out that the criminal document known as the 1789 Constitution is not being followed is useful because that is more inculpatory evidence piled on top of the official record that documents the criminal take-over of America. They, the criminals, routinely claim to be the law, claiming that the law they follow is written right here, and then they routinely break that law: precisely what was done when the slave traders, warmongers, and central banking frauds, calling themselves "Federalists," broke the law that required Congress, not a convention of 12 states, to alter the existing federal agreement; which was written as a "perpetual" agreement.

So...how high is the pile of evidence proving the fact that the criminals have taken over the government today?

"The Constitution is the law for government not the law for the people. The people would not be criminals for giving every government employee the death penalty, the people ARE lawless for not doing so. "

That was the existing, organic, federation when The President of the United States of America was the president of the federation, not some dictator presiding over everything every individual in every state might produce.

"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

What was the Whiskey Rebellion but proof positive that the criminals had taken over the government that organically formed in defense against arbitrary, criminal, government; whereby the criminals claiming to be government routinely break the laws that they claim to be the source of their authority.

The criminal British, for example, prosecute a criminal war of aggression upon Americans, which breaches at least Magna Carta.

The criminal Washington, for example, prosecute a criminal war of aggression upon Americans, invading Pennsylvania, which breaches at least a Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation.

If someone still claims that Washington was right to assemble a conscripted army to enforce an excise tax in Pennsylvania, then someone could also use the same reasoning to claim that it was also right to enforce the return of runaway slaves, confessing the fact that the apologist for criminal acts is constructing an immoral version of "facts," filled with falsehoods.

Rhode Island Is Right!

This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-American Intelligencer?)

"The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

"They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

"The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes - the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) - would be doubled or trebled.

"The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it - for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time-serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.

"The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds - That it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

If the phrase "...does not exist in a vacuum..." means something along the lines of "...openly try to influence..." as in: infiltrate, subjugate, subdue, manipulate, and usurp, then I think your take on what was or was not the Communists (Trademark?), the Anarchists, and the Utopians is superficial, if not simply wrong.

A more clear example of what was not operating in a vacuum is the Patriots working to organically create a federation of free markets, free people, in free, independent states, under the common law. The federal people, working to organically create, and maintain a federation were not working in a vacuum. Any seats of authority left unfilled by volunteers working to organically create, and maintain a federation were filled with criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes.

First checking evidence on the "Real Communists:"

"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated” classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. "

Utopian, socialist/anarchist, was represented by Fourier and Owen, just before Proudom coined the label anarchism as "free market," do no harm, independent, and the sovereignty of the individual. Clearly in the Communist Manifesto 1788 edition, quoted above, the "Real Communists" (TM) were as openly criminal as the slave trading fake Federalist Party, an in your face declaration of dependence, whereby those "Real Communists" openly called for violent, criminal, offensive, take-over of power over all people. Sure there was, and always will be, a thin covering of nice talk, which has only one purpose, and has nothing to do with honor, promise, responsibility, accountability, peace, or justice. That type of doublespeak, that thin coating of good feeling verbiage, salted with a healthy dose of vengeance as a reward for obedience, is just a copy - the Communists copy - of the fake Federalist criminal usurpation by deceit, threat of aggressive violence, and real examples of aggressive violence where dead bodies start piling up in mass graves.

If you look into works like Anthony Sutton's work, it is actually the American fake Federal Criminal Gang - thinly hidden behind a government facade - represented by "Wall Street" financing the "Real Communist" criminal gang.

As to the benchmark in the 18th century set by the fake Federalist Party, setting the example to follow for all future usurpations such as the "Real Communist Party," there is ample evidence proving this fact of wolves hiding in sheep's clothing.

Friday, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith

"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."

As to breaking windows, or throwing tea in a harbor, to agitate, to go on the offensive, violently, destructively, to break the peace, by anyone, anywhere, anytime, there was, and is a peaceful alternative.

If those in power claim to have lawful authority then they can prove it, or prove otherwise, when the people gather organically into grand juries, according to the laws that those in power claim to be the source of their power, and if the people suspect, have probable cause to suspect, that those in power are guilty, then those in power can agree to their trial by jury.

If those in power somehow claim to have the power to raise their pay at will, and place themselves above the law, claiming immunity from prosecution, then that is a clue for the clueless.

As to the so-called poor whites, poor blacks, poor any race whatsoever, the claims made by Mark Twain notwithstanding, our world, in peace, is abundant with every power required to create almost unlimited wealth, for all, and that ought to be known as a fact because it is a fact, a powerful one.

Those who claim otherwise are often reaching into the victims pocket while saying so.

As to what you consider to be involuntary, or voluntary, and my working meaning of those words, I can say that we do not share the same working meaning of those words.

As to modern labels such as Fascist and Crony Capitalism, there is again that benchmark of a criminal gang operating under the color of law, those fake "Federalist" Party members, and the words of warning from Thomas Paine about those criminals, setting that benchmark.

"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."

A profitable monopoly and the people as slaves, under the color of law, by any name is still the same thing.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

First in order of importance in my opinion concerning that which threatens our temporal salvation is deliberation, such as that which happens in trial by jury according to the (real) common law. We are deliberating here and now, but without the power of voluntary government for our mutual defense (jury trial), so it is to use a phrase: just for fun.

Second, when I say wealth or voluntary association, you appear to see something other than what I see. Wealth is an individuals value judgment, not a claim made by an individual as to what everyone will value: or else. See: "The power of the peg of how much gold or silver is in a monetary instrument is another facet; if you have the power of the peg you can get $20 Trillion from one ounce of silver by decreeing that 1,750 atoms of Silver equals $1.00." Boyd White, 2018, Redoubt News Article "The death knell of slavery was sounded and the decennial census was founded." Discussion

"If the 13 Colonies intention was to be free, independent States, then, they would not have bound themselves to the Articles of Confederation. And mind you, in this list, “criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes” you can also find examples under the Articles of Confederation."

Who speaks for they, you? Those who made a lot of profits from the war, or stood to make a lot of profits from the war, spoke for themselves, and they lied. Those who actually acted morally, lawfully, so as to create and maintain a republican form of government under the common law spoke for themselves. Who is accountable for which people then, you?

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."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/

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."
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

The slave traders were making war on, at least, all those African slaves, and all those "poor" Americans put out of work because the slave trader, warmonger, central banking whores, created, and maintained, a poor for them, rich for us, fake government.

Who were the warmonger, slave trader, central banking whores, then?

Who was the republican, free in liberty, defenders, creating a grass-roots, voluntary association for the mutual defense of all, a government under the common law?

Who told lies to gain power, then began enforcing dictatorial orders to be obeyed without question?

14th of October, 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.”

On the 20th day of October 1774
"This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."

On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."

What is the method by which the people as a whole consent to any government by anyone, anytime? What is the method by which the people hold everyone to account for anything?


"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."
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial12.html#p222

I am deliberately grinding a particular ax here, one that you appear to marginalize: deliberately.

"They were in the process of Creation. They were not hell bent on wickedness."

Who are they?

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.

Patrick Henry, Monday, June 9, 1788
"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."


Page 13 Luther Martin

One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.
https://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up

Boyd White:
"So how do they prevent the crime? Grand Juries is one legal way."

Don't you get it? In 1789 the legal way was outlawed by the criminals who took over, why is that hard to see?


1788, June 6
George Mason:
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?

December 7, 1787
Rhode Island is right!
"The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it-for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time- serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed."

"They would look at our lives and our imperious observations on their lives and probably would not give our opinions too much weight or credit."

They are who? We are who? They did not all, in unison, enslave mankind with malice aforethought, but some did, those individuals were not stupid, perhaps criminally insane, but not stupid. Many of them, then, were moral, peaceful, and willing to give their fortunes, and their lives, for moral goals, and many died: culling.

We are similarly diverse from one end of a moral perspective to the other end, and is it not useful to know the difference accurately? Is it not useful to have a process by which facts, and guilt, and remedy, is found, and found accurately?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"I hope you find some place to live as you want to."

I am going to assume that the above is directed at me, which then leads me to make the follow observations.

1. I try to make the best of whatever I face, so that statement is, to me, inappropriate.
2. Why would someone assume that someone else fails to make the best of whatever they face?
3. Is the statement quoted above a claim made by the author whereby the target of the author, who is me, has started a campaign of demonization? The target, me, is some sort of utopian dreamer that will not likely ever "find some place to live as you want."
4. No attempt was made to answer the very serious questions that affect our temporal salvation.

The following questions are questions that affect our temporal salvation.

1. We now are similarly diverse from one end of a moral perspective to the other end, and is it not useful to know the difference accurately?

2. Is it not useful to have a process by which facts, and guilt, and remedy, is found, and found accurately?

3. Did the warmonger, slave trading, central banking fraud criminal political party known falsely as the "Federalist Party," willfully, and with malice aforethought, take from the people the known method by which criminals are found, tried, and offered a remedy, redemption, or if there is no possibility of remedy, said convicted criminal is deemed outside the law?

4. If our best hope of a prosperous future, in peace, in a perishable liberty, is to regain our tried and true method of accurately discriminating between fact and fiction, law and outlaw, remedy and destructive revenge, then ought we not at least acknowledge that fact, even if we car not to do anything about it?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Methinks thou doth protest too much."

Notes:

1. The questions that so dearly affect our temporal salvation are set aside so as to attack me personally, which is standard, routine, practice for those who wish to avoid answering the questions that so dearly affect our temporal salvation.

2. I do not protest. I volunteer for jury duty. I attempt to deliberate with other people - just for fun - on matters that affect our temporal salvation, and I do so because my viewpoint is improved when I can find viewpoints that offer answers to questions that affect our temporal salvation, such as an answer to the questions concerning why some people got away with subsidizing slavery for 20 years into the future from the date 1789, when those criminals managed to get that usurpation, that crime, perpetrated.

"Well isn’t that nice."

Why has a deliberate exchange of information concerning matters that affect our temporal salvation turned into a personality contest: a pissing contest?

"Let’s see, uhm, with all history to pick from…let’s pick the Ukrainians in cattle cars being shipped to Siberia on 15 minutes notice. Happy faces everyone…let’s make the best of what we face."

How can you not get it?

"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."

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html

"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."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

You want to now turn the subject matter to what is happening in Europe, some time ago, and your choice of events is so far removed from the local matters in America, as to be only linked, possibly, by the flow of money flowing to the criminals in Serbia, flowing from the criminals in America. How can you fail to see that the events you now place on the discussion table are financed because the criminals in America took-over in 1789?

I'd like to know how anyone can fail to see what was abundantly clear when it happened.

"Nature abhors a vacuum…your politics are clear…and a lot of your politics I agree with…but when the U.S. Constitution is gone which is seeming what you want what will replace it? Are you really that delusional to think it is going to be a smooth segue? That your switches and faucets will keep working?"

You make claims that are demonstrated as false, as to what my "politics" are, or are not, as if you assume this power to know arbitrarily. You want to have this power, so you arbitrarily assume that you do have this power, and in fact, you do not have this power, so what can be done about it?

You can go on assuming powers that you do not have, until you, on your own, realize that fact.

Apparently, you have this idea that the power to keep "switches and faucets" working is a power dependent on something other than the individuals who know how to keep switches and faucets working. You apparently think that the Constitution of 1789 is in some way this power that keeps switches and faucets working.

My view is such that the State Constitutions are independent recipes for people to volunteer for our mutual defense, and the better State Constitutions have working Bills of Rights, whereby common law, with trial by jury, still rules the day, and the people still consent to, or do not consent to, any government, by any means, of any kind, anywhere, anytime, with, or without a Constitution.

"I want to hear now about how you face REALITY? Acquiring calories and conserving calories. The last breath of many a person who died hard from hunger, thirst, heat and cold was spent uttering, “I did the best I could do.”

Somehow you have painted this picture of someone incapable of surviving without the Constitution of 1789, and if this dependent, poor soul, you have created get's the wish you put in this poor souls mind, then this poor soul will no longer survive, and that poor soul you create has my name on it.

Where did the conversation about matters of our temporal salvation turn into this straw man creation routine, where a personal attack is the means to the obvious end of character assassination?

"But let us not forget that violence does not and cannot exist by itself: It is invariably intertwined with the lie. They are linked in the most intimate, most organic and profound fashion: Violence cannot conceal itself behind anything except lies, and lies have nothing to maintain them save violence. Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle. At birth, violence acts openly and even takes pride in itself. But as soon as it gains strength and becomes firmly established, it begins to sense the air around it growing thinner; it can no longer exist without veiling itself in a mist of lies, without concealing itself behind the sugary words of falsehood. No longer does violence always and necessarily lunge straight for your throat; more often than not it demands of its subjects only that they pledge allegiance to lies, that they participate in falsehood."
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1974

Is your next move to declare that I am a terrorist for the thoughts you place in my head?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The process by which corrupt politicians are held to account is a process known as rule of law, and it is the process that was demonstrated in the Revolutionary War. People, not the government, either hold the government to account, as documented in a Declaration of Independence, or people will suffer until suffering is no longer possible.

A Declaration of Independence follows the process of rule of law, whereby the people enumerate the actions perpetrated by those who corrupt government, and an offer is made by the people to afford the accused, corrupt, government a remedy. When the answer to that offer is open violence initiated by the corrupt in government, then how can it be any clearer that the government no longer follows rule of law?

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:

"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

The people command all legal jurisdiction civil and criminal through their common law Grand Jury process and their common law Trial Jury process. The government exists to aid the people through that process. If the government obstructs that process instead of aiding the people through that process, then the government is guilty of something known as Mixed War.

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

Page 3

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

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

A peaceful solution is always an option for peaceful people. Corrupt government, on the other hand, demonstrates routinely just exactly what is a corrupt government, leaving no doubt whatsoever when the people set the record straight through the lawful, peaceful, process.

Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:

"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."

http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf

Page 434 MLK Trial:

"Then when they had the plea-bargaining business, I said to myself, here is this justice system, the most important American perhaps other than the President of the United States has been
killed, and they are going to have a plea-bargaining instead of a full-scale trial so that a court of law can tell us, can give us a full transcript of what that murder is about."
Reverend Jim Lawson

Which News Media would quote from court transcripts if the government did its job and these accused, alleged, criminals were on trial by the people, for the people?

Using the example of the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial as a benchmark of what is supposed to happen, although that trial was delayed for 30 years until the perpetrators had successfully got away with conspiracy murder, but none-the-less using the trial as an example, what would a trial look like with Bill and Hillary as the accused?

In the murders of John and Bobby Kennedy, which were murders before and after the Martin Luther King Conspiracy Murder fact, the "Media" (monopoly corporate media) successfully covered up those conspiracies. Only the Martin Luther King Jr. case was documented through the lawful process.

People today can call someone a "Conspiracy Theorist" when someone points out conspiracy in the John, or Bobby Kennedy murder cases. People today cannot call someone a "Conspiracy Theorist" in the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder case, as it is on the official public record that the people, through their jury process, has found the government guilty of conspiracy murder in that case: just read the transcripts if in doubt.

So...there are the paths open to Americans in America.

1. Actual rule of law, proceeding according to the common law, whereby the accused is offered a remedy, and the remedy is found through trial by jury, and then the people know, without having to rely upon Corporate Monopoly Media, what actually happened in that case. The result of that trial by jury then stands as a deterrent for any future conspirators.

2. No official, lawful, remedy whatsoever, and a continuous flow of false information that divides the people into factions that are set against one another perpetually.

MLK Trial:

"Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has
been a long road -- how you regard -- what is
your explanation for the fact that there has
been such little national media coverage of
these -- of this trial and this evidence and
this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
which is the first trial ever to be able to
produce evidence on this assassination --
what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
is not sounding but is in fact totally
silent -- almost totally silent?

"A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be
deafening. Disinformation is not only
getting certain things to appear in print,
it's also getting certain things not to
appear in print. I mean, the first -- the
first thing I would say as a way of
explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
of disinformation over a long period of time
that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
official line has been that James Earl Ray
killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing
like the short period when the line was that
the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
did it all by himself.

"And when that is imprinted in the
minds of the general public for 30 years, if
somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's
a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99
percent of the people wouldn't believe him
because it just -- it just wouldn't click in
the mind. It would just go right to -- it
couldn't be. It's just a powerful
psychological effect over 30 years of
disinformation that's been imprinted on the
brains of the -- the public. Something to
the country couldn't -- couldn't be. "

Had the government and the media faced common law due process in 1963 for the conspiracy murder of JFK, it is possible that MLK and RFK would not have been murdered.

When murderers run the government with impunity what is expected to happen? Will those criminals sell off everything of value in America? If instead a potential criminal begins to contemplate using government for criminal purposes and that criminal faces the people armed with their lawful process, will that power of the people holding the criminals to account for their crimes, on the official public record, deter those wannabe criminals from using government as their facade that covers up their crimes?

If the people maintain their own public records through their common law due process, what would reporters report on other than the official record of facts documented in official transcripts like the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial?

Would people choose to listen to CBS, NBC, Fox, The Washington Post, or would people prefer to read the transcripts documenting the Bill and Hillary Trial?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"It was found to be a conspiracy theory with no evidence of fact."

Who found what to be a conspiracy theory?

If anyone claiming to be an authority of government obstructs an effort by the people, through their grand juries, to bring someone in government, such as Hilary or Bill Clinton, to answer for their alleged crimes, then the claim of authority is false, and the one obstructing due process is a criminal in fact.

The problem is that almost all government since 1789 in America obstructs when it is a government agent perpetrating crimes. That proceeded that way by design.
The proof of this is proven in each case where a subject of government is processed one way, and a member of the government is processed in an entirely different way: a double standard.

Example:

1. Lavoy Finicum is found guilty by the government and sentenced to death by the government.

2. The one who obeyed the order to kill Lavoy Finicum is found innocent by those who ordered the execution.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The problem with written laws, as opposed to general voluntary government, a.k.a. Liberty, is no two people agree on the meaning of words until there is a deliberate effort to do so, in such processes as Trial by Jury.

Example:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

If Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi read The Bill of Rights and they then work together to censor lawful presentments from grand juries which indict government agents for alleged crimes, then Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be guilty of Seditious Conspiracy according to U.S. Code 18 2384 quoted above, according to my own interpretation of The First Amendment.

If the same seditious conspirators then begin to work together to disarm the public, so as to take wealth from the public, so as to arm their sedition conspiracy with the required armaments needed to disarm the public, then my interpretation of the Second Amendment allows me to discover yet again those specific seditious conspirators.

The problem with the current fake government is that the seditious conspirators have made it a "law" that only they can indict one of their own, for plea bargaining, or perhaps if they choose, a trial by jury that they stack-up their own way, as they see fit.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Blaming Satan for the willful actions of living examples of life, such as blaming Satan for whatever Hillary Clinton has done, is a routine process called diversion.

While defensive minded people are thereby misdirected to defend against Satan, instead of Hilary Clinton, that actual devil Hilary Clinton is afforded every opportunity to continue her crime spree.

There has been, and is, an effective way to hold actual people to account for the willful injuries that they cause to innocent people: Rule of Law.

It might be a good idea to know that that Rule of Law stuff is exactly.

Here is one possible source of useful information for those who prefer to avoid being misdirected:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/cary-sparks-heyoka/how-to-fight-corruption-lawfully/10154192342141409/

“This is how we get corruption out of our country.”

That is one of many sources of information that may inspire actual people to actually start defending themselves from the actual criminals who routinely perpetrates crimes under the color of law.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Cal,
The 1787 Constitutional Convention is a well-documented crime scene. On the official record, the perpetrators documented their crime when they willfully proceeded outside of their constitutional powers to create a legal fiction and enforce a legal fiction over and above the common law.
That part of that crime scene in 1787, the so-called “Constitutional Convention” was explained by Richard Henry Lee in the following excerpt:
“A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.
“If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.
“If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.
“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. . . .”
The creation of a profitable monopoly or Nation State out of the existing Federation was an unconstitutional act, there was no agreed-upon authority to allow it, and there were rules in place to prevent it, such as “…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states…”
That clearly does not say: “12 States can form a convention so as to alter the perpetual Federal government, and once 12 States write up a new National Government to replace the Federal Government, those 12 States can then proceed to sell the dirty deal to the masses with their near monopoly power over the printed press.”
Rhode Island refused to attend the convention and therefore Congress never agreed to alter the government in the first place. That did not stop the perpetrators, and from then on all National Statutes are null and void from a legal standpoint as you have shown:
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
That type of voluntary law, or common law, never stopped organized crime under the color of law, as it is a requirement of criminals, in order for them to be criminals, to operate outside the law by their willful choice.
“One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. ” Luther Martin blowing the whistle on the frauds working the first Con Con Con Job.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
A "convention" of 12 States had no lawful power to "propose" a National Government that would then replace the existing voluntary mutual defense association: federation. "Constitution" day is celebrated by either frauds or their marks. Each State became independent of any National Government (such as The British Monarchy) during the Revolution that only became a war when the criminal British perpetrated War of Aggression for Profit (enslaving the targets targeted in the War of Aggression for Profit). Each State (except one) had their own Constitution. The Federal Government (not National) had a Constitution.


The Constitution governing the Federal Government (not National) was bypassed by the out-laws who "proposed" a National Constitution to replace the existing Federal Constitution.


"Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."

Rhode Island refused (did not agree) in Congress to convene in a convention that alters the existing Constitution on that Constitution day.


How idiotic can people get, how fooled are the foolish?


Not these guys:


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. . . ."
Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled

"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 {442} 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?"
George Mason Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 6, 1788

"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."
Patrick Henry
June 9, 1788

"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
"But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national."
June 14, 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."
George Mason
June 17, 1788

"Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against the idea of an extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and nature of things, against it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it."
Brutus
October 18, 1787,
To the Citizens of the State of New-York.

"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

"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."
Melancton Smith
June 20, 1788

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. "
Luther Martin writing notes at the Con Con Con Job in 1787 (Gag orders issued)

"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."
George Mason
June 04, 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. "
A Farmer warning of the potential for Civil War (which in fact came true) due to alteration from Federal (voluntary) to National (involuntary) government.

Rhode Island also, officially, spelled out that "the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government", and note: they did not say that Congress had agreed to propose an alteration from a Federal to a National government as was the law according to the Constitution.


So bemoan all the un-constitutional criminal acts perpetrated by your modern day faction that opposes your faction and realize it is par for the course that was set when the first perpetrators perpetrated that un-constitution act to alter the constitution on that constitution day.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"What they did not have in their day was some means of setting things right in their relations to a Govt gone rogue, that is, short of war. "

The common law was the means by which the revolutionary forces dealt with the criminally aggressive British. The Declaration of Independence was a simple common law notice of mixed war.

To claim that "our" founders were all on the same page, and they were outlaws is patently false.

"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:

"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"


That is as true now as it was when it was entered into the official record of the First Congress of the forming United States (plural) of America. That above, as well as the Declaration of Independence, describes the crime of mixed war.


To claim that the victims are the outlaws is a ruse, why do people fall into that clap trap?


"When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

"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."

http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"It has become apparent that the process of governing our country by the cooperation between opposing political parties is collapsing."


When the criminals took-over the existing federation (voluntary association for mutual defense under the common law), doing so by fraud, threats, and committing treason, they, those criminals called The Federalist Party, created this divide, so as to conquer, situation that is commented upon in such messages as the one quoted above: who expects opposing political parties to cooperate?

I think it is a contradiction in terms, those who are opposed are opposed or they would not be opposed. Those who cooperate, cooperate, or they would not be cooperating.


Put in other words:

"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 is a work titled: New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

Those comments were offered as a statement of the obvious, at least obvious to some.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“Is it only about Roe v Wade?”

It is a battle over which faction takes over the profitable monopoly. Those who win these wars, or conflicts, or “hearings,” get control over the profitable monopoly. This is not news.

If it were not a dictatorship then there would be no battle between factions over which faction gains control over the dictatorship.

It is a dictatorship and has been one since 1789 when the Summary Justice (above the law) Court System of Plunder Under the Color of Law was created with the Judiciary act.
I personally don’t know why this is such a mystery to some people, and they aren’t confessing.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“The so called collapse of the two party system isn’t coming about because the democrats have moved too far left. It’s come about because every time the democrats moved farther left, the republican moved left also.”

What is left in context concerning the above message?

If by “left” the meaning is the same meaning as a criminal organization under the color of law, then I think that the message has meaning.

“Republicans moved to the center, then beyond.”

Ron Paul, as far as I know, is the only one I know who represents the whole people, the public, as in res-publica (the public thing), and therefore he is a republican. All the others, again, as far as I know, are republican in name only, and once they are seen as naked as they are, as emperors without clothes, who say one thing so as to gain power, and do the opposite once power is gained.

Vote for me to end the criminal wars of aggression, they say to gain power. Once in power they start or continue wars of aggression: a crime perpetrated by the British to subjugate Americans under their dictatorial rule, and a crime perpetrated by Nazis.

The right versus left scale applies only to those democrats in name only, along with those republicans in name only, as those posers take control of the criminal organization that operates so well under disguise. Left in that context means more overt criminal acts, less plausible deniability, and moving more to the right in that context means less overt criminal acts with more plausible deniability: it is easier to imagine the clothes worn by the Emperors moving to the right on the organized crime (under the color of law) scale.

Why this is hard to see I don’t know, it was once common knowledge.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Judicial and prosecutorial misconduct..."


According to the codes that these individuals are under oath to follow, they are not merely guilty of misconduct. A prime example is the codes governing individuals whose job it is to prosecute government agents caught in the act of withholding exculpatory evidence.

When they claim, under oath, to be in a position of authority to prosecute people who are guilty of the crime of withholding exculpatory evidence, while occupying a position of authority, such as occupying the position of a prosecutor or occupying the position of a district judge, and they fail to do the job they are bound by the laws they claim to be their source of authority, then that is hardly "prosecutorial misconduct."


They break their bond. They go outside the law. They are outlaws. They, by their actions, perpetrate crimes according to the laws they claim to be the source of their authority. They, therefore, commit treason. Claiming that treason is merely prosecutorial misconduct is a false claim.

