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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:    1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
The Mental Militia  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Jun 2nd, 2019 01:45 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
1. 6-4-2019

"Another segment of the series will focus on Jeanette Finicum’s wrongful-death lawsuit."

The most basic principle of law is well stated in Mathew 7:12. When party A murders someone in cold blood so as to silence the truth told by the murder victim, then that murderous party is outside the most basic principle of law. If they were not then they would be fine with being murdered themselves, all is fair in criminal minds, except if they are unable to avoid being the victim. Do unto others before they can tell the truth about you.

Why do people agree to return to the outlaws who murder in cold blood and their co-conspirators, to then ask cold-blood murder co-conspirators for a lawful judgment in a lawsuit? I don’t get it, and no one is confessing.

I think the answer is willful ignorance concerning a very simple lie, and people refuse to admit that they too become liars when they believe the lie, retell the lie, and worse, they refuse to admit that the lie is a lie; a shared state of willful ignorance.

“And be sure to support his work in composing/creating what will likely be the finest documentary about rural America’s struggle to put the Federal government back into the tight little corral of limited and enumerated powers which the Founders authorized for it when drafting the Constitution.”

That is the lie. The framers who framed a federal constitution had to deal with some criminals posing as authorities of law, and that is well documented. All the people involved were not framing a constitution, some were framing a counterfeit constitution. Some “framers” were criminals by act if not by false word. The criminal “framers” were ensuring their ready access to victims, access hidden under color of law.

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."

The framers who framed a federal constitution made it a law governing the federation that the federation would not be discarded for something other than a federation, not without unanimous agreement among all the parties who were formed into a federation.

That federal constitution is known as Articles of Confederation. That was the one and only federal government in America.

It was against the law to get rid of those Articles without consent by all parties. It was also understood that a federation affords all parties the option to opt out at will. It was not an arbitrary government, it cannot be an arbitrary government when the parties who are a party to it can opt out of it according to the written constitution, or according to the unwritten laws of free people in liberty. The parties to it were also subject to the law of the land, written into the document, and unwritten into the good souls who were a party to an actual, not counterfeit, federal government.

The law of the land was (and still is) the common law.

The Articles of Confederation were discarded by evil people at a crime scene in 1787, and that is also well documented, complete with confessions.

George Mason was against it during the false convention that was, in fact, a crime scene. George Mason did not sign the confession that inculpated all the criminals who did sign the criminal document.

George Mason voted no when the criminal document was forced by fraud and threats upon a war-weary populace. All that evidence against it, and more, and yet people today still parrot the lie.

A federation is a voluntary association, and that truth was told in the first congress of the newly framing federation called The United States of America.

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:”

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“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.”

I guess that the rat smell is now so pervasive that very few people are willing to admit to it.

Posted, but not (yet?) published.

https://thementalmilitia.net/2018/10/17/triumph-individual-freedom-montana/#comment-10183

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jun 10th, 2019 04:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
2. 6-10-2019

"Another segment of the series will focus on Jeanette Finicum’s wrongful-death lawsuit."

The most basic principle of law is well stated in Mathew 7:12. When party A murders someone in cold blood so as to silence the truth told by the murder victim, then that murderous party is outside the most basic principle of law. If they were not then they would be fine with being murdered themselves, all is fair in criminal minds, except if they are unable to avoid being the victim, and then criminals claim exception to their own, criminal, rule. Do unto others before they can tell the truth about you, tell lies about them before they can hold you to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter: criminal rule.

Why do people agree to return to the outlaws who murder in cold blood and their co-conspirators, to then ask cold-blood murder co-conspirators for a lawful judgment in a lawsuit? I don’t get it, and no one is confessing.

I think the answer is willful ignorance concerning a very simple lie, and people refuse to admit that they too become liars when they believe the lie, retell the lie, and worse, they refuse to admit that the lie is a lie; a shared state of willful ignorance.

“And be sure to support his work in composing/creating what will likely be the finest documentary about rural America’s struggle to put the Federal government back into the tight little corral of limited and enumerated powers which the Founders authorized for it when drafting the Constitution.”

That is the lie. The framers who framed a federal constitution had to deal with some criminals posing as authorities of law, and that is well documented. All the people involved were not framing a constitution, some were framing a counterfeit constitution. Some “framers” were criminals by aggressive actions, some by false words hiding the facts that matter in the case. The criminal “framers” were ensuring their ready access to victims, access hidden under color of law.

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."

The framers who framed a federal constitution made it a law governing themselves, and future generations of federal agents, that the federation would not be discarded for something other than a federation, not without unanimous agreement among all the federated parties who were formed into a federation. The real framers defended the right of the people themselves to opt out according to common laws of free people: the law of the land. The real framers framed real democratic republics framed into a real federation. The criminal framers counterfeited democracy, republic government, and the criminal framers counterfeited a federation of democratic republics. The criminal framers counterfeited the law of the land, replacing the law of the land with a common legal fiction.

The real federal constitution is known as The Articles of Confederation. That was the original constitution framing a federal government in America.