Not only is it natural (natural law) for people to demand, and enforce, moral conduct from those whose job is to demand, and enforce, moral conduct: see Mathew 7:12 for example, it is also written in statutes, even if said statutes are written as a false cover used to cover-up so-called "prosecutorial misconduct."


"The Disciplinary Rules, unlike Ethical Considerations, are mandatory in character [and] state the minimum level of conduct below which no lawyer can fall without being subject to disciplinary action."
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

"The legal restrictions stem from both criminal procedure law and judicial case law. For example, criminal procedure law requires the government, upon request, to produce documents to the defendant that are material to the defense or will be used as evidence by the prosecution."
"47. See Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 16(a). "
Same source linked above: Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Lisa M. Kurcias


Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16
"(B) Defendant's Written or Recorded Statement. Upon a defendant's request, the government must disclose to the defendant, and make available for inspection, copying, or photographing, all of the following: ..."

"(2) Failure to Comply. If a party fails to comply with this rule, the court may:
(A) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection; specify its time, place, and manner; and prescribe other just terms and conditions;
(B) grant a continuance;
(C) prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence; or
(D) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances."

Like a dog sent chasing its own tail, a dog is rendered powerless.

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

"Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be imprisoned not more than five years and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in this title."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/287

If they say that the laws that they claim to be the source of their power and authority apply only to those who they target, then it might be a good idea to question that claim of authority.

Prosecutorial misconduct, really?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
" It and a few other steps removes one from being in ‘ Dishonor ‘ and a debt slave to being ‘On Honor’ and being a live man the people again with authority to use the correct system to put the courts in order so you a live man a non- citizen national can contract correctly with those court and enforcement Corporations as the corporate officers are now personally liable and their respective bonds can have a lien filed on them for costs."

If the people claiming that someone is in dishonor are perpetrating a fraud, then why would anyone want to go along with that fraud? According to the criminals perpetrating this fraud, there is a step by step method for the victims of their fraud to get free from this fraud, so long as the victims follow the rules set up by the same people who perpetrate the fraud in the first place?

And so, the story goes that if there is a misstep made by one of the victims of this fraud, then the victim remains a victim of this fraud.

I'm not buying into this wild goose chase. This type of response credits (giving support to) an ongoing fraud. How about an analogy? If a victim of the modern scam involving a "Prince" in Africa spamming email lists, whereby this "Prince" claims to need someone to help him transfer millions of dollars into a new bank account opened by the victim of this scam were to seek remedy from this scam would it then be wise for the victim to follow the rules set-up by the "Prince" for that purpose? Get out of my trap the "Prince" claims, just follow these steps I have laid so generously at your feet.


How about another analogy?


If a group of criminals kidnap, torture, rape, and enslave people for generations, is it a good idea to seek remedy according to the criminals currently perpetrating those crimes upon you?

What is it about the natural law that is so hard to understand, such as the natural law that criminals (by their willful actions) do not obey moral laws?

If someone claims that the Amended (Bill of Rights) Constitution of 1789 is their source of authority, then the people through their common law trial by jury tribunals must be asked before anyone can be lawfully punished, according to that authority.

In other words the people (represented in tribunals), not the government (represented through election into office, or not), judge fact, guilt, and what does or does not constitute remedy in any case of any significance or, it is bogus, fake, fraudulent, and ought not be supported in anyway, and rather than supporting it, it ought to be defended against peacefully, lawfully, according to common principles that constitute our common laws.

Example:
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Lisa M. Kurcias

"The Supreme Court held that the suppression of favorable evidence violated Brady's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 69
69. Id. at 86. The Due Process Clause states that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV."

"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").

"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function"). "

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

So there is a crime scene. People willfully counterfeit lawful authority as proven by their official records.

What ought to be done, ask them how we are supposed to defend our liberties, and follow their suggestions obediently: without question?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The left criminals are only slightly less criminal compared to the right criminals: both are fighting a privileged war to gain power over each other's privilege.

That has nothing to do with morality.

That has nothing to do, therefore, with true law.

Mathew 7:12 explained:

"All things whatsoever … - This command has been usually called the "Saviour's golden rule," a name given to it on account of its great value. All that you "expect" or "desire" of others in similar circumstances, do to them. Act not from selfishness or injustice, but put yourself in the place of the other, and ask what you would expect of him. This would make you impartial, candid, and just. It would destroy avarice, envy, treachery, unkindness, slander, theft, adultery, and murder. It has been well said that this law is what the balance-wheel is to machinery. It would prevent all irregularity of movement in the moral world, as that does in a steam-engine. It is easily applied, its justice is seen by all people, and all must acknowledge its force and value. This is the law and the prophets - That is, this is the sum or substance of the Old Testament. It is nowhere found in so many words, but if is a summary expression of all that the law required. The sentiment was in use among the Jews. Hillel, an ancient Rabbi, said to a man who wished to become a proselyte, and who asked him to teach him the whole law, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another." Something of the same sentiment was found among the ancient Greeks and Romans, and is found in the writings of Confucius."
Barnes' Notes


What happens when people invest in organized crime under the color of law?


What happens when people decide, by their power of will, to pay for the power struggle to see which criminal gang takes over command of the dictatorship?


"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."

Is that true?

Who decides?

In a dictatorship, the winner of the turf battle to take control of the dictatorship decides what the slaves must do, and do so without question, and the decider group with their decider dictator, having taken all the power required to make good on their threats will, as a routine, make examples out of those who dare to question that pretenious, criminal, authority: see Lavoy Finicum's murder.


The Revolutionary War was fought over an idea that each individual has equal protection under the true law.


Why is this difficult to understand? Those who are confused, or led down a very evil path, are not confessing.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
When dealing with con men it is often experienced that they say one thing to get what they want: power, money, obedient slaves, and they do the opposite once they get that power. To claim that democracy and a republic are this, that, or the other thing, according to one or two con men begs the question: what did they want, and what were they willing to do to get what they want?


If they wanted to get their slave trade subsidized instead of having it outlawed, then they might say just about anything or do anything (like enslaving people), to get that pork barrel political power flowing.


Thomas Paine Rights of Man
Chapter III
Page 176

"Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As those democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed. Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical or aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.

"As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others.

"It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case.

"The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

"Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

"Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government, for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject."

That was one of the founders before the slave traders con job in 1787 through 1789, so as to subsidize slavery.

And after:

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.

"As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.

"There is in America, more than in any other country, a large body of people who attend quietly to their farms, or follow their several occupations; who pay no regard to the clamors of anonymous scribblers, who think for themselves, and judge of government, not by the fury of newspaper writers, but by the prudent frugality of its measures, and the encouragement it gives to the improvement and prosperity of the country; and who, acting on their own judgment, never come forward in an election but on some important occasion."


And what did the actual democrats actually say about democracy?



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."

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

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

If choosing the term "talking heads" is an example of your intention not offend, then I'm wondering what terms you would choose when you are intending to offend.

The words quoted are words I wrote, and my name is not Joe Kelly.

Privilege has been understood as a gift from a sovereign (powerful) individual (or group) to the underprivileged (powerless) individuals or groups; especially in the context of so-called government actions.

Case in point:
"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." Roger Roots, The Conviction Factory.

When the people govern themselves they - the whole people, not a privileged segment of the whole - constitute the judge, jury, and executioner: not a privileged segment of the population taking government power by fraud, extortion, and aggressive violence.

As in the official record of the first Congress of the United States (13 at the time) of America:
14th of October, 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.”

We the people consent to or do not consent to whatever any government, anywhere, anytime, claims as right, true, lawful, legal, justified, or whatnot.

We are the privileged, because we say so, peacefully, in our jury trials.

The case in point is the case where the government perpetrated numerous crimes against the Bundy family and many others, and that case included a so-called judge stating on the record that a so-called prosecutor withheld evidence.

Before continuing with this answer to the comment by Jom Boyer, about talking heads, here is another talking head:

"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 against the Con Job Constitution of 1787

So there is a crime in front of God and everyone confessed as a crime by a so-called "District Judge."

Which crime?

"The Supreme Court held that the suppression of favorable evidence violated Brady's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 69
69. Id. at 86. The Due Process Clause states that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV."
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias

On the statutes that these "privileged" people claim to be their source of authority (under oath no less, and bonded) they are confessing to their crimes in open, public, proceedings under the color of law: i.e. treason.

What do these "privileged" people also claim?

"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").

"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function").
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

So I can talk my head off, but where is my equal protection under the law that these criminals claim to be their source of authority? They can assume guilt upon anyone they target, anywhere, anytime, and they don't even need a reason. They kidnap innocent people, torture them into submission, take everything worth taking from them, including their lives, and during the process that is supposedly in place to accurately identify those who are guilty of crimes, they - the criminals - claim that they are immune from that process. They not only do this out in the open, but they also do this on their own official records.

The talking head George Mason, who refused to sign the bogus Constitution of 1787, was correct. So was Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, and many other's who knew that rat smell when those rats stole the good name of the American government.

Another talking head:
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."

Equal protection, or equal footing, or equitable, fair, impartial, actions by people for people - the law of the land - is the Revolutionary idea, but that idea is only revolutionary in places and times when the norm is blind obedience to the dictates of a criminal organization operating under the color of law.

The Patriots against the con job of 1787 knew the criminals were going after our common law trial by jury, and that is why they insisted upon a Bill of Rights.


Back to Jim Boyer:
"I often here this sort of sentiment from talking heads being careful no to offend. But, I don’t understand the perception that representatives on the right are trying to take rights or privilege from anyone."

If access to trial by the country, which is trial by jury, which is the method by which the people consent to or do not consent to anything any government claims to have the authority to do - if our trial by jury process - does not apply to a privileged class that can openly commit kidnapping, torture, extortion, murder, mass murder, and worse crimes, then I think my point is valid, even if some listening heads don't get it: yet.


I will admit error here when someone on the so-called right indicts one of these criminals, like "Judge" Navarro, or why not those Clinton monsters, or how about the author of the Patriot Act? When those on the so-called right stop doing almost the same cover-up of criminals running government job as the so-called left, then there will be criminals in government on trial, according to the common laws of free people, and the whole country will be the judge of fact, law, and remedy, through their jury.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
When the "government" is a profitable monopoly those who desire it (with malice aforethought) will do anything to get it.

"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."
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, March 7, 1788

Neil Wampler:
"...the feverish political divide of today has strong parallels with our country in the 1860s."

That divide was predicted. That divide is the same divide in principle as the one faced by every slave wishing to run away from slavery, or fight for freedom, peacefully if possible, and if the slave masters insist, and there is no place to run, then defensive fighting on the foundation of moral principle is forced by the aggressors.

Why stop looking back once the predictable Civil War is found? What about Shays's Rebellion?

When the criminals took over Massachusetts after the British gave up their aggressive war for profit, that same divide seen now was afoot then, and even then the criminals had to take-over the trial by jury process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"One vote per state failed 5-5-1 on July 2 and concern was rising that the convention was exceeding its delegated powers."

Those at the Con Con (Con Job) were exposed in the following report by Luther Martin at the Con Con:

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."

A modern-day version of a Con Con, whereby every globalist worth his or her salary is invited, could hardly do as much damage to free people in liberty as the criminal slave trading, con artist, central banking fraud, aristocrats did at the first Con Con, yet people still ignore both historical and current facts of this matter, like obedient lemmings.

George Mason spelled it out well enough too:

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."

June 6, 1788
George Mason:
"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 {442} 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?"

The criminals who stole the federal government were after our trial by jury.

"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."
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html

"...making the courts of the country their tools..."

Patrick Henry: "Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others."

"...concern was rising that the convention was exceeding its delegated powers..."

That was not merely the "concern" for those in the Con Con, where doors were locked, gag orders were issued, and Rhode Island refused to attend. The criminals at the Con Con were exceeding their delegated powers. They had no authority to construct a National Government to replace the existing Federation. Congress, not a convention, was given that authority to alter the confederation, a power given by all the states unanimously, written into the Articles of that existing Confederation.



Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Elaboration is what I think must fill this vacuum. Objection, after all, is absent.

There is a silent minority.

There is a silent majority.

The fake government conflict (attributed to Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Washington, and other "Federalists") is this fictional, scary, obscene, immoral, mob seeking to gain sovereign power over the intelligent, moral, knowledgeable, privileged, aristocratic, and capable elite.

That is a cover-up.

The real battle is a power struggle over which process works better for one of two groups: 1. Everyone, 2. A Faction: a part of the whole that creates a profitable monopoly at the expense of the other parts: organized crime under the color of law.

When the process serves everyone rather than a faction then the process is based upon a principle known as the golden rule.

Example:
Abigail Adams to John Adams Braintree, Mass., March 31, 1776
"I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us. . . . "
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/files/2018/09/Documents-and-Debates-in-American-History-and-Government-Vol.-1-and-Vol.-2.pdf

When the process is made with malice aforethought to disenfranchise a segment of the population that pays all the costs for those making the disenfranchised incapable of affording the process, there is then a real need for deception.

People will not walk into a trap if they know better.

"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."

Repetition may help:

"...it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird..."

Deception only works on the deceived, and deception works against the deceivers when the targets of deception are not deceived.

The deceived are made to believe that the process is too complicated for average people to understand: justice is too costly.

Why then are people still asked to sit on juries?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.”

State sovereignty is proven as a fact when a State, not a National Government, can agree to join or unjoin, pay for, or not pay for, a voluntary mutual defense association (federation) under the common law. Individuals are represented by themselves, and the best way for the whole number of people (res-publica) to be represented is through trial by jury according to the common law. Electoral politics was known to be anti-democratic, and electoral politics was known to lead to oligarchy.

From the Federal Farmer, against the Con Con Con Job, who was a President of the United States of America when those states were Federated, which was before those states were Consolidated into one despotic oligarchy under summary justice "courts:"

"In the civil law process the trial by jury is unknown; the consequence is, that a few judges and dependant officers, possess all the power in the judicial department. Instead of the open fair proceedings of the common law, where witnesses are examined in open court, and may be cross examined by the parties concerned — where council is allowed, &c. we see in the civil law process judges alone, who always, long previous to the trial, are known and often corrupted by ministerial influence, or by parties. Judges once influenced, soon become inclined to yield to temptations, and to decree for him who will pay the most for their partiality. It is, therefore, we find in the Roman, and almost all governments, where judges alone possess the judicial powers and try all cases, that bribery has prevailed. This, as well as the forms of the courts, naturally lead to secret and arbitrary proceedings — to taking evidence secretly– exparte, &c. to perplexing the cause — and to hasty decisions: — but, as to jurors, it is quite impracticable to bribe or influence them by any corrupt means; not only because they are untaught in such affairs, and possess the honest characters of the common freemen of a country; but because it is not, generally, known till the hour the cause comes on for trial, what persons are to form the jury." Federal Farmer 15, January 18, 1788

And from democratic (real, not fraudulent) history:

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."

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

The slave traders, central banking frauds, warmongers, and assorted other criminals took over in 1789. It is never to late for an accurate accounting of the facts that matter.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"By art. 3. sect. 2. “the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States,” &c. What is here meant by equity? what is equity in a case arising under the constitution? possibly the clause might have the same meaning, were the words “in law and equity,” omitted. Cases in law must differ widely from cases in law and equity. At first view, by thus joining the word equity with the word law, if we mean any thing, we seem to mean to give the judge a discretionary power. The word equity, in Great Britain, has in time acquired a precise meaning — chancery proceedings there are now reduced to system — but this is not the case in the United States. In New-England, the judicial courts have no powers in cases in equity, except those dealt out to them by the legislature, in certain limited portions, by legislative acts. In New-York, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, powers to decide, in cases of equity, are vested in judges distinct from those who decide in matters of law: and the states generally seem to have carefully avoided giving unlimitedly, to the same judges, powers to decide in cases in law and equity. Perhaps, the clause would have the same meaning were the words, “this constitution,” omitted: there is in it either a careless complex misuse of words, in themselves of extensive signification, or there is some meaning not easy to be comprehended. Suppose a case arising under the constitution — suppose the question judicially moved, whether, by the constitution, congress can suppress a state tax laid on polls, lands, or as an excise duty, which may be supposed to interfere with a federal tax. By the letter of the constitution, congress will appear to have no power to do it: but then the judges may decide the question on principles of equity as well as law. Now, omitting the words, “in law and equity,” they may decide according to the spirit and true meaning of the constitution, as collected from what must appear to have been the intentions of the people when they made it. Therefore, it would seem, that if these words mean any thing, they must have a further meaning: yet I will not suppose it intended to lodge an arbitrary power or discretion in the judges, to decide as their conscience, their opinions, their caprice, or their politics might dictate. Without dwelling on this obscure clause, I will leave it to the examination of others."
Federal Farmer XV
January 18, 1788

That is Richard Henry Lee against the Con Con Con Job of 1787, and against the use of words deceptively, especially when the perpetrators of this type of fraud (then known as "construction") are claiming to be in favor of a federal (voluntary association for mutual defense) government. Richard Henry Lee was the 6th President of the actual federal government before the criminals took over.

As to the meaning of the first amendment, it is a right for the people who are victims of criminal governments (tyranny) for them to put those criminals on trial: that is the meaning of the first amendment, as demonstrated by the Declaration of Independence.

As soon as the criminals extorted or bribed "RAT-ification" of their slave trading, summary justice, "Constitution," they - the criminals - went to work building their summary justice court system of extortion with their Judiciary Act of 1789. They did that before amending their slave trading "Constitution," with the very poorly written Bill of Rights. When I judge the writing of the Bill of Rights as a poor job, it is appraised according to moral principle, such as the truth setting people free, rather than lies making criminals rich, as criminals subsidize their slave business.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/11/americans-identified-address-alone/#comment-5309

"Prior to this citizenship was decided upon at the state level."

Is that true or merely a lie to keep up appearances and cover-up the actual accurate accounts of the facts that matter?

When they consolidated the states into one Nation State in 1789, turning the organic, grass-roots United States of America into a corporation, a profitable monopoly, called the United States, it was done so as to extract all the wealth from anyone who produced anything worth stealing. This is a fact and those who refuse to see it do so at the peril of everyone, including posterity.

An Act providing for the enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States.
"SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That each and every person more than sixteen years of age, whether heads of families or not, belonging to any family within any division of a district made or established within the United States, shall be, and hereby is, obliged to render to such assistant of the division, a true account, if required, to the best of his or her knowledge, of all and every person belonging to such family respectively, according to the several descriptions aforesaid, on pain of forfeiting twenty dollars, to be sued for and recovered by such assistant, the one half for his own use, and the other half for the use of the United States. "
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1790_Census_Act.pdf

How can the criminals extract every dime from every producer if they do not tag each one, account precisely for each one, and pay their minions half of the take once the extortion payments start rolling in?

How do people buy these lies these days? I don't get it. The same people who make sure every single productive cent is taxed, and collected, just so happen to be the same people who forget where trillions of dollars were collected, or merely added by bookkeeping ledger entry, and stored for safekeeping or malinvestment?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Founding documents? How can you publish that with a straight face? Perhaps it is published with tongue firmly n cheek?

There is a Declaration of Independence which enumerates the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the worst criminal running the worst criminal organization that was then on the planet earth. OK, got that one.

There is no mention of the Independent State Constitutions (one state had no constitution: their law was in their collective memory), nor is there any mention of the Articles of Confederation that served and protected well enough to drive off the worst criminal army of aggression for profit that was then on the planet. Why not mention the State Constitutions, the Bills of Rights in State Constitutions, the common law, trial by jury, trial by the country? Too wordy?

Then the slave trading Constitution is hoisted as a "founding" document? The same "constitution" that claims, in no uncertain terms, that anyone found to be resisting government tyranny will be crushed, and everyone will be made to pay for crushing out anyone failing to obey without question.

So by this confusing logic what constitutes a "founding" document?

Is a founding document the same "founding" document that afforded the central bankers all the leverage they needed to enforce their central banking fraud, and the extortion hidden as a tax required to create the demand for the central bank counterfeit money?

That is a founding document?

The founding document is also the order, to be obeyed without question, that subsidizes the crime of African Slavery? That is a founding document?

What is being founded?

The Bill of Rights that supposedly amended the subsidizing slave trading deal, on the other hand, was categorically opposed to the tyrannical Con Con of 1787, so what is being founded in these opposing documents?

What is being founded but a despotic sandwich with meat in the middle carved from liberty lovers who dared to be the bread?


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

What does that say? Anyone care to explain?


"15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"


What does that say, exactly? Care to offer an example of what that means: exactly?


"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Anyone? Does anyone think anymore?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"From a biblical perspective, arming one for spiritual warfare is an essential daily task to prevent being captured by the temptations we face every day and spiritually arming ourselves every day is necessary to help to safely deliver us from the evils all of us face in our lives."


I think that there is a sound basis for all law in Mathew 7:12: the golden rule. The opposite of law, therefore, is for people to do unto others what they themselves would defend against were someone to do it to them. That clearly expresses the moral difference, or lawful difference if the law is, in fact, based on morality, between aggression, with malice aforethought, and defense.

This goes deeper when considering Proverbs 4:14-17, where it is explained in no uncertain terms that an immoral choice, such as aggression upon the innocent, consumes the aggressor as well as the target of aggression: adding more reason to both sides of the Golden Rule.

In our American history is the following from the first congress, while the British were perpetrating war of aggression for profit: rioting in the blood of the innocent:

"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:

"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

How is that not clearly the same message offered in Mathew 7:12, the Golden Rule, and what amounts to the opposite of the Golden Rule which is Proverbs 4:14-17? What mental gymnastics, what lies that create a web of deceit, are required to fail to see a simple truth?

A voluntary association for mutual defense, which is in itself a benefit, which includes the power required to defend against any aggressor, is the law of the land, at least in America at the start of British aggression.

When Americans are led into an involuntary association, on the other hand, such as subsidizing African slavery, solving the so-called Indian problem with the extermination of those tribes, a predictable war to wipe out any remaining freedom loving, liberty loving people, falsely called a Civil War, on, and on, and on, consuming all moral knowledge in the wake of the march toward an American Empire, modelled after the British Empire, complete with summary justice courts, usurping rule of law, and complete with central banking fraud, with the required extortion methods hidden as tax - when Americans are led or forced by deceit, forced by threat of aggressive violence, and forced by torturous and horrifying examples of aggressive violence - to take the path of involuntary association for mutual destruction, instead of voluntary association for mutual defense, then we all go down with that ship like rats: the same rat smell Patrick Henry publicized for our benefit, or for our choice to ignore the warning, and proceed hell bent on the rat cage path.

If people refuse to see simple truths and are led instead to borrow the complex findings of so-called authorities that concern our temporal salvation, what can be expected? The law of the land, which is something every functioning adult can comprehend, is our power to defend ourselves with a tried and true process that has worked for thousands of years, is gone, and lost for as long as people refuse to see a simple truth.

So far from the law America, and thereby Americans, have become, in point of fact, the majority of even the remaining so-called Liberty Lovers, Patriots, etc., are card-carrying Nationalists bent on Empire Building, and claiming they are in the right, which is the precise opposite of well-established laws based upon facts.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"This is a national issue and must be fought on that level, with everyone having a part in it."

Is that true, can that statement be held to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter? Does that statement suggest that it is National Interest that is at stake, and therefore, in that name, that name of National Interest, something must be done to protect the National Interest?

At the times, and in the places (localities, meaning all law is local), where actual law power was exercised for the people, of the people, and by the people, it was, therefore, demonstrated that the interest at stake was the whole people's interest, not the National Interest.

An example is provided in the history of the process known as democracy, which is not the modern, false, claim that democracy is so-called Mob Rule. Democracy was, and is, people volunteering to be the government themselves, not people obeying, without question, whatever someone claiming to speak for the National Interest must be obeyed or else.

When the interest is the people themselves, as a whole, not a legal fiction such as a Nation with a National Interest, the government is said to be a republic: the public thing is the meaning of the Latin word respublica, from which the English word republic is derived.

In American history the local populations from all over the country formed local common law counties, common law states, which were said to be Nations, and each Nation was an experiment in democracy, the size of each Nation proved to be instructive concerning which size of which democratic republic, or nation state, was a workable size, not too big, not too small, and some Nation State governments began granting access to land because their nation state was too big for a national government, and for other reasons.

Rhode Island was not one of the nation states that were too big. Some nation states grew despotic, while other nation states accepted, protected, and provided the benefits of a sanctuary for runaway slaves, who were merely people willing and able to defend their natural born rights to live and let live, just like the veterans of the Revolutionary War.

Daniel Shays, for example, ran from a despotic turning Massachusetts to Vermont, which proves beyond reasonable doubt, that a federal voluntary association for mutual defense works to maintain experiments in democracy, which is the same thing as saying a free market of government services, to be paid for by voluntary contribution, or not. Daniel Shays was a Revolutionary War veteran.

Someone profiting off of the government monopoly, or despotism, in Massachusetts could have claimed that it was a Federal issue, for their profitable monopoly was threatened by Revolutionary War veterans who thought that the Revolution has been lost in Massachusetts, and that war profiteer in Massachusetts could have also claimed that it was a federal issue that the runaway slave named Daniel Shays must be returned to slavery in Massachusetts, for the sake of the nation state Massachusetts, and for the sake of the federation of independent nation states. Someone in Massachusetts, in command of the despotic nation state in Massachusetts, would have no cause to claim that the federation was one single Nation-State, and anyone found running away from slavery in one state would be required by the National government, in the national interest, to return the runaway slave to the slavers, or else.

So...just exactly what is the current threat to liberty threatening everyone in every county in every single state in America, and why do those threats in those localities represent a National Interest? Are the slaves threatening to stop aiding and abetting the slavers who run their slave business from a foreign corporation located in the District of Columbia? Does that district actually exists, or is it too just a legal fiction?

What might one of the federalists, who was a democrat and a republican, say about legal fictions? Don't ask the slavers, the slavers would call the federalists anti-federalist, and those same slavers would call a patriot an insurgent. Well, you can listen to the slavers if you like, but they lie as a rule. If they did not lie, as a rule, their human trafficking businesses couldn't be subsidized by the slaves, the slaves would know better than to dig their own graves to hell when told to do so with a smile on their faces, or else.

I'd like to know the official facts, but that would require a trial by jury, a trial by the country, so that the people themselves, through their trial jury, can speak as one, so as to establish a fact that matters to everyone, rather than create a falsehood that matters to special interests, like slavers, who create legal fictions like National Interests.

National Interest:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/


The above caused an idea to develop concerning two comparative processes:

Private and Public demarcation lines, such as the explanation for the Civil (private) and Criminal (public) demarcation lines offered in Roger Roots work titled: Conviction Factory.

Is it also a Private and Public demarcation line when, and where, a local government is dependent on local powers to maintain peace through justice, and as the other localities, other counties, other states, a federation of states, and foreign states, or foreign federations of states, or world federations of states foreign to each other, and the same world federation federating federations of states foreign to each other, are - larger bodies of people are - dependent upon the capacity of the local powers to maintain peace through justice in that locality: what happens if the threats to peace through justice in the locality is beyond the capacity of the local government, and the internal threat is exported?


Roger Roots, The Conviction Factory, Chapter 4 Are Cops Constitutional, page 41:

"Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that crimnal claims ostensibly involved an interest in the public at large as well as the victim."


That statement in that book was referrence with a source: Respublica v Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa 1790) (involving action by private individual seeking public sanction for his prosecution)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/112/

"Leave having been granted; on the motion of Serjeant, to file an information against the defendant, one of the Justices of the Peace for Chester County, it became a question, whether the information should be drawn, filed and prosecuted by the Attorney General, or by the party at whose instance it was awarded.

"The Attorney General (Bradford) objected, that it is not the duty of the Attorney General to draw and file this information. It must, indeed, be in the name of the commonwealth, and the prosecutor may make use of the name of the officer, who prosecutes for the State: But there is in England a known and established distinction, between informations filed by the Attorney General, and those filed by him at the relation of a private person, in the name of the master of the crown office. The former are always filed ex officio; and the Court will not, upon motion of the Attorney General, give him leave to file an information against any person. 3 Burr. 1812. They cannot be quashed on motion of the prosecutor. Dougl. 227. nor is the prosecutor liable for costs. But informations, at the relation of private persons, are in a great measure private suits. They are moved for and conducted, not by the officers of the Crown, but by counsel employed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is, in many cases, liable to costs. 3 Burr. 1270. 1305. The Court will not grant it where the prosecutor appears unworthy. Burr. 548. 869. And on a motion for an information for a libel, oath must be made of the falsity of the charges contained in the libel, a circumstance quite immaterial, where the prosecution is wholly on the part of the public. The prosecutor, therefore, ought to be at the expence and employ his own counsel, in this proceeding, in which he is really interested. If it be the duty of the Attorney General to file this information, it is his duty to prosecute it also.

"No informations (except those qui tam) have hitherto been filed in Pennsylvania; and it is of consequence to settle this point. No fees are provided for the duty, in the bill of fees, and the Attorney General ought not, on this occasion, to be considered as the mere drawer of an information, for which he is not to be paid, and with the future prosecution of which he has nothing to do.

"Page 2 U.S. 112, 113

"By the Court: The objection is reasonable and just. But, pro forma, the Attorney General must allow his name to be used by the prosecutor."

qui tam action
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1709

": (kwee tam) n. from Latin for "who as well," a lawsuit brought by a private citizen (popularly called a "whistle blower") against a person or company who is believed to have violated the law in the performance of a contract with the government or in violation of a government regulation, when there is a statute which provides for a penalty for such violations. Qui tam suits are brought for "the government as well as the plaintiff." In a qui tam action the plaintiff (the person bringing the suit) will be entitled to a percentage of the recovery of the penalty (which may include large amounts for breach of contract) as a reward for exposing the wrongdoing and recovering funds for the government. Sometimes the federal or state government will intervene and become a party to the suit in order to guarantee success and be part of any negotiations and conduct of the case. This type of action is generally based on significant violations which involve fraudulent or criminal acts, and not technical violations and/or errors."



Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Once the concerns about a perpetual body that would assume the characteristics of an aristocracy were somewhat alleviated, the convention then settled on the method of the first senate election. Providing for a rotation that would leave many sitting senators in office would prevent the loss of institutional memory and process."

Once again a meeting of the minds of aristocrats is the crime scene being commented upon in the quote above, and once the assembled aristocrats have somewhat alleviated their concerns over their aristocratic senate being aristocratic, they then moved on to other concerns.

They had more than a few opponents show up to the fraudulent, secret, meeting. How could the aristocrats avoid having plebeian lowlifes show up to their secret meeting when they had to advertise their secret meeting? The aristocrats forming an aristocracy advertised their secret meeting with a call to all governing members of independent states, or at least calling upon the aristocrats in those independent states, calling for some alterations to the agreement. Those are the states formed by agreement into a voluntary mutual defense association. The same agreement that was made so as to form a federation is the agreement that did not afford the governors of the federation arbitrary power. The agreement did not give anyone the power to use the power given to exceed the power given, to arbitrarily replace the agreement with a counterfeit version of an agreement. The strict boundaries of power given in the agreement did not include the power to arbitrarily replace the agreement with something disagreeable such as arbitrary government.

The aristocrats advertised the need to assemble so as to fix, to alter, to improve, to adjust, or to amend the existing federation. That was the federation that was in power when that federal power, made up of all those free minded liberty lovers, and some very powerful aristocrats, drove out the largest invading army for profit that was then running amok, rioting in the blood of the innocent, on the planet Earth: a belligerent, arbitrary, criminal aristocracy, operating under the color of law.

The assembled aristocrats did not advertise their intent to remove and replace the federation, replacing the federation with absolute power in their aristocratic hands. That type of advertisement, a true account of their aristocratic intentions, would spill the beans. So some of the plebs, or aristocrats attempting to represent plebs, showed up to do some fixing: to improve the existing federation of independent states formed into a voluntary mutual defense association, and those representatives who showed up to improve the voluntary federation were in for a rude awakening.

Those in opposition were gagged, the plebes were gagged. The gag order was in place because witnesses (representatives not representing aristocrats) at the crime scene are inspired to inform the intended victims of their pending enslavement: spilling the beans. If the gag order does not work, what are aristocrats inspired to do? Shoot the messenger! Dead men tell no tails, just ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finicum.

Gag orders no longer work?

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
Luther Martin, Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787
http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up

We were all taught that important message in plebe school, right?

As to the aristocratic Senate:

"The senators will represent sovereignties, which generally have, and always ought to retain, the power of recalling their agents; the principle of responsibility is strongly felt in men who are liable to be recalled and censured for their misconduct; and, if we may judge from experience, the latter will not abuse the power of recalling their members; to possess it, will, at least be a valuable check."
Federal Farmer, LETTER XI.
JANUARY 10, 1788.
Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled)
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/federal-farmer-an-additional-number-of-letters-to-the-republican/

Senators representing a profitable monopoly, aristocrats representing their aristocracy, are not the same thing as senators representing independent states or independent people.

If the Independent States (sovereign states) were in fact sovereign, then they could pay for, or not pay for, a stake at the table where governors govern the voluntary mutual defense association: federation. If it is an entirely different government, not a federation, one that is covertly put in place, then the governors governing the profitable monopoly will demand payments from all their slaves: or else. Don't even think about complaining. Sovereigns can hire or fire their employees at will, or they will not be sovereigns. Aristocrats issue gag orders, and shoot messengers, or they will fail to maintain their aristocracy.

"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." A Farmer, New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

Aristocrats are interested in preserving their slave trade that has many forms, how does one become an aristocrat after all?

The so-called aristocrats, claiming to alter, adjust, or fix the existing federation (their source of authority that gave no authority to remove and replace the federal government) were in fact perpetrating the crime of treason: they went outside the law that gave them authority, and they replaced the voluntary mutual defense association with a profitable monopoly, including the subsidizing of their African Slave trade with a National Tax which also creates the demand for their Central Bank Fraud, and to ensure their aristocratic ability to make war on any people in any state who dare to run away from their slavery, and to ensure that the aristocrats in command of their aristocracy fund their power to make their targets pay for the cost of the war on the people, that National Tax serves that interest too.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

How's that for a declaration of dependence?

Damn history repeats for obvious, predicted, reasons.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"It is an indisputable truth: election fraud is a pillar of democrat party activism. What is unclear is why no Congress and no Attorney General has ever taken the initiative to guarantee our right to be fairly counted in the process designed to preserve our freedom and our power over government."

I think that is the wrong hoax. The worst hoax facing free people isn't that one faction is guilty of serious felony crimes concerning vote tampering, nor is it the most serious hoax that supposedly the other faction isn't guilty of serious felony crimes associated with the failure to hold guilty felony criminals to account for crimes associated with vote tampering.

The hoax is to believe the lie that voting for your favorite dictator to sit atop the dictatorship is in any way going to accomplish anything other than maintaining dictatorship: slaves voting for their own slavery, and paying dearly for it. Just ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finnicum.

The vote that counts to maintain a free society in liberty is the vote that accounts for the criminals in government: holding them to account for their crimes. Since that vote has been successfully crushed out of our collective memory, in all but a few cases (see the Bundy persecutions for example), the dictatorship will be perpetual, so long as the people fall for this voting hoax.

"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."
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

"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, 1787

"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, Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Another Piece of paper published for public consumption.

Since it is a felony to tamper with voting, or infringe upon the right to be armed, or infringe upon the right to communicate just how criminal the criminals in government have become, then it is the law, and not a counterfeit imposter, that those criminals must be arrested by us, because we are the government. We the people, or one of our actual representatives, not an imposter, must arrest those criminals, and those criminals must be tried by a jury of their peers in the locality where the alleged crime is alleged to have occurred, and face accurate accountability in a trial by the whole people, a common law jury trial through which the trial juries actually represent the whole people: not imposters. If we are not the government, then it is a hoax to keep believing we are anything other than subjects subjected to dictators running the dictatorship.

The peaceful revolution cannot proceed based upon a hoax.

"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function").
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were the aristocratic faction that created a government of factions, so quoting them is ironic.

Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13 Luther Martin:

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

Patrick Henry, Monday, June 9, 1788:

"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."

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."

A Farmer, 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."

A voluntary association of independent people in independent states does not inspire factions to fight each other over the control of something checked by the people themselves, through their trial by jury system: rule of law. A subsidized slave business, a fraudulent form of government, a corporate nation state with absolute power to extract whatever is desired from anyone who can produce anything worth taking, is an obvious prize for factions. Absolute power, arbitrary power, is the prize sought after by factions. Factions operating despotic governments include: aristocrats (Adams), banking frauds (Alexander Hamilton), warmongers (George Washington), all those profiting from the slave trade, and other sorted criminal gangs. Factions will be inspired to fight for control of arbitrary power, when arbitrary power is created and in place, and factions will use any means necessary to achieve their goal.

Actual history is useful for voluntary mutual defense. False history is useful for one faction gaining power over their targeted victims: under the color of law.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I would like to know a lot of things, so I ask questions, and I keep looking for accurate answers. This is a case in point, as to what might prove? the validity of the statement repeated now: "I think the voters may have opened the door to rising against that theory by electing Donald Trump. All indications so far are that his only objective for taking that office is to work for the betterment of the people and the strength of our nation."

The proof required might not be the same proof to me as to anyone else, but I can offer a possible proof concerning the goodness of Trump as President of the Nation State: which is a profitable monopoly serving the few, at the expense of the many by design.

If Trump honors his campaign promise concerning the crimes alleged against Hillary Clinton, and if there is an actual trial according to the common law, as the law that gives Trump power states (in so many words that can mean just about anything imaginable), then the proof of the goodness of Trump would be available for anyone to read in those court trial transcripts generated during those trials that were promised by Trump, so as to elect Trump, giving power to Trump, such as the power to do his actual job: protect and serve the American people, not protect and serve criminals in government.

There are a few trial transcripts that illustrate this point, such as the Conspiracy Murder Trial of Martin Luther King Jr. A trial like that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Nation State is guilty of conspiracy murder, and since none of the perpetrators were ever put on trial, the Nation-State fails an indisputable mandate.

"7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

...be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law...

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

...shall hold their Offices during GOOD Behaviour...

"3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

In all that legalese above are words that constitute an obvious, undeniable, mandate, a self-evident truth if you will.

If the worst criminals are doing the most damage while occupying government offices, such as conspiracy murder, or aggressive war for profit, or ignoring those crimes while it is your job to prosecute those criminals, then proof of the goodness of someone occupying the highest government office in a Nation-State profitable monopoly would be that the said President would hold the worst criminals to account in the lawful way, according to the law of the land, which supposedly gives that President the authority to do anything while that individual occupies that public office.

A benevolent dictator may not be better than no dictator, but a benevolent dictator is certainly better than a malevolent one: see for example Marcus Aurelius.

"The best revenge is not to be like your enemy."

What constitutes proof of the benevolence of Trump in anyone else's mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud76oHQ9HWU

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
3 things may be worth knowing when one faction is attempting to regain ground lost to another faction in an immoral battle to gain arbitrary power.

1. The 5 monkey experiment. Look it up.
2. A much better path is a moral path.
3. Learn the much better path, and perhaps you might adopt it, instead of perpetually peddling the hamster wheel.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.​"
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

A competitive wording of the same message (albeit in a different form) is found here:

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."​
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins​

As to the National Propaganda Ministry (Public Education):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Time: 2:35
Civil War in America 2.0
"Is what we think we're seeing real?"
"Is there historical precedence to gauge?"
"How can we look at the current situation in our country and say: yea I think there is a high probability of a civil war coming.?"

Time: 22:31
"It is not going to be like the Civil War...North and South..."
"Probably more like Ireland..."
"...more like the Balkans."

Time: 26:51
Host reading from an article:
"This is the latent pre-insurgency indicators of an attempted coup or regime change or to otherwise alter and change your government unlawfully, but they're using our constitution and our freedoms to hide behind to allow them to openly operate."

Words can be accurate words that mean the same thing to everyone, which is based upon the principle of agreement. If someone says night, and everyone agrees that the meaning of the word is the opposite of day, then like a carpenter asking for a specific length of wood, the effort to communicate accurately is accomplished from one individual to all the other individuals who may need to know the facts that matter. Is it day or night? How much are you willing to bet that the government is going to tell the truth?

Civil War:
a war between citizens of the same country

country:
a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory

The aggressive war for profit perpetrated by the British against the former British Colonies was called a Revolutionary War, not a Civil War.

The former colonies were formed into sovereign countries, each agreed to abide by the common laws of free people, which include certain rights, like the right to hold the people in government to account, as demonstrated, and as exemplified, in a Declaration of Independence, or a declaration of mixed war. When the people in government declare war on the people, that warmongering government is no longer a government of the people, as that government thereby breaks the agreement that was made in order for that government to become the government of the people.

First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled 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:

"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

One country became criminal and that country was called Britain, it was, and still is, a Corporate Nation State, complete with a functioning central bank extortion racket: a despotic, criminal, government. That country of criminals persecuted a war of aggression on free people in America, people who declared something self-evident on the official records: we are born free, we are not your property to dispose of as you please; thanks, but no thanks.

That was not called a Civil War, for obvious reasons.

What was Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1787?

This may help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

Why would anyone call the pogrom in 1861-1865 a Civil War? What would be the reason for choosing the term Civil War to describe 2 independent, sovereign, Nation States, slaughtering each other's slaves? I call it a culling of the slave population, so as to keep the slaves from any further revolutionary ideas. You can use the false term Civil War as you please.

A country can only be so big before a country becomes despotic, for obvious reasons.

The last battle of the Revolutionary War was fought in Massachusetts, and it is a useful battle for anyone who cares to know what may happen in any country sized area, such as a State, in America. When the government in a country-sized area turns despotic, enslaving the people through central bank extortion racketeering, and other despotic means, the people in history who fought against such crimes serve posterity, if people who constitute posterity care to look.

If it is a federation of states under the common law, then the criminals in government can be prosecuted by the people, through independent grand jury indictments, and trial by the country, which is trial by jury according to the common laws of free people. If it isn't a federation of states under the common law, then the following has already happened:

"This is the latent pre-insurgency indicators of an attempted coup or regime change or to otherwise alter and change your government unlawfully, but they're using our constitution and our freedoms to hide behind to allow them to openly operate."

That whistle was blown loud and clear in 1787:

"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."
Luther Martin reporting inside the first Con Con Con Job.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"You will still be taxed. You will still go to war."

The aristocratic vote, or electoral politics vote, was known (once upon a time) to be anti-democratic, and thereby anti-republican, but that was before a whole lot of brainwashing done to many generations of slaves.

Some exceptions, such as Ron Paul, prove the fallacy that politics, as a rule, must be bad, or even that all men are bad.

The vote that counts, if people are to rule themselves as one, is the votes made by the volunteers as the volunteers face those who are clear and present dangers to peace in a perishable liberty.

Deception is a very powerful force.

"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."

"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

"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?"
George Mason against the Constitution of 1787

Page 40
Private Prosecutors
Roger Roots book The Conviction Factory:

"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 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."

How much brainwashing was done in order to convince (con) the people into believing their costly defense of rule of law (common law with trial by jury) during the Revolutionary war was instead a war to copy the British model of Empire Building through subsidized slavery, enforced and funded with central banking fraud, and extortion claimed to be a tax in the National Interest? Even a modern-day patriot, like Roger Roots, is apparently unaware of the fact that the Consolidated Nation State was the beginning of the end of American free market government: freedom defended by volunteers, using common laws of free people, in a perishable, but effectively defended liberty.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The point about learning the past is not simply to avoid repeating past mistakes, there is another point behind learning the past. The past provides a number of rules to follow that preserve the power required to defend against certain relentless evils.

Example:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

The evil exposed in that historical study is this evil whereby people use the truth, and distort that truth, so as to make the truth something opposite of what the truth is: to make something beneficial to mankind, and to turn that benefit into our living hell instead.

The ability to use accurate accountability so as to stop criminal aggression in its tracks, for the moment, is exemplifed as recently in the trial of the Bundy family, whereby the whole country of free people (a country is a locality, not a "nation state"), set the Bundy family free: momentarily. What is missing in that case is the same power of the whole people used aggressively on the aggressors.

It is a moral duty to aggressively hold the guilty to an accurate accounting: do so speedily, do so to save current victims from further harm, and do so to prevent, deter, and help save future criminals from further evil they choose on their own volition. All that is voluntary, none of that enslaves anyone.

"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."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury

The truth has lasted for thousands of years, aiding to save everyone, through accurate accountability, despite some serious evil powers, and that is worth knowing, as proven by this recent Bundy family victory: in a war that will always continue, a war with falsehood at least: so learn better from worse, it isn't that hard to do.

Look in the following 3 examples, look deep.

1. Declaration of Independence

2. Common law solemn notice of mixed war

3. Common difference in how peaceful, innocent, people treat prisoners, and how in direct opposition evil people confess their malvolence when dealing with slaves (prisoners).

Help to the needy:

"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."
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

"9.2 - Escalation
Further:
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."
https://www.scribd.com/document/258949166/The-Uniform-Bonding-Code-doc

To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king: The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war — a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their , success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.

That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.

Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Lcrge and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry.
https://books.google.com/books?id=KGRAr04iwxUC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=To+the+officers+and+soldiers+in+the+service+of+the+king+of+Great+Britain,+not+subjects+of+the+said+king:+The+citizens+of+the+United+States+of+America+are+engaged+in+a+just+and+necessary+war+%E2%80%94+a+war+in+which+they+are+not+the+only+persons+interested.+They+contend+for+the+rights+of+human+nature,+and+therefore+merit+the+patronage+and+assistance+of+all+mankind.+Their+,+success+will+secure+a+refuge+from+persecution+and+tyranny+to+those+who+wish+to+pursue+the+dictates+of+their+own+consciences,+and+to+reap+the+fruits+of+their+own+industry.++That+kind+Providence,+who+from+seeming+evil+often+produces+real+good,+in+permitting+us+to+be+involved+in+this+cruel+war,+and+you+to+be+compelled+to+aid+our+enemies+in+their+vain+attempts+to+enslave+us,+doubtless+hath+in+view+to+establish+perfect+freedom+in+the+new+world,+for+those+who+are+borne+down+by+the+oppression+and+tyranny+of+the+old.+Considering,+therefore,+that+you+are+reluctantly+compelled+to+be+instruments+of+avarice+and+ambition,+we+not+only+forgive+the+injuries+which+you+have+been+constrained+to+offer+us,+but+we+hold+out+to+your+acceptance+a+participation+of+the+privileges+of+free+and+independent+states.+Lcrge+and+fertile+tracts+of+country+invite+and+will+amply+reward+your+industry.&source=bl&ots=cl3KC326W6&sig=Et1-NN-YXQB2GyEHdqQR4qkBs4k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs382d7eDeAhUkqlQKHWXRDaIQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=To%20the%20officers%20and%20soldiers%20in%20the%20service%20of%20the%20king%20of%20Great%20Britain%2C%20not%20subjects%20of%20the%20said%20king%3A%20The%20citizens%20of%20the%20United%20States%20of%20America%20are%20engaged%20in%20a%20just%20and%20necessary%20war%20%E2%80%94%20a%20war%20in%20which%20they%20are%20not%20the%20only%20persons%20interested.%20They%20contend%20for%20the%20rights%20of%20human%20nature%2C%20and%20therefore%20merit%20the%20patronage%20and%20assistance%20of%20all%20mankind.%20Their%20%2C%20success%20will%20secure%20a%20refuge%20from%20persecution%20and%20tyranny%20to%20those%20who%20wish%20to%20pursue%20the%20dictates%20of%20their%20own%20consciences%2C%20and%20to%20reap%20the%20fruits%20of%20their%20own%20industry.%20%20That%20kind%20Providence%2C%20who%20from%20seeming%20evil%20often%20produces%20real%20good%2C%20in%20permitting%20us%20to%20be%20involved%20in%20this%20cruel%20war%2C%20and%20you%20to%20be%20compelled%20to%20aid%20our%20enemies%20in%20their%20vain%20attempts%20to%20enslave%20us%2C%20doubtless%20hath%20in%20view%20to%20establish%20perfect%20freedom%20in%20the%20new%20world%2C%20for%20those%20who%20are%20borne%20down%20by%20the%20oppression%20and%20tyranny%20of%20the%20old.%20Considering%2C%20therefore%2C%20that%20you%20are%20reluctantly%20compelled%20to%20be%20instruments%20of%20avarice%20and%20ambition%2C%20we%20not%20only%20forgive%20the%20injuries%20which%20you%20have%20been%20constrained%20to%20offer%20us%2C%20but%20we%20hold%20out%20to%20your%20acceptance%20a%20participation%20of%20the%20privileges%20of%20free%20and%20independent%20states.%20Lcrge%20and%20fertile%20tracts%20of%20country%20invite%20and%20will%20amply%20reward%20your%20industry.&f=false

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The point about learning the past is not simply to avoid repeating past mistakes, there is another point behind learning the past. The past provides a number of rules to follow that preserve the power required to defend against certain relentless evils.

Example:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

The evil exposed in that historical study is this evil whereby people use the truth, and distort that truth, so as to make the truth something opposite of what the truth is: to reword a natural law beneficial to mankind and to turn that benefit into our living hell instead. Failing to account for deception as deception - as a rule - dooms the deceived to be controlled by that deception: a lesson worth knowing, it never loses validity not matter how much time passes.

The ability to use accurate accountability so as to stop criminal aggression in its tracks, for the moment, is exemplified recently in the trial of the Bundy family, whereby the whole country of free people (a country is a locality, not a "nation state") set the Bundy family free: momentarily. What is missing in that case is the same power of the whole people used aggressively on the aggressors: aggressively to hold the violent, criminal, aggressors to account for their crimes.

Aggression, in the context of a speedy trial, is not aggressive violence in the context of might somehow making right. There is a truth, and then in opposition to the truth there is a counterfeit version of the truth. Which is true? Is there a process by which people can agree to accurately discriminate the truth from the counterfeit versions of the truth, or is it good enough to just obey the "truth" in the form of orders that must be obeyed without question?

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
12/18/2003

It is a moral duty to aggressively hold the guilty to an accurate accounting: do so speedily, do so to save current victims from further harm, and do so to prevent, deter, and help save future criminals from further evil they choose on their own volition. All that is voluntary, none of that enslaves anyone.

"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."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury

The truth has lasted for thousands of years, aiding to save everyone, through accurate accountability, despite some serious evil powers, and that is worth knowing, as proven by this recent Bundy family victory: in a war that will always continue, a war with falsehood at least: so learn better from worse, it isn't that hard to do.

Look in the following 3 examples, look deep.

1. Declaration of Independence

2. Common law solemn recognition of mixed war

3. The polar opposite difference of how peaceful, innocent, people treat prisoners, and how in direct opposition evil people confess their malevolence when dealing with slaves (prisoners).

Help to the needy:

"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."
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

"9.2 - Escalation
Further:
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."
https://www.scribd.com/document/258949166/The-Uniform-Bonding-Code-doc

"To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king: The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war — a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their , success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.

"That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.

"Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry."
http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/secret%20journals%20of%20the%20acts%20and%20proceedings%20of%20congress%20-%20volume%201.pdf

"He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."
https://mises.org/library/generalissimo-washington-how-he-crushed-spirit-liberty

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together. (As to the lengthy writer in New-York you mention, I have attentively examined his pieces; he appears to be a candid good-hearted man, to have a good stile, and some plausible ideas; but when we carefully examine his pieces, to see where the strength of them lies; when the mind endeavours to fix on those material parts, which ought to be the essence of all voluminous productions, we do not find them: the writer appears constantly to move on a smooth surface, the part of his work, like the parts of a cob-house, are all equally strong and all equally weak, and all like those works of the boys, without an object; his pieces appear to have but little relation to the great question, whether the constitution is fitted to the condition and character of this people or not.)"
Federal Farmer (Richard Henry lee, 6th President of the actual Federation)
LETTER XIII.
JANUARY 14, 1788.