It was against that written federal law to get rid of those Articles without consent by all federated parties. It was also understood that a federation affords all parties the option to opt out at will. It was also understood that each state was on an equal footing in the federation with each other state, all according to basic lawful principles. The real federation was not an arbitrary government, it cannot be an arbitrary government when the federated parties who are a party to it can opt out of it according to the written constitution which frames the federation. Real government works according to the unwritten laws of free people in liberty, naturally, organically, and is therefore not an arbitrary government. The parties to the real federation were subject to the law of the land, which was also written into the original federal framing document. No one was above the law, not then, not now, unless criminals take over as a matter of demonstrable fact. The law of the land is written in examples such as a Declaration of Independence, and a Bill of Rights. The law of the land is also unwritten in the good souls who remain a party to actual, not counterfeit, government.

The law of the land was (and still is) the common law.

The Articles of Confederation were discarded by evil people at a crime scene in 1787, and that is also well documented, complete with confessions.

George Mason was against it during the false convention that was, in fact, a crime scene. George Mason did not sign the confession that inculpated all the criminals who did sign the criminal document.

George Mason voted no when the criminal document was forced by fraud and threats upon a war-weary populace. All that evidence against it, and more, and yet people today still parrot the lie.

A federation is a voluntary association, and that truth was told in the first congress of the newly framing federation called The United States of America.

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:”

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“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.”

I guess that the rat smell is now so pervasive that very few people are willing to admit that they willingly add to it.

Taking screen shots before and after sending.

Comment published 6-10-2019!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jun 12th, 2019 01:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mental Militia Forum 6-12-2019


Elias Alias,

Your viewpoint as far as I know it based upon what I've read up to now is similar to say Karl Hess's viewpoint. I mean that as a compliment, and to be more specific the viewpoint can only see the works of The Cult of Might Makes Right when that shared viewpoint accurately accounts for (or attempts to) that which is called government.

Perhaps it is wrong to categorize individuals, such as making a claim that this one and this other one belong in the group called Anarchists, and then inside that group are those over there who are Free Market Anarchists.

Josiah Warren is commonly claimed to be the First American Anarchist, but he rejected labels in print, and those printed statements that rejected such categorization were probably printed on his own printing press he invented and made himself when facing censorship.

It is from the work of Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner that my individual viewpoint is founded, or based, on specific principles, but I add to that work a helpful principle known as The Golden Rule.

I think I may have passed the hurdles to get access to an individual authorized Forum Topic of my own, on this forum of yours. Oh, and I have also borrowed from Game Theory, particularly The Prisoner's Dilemma, in the process of forming my individual viewpoint on specific topics such as The State.

We will see if you or anyone else can agree with the viewpoint I intend to offer, and if so then you may then become familiar with what I call true government. You may also see the free market, adaptable, defensive, voluntary, value in it. You may even volunteer to be a member. If you do then you may be called a cult member by the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right.

You would be, if you choose to volunteer, a member of The Cult of Do No Harm, or The Cult Which Follows (Actually) The Golden Rule. My guess is that you already do everything (within reason) required to be a member of this fictitious cult, but you prefer to remain anonymous, or at a distance from any other member in any other cult anywhere, according to your power to command your own conscience.

Actual government (not counterfeit) actually has been put in place to follow the golden rule, to do no harm, which in my opinion requires effective defense. Without effective defense, posterity, particularly the weakest among us such as children, are food left to spoil or be eaten by members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. In other words, without actual government, or without voluntary mutual defense, those who could prevent it are instead enablers who enable mankind to be led into man-made hell on earth, to be led down that path by those who are best able to do so.

All things good, including government, are counterfeited by people who can get away with that type of operation, and the word counterfeit means opposite. It might be a good idea to at last look at the data that exemplifies good government. Counterfeit government is an up-side-down Free Market, whereby the worst of the worst gain the most power the quickest, it destroys everything as it moves to the goal. Bad government works like entropy. Actual government, or true government, works in the other direction, like ectropy. Talk about sensorship, the word ectropy (and the idea that there can be good government), does not appear in print. Good government affords equal footing access to all, so that all can add their special talent to the market of talent, and in so doing the highest quality and lowest cost cooperators who compete cooperatively produce the vital adaptability required for survival of any complex living species. The best at improving and adapting gain the most power the soonest, rather than the opposite direction, when good government is defended effectively by the volunteers. That works naturally, organically, and at grass roots, locally, in individuals, because people, as a rule, will choose better for worse when their choice to defend their power to choose is actually, truly, defended in fact.

I'll leave this introductory Forum Topic with a relevant quote:

"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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jun 12th, 2019 03:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
6-12-2019
Forum Topic
https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?board=44.0

The concept of voluntary mutual defense is by definition a shared viewpoint concerning attempts to accurately assess real threats to life and all that constitutes the power to live and let live, or to prosper, adapt, reproduce, sustain, improve, survive, and to continue surviving rather than abjectly allowing threats to cause extinction: suddenly or slowly.

In other words, the concept of good government, if it is to be so, requires a willful act in which those concerned assess clear and present dangers, so as to know the probable causes of injuries done to innocent people, by guilty people, in advance, or while the damage is current, or after the fact, in order to defend against it, and better still, in order to prevent it from happening in the first place, or stop it, or prevent reoccurrence.

What if it is you facing the willful decision to