Can it be admitted by anyone today that the name took by the Nationalists was fake? I mean clearly as day is day and night is night the group that called themselves the Federalists were frauds, so why are people silent on this point?

If people want to know why there are Rinos today, these frauds today, then it might be a good idea to see for yourself, if you are interested at all in preserving a federation, defending a federation, in the federation interest, that something happened along the way to afford these frauds their ability to get away with treason.

Why is this at all hard to see? Why would the question be incapable of inspiring a reasonable response?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"American exceptionalism refers to the United States as a uniquely free nation based on personal liberty."

A free nation can be a legal fiction, a creation of a devious mind, or a common use of language to identify many people who share a common idea. The fiction in the honest use of language is in place to avoid having to name each accountable, responsible, individual: the fiction does not exist, it has no legs to stand on.

People are free, not legal fictions. This was the revolutionary idea. The devious idea is to blame something that does not exist, and thereby escape accountability.

Where once a king was said to be sovereign, the revolutionary idea instead was that individuals are all kings of their natural born prerogatives or rights. It was not a revolutionary idea to those born into freedom naturally. It was only a revolutionary idea to those who had been hoodwinked in the first place.

Where once a king could exercise privileges or hand privileges out to his chosen subjects, the revolutionary idea was that each individual was born into a kingdom that extended precisely to the door of each other's kingdom, all having equal access to the real law, all doing unto others precisely what they would have done to themselves. Each sovereign individual king agreed to have any territorial disputes laid before the whole people in a trial by the country if there was any trouble at all in negotiating a reasonable settlement otherwise. Everyone was afforded equal protection, equal access, to the affordable law power, on an equal footing, because that was the agreement, the law of the land.

The word country was a locality, a vicinage, a place in which the people were all in agreement, all agreeing to abide by the same revolutionary idea, and this idea wasn't hatched in America in 1776, it was an idea that goes back well before Magna Carta.

How about focusing on the word country? Not country in the context of music, not country in the context of cooking recipes. How about the word country in the context of who or what constitutes a fact at law in any matter affecting any individual any time and any place in an area whereby people agree by the law of that land? In what country are the people going to ask for unanimous consent of the whole country so as to settle any dispute worthy of the effort to pay for the settlement?

"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 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? "
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

The country is therefore established as the people themselves, in a locality, whereby the law of the land is maintained by those people in that locality, as those people follow a specified course of conduct, a course of conduct that has outlasted many different languages, and a course of action that predates common literacy.

A country in that context extends only so far as the people actually constitute that country. How far can someone afford to travel, to access trial by the country, and still be part of that country? To answer that it might be useful to consider how far is that long arm of that law: the place where the law is enforced by the people in that country.

If words have an agreeable meaning, then these words may help:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

The country is thereby stated as a district, and in this context the district, or country, agrees with the context of a locality, or the context of vicinage.

"Similar language was used in Virginia declaring that "trial by jury of the vicinage" was their birth-right."
The Constitutional Right to a Trial by a Jury of the Vicinage, Henry G. Connor, Department of Law, January, 1909
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6792&context=penn_law_review

People power, people as the government, the concept of sovereignty returning to the individual people, a revolutionary idea, and people power is checked by the unanimous whole people, in a vicinage, in any case of controversy, foreign or domestic, civil or criminal.

But there are wolves out there, and generally speaking, the naturally peaceful people resemble peaceful sheep. So sheep people in each vicinage have been known to voluntary associate, or federate, with people in a foreign, but neighboring, vicinage. A county, for example, federates with another, and another, and if all people in all counties are in agreement, there is then a constituting of a state or nation. Historically those people in those nations of federated areas have agreed to pay the fees to cover the costs of their mutual defense, which includes both jury duty and military duty when called upon. Historically those people have agreed to pay for (or refuse to pay for) their preferred voluntary mutual defense association, so long as the people elected to run the association remain in good behavior, subject to the law of the land, just like everyone else.

Jury duty and military duty can be taxing in a free family, or free church, or free corporation, or free district, or free county, or free vicinage, or free country, or free nation, or free state, or free federation of free states. How far is that long arm of that voluntary mutual defense association under that law of that land? It is only so far as the wolves are not extracting extortion payment to cover the costs of enslaving all those ignorant, powerless, sheep. A clue to the length of that long arm of that law is when those hired to maintain the peace murder innocent people, and the murderers avoid accountability for having murdered innocent people in the vicinage, the murderers actually claim to be above the law that they claim to be their source of authority.

That is a clue.

When the criminals take-over, as history proves over and over again, the criminals at each level of the pyramid scheme are obligated to obey every order to the letter without question or else; no trial by the country, no check on arbitrary power in the hands of one group (or 1 disguised as 2) with one individual group leader, no place to run, no place to hide, no law in that land at all, no law other than whatever those in power dictate at their exclusive pleasure. No law, and it costs a lot to keep the law at bay, and the criminals extract whatever they need to keep the law at bay, and they have been known to tell a few tall tails.

"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. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury

Returning to the demonstrably false claim (depending upon what words mean):

"American exceptionalism refers to the United States as a uniquely free nation based on personal liberty."

The consolidated Nation State created in 1789, a corporation based upon a legal fiction, is an arbitrary government that perpetually demonstrates its absolute power to extract whatever it pleases from the subjects of its demonic rule: it, being a legal fiction, having absolutely no accountability or responsibility. It, supposedly a free nation, did the precise opposite of what a free nation is obligated, in writing, to do: follow those laws required in order to maintain freedom in liberty.

The first exercise of arbitrary power claimed to be a law issued from a free nation is the subsidizing of African Slavery and the enforcement of that crime against all the people who actually stood up as free people against such terror. Terror that was thinly hidden behind absurd lies.

Of course the words “a free nation based upon personal liberty” can mean anything one minute, and precisely the opposite the next minute, depending entirely on the individual in command of their employment of language, accountable to that individual, as that individual is thereby responsible for that example of that employment of those words in that time and in that place.

Free speech can be taxing, so can shooting messengers, one is a responsibility, accountable to each individual, and free speech cannot be an intentional lie that causes injury to innocent people, and the other, the messenger shooting stuff, is yet another obvious, and ridiculous, criminal order claimed to be necessary in the National Interest of the exceptional free nation; and you sure as hell will get that bill too.

That all may sound brutal, but I wonder just how many brutalities will have to be endured by how many innocent people while so-called patriots continue to cover-up for this monstrosity created by fraud in 1789, despite factual accounting proving beyond doubt that this is not a free nation. If the idea is to know the meaning of the United States, a singular corporation, then free nation does not apply. If, on the other hand, there is interest in The United States (plural) of America as it was in congress assembled, a federation of free states, previous to the Con Con Con Job, then words ought to be agreeable, not intentionally confusing.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"How has this worked out for us?"

If the question is asked honestly, not deceptively, then the question ought to be specific, and not ambiguous. What exactly is the matter, what is "this"?

“Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
…..Deuteronomy

Parents reproduce with 6 children. The first is thrown in the pool as a method of teaching posterity how to swim. The parents witness the first drowning; a terrifying death. The parents wake-up to a new day with 5 children and they (both parents) appraise the following advice in this situation:

“History teaches us that history teaches us nothing”
…..Hegel
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”
…..Mark Twain

The parents take their remaining portion of collective posterity to a collective brain trust, a meeting of the minds, a local assembly of people in the local area where it has been discovered that many children are suddenly missing and evidence points to a possible ring of kidnappers, and these alleged kidnappers claim to be serving and protecting the collection of individuals collected into the collective brain trust this day.

Most everyone assembled at the collective assembly of people are people who just want to live and let live. The concern is many missing children, empty chairs at the dinner table, empty beds. Is this it? Is this the matter inspiring people to participate in the voting hoax?

Individuals at the brain trust break the dead silence with 3 forms of information offered to each individual in the brain trust of parents collected in concern for posterity.

1. Wait for election day, vote for a better leader of the collective.

2. Look into similar situations in the past, find possible solutions from the past whereby people in the past found solutions to similar problems, and also discover those actions that were taken in the past that not only failed every time to solve similar problems, but turned out to be the cause of similar problems every time this solution was tried, and think very hard before trying those past failed actions that always fail. Who in their right mind would expect those actions to solve the problem this time for the first time? Many do, for some strange, allegedly evil, reason.

3. Volunteer to investigate the available evidence to judge probable cause to indict individual alleged kidnappers who, according to the evidence found so far, are potentially guilty of kidnapping, and then offer the accused a method by which the accused can clear his name and reputation, or if guilty to redeem himself, and do these actions with discretion so as to minimize the potential harm done in any case where the evidence so far found, in this speedy trial, is inconclusive as to guilt or innocence. Volunteer also for jury duty to try such cases and vote according to your moral conscience as an individual representative of the whole country seeking remedy and defense of the innocent against the guilty, which matters in fact.

"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."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places."
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together. (As to the lengthy writer in New-York you mention, I have attentively examined his pieces; he appears to be a candid good-hearted man, to have a good stile, and some plausible ideas; but when we carefully examine his pieces, to see where the strength of them lies; when the mind endeavours to fix on those material parts, which ought to be the essence of all voluminous productions, we do not find them: the writer appears constantly to move on a smooth surface, the part of his work, like the parts of a cob-house, are all equally strong and all equally weak, and all like those works of the boys, without an object; his pieces appear to have but little relation to the great question, whether the constitution is fitted to the condition and character of this people or not.)"
Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican (Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled November 30, 1784, to November 22, 1785)

"How has this worked out for us?"

It hasn't, and that is the point, because the criminals took-over in 1789, turning the people power to govern ourselves with our common, moral, laws, and instead of the power of deterrence through accurate accountability there is an ever-growing army of sycophants clothed as patriots defending subsidized slavery enforced through kangaroo courts hidden behind a legal fiction: a pyramid scheme clothed with the mere color of law; the Emperor has no clothes.

"How has the preserved power defended US, We The People, against certain(?) relentless evils? What are those evils?"

Someone, perhaps unaware, perhaps playing a part such as the Devil's Advocate, offers the following question in the context of this voting hoax matter:

"What are those evils?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttT6FrMosBk

A mountain of evidence suggests that Human Trafficking is now a profitable monopoly, and the human traffickers are the same people extorting all that wealth precisely accounted for on (fake) Federal (National) Income Tax forms.

"Federal" Income Tax is a hoax, it is a necessary part of the recipe to maintain a central banking fraud. Taxes are enforced payments (extortion) of a single form of money, and so people are forced to work to get paid with that monopoly money which creates the demand for that monopoly money.

Once the demand is created the "Federal" Reserve does not need to collect any wealth through Taxation, since the "Federal" Reserve can merely add zeros to their bank account at will. They need to keep up appearances, so they keep the "Federal" Income Tax going, which is also very costly, which is also subsidized: you pay for that too. They create no wealth as they consume posterity and if that is not an example of evil, then who is doing the appraising?

"Unicorns and rainbows are one thing, reality kicks you in the teeth."

Moving to legitimate or rhetorical questions depending upon individual interpretation:

"How do we stop this cycle?"

We don't, you do, and if you don't, then other's must, or this cycle perpetuates.

"How do we prevent this from continuing?"

In the past, as shown, people assemble into grand juries, and the evidence of this is a mountain, but the mountain is not nearly as high as the mountain of lies that cover up the fake government, people have been rendered sheepish, or gang members, for some time.

"What is the replacement for this?"

This, if speaking about the fake federal government, is organized crime under the color of law, also known by many other names: despotism, corporatism, monarchy, oligarchy, empire, nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism, the list is as long as needed to keep the victims guessing, at each other's throats, and powerless in their own defense against it.

The replacement for any crime, including despotism, is rule of law, also known as equal protection under the law, and the foundation is simple, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, so if you want to foment violent aggression, then what can you expect in return?

A solemn recognition of mixed war is a common law (moral law common to all moral people) example of "what replaces" that which is now being discussed as a hoax: despotic electoral politics.

The simple answer, in sufficient detail, is that the hoax is replaced with a clearly defined, age-old, time-tested, and adaptive process that finds and employs the truth.

The problem is ubiquitous deception, the solution is for individuals to insist upon the truth, and it just so happens that, in truth, there is a method to accomplish that goal already on the books. Special thanks to people like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, Melancon Smith, Richard Henry Lee, and many other whistleblowers, and defenders of the truth, who offer the tried and true solution instead of fake government.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"The Bill of Rights assumes that the accuser, which is the state in all criminal matters, has so many resources at its disposal, that it does not need any assistance in order to even the playing field."

What information leads to that conclusion?

My suggestion to anyone who has also been lead by information (or experience) to that conclusion is to entertain the idea that information leading to that conclusion is patently false.

From a very important book titled The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots is the following relevant information:

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 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."

That is very important information for many reasons, not the least of which is to contend with this very obviously dangerous falsehood:

"The Bill of Rights assumes that the accuser, which is the state in all criminal matters, has so many resources at its disposal, that it does not need any assistance in order to even the playing field."

In a republic (the public thing) it is the business of everyone, by duty, meaning duty bound, to prosecute clear and present dangers to innocent people, which are thereby clear and present dangers to liberty, and anyone working for the government (the public thing) are there to assist in that duty, to nurture that duty, not prevent it.

So it is once again clue time for the clueless.

If all injuries done to all people all the time were no danger at all to the public as a whole (the public at large: the republic) then all interaction in that area, call it America, would be civil. All civil controversies, thereby, would be settled in a civil manner, as no one would escalate their conduct to such a degree as to endanger the public at large, turning their behavior into a clear and present danger to everyone, not just an alleged clear and present danger to one individual according to one individual, where those 2 individuals are in need of some nurturing concerning how best to settle a civil controversy in a civilized area where the main duty is to preserve the peace and protect everyone in the public thing: America.

But there are wolves out there, clear and present dangers to the public thing, which means clear and present dangers to innocent children on the playground, and so those wolves who escalate their behavior from civil to criminal behavior ought to be held to account: prosecuted with due process of law, called out before they turn criminal if possible, but called out rather than aid those criminals in their effort to keep their malevolence a secret.

The people are duty bound to prosecute, hell that is the definition of the word, at least according to the work by Roger Roots, a prosecutor is a private individual: not a legal fiction. A prosecutor is a private individual alerting everyone (the public) to dangers endangering everyone (the public thing), not a legal fiction in place to cover-up, protect, and serve, the criminals, to keep the public at large clueless.

So how long does it take to turn duty bound prosecutors, all of us in America, into compliant, ignorant, clueless, sheep; sheep sheared on a schedule to please the fake government wolves?

"The Bill of Rights assumes that the accuser, which is the state in all criminal matters, has so many resources at its disposal, that it does not need any assistance in order to even the playing field."

Time will tell, and there are still among us people who find out the truth, prosecuting the liars, and if the tide does turn back to something resembling a swamp draining, then the swamp creatures who speak for their legal fiction, but claim to speak for the public thing, will be replaced with demonstrations of the facts that matter through public trials for the actual public thing: the republic, with names named, crimes perpetrated, and remedies prescribed by our representatives in fact: trial juries.

That is what was demonstrated in the recent Bundy Family persecution (counterfeit) trials.

The fake government is on trial, for everyone to see, even the clueless can see if they decide to, as the fake government agents intend to use the fake government to silence those who dare to call out (prosecute) wolves in sheep's clothing.

Every step now taken by the fake government, to silence those who effectively prosecute the fake government (see for example Martin luther King Jr. and Lavoy Finicum), are now steps that expose the fake government for what the fake government is in fact.

Even as the fake government intends to silence private prosecutors (defendants according to the persecutors) in court, issuing gag orders on the targets of their persecutions, the people still manage to speak as one. The people still manage to speak as one body of truth finding people in some juries: see the Bundy Family, etc., case for example. Those carefully chosen to be on the jury (stacking a jury is a very serious crime), as clueless as they may or may not be, as well paid to look the other way as they may or may not be, or as fearful under extreme duress as they may or may not be suffering threats made by fake government agents, jurors still, to this day, serve the actual purpose of government, as the government has demonstrably turned into a criminal enterprise, as the fake government is on trial not the targets of their persecution.

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."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"This suggests that journalism has a higher calling, and a certain responsibility to the people, to be truthful and accurate. It is a noble calling to those that understand it, yet, in this day and age, few want nothing more than to wield power towards attaining their agenda."

Written words can be factual, and therefore moral, legal, lawful, peaceful, accurate, justified, right, productive, constructive, and the same applies to words transferred from individuals to the collective sum of individuals, by voice.

Written words can be willfully false, intending to harm innocent people, and therefore immoral, illegal, unlawful, disturbing the peace, inaccurate, unjustified, wrong, destructive, and again the same principle applies when the criminal words are spoken.

When the criminals take-over the law power they - as a rule - make it a crime to blow the whistle on the fact that the criminals have taken over the government.

The First Amendment to the criminal Constitution of 1789 (the African Slave Trade Subsidizing Constitution) was not an effort to give license to anyone, it was an effort to remind people that it is their duty to blow the whistle on criminals taking over the government: indict the criminals in government.

How can anyone hold criminals in government to account if everyone knows that they will be tortured or murdered for writing or speaking accurate accounts of just exactly which crimes are perpetrated by which individuals infesting criminal government: so-called tyranny?

2 examples out of many examples concerning what happens to those who do not keep their mouths shut when speaking publicly about criminals in government are Martin Luther King Jr. and Lavoy Finicum.

If an indictment can be exemplified then please consider entertaining the possibility that the Declaration of Independence is worth the effort to example in this light.

Of course the British Warmongering, Slave Trading, Central Banking Fraud criminals did not rubber stamp the Declaration of Independence as a legal indictment against themselves. The British criminals had made it the "law" that whatever they did was legal, including the enslavement of entire populations on earth, and anything anyone else did was potentially a capital crime resulting in torture for "confession," and then summary execution.

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

Page 3

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

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

People, on their own authority, seek the facts that matter, and those facts are published on the public record. Those inculpatory facts prove beyond reasonable doubt that the government is criminal. If said "government" hides under the desk, fearful of being tortured, murdered, or fired for not protecting the criminal government from the victims (the so-called people), then the criminals in government confess the fact that they are in fact the criminals, at least to anyone who cares to know the truth. Either the individuals in government drain the swamp or they shoot the messengers. This is not rocket science. The public domain, the public record, is overflowing with indictable inculpatory evidence, to put the criminals in government on trial for their crimes. This is not news.

Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Lisa M. Kurcias
"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").

"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function").
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

People either constitute a total power (sum total of all the individuals that constitute the whole people: republic) that insists upon accountability in government (1st so-called Amendment) or people support (aid and abet) criminals in government.

There is no middle ground. There is no fence to sit on.


LETTER XIV.
JANUARY 17, 1788.
Richard Henry lee, 6th President of the United States of America before the criminals took-over the federation.

"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Why should we believe that Congress or citizens would magically follow new laws any more than present laws?"

Without the power to hold criminals in government to account for their treasonous and lesser seriously evil crimes, there is no law in America. In fact, the opposite is true as the so-called government is in place to extract all the wealth from anyone capable of producing it, and using that stolen loot to steal more loot.

"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 1st Edition
by William Watkins
https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037

Since 1789 the so-called "Federal" government (it is a fraud to call a National government a Federal government), which is not Federal, it is National - since 1789 - the fraudulent "government" has been in the business of protecting it's protection racket: plain old extortion when the Mob does it, and it is treason when the gang members get away with calling it the government.

So...the first Con-Con Con-Job in 1787 was falsely claimed to be for the people and falsely claimed to be an effort to alter the existing Federation of Independent States. The first Con-Con Con-Job was instead a deal made between central banking frauds, warmongers, and slave traders, and their intent was to counterfeit the law, and to counterfeit the counterfeit money needed to fund the counterfeit law. They did not alter the existing grass-roots, organic, federal agreement for mutual defense, they replaced it with a counterfeit.

The following is even more information applicable to the Con-Con Con-Job of 1787.

LETTER XIV.
JANUARY 17, 1788.
Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled before the criminals took over:
"It must be admitted, that men, from the monarch down to the porter, are constantly aiming at power and importance and this propensity must be as constantly guarded against in the forms of the government. Adequate powers must be delegated to those who govern, and our security must be in limiting, defining, and guarding the exercise of them, so that those given shall not be abused, or made use of for openly or secretly seizing more."

Slave Trade Deal of 1789 (U.S. Inc. Constitution):
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

The individual shall nevertheless be protected from indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to the counterfeit law of the land. The actual law of the land is the common law with people running independent Grand Juries and people deliberating in Trial Juries.

So...no we should not believe that magically people (who are the government) will magically follow new laws any more than we follow the law of the land.

"Why should we believe that Congress or citizens would magically follow new laws any more than present laws?"

People (so-called citizens) do not follow the law, as we do not form Grand Juries, and we do not form Trial Juries, because if we did then those treasonous criminals in office would know better than to abuse their power, the swamp would never have been filled up by criminals like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, or any who followed their criminal path.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
This "article" is fake news, it is written by an obvious - confessed - nationalist party member: a propagandist for the party.

The so-called first amendment is not a subsidized enforcement of deception, yet that is what is being told in this article. Those who are deceived by this type of deception - legalese - will be powerless to know better, but I write to those who maintain a concern for the facts that matter.

The propagandists for the nationalist party put their head together - evil brain trust - to pen the Bill of Rights to the Fake News Constitution of 1787. Anyone could have written a document that works efficiently to explain the natural right born into people as people communicate in their mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic: including liars in so-called public and private offices.

The right to speak - or document - crimes perpetrated by people in government, so as to then act on those accusations, by forming grand juries, and presenting the accused with a trial by jury according to the law of the land, which is the common law, is this natural born right to speak in our mutual defense.

To call this natural born right to speak - document for public consumption - in our own defense a freedom of the press is a hidden message, a message that speaks of corporatism, or financial collectivism. The press - trademarked - is one thing, while individual people forming a collection of individual people sharing a common goal is another thing. What if you cannot afford a printing press? Does that mean that only those who can afford a printing press have this natural born right to speak in our mutual defense? Only the rich and powerful are afforded this basic human right, because, well, they can afford it?

No one else can afford it?

Why not learn something worth learning instead of listening to this type of powerless, defenseless, propaganda? Why listen to this siren singing this song that is so adeptly aimed at keeping the slaves in place?

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

When the so-called left and the so-called right are universally ignorant then both parties will be taken over by evil people who represent only evil people, call them RINOS, or call them something more useful like the defendant.

Someone guilty of willfully - with malice aforethought - conspiring to start a war of aggression for profit - think Nazi here - while employing the so-called freedom of the press is someone guilty of a capital crime, a crime that is said to be eviler than all the other crimes: treason.

Treason is eviler than all the other crimes because treason removes the affordability of mutual defense commanded by the people who require that affordability for their mutual defense. Treason is eviler than all the other crimes because treason replaces rule of law with subsidized crime under the color of law.

The reason why the true law is so hard to see is the inculpatory evidence required for the people to see the true law. People have to get tired of their ignorance: First.

"...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

If people are so brainwashed as to trust the very people who have been perpetrating the worst evil for over 200 years, then the people are defenseless. It is that simple.

The true law affords everyone equal protection under it so that anyone can volunteer to be a member of an independent grand jury, and the most honest, discrete, people will populate that investigatory tool of the true law because we elect them for that vital work. The worst evil people would then be indicted for their crimes by those people on those grand juries, and those allegedly worst people would then face a trial by the people themselves, not a trial by the government. Out goes fake news and in place is voluntary mutual defense where the worst evil people are accounted for accurately: as accurately as is humanly possible.

"...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

No one in a criminal government, making their living covering up for their evil bosses, can be trusted to drain that swamp: it is ludicrous to think that such a farce could be possible.

The people themselves have the tools to fix any of these problems involving criminals in office. The people may learn about those tools, instead of listening to the songs of those propagandist sirens. If the people do learn about these tools then fake news is out, and in place is real news. Why would that be hard to see?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"I didn’t know there was a Nationalist Party."

The criminals can't exactly go around announcing their true colors. Those who work to achieve and maintain the goal of organized crime under the color of law cannot telegraph their intentions to their targeted victims.

Be it monarchy, aristocracy, capitalism, socialism, communism, despotism, tyranny, or any of the many labels used to place the color of law thinly over organized crime, the goal, and everything required to achieve the goal, remains the same: like a rose only the smell is more like burning flesh.

"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." Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, 1970 Nobel Lecture

The Nationalist Party (hidden behind a false republican name) is no different than the Communist Party (hidden behind a false democratic name) in America in this regard whereby the goal is absolute dictatorial power commanded by the so-called "elite" over those who produce anything worth stealing in America, and around the world for that matter.

Of course, there must be true believers in the party, those who do the necessary covering up, the apologizing, the "justifying," which is pure deception even when the storytellers have themselves been deceived, or are pandering to the powers that are expressed in so many words like the Emperor's New Clothes.

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. " Luther Martin at the Con-Con Con-Job of 1787.

Nationalism was first introduced into the American collective soul by the American Aristocratic Class of evil people whose ties to England were never unbound by evil principle. The Federation of free people in free states had to go, as all those 13 Nation States were formed as democratic republics under the common law, not under evil nationalism. A democratic republic moves adaptively, competitively, toward higher standards of living, at lower costs, which is the opposite direction from the despotic direction whereby the criminals consolidate all people under involuntary servitude accomplished and maintained by criminal means; which includes fraud hidden behind a false claim of maintaining a “Free Press.” Free from accurate accountability.

The federal idea of rule by the people themselves, by their consent through the power of true law, had to go, and it had to go according to the Nationalist Party then spinning that web of deceit on this planet, and on this continent.

"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former." George Mason, June 4, 1788, against the National Constitution replacing the voluntary mutual defense association (federation) that worked well enough to drive off the largest criminal army of aggression then rioting in the blood of the innocent on this planet.

The Nationalist, as well as the Communist Party, are for the same thing: a profitable monopoly whereby those in command of the despotic Nation State consume their property.

"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.”

and

"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." To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

Out with true law and out with a true federation went the power the people commend ourselves to hold our representatives to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter. Once that happened the licentiousness of the papers called "News" is fake by design. The corporate press indoctrinates the slaves who are then made to believe that their chains are a necessary evil. Of course, there will be members of the Nationalist Party who are ignorant of their true colors, but those minions will not be earning their way to the bottom of that inverted pyramid scheme. When the ship sinks, on schedule no less, the last rat will have smelled out all the lesser rats and that greatest abomination of evil incarnate will implement the exit plan to greener pastures. The lesser evils will be left holding the empty bag of lies.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
How can people be made to believe these demonstrable lies? The work required must consume a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears. The goal of indoctrinating the victims into believing their chains are necessary is a goal reached by consuming everything valuable save for that one goal. Who values that goal of absolute power?

Do you think that those who value that one goal, those who work toward that one goal, are going to announce their true colors so as to get to their goal?

No, clearly no, those whose goal is to gain absolute power over all people must keep their victims in the dark about that goal, and to do that there must be a facade in place.

“We may enjoy a democratic process but we live in a Republic where the rights of the minority are protected from the menace of the mob by our Idaho and United States Constitutions.”

That claim is demonstrably false on so many levels that it - that statement - amounts to a confession of willful deception on the part of whoever first constructed that lie. Sure those who have been deceived will be momentarily forced off the path if they question their belief in the lie, but most true believes will go into attack mode the instant the light of truth begins to shine through those cracks, those holes, in that false story.

The 1789 "Constitution" was unconstitutional, there was no power transferred voluntarily from the people as a whole to an elite group who were given the green light to replace the Articles of Confederation with a National Constitution falsely claimed to be a Federal Constitution.

So that is a start in two ways. That message above accounts for the start down the despotic path in America and that message above starts to open the light of truth to those who insist upon remaining in that dark cave.

A second step is to point out that the people as a whole are democratically represented in a republic through trial by the country according to the common laws of free people who have, in fact, constituted democratic republics.

To claim that the people have consented to the crime of replacing the the American federation of republics in 1789, with a despotic nation state run by criminal slave traders, warmongers, and banking frauds is an outrageous claim made by people who confess their ignorance of the facts that matter.

"Sure enough the Supreme Court concurs that the “will of the people” is limited to the bounds agreed in our Constitution."

That is patently false on many accounts: accounts that matter. A supreme court can prove its authority as a supreme court by assembling the most honest and discrete people in each county in America, to form grand juries, which are then independent investigatory agencies working for the whole people as one, and they investigate any matter that threatens the people in liberty, which includes every matter of the utmost importance, such as matters involving treason at the highest levels of a democratic republic. The people constituting a grand jury, in each county, are responsible for investigating and indicting the criminals in government office, to put those alleged criminals on trial by the country, which is trial by jury according to the common laws of free people in liberty.

If the so-called supreme court is legislating the behavior of the people, demanding absolute obedience without question, then said entity is filled with criminals not representatives of the people whose goal is to live and let live in a democratic republic.

So there are 2 easy steps to take for those who may want to get out of their dark cave of blind obedience to falsehood: without question.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Love it or leave it? What is it?

"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."
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Respublica
v.
Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“Thanks for some education. I see a conflict with the most basic definition of nationalism being, ‘loyalty and devotion to a nation’ and your examples of the term being co-opted.”

A Nation State that is democratic is therefore a Nation State that is a republic. Criminally feeding upon a natural genetic disposition to “loyalty and devotion,” exploiting that good thing, co-opting that natural drive, is a crime called treason. Treason to what you might say?

These words may not sound familiar to those who have been fed a lot of lies by those who feed upon natural born genetic dispositions to loyalty and devotion to moral laws, but these words agree with a very well written explanation of the meaning of law: the Golden Rule.

A federation of republics (Nation States - plural - where people follow the Golden Rule) is an adaptive, creative, competitive, free market of democratic republics, as explained in works like the following example.

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

A single consolidated government in 1789 was a step toward a profitable monopoly and a step away from free market government. Another way of describing a federation of republics is to call it a voluntary association for mutual defense. It, which is the subject of treason, can be explained also as laboratories of democracy. The same principle works at all levels, town to city, city to county, county to state, state to federation, federation to whatever is larger, such as a voluntary federation of federations. The criminal co-opting also works at that level, what is the so-called United Nations? It feeds upon the idea of the Golden Rule, but co-opts it into an all powerful force to enslave mankind instead.

The word federation has be co-opted, as has been the words democracy and republic.

“I hear the version you have given to be saying that the people using the false flag of nationalism are anti-federalists who do not believe in the rights or sovereignty of individual states. Am I following correctly?”

Yes, and furthermore those who employ deception in this way are also those who do not believe in sovereignty of individual people other than themselves: psychopaths. People other then themselves are considered property, hereditary or otherwise. Would you allow a spychopath on a jury trial where you are an innocent accused? Why elect them to public office?

A non-democratic (original meaning), and a non-republic (original meaning) Nation State founded upon false, or misdirected, nationalism is despotic by design.

I believe natural genetic moral conscience is the source of those feelings of "nationalism" as you define it. It is in principle a feeling of mutual support: affording each other the means to live and let live. We are all kings and our kingdoms extend to the border of every other king, and we all have a common need to defend ourselves against what? If you can't even imagine what threatens you, and you hire psychopaths to tell you what threatens you, then what are you buying, and how much will it cost you?

It may be a good idea to get out of bed with the RINOS who run the Republican (and Democratic: DINOS?) Parties.

Once someone begins to verify their “education,” along these lines, there is that possibility that such ideas as those offered here are up for validation by individual, sovereign, people. Let the chips fall where they may. Those who still choose false nationalism can pay for what they buy into, and those who care not to will be forced by those supporting false nationalism to pay for it too.

If people, each one at a time, choose otherwise then all the people who are the country (any size geographically) are in a better position to be representatives of the true law of the land. People able to accurately discriminate the difference between law and out-law, fact from fiction, are prime candidates for jury duty, grand or petty. If any of our fellow inhabitants are in need of remedy, then people pulling themselves out of the quagmire of false Nationalism can figure out a just remedy, instead of revenge or other forms of so-called punishment.

Imagine the true law applied to the worst examples of false republicans you can imagine, or accurately identify? If the law of the land returns (accurate accountability applied to the worst first), then remedy is possible. Freedom in a perishable liberty is possible, and there are roadmaps like The Golden Rule, Declaration of Independence, and so many Bills of Rights eluding to common laws of free people.


Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

Saturday, June 8, 1776
The First Congress of the United (plural) States of America
“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:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”

What is a federation? What is the nature of the association? Is a federation an order issued by a commander that must be obeyed without question, and the order is to form a “Union” or else? Is a federation a “Union” that is indivisible: no “State” (nation) can dare to leave the “Union”?

New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, Published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788:
“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.”
And:
“ 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.”

What was civil about the predictable so-called Civil War? That was a pogrom, a method by which the psychopaths in charge of their corporate fiction cull the herd of cats out of their flock of sheep. If all that remains after the culling are sheep, then that predictable goal is reached for and achieved that way.

How about some notes taken during the Con-Con Con-Job?

“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.” Mr. E. Gerry covering up at the Con-Con Con-Job Crime Scene.

They were mindful of the distinction between a federal and national government. The existing agreement binding the organization to specific powers was a federation, and those assembled at the crime scene had no power to replace the federal government with a national government. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if we play with words well, if we access deception, we can get rid of the power that the people command now, a power to consent to, or not consent to any government, then we become the absolute authority over fact.

Readers here may think I am off my rocker, but you say so from which forms of education? These are the words that survived and are available for your perusal today, words that amount to confessions. It is worse, much worse, as these words are carefully put in context. African slavery was on the way out, at this time in American history, but these psychopaths assembled at this crime scene sought to monopolize and subsidize that profit-making venture, and they did so.

That is the side you choose and choose voluntarily?

8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."

If you are led into the trap because you can’t see it, the result is the same as willfully jumping into it. Once in the trap the work required to get out is overwhelming and I speak from experience.




Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

That is news but not in principle, merely news in detail. How many various deceptions constitute the simple principle of deception?

If someone plans to deceive an innocent victim, so as to injure them, then in principle that is wrong because the same criminal would certainly expend effort to avoid the same fate; injury by deception. No normal, productive, independent, viable, individual seeks out victimization.

A flavor of crime is fraud. If this crime of fraud is an insignificant injury, involving only a single victim and a single criminal, then the event of the crime can be considered civil, a civil matter, a need for the criminal and the victim to solve their conflict on their own, and they can access affordable conflict resolution, known as a civil suit, or also known as arbitration. The remedy can be agreed upon by both victim and criminal, restoring the injured and the guilty to peaceful co-existence - freedom - in liberty. A government of, for, and by the people themselves, even if arbitration is a so-called public service provided by competitors seeking to supply that market demand.

What you are speaking about are crimes of the highest level of immorality - evil - and the common English word for the type of organized crime you speak about is treason. Treason is said to be a capital crime.

"...they try to trick you..."

Where did those who you speak about get their false authority to act in the manner you describe?

"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."

Previous to that Con-Job confessed above the Federation worked as a free market of government services, whatever people wanted people paid for, and people - not the government - commanded the power to hold criminals to account for crimes perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims.

The Conviction Factory by Roger Roots
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. {plea-bargaining is voluntary when no other people are threatened by the offender, but involuntary when the potential for injury yet to be done by the offender is bought off by a private person, which then allows the offender to run amok in the playground} 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."

I think that the class dictatorship that you report is a number of individuals who are bound into a class because those people share a common bond: they are evil. Those people have been afforded the opportunity to use a false government power to consume innocent people. If that is not evil than what is evil?

If there is no evil, then no one is guilty of anything, and there are no innocent victims.

If people can figure out a way to deter thoughts of evil, such as this thing called the common law, then crime pays less, and especially crime under the color of law pays less, which is akin to closing an open door where the price of admission is evil intent. Why not close that door?

What is offered in this account of when things turned evil in America is the process by which that evil door is slammed shut and locked.

What is accounted for, accurately, is that door to evil being opened wide. What happened was a willful effort perpetrated by a class of people, call them aristocrats or bourgeois, if you like, while I will call them psychopaths, sociopaths, and an army of sycophants. This class, this army, these criminals infiltrated government and turned a working voluntary association for mutual defense into organized crime under the color of law.

How many ways can a deception be crafted?

People believe the lies being told, but every effort to explain the opposite, the true, the real law is met with what exactly?

People believe that the government after 1789 was worthy of credit, authority, power, despite the fact that the crimes known as African slavery, which was outlawed previously, was subsidized after 1789. People still wave the flag, salute the flag, and take oaths of allegiance to that pile of smelly lies, and the smell is burning flesh.

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The flag in question is a copy of the Slave Traders Corporate Flag. After 1789 the republics were no longer republics, and the Nation-State Corporation that was created was not a federation, and it was not a republic. If it was a federation then it would be divisible: a voluntary association means that the volunteers can un-volunteer after their tour of duty is up.

From top to bottom America was a voluntary association for mutual defense when the British began their war of aggression for profit, the British intended - with malice aforethought - to subjugate Americans, to make Americans pay for their own slavery. In 1789 the same subsidized slavery was put in place of the voluntary association for mutual defense.

How can that not be easy to see? Why would that be news?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"The Real III % of Idaho went to the Capitol for the express purpose of asking an elected official to explain the rationale behind consistently using his committee chair position to unilaterally kill Second Amendment bills without hearings; thus substantively subjugating the democratic process that is supposed to give Idahoans a voice on the issues that matter to them."

Misdirection? The method by which the people govern the government is the common law with trial by jury.

Electoral politics is by design a misdirection from the true law.

That was known, it might be a good idea to know that now.

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."

The 6th President of the United States of America during the time when the Federation was truly federal and the States were truly republics, warned about how the Constitution of 1789 was a recipe for oligarchy: which is not a power reserved by the people for the people to govern the government.

Independent Grand Juries are supposed to be populated by the most discrete and honest inhabitants in each county, and those representatives of the people are afforded all jurisdiction both civil and criminal, so as then to govern the government: to put on trial those who commit treasonous acts such as acts that infringe upon the moral right of the people to defend the people from criminals in government.

Why is this hard to see?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Roger filed action in court against the city for violating multiple Montana Statutes, Election Laws and the Constitution of Montana."

What was the action? Was it merely a complaint, or was it information which lawfully leads to a presentment indicting a defendant or two or three, or more? If it is information which lawfully leads to defendants receiving indictments, yet nothing but further crimes were perpetrated in response to the information, then there is no law, and the proper, lawful, response is as was stated:

"...re-establish the principle of government by the people, and shut the door once and for all, on what has become “government by the government?”"

The problem always is which people step up to the plate to regulate, re-establish, restore, resume, government by the people, which is the government. People are caught so tightly in this legal fiction fraud that people actually believe the government is separate from people.

What is mandamus? What is quo warranto? When the people running organized crime call themselves the government their actions constitute crimes as a matter of fact: information that ought to lead to defendants presented with indictments in common law trial by the country, trial by the people.

It is ridiculous to claim that criminals will suddenly turn into actual government agents based upon their own moral conscience, yet that appears to be the normal response to this type of rampant criminality perpetrated under the color of law. Complain about it and those perpetrators will fix the government; really?

So...hold your breath waiting for criminals in government to apply law - accurate accountability - upon themselves, and go on expecting that outcome to happen for the first time ever. That solution works well enough depending upon which side of the moral fence you plant yourself firmly.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."

What does that mean exactly? What does that mean in the context of people (not a "City") violating the statutes that govern people in offices of a town, city, county, Nation State, or Federation of Nation States? It means that the people occupying grand juries investigate civil and criminal allegations and when there is probable cause defendants are presented with indictments, to put the accused on trial by law.

Why is that news to anyone, and how many people these days are ever ready to censor (shoot the messenger) when that information is presented to them? How many people refuse to admit that they are the government, and therefore they ought to do as was claimed in this article:

"...re-establish the principle of government by the people, and shut the door once and for all, on what has become “government by the government?”"

There is a tried and true process by which that goal is secured, but willful ignorance is a very powerful force.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"This is only a start – figure out more of his possible crimes, charge him, PROSECUTE him."

Yes, that is a start, but a good one. A problem involves the fact that the law power is an exclusive franchise by design. At the start of American government the people, not the separate and exclusive "government," had access to the law power.

The Conviction Factory by Roger Roots
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 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."

In order to have managed that shift of power from the people (republican government) to an exclusive class of government agents, those designing that take-over of democratic republicanism, turning it into socialism, or corporate capitalism, had to take over the work of private prosecutors, county sheriffs, county magistrates (justices of the peace), members of independent grand juries, and trial juries.

This is not news, the same process works the same way in principle, no matter which century, or which continent the take-over is executed. The people are step by brutal step disenfranchised. The solution is as stated:

"This is only a start – figure out more of his possible crimes, charge him, PROSECUTE him."

That is the peaceful solution, the solution that avoids violence on a scale that no sane person can condone, let alone pay for with their lives and fortunes while the peaceful solution is still right there on the law books.

If the criminals took over private prosecutors, then the people have to retake that power back, the same goes for the sheriffs, the justices of the peace, the members of independent grand juries, and the jurors selected for trial juries by lot in trial by the country.

When Americans were aggressively attacked by the criminal British government there were attempts made to keep the peace through common law remedies, proving beyond doubt that the people in America are capable of democratically governing ourselves by forming republics, not forming oligarchies, monarchies, or corporate fictions. The most useful documented proof of that fact is the Declaration of Independence of 1776, a common law document, a solemn recognition of mixed war.

What is missing from American education services are all those other attempts to keep the peace through common law remedies, attempts made by the people to offer justice, truth, accurate accountability, instead of open terror and violence.

People, each one, in turn, learning their own power to hold those abusing government power to account, through tried and true means, constitutes the peaceful solution to this problem expressed in this example.

People in each county, once the truth of common law remedies is firmly understood by each, insist upon lawful sheriffs, lawful private prosecutors, lawful independent grand jurors, and once that power is greater than the existing criminal forms of JUST US in each county, then the people move ever closer to a trial date, with a defendant on trial, and then trial transcripts for all to see, including other criminals in government, what the people will do peacefully to remedy the problem when criminals take-over our government: use the true law as it was designed to be used in principle.

___________________________________
So far sent but not published.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

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

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

Who determines what the following words mean; which we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about the following process?

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

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

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

What about the following 2 agreements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"And now, the Articles of Confederation was “broke” in 1786 and thereby not “inviolably observed” nor “perpetual” in that they could not even maintain a Quorum to do business…the Articles of Confederation were vacated…abandoned."

Webs of deceit invented for the occasion: pure fiction? You assume the authority to make these claims despite clear accounts written by those who were witnesses to the events that you now turn into a fictional story for what, your amusement? How can it be possible that your fiction is intended to be believed? How does your storyline proceed from that stated, imaginary, situation?

"The Constitutional Convention of 1787 had representatives from 12 of the 13 States to fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation…Rhode Island was invited."

That account - assuming words have meaning - contradicts your previous account. How can something abandoned be fixed? Oh, but this is a setup, a sudden realization by "we" emerges whereby the dead thing can't be resurrected, so a new thing has to be born; at least according to this fictional account.

"And there is a tacit respect in the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution that is so strong as to dilute any argument that the “that the Union shall be perpetual” was not the objective."

Tacit
"understood or implied without being stated"

More confessions from the fiction writer? Nudge, nudge, wink, and wink?

So something implied is so strong as to dilute an argument. Rather than stating something strongly, something is implied instead, and rather than stating something strongly, something implied - a tacit thing - is put in place instead of something stated strongly.

That sounds very familiar, at the time of the counterfeiting of the law of the land the word for treasonous fiction writing was "construction." If something is tacit, not strongly stated, then that implication can mean just about anything to any group fiction writers.

George Mason, June 6, 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?"

Out with the law of the land (trial by the country, consent of the governed) and in with just about any fiction written by any fiction writer then or now.

"Not being able to acquire a Quorum can be extrapolated to Congress being in “recess”…forever."

Who claims that a Quorum was a good idea at which time, exactly? How does a decision by people to attend to other things for a moment turn into an absolute eternity? Are there any boundaries to this fiction or is even the sky no limit?

"...can be extrapolated..."

extropolate
"to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval"

So you too are in the construction business?

"Nine and Nine. Not to mention that ALL 13 of the States ratified the U.S. Constitution…INCLUDING Rhode Island."

Ignore, as you and your gang may do perpetually, the fact that there was no agreement to give authority to anyone by which the perpetual union (federal union) could be replaced by an all-powerful Nation-State, and while you are doing all that ignoring you can keep on writing fiction, just as your predecessors had to do to get away with that treasonous act.

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."

And at the crime scene:

“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.” Mr. E. Gerry at the Con-Con Con-Job Crime Scene.

It is questionable or inferred, or tacitly agreed upon, or implied, that changing the existing voluntary mutual defense association, or federation, into a consolidated nation-state profitable monopoly - including aggressive wars for profit, subsidized slave trading, and central banking fraud - would be treason, and since "we" are actually in the treason business, it is advised that "we" do not let that cat out of that bag.

"We all get it, the Constitution is not as good as it should be, and that not all people are going to agree. But we should try to be “fair” and “proper”…and not arbitrary nor allow privileged authority."

And again the authority that speaks for we, a tacitly assumed, presumptuous, authority, ignores the fact that the document is inculpatory evidence of a crime, not a "constitution." If they say pay me to run my slave business, and you say OK, then that makes you one of the criminals.

If they say pay me to run a war of aggression, and you say OK, then just like the Nazi's, that makes you a war criminal too.

If they say let me write me a check for as much money as everyone else combined has, thereby doubling the entire money supply, and you say OK, then that makes you a central banking fraud too.

All that blood is on your hands, and it is in the irrefutable documentation, all that is needed is a confession: you agreed to it. Natural laws being what they are, in fact, you will get what you pay for, even if you didn't quite infer the same tacit meaning from the fine print.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The same authority that assumes a fictional power to speak for we now assumes a fictional power to judge my soul, and judge it to be poor. I had assumed that discussion would be civilized, perhaps it has been counterfeited.

"Have you no decency, man?"

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

Grand Juries:

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

Page 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

"what slander, this?"

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the censored part:

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence

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

"...you tar n’ feather me..."

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

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

Who pays?

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

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

Who pays?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Two can play the baiting false umbrage game."

umbrage:
"shade or shadow, especially as cast by trees"

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

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
It is a logical, reasonable, step by step process whereby people are made to believe in the benefits of blind obedience to falsehood without question, and the proof is accurately measurable with such things as The National Debt Clock Real Time.

If people can actually be made to believe there are benefits to be realized by funding the "distinguished" African Slave Trade, obtruded upon Americans by an all-powerful British Criminal wearing no "Royal" Clothes, then Americans can be made to believe (obtruded) in the benefits of Civil War, and World War, funding those actions too.

True Christians are warned about these things in no uncertain terms.

"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."

The bait is whatever has worked to convince (con) people into believing that there is a benefit to the transfer of power from their own control, as that power is then transferred to the con man working the confidence scheme.

The concept of trial by the country, according to the common laws of free people, laws based upon scripture such as Mathew 7:12, and laws based upon natural laws, is for people to discover that the bait is bait in the net: accurate accounting of the facts that matter.

"...it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird..."

Following is a link for those interested in this subject matter. This is work that was done by an individual. This is work that ought to have been done by many individuals who constitute common law, independent, grand juries. This type of information would then lead to presentments, indictments, and trials according to the true law of the land, not the con man versions of justice: JUSTUS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuZtsRwhMsY

If people really want to know the truth then people would logically, reasonably, conclude that the true law is the official way to find that truth: put the facts before representatives of the whole country, and have the whole country, through representatives, judge what the facts are, and eliminate thereby treasonous fake news.

There are examples. People infected with blind belief in falsehood - without question - are triggered by information that contends with their blind belief, and once triggered those people go into "shoot the messenger" mode with obvious repetition: "conspiracy theorist."

There is a problem that surfaces if someone is triggered into calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" when dealing with information concerning the conspiracy murder of Martin Luther King Jr. The problem with calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" when dealing with information concerning the conspiracy murder of Martin Lither King Jr. is that there was a trial, and the jury found the government guilty of conspiracy murder.

On this subject matter - once again - the 6th President of the United States of America, someone named Richard Henry Lee:

"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together."
LETTER XIII.
JANUARY 14, 1788.

If the government is guilty of conspiracy murder, a fact determined by representatives of the country, in at least the Martin Luther King Jr case, then what else is that "government" guilty of doing, including the crime known as Aggressive War for Profit?

In that context, on this matter, why is it not reasonable to conclude that the people, not a legal fiction corporate government entity, ought to employ the true law power, to separate fact from fake news?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
What better cover for someone seeking blind obedience than a white or black robe, a badge, or a fancy hat, complete with a fabricated slogan like "I shall not tell a lie," or "free the slaves," or "I'm here to help"?

How can anyone ever set aside moral (which is spiritual) considerations? Morality is logical. If someone is going to consume you, and you simply do not want to be consumed, then it might be a good idea to do as suggested in so many warnings such as "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts."

Age of Reason, Thomas Paine:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"Paine’s theology was frequently associated with Jeffersonian Republicanism, mostly by the clergy that tended to be aligned with the Federalists. Among many in America, a vote for Thomas Jefferson was perceived to be a vote for Satan himself."
https://inside.ucumberlands.edu/academics/history/files/vol13/ransonsmith01.html

So...dupes will always do what dupes always do, they blindly believe lies, no matter how destructive (evil) the actions of the liars always end up being as proven with piles of (innocent) bodies.

"But let us not forget that violence does not and cannot exist by itself: It is invariably intertwined with the lie. They are linked in the most intimate, most organic and profound fashion: Violence cannot conceal itself behind anything except lies, and lies have nothing to maintain them save violence. Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle. At birth, violence acts openly and even takes pride in itself. But as soon as it gains strength and becomes firmly established, it begins to sense the air around it growing thinner; it can no longer exist without veiling itself in a mist of lies, without concealing itself behind the sugary words of falsehood. No longer does violence always and necessarily lunge straight for your throat; more often than not it demands of its subjects only that they pledge allegiance to lies, that they participate in falsehood."

Washington was a warmonger, as warned by many people, including a very well done piece by Murray Rothbard:

"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."

Washington was also a false "Federalist" (Nationalist) whose reason for hiding the true Nationalist ideology was the same principle behind King John hiding his true color behind "Royal" authority, and the same principle behind the Pope hiding behind a false claim of Christianity.

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."

The "Fundamental change" has always been from natural born freedom in liberty, the adaptive, creative, competitive, free market of ideas, actions, improvements, that lift all boats, rising standards of livings, and lowering costs of living for all except the few who want to replace freedom in liberty with blind belief in falsehood without question: arbitrary government of the blindly obedient done violently and deceptively by the false "elite."

Sure all that is a lot to take in, but missing are references to the truth about Abraham Lincoln, and those evidences that lead to further truth about the current false god named Trump. Even if people demand to set aside moral considerations - for some strange reasoning - the man is on record placing Zionists before Americans.

One more thing on this false religious stuff, having to do with the "innocent" Pope reclaiming ownership of "His" property with an edict announcing the nullification of Magna Carta. Those who are willfully blind will never see, but those who have at least a care in the world to see past the obvious facades will find their way, perhaps with help.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

All this talk about socialism and it is demonstrably a pack of pots calling a pack of kettles: black.

Hypocrisy is rife.

What is the check on hypocrisy if not a discovery of the facts in an official manner? Then the hypocrites can collectively ignore those facts, while those who prefer something other than hypocrisy can seek greater awareness of the facts that actually matter.

What are common (collective) characteristics attributed to this so-called socialism stuff?

One fact of that matter is a collection of all the wealth into one collection of collective wealth.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The RINO hypocrites are collectively pointing their fingers at the DINO hypocrites for a reason, and that reason is expressed in the phrase "divide and conquer."

Before any more slaves are born into the collective ownership of everything worth stealing by hook and by crook, those slaves owe - according to the official record - 66,752.00 units of blood sweat and tears, commonly referred to in that phrase, and another common phrase: "fruits of labor."

The RINOS will claim "it" to be a Republic, the same "Republic" demanding that extraction of wealth from those yet to be born.

That is a bare faced lie told by all those RINOS. Those same RINOS pointing their fingers at those DINOS.

The incorporated extortion by fraud racket started in 1789, this US thing, was not a Federation, nor was it a Republic once the criminals perpetrated that crime in 1789. If it was anything it was what people now call socialism: the collection of everything worth stealing into one pot, a pot that funds the collection of everything worth stealing.

You people will get what you deserve because you pay for it willingly, as you point your fingers at the other socialists, while falsely claiming that you aren't socialists. Meanwhile, the process continues without delay, accurately accounting each calorie extracted, from each victim every day.

A lesson could be learned here, learning from all those socialists, with their fetish for precise accuracy concerning what they will take from anyone daring to produce anything worth stealing, taking and adding to the collective pot, and that lesson is this process of accurate accounting.

One of the true federalists, also one of the true republicans, who was also one of the true democrats, offered this lesson, a lesson worth repeating, and heeding, here and now.


"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert."
Federal Farmer
LETTER XIII.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Lessons learned?

A number of people agree - at liberty - to form a corporation. There are no boundaries, therefore there are no jurisdictions, other than those boundaries and jurisdictions agreed to in the laws governing the voluntary corporate association. Once someone steps outside those boundaries, they volunteer - at liberty - to remove themselves from the corporation. All actions performed at liberty, all things done in a civilized manner, all things civil.

Then one corporate member invents and projects falsehoods that knowingly deceive others in the voluntary association formed in a corporate manner. That is called many names including fraud.

If that voluntary - at liberty - fraudulent action willfully - and with malice aforethought - causes intentional injury to others, then there is - in a phrase - a disturbance of the peace, an injury to the public at large. The general population of individuals who are at liberty to do something about any threat to peace, posterity, rising standards of livings, and lowering costs of livings to all, are collectively injured when anyone is injured: in theory. In theory the one injuring someone is one who can then injure someone else the same, or in a similar, way. A criminal running amok in the public domain can be seen as if a mad dog was let loose in the school playground.

These deceiving criminals in Corporate offices threaten, and injure, all. These traitors threaten and injure all, including all those who are foreign, and including all those who are domestic, including also those in or out of any corporation, any voluntary association.

When the threat is not dealt with effectively, which is proven while those injured by those criminals increase in number, then the threat itself becomes a power, which is a power to extort anything those being extorted will pay, including their lives, their children's lives, and the lives of everyone foreign as well as domestic. When that extortion racket becomes universal, those who are extorted will pay dearly, they will be made to give up on the truth that matters.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
U.S. Corporate Nation State Constitution (not a republic, not a democracy, not a federation of democratic republics)

"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 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. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.
To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,} from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government.
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..."
Amendment 5 to the U.S. Nation State incorporating document of 1789

Right there in the paperwork is a voluntary path by which the volunteers can drain the swamp.

Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

"Likewise though it be said here, that the King hath given and granted these Liberties, yet they must not be understood as meer Emanations of Royal Favour, or new Bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a Right unto before; For the Lord Cook at divers places asserts, and all Lawyers know, that this Charter is for the most part only Declaratory of the principal grounds of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of England, no new freedom is hereby granted, but a Restitution of such as lawfully they had before, and to free them of what had been usurped and encroached upon them by any power whatsoever; and therefore you may see this Charter often mentions Sua Jura, their Rights, and Liberats suas, their Liberties, which shews they had them before, and that the same now were Confirmed."
Care, Henry, 1646-1688.

It is not so much bottom up versus top down as it is simply good versus evil. Those who do unto others before others can do unto them first, known as might makes right, or also known as American Exceptionalism, are evil by their willful actions that intend with malice aforethought to injure innocent people. If people will defend themselves against harm being done to themselves, and those same actions that harm are what people will initiate upon others, then those people confess their evil minds in that way. Those who aggress, in ways that they would be hell bent to defend against, confess - with blood soaked hands and deceptions - their evil: a fact that matters.

If people merely point that out, then the Golden Rule applies only if people seek, ask for, want, the same accountability focused upon themselves: the finger pointers want fingers pointed at themselves.

A Grand Jury composed of an angry mob seeking to murder anyone they - collectively - don't like is no different than a Corporate Congress infested with liars who cover up for corporate mass murderers: no different in principle.

It is sad to consider the possibility that we the people are almost all evil criminals, yet it is just as emotional, in a good way, to consider the possibility that those same people might set the truth free again.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Peaceful Solutions.

"As Ammon has said, what do you do when every appeal and attempt at redress has been ignored ?"

An armed protest, in defense, has already proven to be one option, tried, tested, and judged. The country through something similar to a common law trial by jury said no to government criminal aggression.

If people figure this out then people will go on the offense instead of defense, doing so peacefully, lawfully, legally, morally, judiciously, and orderly.

Be prepared for a return to rule of law, of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the "elite government," by the "special interests," and for the "corporate legal fictions."

Example:

"9.2 - Escalation
Further:
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."
From Bonding Code
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

And

"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."
From THE COMMERCIAL LIEN RIGHT AND THE MILITARY LIEN RIGHT
http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033

When those pretending to be the government (of the people, by the people, and for the people) obstruct the proper, legal, lawful, moral, etc., filing of legal documents, or charge exorbitant costs for gaining access to rule of law in any way, obstructing justice, then those who are guilty of said obstruction are added to that list of perpetrators, and added to that list of crimes documented on declarations of independence for modern times.

If the law does not adapt it perishes, and I don't know anyone who can reasonably argue that fact of that matter: there is no law in America, not since 1789. The ability to adapt is structured into the true law of the land, which remains to be the common law, as documented in at least the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

The "elite government, special interest, corporate fictions," do not give their subjects law power, far from it, that power is earned by those who discover it, understand it, and employ it for our common, mutual, defense: peacefully.

"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."

Clearly the battle will return to, focus upon, Grand Juries, in due time. People will volunteer to sit on Grand Juries, and command the power to indict, and they try, corrupt lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and politicians. Waiting for the corrupt to do this is insane. If that does not happen then violence will be let loose, as the phrase "dogs of war" suggest.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Trump is an accomplice to all the crimes perpetrated by the Clinton's and any other major criminal infesting public offices, and that is true because as Dictator in Chief the so-called President has the power to - at least - put in place those who would indict and they try those criminals for those crimes that are well beyond alleged.

This article of revisionist history is precisely the same type of mind control perpetrated by the so-called "Federalist Party" warned about by Thomas Paine.

The reason this type of fraud continues is the same reason why criminals continue to infest public offices, there is no law in America, there has been no law in America since 1789.

For those who prefer factual accounts instead of this latest version of fanciful fiction:

"During the campaigns of 1777 a suspicion began to well up among many Americans that Horatio Gates was an excellent general and Washington a miserable one, and that maybe something should be done about it."
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo

If people are publishing fiction as if it were fact then they are guilty of false propaganda, and if they do so knowingly, then they are by that willful criminal act: frauds. If their stories presented as fact endanger the public liberty, as are these cases involving Dictators infesting public office, then those propagandists are traitors. The lives of posterity are ruined by this type of loyalty to falsehood, this blind belief in falsehood without question.

You will get what you invest in. When you insist upon investing in falsehood, you will get further and further from the truth.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am speaking about the tried and true method by which people defend themselves from all deceivers foreign and domestic.

Examples:
"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." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Feb. 27, 1787

"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 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."
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors

"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."
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.

"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.
If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:
1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,
2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.
The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.
All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
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

As in the phrase Ballot Box, Cartridge Box, and Jury Box, the natural, organic, lawful, order includes the fact-checking process: trial by the country.

When criminals take-over governments they - as a rule - remove the fact-checking process - trial by the country - from the country.

"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?"
George Mason, June 6, 1788

"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").
"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function").
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

When the criminals take-over governments - as a rule - they must maintain a facade, a false front, complete with a false flag, and a false storyline, so as to counterfeit (meaning opposite) the law, to thereby maintain immunity from accurate accountability.

That was proven and is being proven, in the recent cases involving Rancher families: Hammond, Bundy, and Finicum. That rule by which the criminals deceive with fake law was also proven in the Kennedy assassinations, the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination, Ruby Ridge, Waco, U.S.S. Liberty, 911, and many other notorious cases of subsidized deception.

You can take the following case to the bank.

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So...have a clue, please.


Law (voluntary association for mutual defense) cannot be formed, founded, framed, or otherwise created by deception. To claim so is to be stupid, or worse, to be criminal.

The Articles of Confederation were organic, made from as close to grass-roots as ever has happened in recent human history, and that voluntary association was deceptively usurped by an "Elite," "Aristocratic," "Warmongering," "Slave Trading," and "Central Banking Fraud and Extortion Racket," army of criminals who managed to get people to believe that they were the "Federalist Party," and they were here to help promote the public peace.

Why is this at all difficult to acknowledge, know, realize, or if you actually "believe" you have a leg to stand on, refute?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Fabricating fiction so as to cover-up the crimes perpetrated by evil people is noted.

The "power to tax" according to those who construct fiction out of fact is, in reality, the power to perpetrate fraud and extortion under the color of law. People are not always servile and stupid enough to buy into that construction of that fraud.

"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, Trial by Jury, 1852

"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, 1787

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

"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

"They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government. "
"Rhode Island Is Right! "
The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787

Back to fiction:
"That Articles of Confederation were abandoned; they could not even obtain a quorum to conduct business."

While Americans were dealing with enemies of Liberty domestic, in each county, in each state, in the federation of independent states, a revolutionary battle occurred that proved the validity of voluntary mutual defense association, and at the same time that revolutionary battle sent the enemies of Liberty domestic into full-on, desperate, criminal action. the criminals set out to "abandon" the voluntary mutual defense association (where tax is voluntary) and replace that voluntary mutual defense association with a fraudulent, counterfeit, version, whereby "Tax" is instead of sound investment, "Tax" becomes a covered-up form of Debt Slavery.

Those who created false debt, doing so by fraud, demanded their pounds of flesh, and they would get those pounds of flesh by hook and by crook, and their modern counterparts have learned well by the examples offered in fact based history. Pay your fiction writers well, pay them out of the stolen loot fund, give them cause to help ensalve everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Prepare accordingly. Reclaim the power to hold the worst threats to a lawful, legal, moral, accurate, accounting of the facts. Failing this preparatory goal ensures violence as the only remaining remedy.


The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
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 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."

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

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

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 6, 1788

George Mason:
"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?"

When Oath Keepers called Lavoy Finicum, to warn him, and to encourage him to move to a safe place immediately, those events offer a clear message. In one county the criminals who counterfeit the law powers will lie, cheat, steal, murder, and mass murder with impunity. In a nearby county that type of power is not absolute. Why?

What can be done in every county, in every state, in a reforming federation of independent states, in order to prepare for these warnings concerning an impending war between so-called Black Hats, and so-called White Hats?

Clearly what is needed is one county after another, is a reforming of independent Grand Juries, Trial Juries, and Prosecutors who will investigate, present, and offer the worst evil people daring to show up in that county, trial by the country according to the law of the land.

The people needed to accomplish this are the people who will not be fooled into aiding, abetting, and lending moral, and material support to these criminals who are well beyond alleged criminals, and as clear as spring water, these criminals are soaked in innocent blood, guns smoking, and they are on the public record confessing their guilt, or turning each other in, ratting each other out, to whom?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Prepare accordingly. Reclaim the power to hold the worst threats to a lawful, legal, moral, accurate, accounting of the facts. Failing this preparatory goal ensures violence as the only remaining remedy.

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
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 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."

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states. "

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 6, 1788
George Mason:
"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?"

When Oath Keepers called Lavoy Finicum, to warn him, and to encourage him to move to a safe place immediately, those events offer a clear message. In one county the criminals who counterfeit the law powers will lie, cheat, steal, murder, and mass murder with impunity. In a nearby county, that type of power is not absolute. Why?

What can be done in every county, in every state, in a reforming federation of independent states, in order to prepare for these warnings concerning an impending war between so-called Black Hats, and so-called White Hats? What can be done to prepare for another one of these:

“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.”
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, A FARMER, March 7, 1788


Clearly what is needed is one county after another, is a reforming of independent Grand Juries, Trial Juries, and Prosecutors who will investigate, present, and offer the worst evil people daring to show up in that county, their trial by the country according to the law of the land.

The people needed to accomplish this are the people who will not be fooled into aiding, abetting, and lending moral, and material support to these criminals who are well beyond alleged criminals. As clear as spring water, these criminals are soaked in innocent blood, guns smoking, and they are on the public record confessing their guilt or turning each other in, ratting each other out. Who are they confessing to, and who are they ratting each other out to; if not the moral people who will then hold them to an accurate accounting according to common, moral, just, laws?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"That does not sound voluntary…not to mention some States did not honor their obligation."

That, once again, is fiction. Following is a very well written explanation of voluntary association for mutual defense.


"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
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

In the First Congress of the Federated (confederation) of Independent States is the following:

"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:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

Someone writing fiction today may assume the opposite of voluntary association to be the definition of the power of law. Rather than a voluntary association for mutual anything, other than mutual destruction of innocent people for profit, the power of law is turned up-side-down and claimed, falsely, to be involuntary servitude whereby the subjects of the false flag, false front, false law, are consumed in the process of extracting everything worth stealing from them, in due time.

Example:
"That does not sound voluntary…not to mention some States did not honor their obligation."

So...the example set by Generalissimo Washington, after the criminals took over, is to enforce extortion payments by conscripting (enslaving) a National Army to invade the formerly independent State so as to collect the National Debt payments from those who dare to refuse to pay it. No investigation by Grand Jury in the county where the alleged "tax evader" is busy producing anything worth stealing. No presentment presented to the one individual who is presumed to be innocent of any crime. No offer of remedy offered to the accused after an investigation by Grand Jury in that county. No trial by the country to determine, in that county, if that alleged "tax evader" is guilty of anything at all. The dictator enslaves a massive army of aggression for profit, taking whoever can be hijacked from every formerly independent state, and the dictator does what dictators always will do when assuming absolute power.

"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

"As far as the States being innocently minding their own business that is not a historical fact."
Fiction writer on this web page.

The fiction writer now creates a fictional character that has made an easily disputed claim, but where is this fictional character? The character making that dubious claim is not me. For one thing, no State can be innocent or guilty, since individuals are responsible, and accountable, for what individuals do, and the collectivist mindset of dubious origin is exemplified in this type of fiction. For another thing, some States were handily taken-over by criminal elements that include those criminals in Massachusetts running their central banking debt scam, shown in the events that later became known as Shays's Rebellion. And there were those States taken-over by the Slave "Owners", including the carriers, or Slave Merchants, and Slave Traders.

Then Mr. Fiction writer turns to the Money Monopoly Scam idea. To help refute that idea that there has to be one money, one purse, one "official" money lender, the following help may be welcome to those who want help.

"In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.
There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/gary-north/fools-gold-2/

Or from less recent history:

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.
It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.
If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.
This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.
Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism:
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)

Back to the storytelling:

"And another example to refute that ALL Americans were just wanting to left peacefully alone in the Counties and States in that era:"

Who made-up such an outrageous story? The answer is clearly that the fiction writer alone is accountable for such an outrageous story.

More from His-story:

"As John Adams wrote of the ensuing hysteria in the streets of the capital city of Philadelphia, “ten thousand people….day after day threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect a revolution in the government.”

Washington (warmonger), John Adams (British Loyalist), and Alexander Hamilton were members of the so-called (falsely called) Federalist Party. Those people made a deal with the Slave Traders in the south, to subsidize the African Slave Trade for as long as they could, and in return, the Warmongering, Aristocratic, Central Banking Fraud Criminals created a National Government, but they had to do so by devious means: perpetrating fraud. Fraud at that level is treason.

Each individual is responsible, perhaps not accountable, to their own willful, or accidental, actions. If someone starts claiming that the State did it, and they do not mean to account for each individual doing whatever they did in time and place, then someone starts down that stupid, and servile, collectivist story telling.


_____________________________________________
3 Attempts to publish the above at Redoubt News. I sent a message through Contact. I asked if there is a way to fix this problem when comments fail to post.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So...it is no longer a federation. It is, as the anti-criminal nationalists claimed, a national - not a federal - gang.

"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Unfortunately, during the Federal Convention of 1787..."

The local fiction writer makes a dubious claim. It was not a federal convention, to claim so is to construct an opposite meaning of a word, as if doing so makes the word have the opposite meaning for everyone. That works, to change the meanings of words, so long as enough people are inspired to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, the counterfeit meaning.

"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."
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"What Are the Step 2 Consequences for Any National Healthcare Program"

Note the word National in "National Healthcare Program".

The intent behind changing the meanings of words is analogous to baiting a net to catch a bird.

The bait is a federation of independent states, where people are free in those states, and then the switch (bait and switch) is an all-powerful, consolidated, Nation State, which thereby catches all those birds that were once free.

It would be nice to be free from insults aimed at me personally, at my character. It is as if the subject matter does not matter. It is as if what does matter is my personal character. Why? Is that just another form of censorship? The same applies to creating fictional words written by some fictional character, and then suggesting that I wrote those words. Why do that, why resort to deception?

Malancton Smith, in a Debate in New York, on June 20th, 1788, is on record exposing the bait and switch job being done by the aristocratic gang. The aristocratic gang included Slave Traders, Warmongers, and Central Banking Frauds, and they were out for blood, just not their own blood.

The point of pointing out the difference between a voluntary association for mutual defense, and an involuntary association for the benefit of a few at the expense of everyone is explained well in the words offered by William Watkins in his book titled Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy.

The point is:
"Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy."

In a federal system, which is not a national system, those who object to the policy of the national system have other national systems to choose from within the same federation of independent nation states. Those choices include choices of "policies" such as subsidized slavery. If you don't want to pay for your own enslavement, then you can move to a nation state that does not subsidize slavery. Daniel Shays, for example, went to Vermont. Other slaves could run away from slavery to Vermont, or they could run to Rhode Island. Pennsylvania was also a sanctuary for runaway slaves.

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."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"1) Under the Articles of Confederation there were Slave Holding States with no limitations."

The point pointed out is the opposing connections among people. One connection among people is called a Federal (voluntary) connection. The opposite connection among people is an involuntary connection. Clearly, slaves are not connected voluntarily. Masters are not federated to their slaves. Slaves are not federated to their so-called Masters.

A federated connection among people is explained by the first congress during the decision to publish, or not publish, a Declaration of Independence. People exerted their right to secede from the federal union with the British Slave Trading, Warmongering, Central Banking Frauds, pretending to be Christians.

"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:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

That is reinforced in the following 2 quotes:

The Uniform Bonding Code – (UBC)
9.2 - Escalation

"A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."

THE COMMERCIAL LIEN RIGHT AND THE MILITARY LIEN RIGHT
"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."

The people working under The Articles of Confederation at the Federal level did not enforce a National Tax, so as to create the demand for a National Debt-based Money, run by Central Banking Frauds. It was a federal connection: voluntary.

In some States people were connected federally, at least in the sense that they could go to another, less costly, State, when a State became despotic, as was the case in Massachusetts. Some states subsidized profits flowing from Slaves to so-called Masters. Some States worked to free those slaves.

Under the Articles of Confederation (a federal union in fact) States reserved the right to secede from the Union, for obvious, demonstrable reasons. America, as a federation of independent states, was in the process of seceding from a federal union with a despotic British Empire, a criminal organization operating under the color of law. People in each State were familiar with the consequences of assuming that the association is mutual, beneficial for all, and therefore voluntary, and then when the blood starts flowing the opposite is demonstrated as a fact.

I wish to be absolutely clear that many individual people within the set of people called the British are always individuals, and at no time is there a creation of a separate being, a corporate being, an all-powerful single entity that takes on responsibility itself, and is accountable IT-self. Each individual is responsible and accountable. This applies to people who constitute the false Federalist Party, or people who constitute the Nazi Party, each individual is responsible: the things, like the Nazi Party, or the Federalist Party, is not responsible, nor is it accountable for itself.

If I say the Federalist Party did this or did that, such as perpetrating fraud, or treason, or warmongering, or extortion under the color of law, the words are intended to convey a need to apply due process of law, on each individual accused, so as then to try the case before the country, so that the country, in trial by the country, can decide the fact at issue concerning any individual, so as to facilitate effective remedy, defense, restitution, or other lawful cures.

That is what the British could have done when facing a Declaration of Independence, or an angry Mob throwing tea off a dock. But the British Aristocrats had their Slave Trade profits to protect, their Central Banking Fraud profits to protect, and their Aggressive Wars for Profit to maintain.

The British criminals did not agree that the American connection to the British was Federal. Is that clear? Can that point be prioritized over any further attempts to assassinate my character by creating a fictional version of me?

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,…”

That amounts to a confession of criminality of the highest order, leaving no need to try the case, it is a confession in fact. Whoever wrote that, or signed that, is accountable, and responsible, for that confession in fact. Millions of innocent people were thereby sent to hell on earth. As to what the country might decide about that crime, there is only conjecture, since there was never a case (as far as I know) following that crime up through the due process of law.

There was never a case (as far as I know) whereby an innocent individual slave went to the county grand jury, to then seek equal protection under the common laws of free people in liberty, whereby the impartial, honest, and discrete members of the grand jury investigated and found cause to present the accused slave “owner” with a court date. Instead the people, as a whole, ignored the law in those cases whereby criminals made slaves out of innocent people. That is law turned on its head, and is that clear or not? Can that be acknowledged before any further diversion from the topic to my personal - and my fictional - character?

Many did not look the other way, but none of the people, as far as I know, afforded those innocent people their equal access to the law, which perverts the law on fundamental grounds. It is fundamentally right to defend yourself when there is no law afforded to you, or where the law is perverted and turned into a criminal organization that subsidizes crime against you. For that same fundamental reason it is fundamentally right in the case with the British invasion of America, those defending had the right to do so; it works by the same fundamental principle. The same fundamental principle works on the individual level, in any case, anywhere, anytime, or there is no law in that case. When the criminals win, there is no law, proven by the injuries that continue to be inflicted upon the innocent. When the defenders win, winning their freedom, there is law, proven by the fact that the criminals are no longer injuring the innocent. Is that unclear?

"So, you purport on previous posts the Article of Confederation were superior to the Constitution…but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert to Holier-Than-Thou Anarchic principles. So innocent."

The Articles of Confederation were not superior according to those who broke the rules written in the Articles of Confederation, as those people created a Nation State in place of the former Federation of Independent States. So, for those people, obviously, those Articles were inferior, not superior, to the crimes they launched in place of that voluntary association. Lacking the power to subsidize the African Slave Trade in every State, is not as superior as having the power to enforce African Slavery in every state, depending upon who has the power to decide what is or is not superior. The so-called Constitution, in writing no less, subsidizes a known crime, the crime of African Slavery. Who decides what is superior or not superior, and what process is used to make that decision?

More fiction:
"but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert..."

The problems with the Articles of Confederation included the problem of paying off debts to whoever was owed debt in fact. I offered an answer to that specific problem. An example of how that problem was working out, within the federal association, was the events that became known as Shays’s Rebellion.

Shays's Rebellion, so-called, was explained very well in that lecture (fact-based instead of fiction based, not “holier than thou”) whereby an obvious abuse of the law power in Massachusetts occurred, concerning the collection of dubious debt, and efforts to access due process of law failed. The people against the criminals in government lost the battle and they ran like runaway slaves to a free state, a less criminal state, a state where runaway slaves can find a semblance of due process of law.

In that federal case, the federal government ought to have stepped in, and the law ought to have been reinstated, affording each individual due process of law, trial by the country. Rather than help the criminals in the Massachusetts government return to law, provide just remedy, etc., the federal government employees did nothing. Does that make the Articles of Confederation inferior to something better, or is that a failure attributable, accountable, to individual people; people in positions of power?

Did the federal government have the power to help restore law in Massachusetts under the Articles of Confederation? The Federal government afforded the people a means by which the British, the largest criminal army on the planet, were driven from their goal of enslaving Americans. The Federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, was somehow incapable of returning Massachusetts to rule of law? Blame the piece of paper, not actual people with names? Blame a Man-of-Straw?

Did the people in the federal government have the power to intervene in Massachusetts, to return to the people their power to try any case, of dubious debt, or corruption, or any other fact that matters? Do the people in government, anywhere, anytime, have the power to return law power to the people themselves, give us back our due process, as eluded to in the Bill of Rights, or exemplified in that Declaration of Independence?

So the defects of any federal agreement are thereby comparable to any other type of connection between any number of people. In the federal agreement, if you don't want to pay a dubious debt, you don't, and if there is law, then the country, through trial by jury, which is trial by the country, is afforded jurisdiction to settle the matter definitively; not a dictator doing whatever he may please to do to satisfy what he alone wants anywhere and anytime.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"In order to have a Republican Form of Government, one must have representatives who are elected as delegates to represent the people from their Districts, Counties, and Towns."

That is false unless words can mean anything, anytime, as explained by Bill Clinton in his famous non-answer during questioning concerning abuse of his power: "It depends upon what the word is, is."

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Chapter III, Page 176:

"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.
Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it."

Warnings concerning this ability to construct meaning out of words:

George Mason, June 6, 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?"

The counterfeiting of the meaning of the word democracy is also a modern device of deception used to gain political power, it was used by those who treasonously counterfeited the federation.

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."

If a Mob perpetrates a violent crime upon an innocent victim, then individuals, not the Mob can be held accountable in fact. Who determines what is, is? Who determines if the Mob is guilty or the individual instigators, or agent provocateurs, are responsible?

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Respublica
v.
Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

"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."

How many millions of innocent people were enslaved by the angry Mob known as America after the Constitution, with its National subsidizing of African Slavery, was fraudulently, and treasonously, put into criminal action? It is sinister, criminally negligent, to call an Angry Lynch Mob, enforcing Slavery upon innocent people, a Republic.

If the people in American won't stand up and protect each other from the false federal government, then that Angry Lynch Mob in Washington D.C. will continue to murder on a massive scale. If all it takes is a few word changes to divide, so as to conquer, the American people, then words will continue to be counterfeited, leaving each successive generation incapable of meaningful discussion on important matters.

A jury managed to protect and serve the Bundy Ranch victims of persecution, and that ought to be something worth knowing, for future encounters with angry mobs waving counterfeit badges, counterfeit money, and counterfeit words.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
As right as it may be to apply the analogy to some of the people, it may be a good idea to accurately identify (actual due process not counterfeit due process) the facts that matter in these cases where criminals consume the innocent.

Many people willingly fund the wolves, because those wolves wear sheep clothing, or no clothing in the case of Emperors without clothes: another apt analogy.

People anywhere, anytime, willingly, paying wealth (blood, sweat, and tears monetized) to these wolves in sheep costumes, aid, abet, lend support to (moral and material) those criminals: accessories to any crimes perpetrated by those criminals. That was why the people in Germany were blamed for the Nazi atrocities, those who knew, and did nothing, were complicit at best. A profitable monopoly, a criminal profitable monopoly, operating under the color of law, and some people not only work to pay for it, they also work to defend it.

Germany is just one case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEYle7DVxDI

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"I offer you a presentation of what & how we should be protecting our Constitution." http://sheriffhoyle.com/

Whatever happened to protecting innocent people from guilty people? I checked out the webpage and found a video, but no presentation of what and how "we" should be protecting anything. The video starts out with revisionist history, telling a fictional story of how American somehow started with that Constitution in 1787.

That is worst than a half-truth, it is aiding, abetting, lending support to criminals. If there is a way to return to rule of law, which includes many fundamental rights, such as the fundamental right to protect the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, then present, please, the means to that end.

If the idea is to "protect" a document written by criminals, signed by criminals, and criminally enforced by criminals, then that idea is already well demonstrated.

George Mason Speech Virginia RATifying Convention
June 04, 1788
"M. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
In the context of true law power, which is the verdict of the country through their representatives known as jurors, those deliberations leading to that unanimous verdict would include such things as the opinion (stated as fact) offered by Mike Gay.

If every member of the jury agrees with Mike Gay, concerning what Lavoy should have done, then that jury fails to represent the whole country. I know that if I am on a jury to render a verdict in this murder case, then my opinion would be that Lavoy ought to have taken the advice to travel to the safe county the day before, so as to avoid that ambush. The murderers are guilty of murdering Lavoy Finicum, that is as plain as it is wrong to use a badge to cover-up murder, or use a public access information outlet to help cover-up murder by people with fake badges.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
My name is spelled, Kelley.

Question:

"Tell me, how many times have you fled officers from a traffic stop?"

That question does not apply. I will proceed as if deliberating as a juror in a lawful jury trial where the accused "officer" who murdered Lavoy Finicum is on trial for that murder, and even more importantly, I will proceed as if those who paid the murderers to murder Lavoy Finicum are on trial for conspiracy murder, and on trial for treason since those "officers" would be guilty of treason for using their "license" afforded to them for the purpose of protecting the innocent from the guilty, to murder the innocent instead.

I have never faced a murderous "officer" intending to murder me, and so I have no experience in the situation faced by Lavoy Finicum as he faced numerous murderous "officers" intending to murder him. If you, as a juror (again me pretending that law could exist in America), wish to ignore the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that these murderers murder Lavoy Finicum, then in my opinion you aid, abet, lend support to those murderers, you do so by your willful ignorance as a member of a lawful society whereby it is your duty to defend the innocent from the guilty in time and place with or without the license to try the case as a juror.

As you help cover-up this murder, with demonstrable ignorance, or willful deception, the fact remains that you aid, abet, and support by your willful ignorance, or your willful deception, those murders perpetrated by those murderers.

That is my viewpoint, based upon available evidence, which includes recorded confessions of malice aforethought to murder Lavoy Finicum. If anyone cares to look into some of the evidence, they can.

https://www.facebook.com/mllpodcast/videos/263894004282166/UzpfSTE2MjE1NTY1MTQ6MTAyMTY0NzYxODY4OTAxNTI/

1 hour into that interview there is a reference to a radio transmission that is not front page news. If it is not “information” from “Major Media,” it does not exist, to some. That willful ignorance affords all those people their “plausible deniability” concerning their duty as free people in perilously perishable liberty. If you are not told to do your duty, you won't, and that is what Germans were blamed for, during the murderous Nazi regime, and that is what the Russians, at least Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, confesses during the murderous Bolshevik regime: failure to respond in defense of the innocent against the aggressive guilty criminals in fake government.

The following applies to all willfully ignorant aiders and abettors of those murderous criminals infesting government:

"Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has
been a long road -- how you regard -- what is
your explanation for the fact that there has
been such little national media coverage of
these -- of this trial and this evidence and
this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
which is the first trial ever to be able to
produce evidence on this assassination --
what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
is not sounding but is in fact totally
silent -- almost totally silent?

"A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be
deafening. Disinformation is not only
getting certain things to appear in print,
it's also getting certain things not to
appear in print. I mean, the first -- the
first thing I would say as a way of
explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
of disinformation over a long period of time
that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
official line has been that James Earl Ray
killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing
like the short period when the line was that
the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
did it all by himself.

"And when that is imprinted in the
minds of the general public for 30 years, if
somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's
a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99
percent of the people wouldn't believe him
because it just -- it just wouldn't click in
the mind. It would just go right to -- it
couldn't be. It's just a powerful
psychological effect over 30 years of
disinformation that's been imprinted on the
brains of the -- the public. Something to
the country couldn't -- couldn't be."

If you are not told to help preserve liberty, but you are told to pay up and shut up, then you obey, blindly, and without question. That type of blind obedience to falsehood without question, in my opinion, disqualifies you as a juror on a lawful trial, just as it disqualifies fellow conspiracy murderers during a conspiracy murder trial.

So, in a return question, a valid question, what is the pay-off you seek when you decide to help cover-up or rationalize this specific murder? I’ve been on a jury, and this is the type of question you would face, not just from me, but for anyone exercising their moral conscience.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike Gay wrote:
"However, I have seen no evidence of murder."

You don’t have to, and that is fine. If there was law in America there would be honest people assembled in a Grand Jury. The most honest and discrete among the people of the county in which the murder took place would constitute a lawful, independent, Grand Jury. Those people, having all jurisdiction civil and criminal, would subpoena witnesses, question the accused, and present their findings so as to begin trying the case lawfully. The trial jurors find the facts that matter in the case during a jury trial, which is a trial by the country. That is what would happen if the law was in force in America. That the law is not in force in America is the point.

Helping to cover up a murder is unlawful at base principles.

Again pretending: The Grand Jury in the county assemble... These people constitute an independent group of regular people, meaning that these are not people on the public dole, people not paid to be the so-called government, with uniforms, badges, and licenses to kill indiscriminately, instead these are representatives of the most discrete and honest people in that county, and they assemble to find out if there is probable cause to try a conspiracy murder case. If there is probable cause, then the accused is put on trial.

If you and I were on the Grand Jury, in this case, then it would be our specified duty to find evidence of murder if that evidence exists. Our duty would not be to make sure that we find no evidence, even if it exists. And that lawful work is merely to establish probable cause to try the case, so the evidence is not yet deemed factual, because that judgment of fact is the duty of the trial jury, in a trial by the country, not a trial by the government.

"However, I have seen no evidence of murder."

Pretending again. In this case, suppose I went out and found the interview posted in my last comment, as a Grand Juror, and you did not find that interview, but that interview is placed before you, as we 2 are members of that Grand Jury, where it is our duty to ensure that conspiracy murderers are not running amok in our county murdering innocent people. We don’t try the case, we merely look for, and hopefully find, probable cause to try the case, if there is probable cause to try the case. We don't make sure that we don't find any evidence, because are duty is to find evidence, our duty is not to make sure we never find any evidence.

If I start out with a predetermined verdict before looking at any evidence, then I’m not honest, and therefore I would be a poor example, and I would not represent the people in that county. That applies to everyone else in any position of true law. But on the Grand Jury, as I pretend it could exist, the pretense is that my mind was open until I found that evidence offered in the last comment.

Radio Transmission: "We need to kill Lavoy Finicum."

I then work to convince you, and anyone else on the Grand Jury to put the accused, recorded on that radio transmission (if it exists) on trial. I do that based upon that testimony alone. That is because I’m pretending law exists in America, as I have not actually verified the existence of that radio transmission between officer 1 and officer 2 during the murder. That radio transmission may or may not actually be already one piece of inculpatory evidence available to the public, because we need to know, or to any accuser or defendant, and anyone else lawfully capable of trying that case, in an actual court of law.

If you wish to ignore that evidence as you comment on a public web page, that is fine. If you continue to make claims as if there was no murder, then, in my opinion, you aid and abet the murderers.

“All your other malarkey is nothing but speculation, sir.”

https://oathkeepers.org/2016/02/9870-2/

“Greg and Stewart discuss how this barricade/roadblock was placed after a curve, which did not afford Lavoy ample time to see the barricade and stop his vehicle. Greg also covers exactly why barricading/use of roadblocks is considered deadly force and inherently dangerous and life-threatening, and why most jurisdictions in the United States considers them antiquated, and have gotten away from using them.”

The use of deadly force, the license to kill, is lawful for anyone, anywhere, anytime, when facing imminent danger, who could argue otherwise, other than someone intent upon killing the innocent, after disarming the innocent?

The point here is that there is a process by which the truth is found in this or any case, but that is not happening, instead, malarkey is the point, so at to cover-up the murder, and afford the murderers their license to murder at the expense of their victims.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"There is no safety in a Republic if..."

It (meaning U.S.A. Inc.) is not a Republic, it has not been a republic since 1789. In a Despotic Nation State. In a despotic nation state those best able to lie, cheat, steal, extort, enslave, are best able to "rise" to the "top" of that type of criminal cesspool.

If it were a republic, meaning something of, for, and by the public, then representatives (jurors) could vote to have the liars, cheats, stealers, extortors, and those who enslave: out of power. That process of clearing the swamp would work aggressively, and work on the principle that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents."

LETTER XIV.
JANUARY 17, 1788.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"...the abyssal ignorance regarding the origins of our republic..."

It is not (U.S.A. Inc.) a republic, and has not been a republic since 1789. The abyssal ignorance is not entirely accountable to nature, those who create and maintain despotic (fake) governments know that they must spend the loot they steal in specific ways so as to destroy natural human morality, and one obvious expenditure is false propaganda injected into children.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Show me where in the US Constitution the...."

Why not acknowledge the fact that those who were at the crime scene warned about the consequences of allowing the usurpation from a Federal, voluntary, association, to a National, involuntary one?

George Mason, and many others, can show you where those dangers, and more, are written in the U.S. Constitution of 1787. The document replaced the organic, grass-roots, Articles of Confederation. The document was illegally framed, formed, and illegally enforced. The document creates a national government. The so-called GENERAL government is not federal in any true sense of the word. The National government is a despotic government corporation contract, made despotic by design, and those who wrote it intended to TAKE the authority to do whatever those in control of it wanted to do, and wanted to do with impunity.

"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?"
George Mason, June 6, 1788

Fraud and treason can be propagandized to a point where the victims actually call it legalese, or prosecutorial misconduct, or bad behavior, just as the crime of slavery can be propagandized to a point where the victims of it actually believe that it is necessary for their economy. Dupes are dupes for demonstrable reasons, for example, you can't show a dupe that they are one. If you could, then they wouldn't be a dupe anymore.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"The future holds either unprecedented despotism or civil war."

That can be shown to be cyclic by design. To all those who have suffered from fraudulent government actions, are suffering, or will suffer, such as taxation without representation, or any abuse of government power, anywhere, anytime, that despotism was, is, and will be palpable to them in fact, in time, and in place, each time it is allowed to happen.

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

This is not difficult to understand if the one expending the effort can shed the brainwashing. Those who abuse power (criminals) know how to avoid accurate accountability. The thief points at nothing and yells "THEIF," and while those who would naturally oppose the crime are focusing their accountability at nothing: what do you think happens?

The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788.
No. 3 - New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism
"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."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"A nationalization of our economy"

All this talk as if the stolen power is in any way legitimate, and the battle is to stab the other criminal party in the back before having those in that party stab "our" party in the back. What a load of BS (Fake News).

"For, even if industry and business should remain privately owned, they would be held hostage to draconian regulation, and only operate at the whim of govt agents."

How about an example of being held hostage by so-called "govt agents"?

"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

Criminals create a despotic nation-state, doing so by telling lies and making threats, and then once the criminals are firmly in power they reveal their true colors.

Those who need to make ends meet produce a competitive form of money, they do so because the better money (gold) was driven out by the criminal infusion of counterfeit money (promises to pay that are lies documented on the very paper printed by the criminal frauds), and what does the so-called government do when people rebel against taxation without representation?

The draconian despot on top of the newly created pyramid scheme abuses the despotic office of President of the corporation by conscripting (enslaving) a national army of tax collectors to invade a former independent state and crush that spirit of liberty out of those slaves in that state. Pay or suffer, and pay without question.

That is an example of this:

"For, even if industry and business should remain privately owned, they would be held hostage to draconian regulation, and only operate at the whim of govt agents."

Farmers were run out of business by draconian regulations, including excise taxes payable in gold, and including the subsidization of a criminal labor force, paid for by the farmers whose capacity to compete with slave labor was already compromised by the draconian regulations that refused to defend the slaves, and then the farmers had to pay the draconian slave masters for the costs spent by the draconian Nation-State in enforcing slavery. Dig your own grave, and don't question the order to do so.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Counterfeiting law is not news, it is the norm since 1789.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
How is it that normal people are led to believe that the fund from which all this criminal government power is funded is in any way "taxpayer money"?

If it confesses that it is tyrannical, despotic, and criminal, and if the actual law process lawfully determines that it is, in fact, criminal, then it is not "taxpayer money," it is stolen loot.

Since it is stolen loot, then those who steal it will inevitably, and perhaps invariably, spend the loot stealing more.

"The Lake Pend Oreille School District has become widely known for its insatiable appetite for taxpayer money, no matter the economy, no matter its enrollment figures, or the impact it has on property owners and, indirectly, on renters."

The bla, bla, bla, criminal organization confesses (widely known for those who want to know) its insatiable appetite for stolen loot, and as a matter (no matter?) of fact the stolen loot must be taken either from those who produce anything worth stealing, or stolen from fellow criminals who have themselves stolen the loot from those who produce anything worth stealing.

Since the Nationalists (criminals) took over in 1789, consolidating all the formerly independent state governments into one profitable monopoly, then either this bla, bla, bla, branch of that trunk is allowed to share the loot, or by some miracle that branch is taking over the turf already well patrolled by the profitable monopoly corporate legal fiction criminal gang.

Why would the national criminal gang members afford these petty local criminals the license to steal so much of their property?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"...the moving parties rationale for seeking standing to sue."

Failing to understand the nature of a criminal organization leads to this type of farcical argument. The criminals who took over the lawful government in America admit their criminality.

“... [C]onstitutional standing [is] ... a word game played by secret rules.... Characterized neither by the private rights model of the seven common law forms of action nor by the "injury-in-fact" paradigm of modern standing doctrine, these matters took forms astonishingly similar to the "standingless" public action or "private attorney general" model that modern standing law is designed to thwart.... Adjudicatory models premised on a part-whole schema, like mandamus, are ultimately crowded out of our concept of justiciable controversies.... Procedurally, the models of access for raising claims of public right allowed individuals to command the attention of the law, as in the private rights model.... The Frothingham Court began its analysis with a discussion of nonconstitutional doctrines of equity, proceeded to reason from the constituent model in a way that shows clear prototype effects, then rejected the intermediate status of the public rights model, and finally raised constitutional considerations that helped lead to a modern conception of standing.... For over a hundred years, the metaphor of "standing" was shorthand for the question of whether a plaintiff had asserted claims that a court of equity would enforce....”
The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.
Steven L. Winter

When the criminals claim that they fear “democracy,” or “mob rule,” they lie. They fear government by the whole people, and they fear the loss of their power to sway, control, and maneuver the mobs they create with their lies. They fear a shift of power from their hands as that power shifts to the hands of everyone as everyone is on an equal footing when government is enforced by the whole body of people, as it was, and as it is, exemplified in times and places where rule of law takes on a form such as the common law, with independent grand juries, independent trial juries, natural rights, and basic moral principles; such as the golden rule.

“The fact that, in that dark age, so many of the principles of natural equity, as those then embraced in the Common Law, should have been so uniformly recognized and enforced by juries, as to have become established by general consent as “the law of the land;” and the further fact that this “law of the land” was held so sacred that even the king could not lawfully infringe or alter it, but was required to swear to maintain it, are beautiful and impressive illustrations of the truth that men’s minds, even in the comparative infancy of other knowledge, have clear and coincident ideas of the elementary principles, and the paramount obligation, of justice. The same facts also prove that the common mind, and the general, or, perhaps, rather, the universal conscience, as developed in the untrammelled judgments of juries, may be safely relied upon for the preservation of individual rights in civil society; and that there is no necessity or excuse for that deluge of arbitrary legislation, with which the present age is overwhelmed, under the pretext that unless laws be made,the law will not be known; a pretext, by the way, almost universally used for overturning, instead of establishing, the principles of justice.”
Lysander Spooner, Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852

To enslave people the professors of slavery claim ownership of everything, including land. If they can claim ownership of people, and get away with it, they can claim ownership of land and get away with that too. If you disagree, then they alone decide if you have standing, which is the power to disagree.

The common law, moral, lawful, legal, right, to own land, free of encumbrances, which is an allodial title, in so many words in English, is an ancient concept, along with the right to breath air, eat food, make a living, and defend life, property, and thereby maintain liberty.

Why has it been called the law of the land since ancient times?

“We have hitherto met you in the field of battle, with hostile minds, urged on by the great principle of self-defense; yet in those instances, where the fortune of war hath delivered any of your countrymen into our hands, we appeal to them that our enmity hath ceased the moment they were disarmed; and we have treated them more like citizens than prisoners of war. We now address you as part of the great family of mankind, whose freedom and happiness we most earnestly wish to promote and establish.
Distain, then, to continue the instruments of frantick ambition and lawless power. Fee the dignity and importance of your nature. Rise to the rank of free citizens of free states. Desist from the vain attempt to ravage and depopulate a country you cannot subdue, and accept from our munificence what can never be obtained from our fears. We are willing to receive you with open arms into the bosom of our country. Come, then, and partake of the blessings we tender to you in sincerity of heart.
In the name of these sovereign, free, and independent states we promise and engage to you that great privilege of man, the free and uninterrupted exercise of your religion, complete protection of your persons from injury, the peaceable possessions of the fruits of your honest industry, the absolute property in the soil granted to you to defend, unless you shall otherwise dispose of it, to your children and your children's children for ever.1
Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, who have vacant lands, to lay off with as much expedition as possible, a sufficient quantity of lands to answer the purposes expressed in the forgoing address; for which lands no charge is to be made against the United States.” Journals of the Continental Congress, 1778

Previous to the take over by the criminal mobs the actual federal government maintained a competition which afforded the whole people many choices as to which Nation-State maintained the highest quality and lowest cost provider of government services. In that lawful form of federating large areas of land, it was possible for people to invest in the best government that money could buy, and those people who choose independent, lawful, co-existence, had many flavors of that chosen life from which to choose the best freedom, in the best liberty, as they independently judge at liberty.

“Since the establishment of our new government, this order of things is but little changed. An individual, wishing to appropriate to himself lands still unappropriated by any other, pays to the public treasurer a sum of money proportioned to the quantity he wants. He carries the treasurer's receipt to the auditors of public accompts, who thereupon debit the treasurer with the sum, and order the register of the land-office to give the party a warrant for his land. With this warrant from the register, he goes to the surveyor of the county where the land lies on which he has cast his eye. The surveyor lays it off for him, gives him its exact description, in the form of a certificate, which certificate he returns to the land-office, where a grant is made out, and is signed by the governor. This vests in him a perfect dominion in his lands, transmissible to whom he pleases by deed or will, or by descent to his heirs if he die intestate.”
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787.

Before the crooks took over America it was our known duty, our power, to hold the local and the state government accountable by lawful means, such as the discovery of probable cause to indict crooks in government made by independent grand juries, and trial by the country of the accused in those indicted cases of suspected crooks in government. It was the States duty to hold the federal government accountable, and it was the prerogative of the States to choose to remain a member of the federation and pay for it, or not.

That prerogative held by the States was lost, as was the power of the whole people as one to hold the government to account, that was lost too when the crooks took over. Also lost was the power to move from one despotic slave state to a state that was not despotic, to do so without an army of slaves hunting you down so as to return you to your masters, hunting you down in any part of the Consolidated Nation State that usurped the Federation of Independent States.

It would be interesting, in my opinion, to discuss this topic in detail, something an independent Grand Jury might do, but that is not what has been left to us by our criminal ancestors, and we live in a world run by criminals, and those criminals do not want their victims to know anything of value that might tip the scale in favor of rule of law.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Does it come down to the “Enabling Acts” ?"

Why is this difficult to see clearly? The people as a whole failed in their lawful duty when they allowed the criminals to take over in 1789, subsidizing African Slavery, and paving the way for rule by corporate legal fiction.

Out was the ancient knowledge that afforded the people as a whole their means to defend themselves with rule of law, which included independent, grass-roots, organic, grand jury investigations, and trial jury determinations of facts concerning any controversy which includes a take-over of the lawful government by "empire building" false federalist "Agencies," and any of those who make the same deal with the devil.

So...why is this hard to understand? Is it ubiquitous blind belief in falsehood without question?
Has almost everyone taken the same deal, the same oath to falsehood? Go ahead and ignore the question, as you are told.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"My rational mind cannot fall upon any other explanation that satisfies, but we need to assume we still don’t have enough data to make our case quite yet and so in the next part of this series we will need to examine the states admission acts before we move on to the case law."

Knowingly jumping off the cliff into the hell created by organized criminals who operate under the color of law is one thing, being led by deception off the same cliff is another thing, in both cases the victims are captured and consumed at the pleasure of the despotic, tyrannical, criminals.

Journals of Congress
April, 1784
Page 277, 278
"That whensoever any of the said states shall have, of free inhabitants, as many as shall then be in any one the least numerous of the thirteen Original states, such State shall be admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the said original states;"
http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/journals%20of%20the%20continental%20congress%201774-1789%20vol%2026%20jan%201%20-%20may%2010%201784.pdf

Claiming to have been given absolute authority, a routine method of operation for criminals who operate under the color of law, is a claim that can be tried by moral principles, such as those moral principles codified in our common laws that include trial by jury, which is trial by the whole people themselves, known as trial by the country, which is not trial by the government.

Claiming to have been given absolute authority is followed up smartly with another claim, and that other claim is such that the only authority that is authorized to enforce the claim of absolute authority is the government itself, not the people as a whole; themselves. Anyone daring to question that absolute authority of that mob called the government will be punished, and all the costs of punishing those who dare to question that absolute authority of that mob called the government will be made to pay for their own punishment.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

The power to create and maintain slaves is a criminal power, even when people are led to believe otherwise; even when people are led to believe that the criminal mob is "our" government. Debt slavery, indentured servitude, or any form in which some people somehow consume other people, one calorie at a time, or all at once, is accurately measurable as a crime, but only to those who actually care to know the facts that matter in those cases.

"Harrington has shown that power always follows property. This I believe to be as infallible a maxim, in politicks, as, that action and re-action are equal, is in mechanics. Nay I believe we may advance one step farther and affirm that the balance of power in a society, accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way then of preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue, is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society: to make a division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates. If the multitude is possessed of the balance of real estate, the multitude will have the balance of power, and in that case the multitude will take care of the liberty, virtue, and interest of the multitude in all acts of government."
John Adams to James Sullivan
Philadelphia, May 26, 1776

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If the past is a source of solutions to similar problems then an obvious solution is to return to rule of law, not counterfeit (fake) rule of law.


The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury
"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."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Was that not a reasonable answer?

The work done by many volunteers investigating such crimes under the color of law as the kidnapping of the Bundy family members (and many volunteers helping the Bundy family) constitute the same work that ought to be done by a Grand Jury. The difference is that independent individuals are routinely ignored as “Conspiracy Theorists,” while an independent Grand Jury would be lawful if such lawful processes were not prevented by criminals posing as the government. Preventing an independent Grand Jury from this vital, lawful, duty is a serious crime added to the kidnappings, and the murders of people like Martin Luther King Jr., or more recently the murder of Lavoy Finicum.

The threshold has passed as to probable cause to try the case of the deprivation of rights perpetrated under the color of law, as proven by the criminal impersonating a Judge when that Judge confessed the crimes perpetrated by the criminal impersonating a Prosecutor. That was the Navarro and Myhre criminal cases perpetrated under the color of law, caught red-handed, complete with a confession, all occurring well past that threshold of probable cause. It is the duty of independent Grand Juries to judge the threshold of probable cause to try the case, and if their judgment is determined by them, independently, then a trial by the country must commence according to actual, not fake, law.

“It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him.”

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

Is the obvious answer not good enough?

18 U.S. Code § 242.Deprivation of rights under color of law
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

Independent volunteers have to reestablish rule of law, and that was the lesson offered in the Revolutionary period from 1775 to 1789. So the answer is ignored because the answer is the work that must be done by individuals who ask these questions. The answer is not to ask the “government” to turn themselves in, and volunteer to be put to death for their capital crimes, according to the authority that they claim affords them absolute power. The work that ought to be done is work spelled out well enough above, and this work will not be done by a legal fiction called U.S.A. Inc.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Remember, every states admission into the union was a political process and so one must also be tempted to believe that the extinguishing of title is ALSO a political issue thereby making extinguishing title, disposal, whatever you want to call the handing control of the lands finally over to the state, first and foremost a political matter. "

When the criminals take-over they know how to indoctrinate each successive generation into accepting arbitrary (criminal) government. That explains how people today have trouble understanding basic moral principles that govern people, such as the Golden Rule.

Previous to the criminal take-over of America in 1789 the people themselves voluntarily agreed to apply common, moral, principles, doing so at grass-roots, and doing so organically. People created voluntary mutual defense associations, in towns, cities, counties, and states. The people hired (elected) to run the towns, cities, counties, and State governments. Those elected to represent the whole people then framed, formed, and created a Federation (confederation) of States to defend against the arbitrary government of Britain. That was all done on the voluntary, moral, basis, and the proof of this is extensive, including the efforts to end the crimes known as African Slavery.

Homesteading was the moral way by which individuals, families, businesses, or corporations acquired allodial title to land within the voluntary associations formed, framed, for mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. Homesteading was exemplified by the early settlers: improve vacant land, defend it, and establish property rights by that improvement, and that defense. The process by which any, and every, controversy among the volunteers was trial by jury according to the common law, which included the adaptation of assembling independent grand juries to investigate accusations of crimes perpetrated by criminals.

So now, after over 200 years of rule by the criminals, people just accept as fact that human relationships are involuntary and everyone, everywhere, is subject to arbitrary rule by these criminals, and everyone, everywhere must obey without question or be deported, or run from this form of (legal fiction) slavery. Where can people run from this form of slavery since the criminals took-over in 1789?

That type of indoctrination is just so much fertilizer, as is this investigation into what has happened to common laws regarding allodial title of land, for individuals, for groups of individuals in cities, counties, and states. So much fertilizer keeping people in the dark like mushrooms.

The actual founders of the actual federation of states actually formed republics, meaning that the voluntary mutual defense associations were actually for the whole people, the public, and not for special interest groups like central bankers, warmongers, and slave traders.

If people give absolute power to criminals posing (counterfeiting) as "the government," what do you think those criminals will do with our lives, property, and liberty?

January, 1782
“Congress having resolved on the seventh day of August last that in case they should recognize the independence of the people of Vermont they would consider all the lands belonging to New Hampshire and New York respectively without the limits of Vermont aforesaid as coming within the mutual guaranty of territory contained in the Articles of Confederation and that the United States will accordingly guarantee such lands and the jurisdiction over the same against any claims or encroachments from the inhabitants of Vermont aforesaid and having on the twentieth day of the same month required as an indispensable preliminary to the recognition
of the independence of the people inhabiting the territory aforesaid and their admission into the federal Union the relinquishment of all demands of lands or jurisdiction on the East side of the West Bank of Connecticut River and on the West side of a line beginning on the North West Comer of the State of Massachusetts thence running twenty miles East of Hudson's River so far as the said River runs North Easterly in its general course, then by the West bounds of the township granted by the late Government of New Hampshire to the river running from South Ba}'' to Lake Champlain thence along the said river to Lake Champlain thence along the waters of Lake Champlain to the latitude of forty five degrees North excepting a neck of land between Missiskoy Bay and the waters of Lake Champlain.”
http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/journals%20of%20the%20continental%20congress%201774-1789%20vol%2022%20jan%201%20-%20aug%209%201782.pdf

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Page 4 Luther Martin

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.


"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutional-Convention/dp/1410203638

The false "Federalist" Party members had to resort to some form of mob rule in order to get the votes they needed to get rid of the grass-roots, organic, free market, moral, golden rule, rule of law, federation of independent states, so they did what was done to reace that goal of disposing of moral government, replacing moral government with mob rule run by them and their kind.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"THE STATES CREATED THE FEDERAL GOVT !"

That is not true, not in this context. That was true when people representing the whole people as one formed voluntary mutual defense associations in defense against a criminal National government known as The British Empire: 1775 up until 1789. Those people representing the whole people as one formed 13 States that were voluntary mutual defense associations. Those representatives of those republics formed the federal voluntary mutual defense association under The Articles of Confederation, and it was a federal government then, after 1789 it was no longer a federal government.

"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul." Generalissimo Washington, by Murray N. Rothbard

A federal association is voluntary, a national association is often not voluntary and therefore despotic. Moral, peaceful, people form republics and federations for the mutual defense of all the people. Criminals, sociopaths, psychopaths, aristocrats, or whatever the latest fashionable name is for them, are the people who form despotic versions of so-called government, and they often collect extortion fees to pay for the costs of collecting extortion fees from the slaves: subsidized slavery.

"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:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:" First Federal (not National) Congress, 1776

"With the Fed now become an all consuming Frankenstein monster, with it’s own “Federal Culture” and it’s imperial claims of “Government Interest”, it is time for the states to flex their rights and re-assert their long atrophied prerogatives."

It is not federal, it is national, and the states are not republics, not since 1789. If it, the association called state, or called government, represents the whole people as one then, and only then, is it a republic. If the association called a federation is not voluntary then it is not a federation, it is a national government. There were 13 republics formed in defense against British criminal aggression, and the representatives of those republics formed a federation of republics. That was true until 1789. In 1789 the criminals took over and created a criminal organization that started out with National subsidized slavery, which is all the proof anyone needs to convict that Frankenstein monster created in 1789 of absolute despotism in fact.

"That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. " Robert Yates at the Con-Con Con-Job.

"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." Maryland Farmer, March 07, 1788

"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. " E. Gerry at the Con-Con Con-Job.

"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists." Melancton Smith, June 20, 1788

“Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.” George Mason, June 04, 1788

“A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.” Richard Henry Lee, Jan 25, 1788

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Indeed, even General Washington, one of the strongest proponents of a more “Energetic” central govt, had his doubts about the Philadelphia convention and declined to preside over it until prevailed upon by Madison, Hamilton and other Federalists."

Generalissimo Washington had banked (fraudulent central banking) on stealing land from patriots during the pogrom perpetrated by the British Nationalists, the so-called Revolutinary War. Once that land grab by Generalissimo Washington was threatened by patriots in the last battle of the Revolutionary War in Massachusetts (so-called Shays's Rebellion) Generalissimo Washington broke his political promise to retire from politics and he then joined the criminal Nationalists who hid behind the Federalist name, so as to perpetrate the treasonous crime known as the Con-Con Con-Job.

That was explained very well in the work done by Leonard Richards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

Washington also invested in whiskey markets, which lends cause for his involvement in conscripting a National Army to crush the spirit of liberty out of the people in his Dictatorship which became known as the so-called Whiskey Rebellion.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Your comment is awaiting moderation. 5:01 am 3/2/2019


If "we" want to enslave people all we need to do is claim that God made us do it. Slaves are, after all, not Christians.

Now that "we" have this God excuse to help massage our egos, "we" can then blame God for the Civil Wars that "we" cause by our criminal actions that subsidize our "need" for institutionalized slavery.

"We" do this even though "we" were clearly warned about how subsidized slavery (a.k.a. despotism) under the color of law leads to pogroms that "we" will call a "Civil" War. But those warnings can be safely ignored, forgotten, and not heard while the same cycle of institutionalized violence caused by "us" with our blood-soaked hands perpetuates indefinitely, because all "we" have to do is, once again, blame "our" false God, and teach our children the same lies.

So how is that any different than this so-called left (Criminal Marxist/Leninists) when they blame the State for all the violence they cause when they make slaves out of everyone including themselves? God is a corporation, a legal fiction?

"Most wanted to put a few bucks in the donation can and let someone else do the real work."
AND:
"We don’t need to stoop to their lows, but we do need to get actively involved in electing the government representatives that we want in office to protect our rights and liberties."

If people create a corporate Monster, a false God, to "protect our rights and liberties," that corporate Monster will be employed by the most powerfully evil people, as a demonstrable rule of nature, a rule of nature as powerful as gravity, and those evil people will "protect our rights and liberties" in name only, as RINOS, or Marxists claiming to be "progressive," or Aristocrats, Elite, or whatever false name works to keep the slaves firmly set on the hamster wheel.

"We don’t need to stoop to their lows, but we do need to get actively involved in electing the government representatives that we want in office to protect our rights and liberties."

If the “government” is actually institutionalized, subsidized, slavery, run by “government representatives,” then those who "you" send to run it will be corrupted absolutely. That is proven in all but a very few cases, such as Ron Paul. If you claim that it, this form of organized crime (subsidized slavery under the color of law), is necessary for any reason: because God said so, or because The State says so in so many words on paper or stone, then "your" excuse evaporates rapidly under closer scrutiny. That is the nature of deception, it is fragile in the light of truth.

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.” The People's Panel, The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941 by Richard D. Younger

It is easy to spot those few people who actually do something effective to fight against criminal governments, they are routinely murdered by criminals running criminal governments. Those who are actually doing something are those who are murdered in cold blood by the same “government” that is claimed to be a God-given "government." What does that say about that two-faced God? Do as I say, not as I do, nothing up my sleeve?

People like Martin Luther King Jr., and more recently Lavoy Finicum, are merely informing people about very specific crimes perpetrated in the name of “the people” (res-publica), and they are murdered in cold blood. Those people are doing the work that ought to be done by Grand Juries.

What due process is owed to the victims in those cases where “the government” murders those innocent people, assuming that the law of the land is true and not demonstrably false? What more proof do you need that the law of the land left, the Grand Jurors are hiding under their desks?

A group of murderers murder thousands of people on September 11, 2001, and there is no Grand Jury investigation, and there is no trial to hold the perpetrators to account for those murders. Instead 2 countries (places full of people), having no connection to the murders, are targets of aggressive war for profit: Oil in Iraq, and Opium in Afghanistan, and that is the “government” God gave you? That is your version of rule of law?

The family of Martin Luther King Jr. insisted upon a trial in that case, and the “government” that murdered that innocent man stonewalled, but a trial was allowed to follow through, and the representatives of the whole people, the jury, in that case, determined that the “government” was guilty of murder in that case. The actual murderers got away with it, probably under their golden parachutes.

What do you people actually expect to happen when the criminals take-over a government, as was done in 1789, when those criminals actually got away with Institutionalized, Subsidized, Slavery Nation Wide?

God made you think that it was legit? Your “Founding Fathers” had to do it, to save us, they said it was necessary, and you believed them, or your parents believed them?

"For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions. . . " Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1745

A God (Satan) will exact revenge in due time, not for sins, but for willful, purposeful, injuries done to the innocent, by the guilty, done with malice aforethought. That is the nature of humanity, nature explained well enough in scripture.

The Golden Rule is the law of cause and effect, explained so eloquently, with so few words, saying so much, offering so much useful information, in a sound-bite. The bright side of things.

There is a dark side too.

"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."

“A nation gets the government that it deserves”

If it were a federation of states, then a "nation" would be California, or Nevada, or New Jersey, not U.S.A. Inc. Legal fictions did not make anyone hide under their desk, or believe these lies, or murder so many innocent people after torturing them for centuries.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Is it possible that you were born at this time in history by coincidence?"

Yes, or no, depending upon the intended meaning of the word coincidence. I can measure a force called ectropy, which is nearly the opposite of entropy.

Ectropy
"The overall increase in the organization of a system."

I can call that power to increase the organization of a system: God. I can do that, demonstrated now.

"Is it possible that you were born at this time in history by coincidence?"

No, it is not a coincidence, it is, in fact, a measurable consequence of the God power ectropy. I am here now because God (ectropy) put me here now.

"Are you here right now in 2019 to just watch and listen?"

No, I breathe, eat, think, act, and do what I can to perpetuate life, make life better, worth living, as I see fit as an individual, within my limited powers to do so.

"OR to are YOU here to ACT?"

I have a Jury notice in the mail at my desk. I will call on Monday, to represent my country, if possible. I ran for Congress of U.S.A. Inc. in 1996, an act that cost me a lot of time and energy while I worked 60 hours a week, hard labor while raising 2 children.

"If you are one of the above who thinks this is all a random, godless wonder, don’t worry yourself about it all."

Worry is, perhaps, a sickness. Concern may be a cause to act expediently, efficiently, and purposefully so as to address the specific concern. If there is any wonder at all as to what is or is not God, then that concern can be addressed, or that can be something that causes worry.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Unfortunately the 17th amendment, which ended the state legislatures appointing their Senators and gave the choice to the popular vote, vexed this system and moved the country closer to a democracy, a form of government the founders hated."

The "Founders" who supposedly "hated" democracy were the Nationalists, like Hamilton, who hid behind a federalist label, a false label, because they were Nationalists, and they were not Federalists. Nationalists wanted absolute power over all the people, meaning the Nationalists wanted dictatorial power over and above the whole people. Nationalists were therefore not republicans, they were, in a word, Aristocrats, or to use a modern term: Elite.

Nationalists hate something, and as is true with all the deceptive words used by deceptive people, the term "democracy" is also twisted into a counterfeit, opposite, meaning. They, the Nationalists, the Aristocrats, the Elite, they, as a small segment of a population, a "Special Interest," hate the loss of their absolute power over the whole body of people, and therefore they hate the law of the land, which is the common law, which includes independent grand jury investigations investigating Nationalists, Aristocrats, the Elite, and "Special Interests," so as to put those suspected of "bad behavior," "prosecutorial misconduct," "human trafficking," "treason," and other disturbances of the peace, on trial by the whole people as one, which is the law of the land, which is trial by jury, which is trial by the country, which is expressly not trial by the government, trial by the Nationalists, trial by the Aristocrats, trial by the Elite, and trial by Special Interests.

That power to hold everyone, including the Nationalists, to account, through due process due everyone without exception, is what the so-called Elite hate, and so they call what they hate by a different name, they call the law of the land, due process, trial by jury, the real common law, a name that divides so as to conquer, a deceptive name, a counterfeit name, and that false meaning, deceptive name chosen by the Nationalists is "democracy."

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
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 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."

That is what the Nationalists hated, they did not hate democracy, in fact the Nationalists employ the so-called Angry Mob as a tool to keep people fighting against each other, and they do so by expending the loot they steal by spreading false information, now known as fake news, so as to misinform, misdirect, propagandize, and ultimately control the so-called Angry Mob.

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.”

That Special Interest Group, hiding behind the name Federalist, used specific forms of deception, in order to remove the law of the land, trial by jury, the common law, due process, that afforded the people as a whole the power to indict, and try, those members of those Special Interest Groups.

Your ancestors were fooled, why do you keep on fooling yourselves now?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“What is the final straw that starts all this and who makes that decision?”
It might be a good idea to learn from history.
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.”
Many possible scenarios can lead toward the commencement of aggressive internal war for profit, something euphemistically called a Civil War.
The current Dictator in power issues the orders required to confiscate all privately owned firearms.
A number of state governments attempt to return the Dictatorship to rule of law, failing to do so those state governments attempt to secede.
Missing the point however is the already demonstrated fact that the creation of a dictatorship (as was done in 1789) inevitably leads to various forms of internal conflict large and small.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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."

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.”

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.


Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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)

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
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?

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2019/09/california-needs-federal-babysitters/

Legal fiction A is being described as a "collective" human being: responsible and accountable for thoughts and actions.

"California has serious problems, yet instead of dealing with these issues, they spend their time on political correctness."

They do no such thing. Individuals in California are individually responsible and individually accountable for their own thoughts and actions. There is no “collective” responsibility, nor is there any “collective” accountability. The scam run by the criminals who counterfeit government is dependent upon this obvious falsehood. While the criminals get away with mass murder and worse crimes, the victims are made to “blame” a Legal Fiction.

California (a place) is a crime scene where criminals have counterfeited the law power or so-called government. The criminals running the Legal Fiction called California have names, and each of the criminals running the Legal Fiction called California are subjects who are subjected to dictates enforced upon them by more powerful criminals who run the Legal Fiction called U.S.A. Inc. (LLC): Legal Fiction B.

"It has even attracted the attention of the Federal Government, who have indicated that they may have to step in to help rectify the problems."

The “problems” (so-called) are known consequences that result from so-called Tyranny, Despotism, Monarchy, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, or any false label used to hide the fact that criminals have taken-over the power of lawful government. Those consequences called “problems” are caused by the criminals running the most powerful legal fiction, and those “problems” are caused by the criminals running the subordinate legal fictions. Those “problems” are not problems, they are known consequences just like a known consequence of transferring economic power in the crime of extortion: those who are extorted transfer the wealth they have to those who enforce extortion. Those who produce anything worth stealing are made weaker, and those who steal anything worth stealing are made stronger. That consequence is only a problem to the criminal when there are no longer any victims producing anything worth stealing.

“California is filled with wealthy social justice warriors that spend their time and energy on telling the rest of the world what to do. What will they do when someone steps in to tell them what to do?”

California is an area on the planet where the criminals have counterfeited government, and that fact matters because no one in California is free from the accurately measurable transfers of power that flow from each individual to the dominant criminal power (National so-called Government) directly or through the subordinate criminal powers in each town, city, county, and so-called State. There is no law power while the criminals counterfeit the law power, and therefore the most powerful individuals are - in fact - the most powerful “governors” in California.

The most powerful criminals in California (the ones running the legal fiction) are subjected to the dictates enforced by the most powerful criminals running the National Legal Fiction. The National Criminal Organization Trumps the subordinate State Criminal Organizations.

At the National Level of the criminal organization known falsely as “government,” there has been a concerted effort to effectively control the minds of everyone in the so-called “government” schools. Armies of drones are created in these indoctrination centers, and to now call them “Social Justice Warriors” rather than individuals (each with a name) who are deeply deceived, and in need of help, is an obvious injustice.

Obvious injustice replaces obvious justice when the criminals take over government. Proof of this is written in almost all so-called “Media,” as the victims of propaganda think and act as they are told, reading from the deceptive script as their individual capacity to reason out the facts that matter has been severely compromised under a mountain of lies.

“It is time for them to either step up to the plate and deal with the issues they caused or accept the fact that they need Federal Babysitters.”

Pick any name from a long list of criminals, such as for example Dianne Feinstein, and assemble an independent grand jury to then command all lawful jurisdiction in a case against that single criminal. Pick any single crime perpetrated by that single criminal, such as treason, and use lawful authority to move from accusation to indictment (presentment), to place that criminal before a lawful (independent) trial jury. Once that individual criminal is held accountable for the crime of treason, in any lawful county in the area known as California, the people (not the babysitters) can then move onto the next, worst, criminal in California. If the people in California can return to actual justice (the law) by setting this process back in motion (due process), then it is entirely possible that people in other counties in other states can do the same.

Proof of treason is abundant, supplied by the perpetrators themselves, as they continue perpetrating treason on the official record each day, examples include every treasonous act documented against the National Bill of Rights, or every treasonous act documented against any of the State’s versions of Bills of Rights. Any “infringement” at all is a crime if words mean anything, and if words do not mean anything, then there is no justice, so why pay for something that does not exist?

California is relatively more powerful economically compared to other areas, and is therefore relatively more of a target for the criminals who run criminal legal fiction confidence schemes. For the same reason (relatively more powerful economically) the people in California can more powerfully turn back to true justice through actual lawful process.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“Our entire Constitution has been raped and pillaged while “we sit here idle”.”

It isn’t ours, and who exactly is we who sit here idle?

Since at least Waco there has been a very rapid growth in individual discovery of a fundamental evil festering at the National level, and people are actively (individually first and then a sum total of individual actions) acting in defense of that festering, National, evil.

Knowing what can be done lawfully, not “constitutionally” since the 1789 Constitution documents a crime scene - knowing what can be done lawfully - is vital before people begin to react violently as the festering National evil marches everyone into even greater despotism.

When people realize that rule of law is their lawful power to command, as volunteers, in grand juries, trial juries, elected or private prosecutors, elected or private magistrates, elected or private justices of the peace, elected sheriffs, or any other elected lawful government officer, then the swamp can actually be drained one lawful step at a time from accusation to presentment of a court date, then to trial, judgment, and sentencing by regular people NOT the government.

Since these infamous criminals at the National Level are routinely “getting away with murder” and more serious capital crimes against the law (treason) there should be no shortage of presentments, court dates, trials, judgments, and sentences done by regular people NOT the government. Clearly the criminals at the National level are criminals every single time they claim (and get away with) immunity from the statutes they falsely claim to be laws, the same statutes that injure so many innocent people every single day.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“The Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land”.”

That is a false statement, a false statement born out of a demonstrable fraud that has enabled the festering evil at the National level.

The actual law of the land has been and is the common law.

“However, The Supreme Court has ignored that and instead uses “precedent” to decide cases and twisted logic to achieve whatever goals they wish.”

The author of the above statement describes the actual, ongoing, fraud that began in 1787 during the event falsely called a Constitutional Convention. The actual law has never been based upon lies told by criminal usurpers, and this is a fundamental truth, a maxim of actual law.

People at the time the criminals took over were keen to blow the whistle. The following example is such an example of such whistle blowing at the time the criminals took over, and the following statement is attributed to George Mason.

"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, 1787

George Mason is not a modern social justice warrior trolling the internet. George Mason attended the Con Con in 1787 and he refused to sign the so-called “Constitution,” which is falsely claimed to be “The Supreme Law of the Land,” as explained right there in that quote by George Mason.

George Mason exposed the crime during the so-called “RAT-ification” of the criminal document, and he voted against it, as did Patrick Henry and many other actual patriots.

The history of the law of the land is clear, and it is not a Registered Trademark, it is natural law applied by volunteers as people cooperate for the mutual defense of everyone from injury done to innocent people by guilty people, guilty people acting alone and guilty people acting in mobs. The actual law is the process that actually defends everyone from anyone: enemies foreign and domestic. The law of the land is the common law as explained by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on The Trial by Jury. The actual law is categorically not the existing device that transfers all excess wealth from those who produce it to those who steal it through obvious devices such as this legal fiction National Government farce.

"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, 1852

If we as a people were to employ the law of the land we would have these traitors attending their court dates and common law juries with common law jurisdiction would decide any fact in the matter, judge guilt or innocence, and prescribe a lawful remedy in each case.

“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.”
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“So why don’t you be the first to start? Gather your jury, create your subpoeona’s and hold your trials. See how far you get with your nonsense.
I know all about your common law courts argument, and it doesn’t hold water. It has deceived alot of people into spending all their money uselessly, and gotten many more into serious legal troubles where they’ve lost everything. It’s a scam, just an excuse to do nothing.
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”

First:
Subpoena

That is a hard one to spell, but not as hard as bureaucrat.

Second:
Someone thinks that the world is run by “leaders” and “followers” as if someone is a paying member of the Cult of Might Makes Right: Subsidized Bureaucracy.

Third:
A Grand Jury is lawfully created so as to preempt crime in a geographical area as confirmed in the writing of Thomas Jefferson:

“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.”

One individual does not suddenly decide to “gather your jury.”

The individual named “Mark” is creating a fictional version of a fictional argument between “Mark” and his fictional opponent, and none of his words have anything to do with me or the problems facing mankind.

Either people agree to defend each other from clear and present dangers to all life on earth or people do not do so, even if “Mark” is working for the Cult.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“So what do you plan go do when the govt comes for your guns, either under a red flag law or by prohibiting what you already own? Call for a grand jury? Call the sheriff (who’s already at the door)? Or maybe just quote crap to them like you are to us?”

Any scenario involving any crime, just like the one you describe, can be prevented in fact. Which method of prevention works best, which works second best, which method of prevention works to move people further away from liberty rather than further toward liberty?

You describe exactly which method works opposite to the intended goal. Rather than a justice system in place to deter crime, what is in place since 1789 is a JUST-US system which moves excess wealth from those who produce it to those who steal it with fake government, just as it was intended when fake government was fraudulently imposed upon the American people in 1789.

The quotes are for people who have realized that – in fact – the government is fake. The government is fraudulent. The government is a criminal organization at the false Federal level. The federal government is not federal in any true sense of the word, it is National. The Federal Government is National Socialism by design: take from everyone and use the loot to take more from everyone.

The quotes are for people who have no clue as to what real government is in fact. Real government is a voluntary association for mutual defense, and it works very well so long as people volunteer, and so long as people so not allow themselves to be roped into fake government scams like the one put in place in 1789.

The quotes are for people who want to learn something about real government power as the real government is intended to be positive investment for the mutual protection of everyone from every single criminal, and especially from every single criminal working in a criminal mob. The idea is to prevent mobs from forming in the first place. The idea is to tear down mobs – like the fake federal government – once those mobs are in place.

If you prefer to remain ignorant about actual government, then you will get what you pay for out of ignorance in fact.

“People like you who argue forever and do NOTHING are as much a part of the problem as govt/leftists are.’

You don’t know me, and your insults only prove how ready you are to resort to attacking someone out of ignorance. My guess is that someone forming a lawful organization for the purpose of mutual defense is going to see your readiness to go into attack mode before you assess the target of your aggression. Common are cases of friendly fire.

“Globalists and communists don’t care about our Constitution and think it is invalid, like you do.”

A common mistake is to conflate, confuse, or commingle the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, as if one agrees with the other one. It was common among Americans to be aware of the dangers associated with giving absolute, arbitrary, dictatorial powers into the hands of a few people, such as what was done with the Constitution of 1787. The Bill of Rights was used to placate those against the National Constitution, so as to neutralize the power of the people who opposed the Constitution of 1787. The fraud works, and from the start each dictator in office at the top of the Pyramid Scheme created in 1789 ignored the Bill of Rights as standard procedure. If you think that the Constitution of 1789 has been “amended” with the Bill of Rights, then you are mistaken. The Constitution of 1789 afforded a few people in 1789 absolute power and it has been that way since. Why do you think the Judiciary Act of 1789 was put in place before the Bill of Rights was said to “amend” the Constitution? The criminals had to seize jurisdiction in every single case of controversy, so as to dictate every judgment, every sentence, and use that power to extort fake “loyalty” to a system of plunder: National Socialism.

“If your jury system is so good, why isn’t Hillary in jail for killing the Benghazi 4?”

People as a whole have lawful power, if they know it, and if they know how to use it. Criminals have absolute power if they can extort every threat to their power, or murder those they can’t extort. If you can’t see this then you may run into some very serious trouble given the fact that you demonstrate aggressive behavior out of ignorance.



UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems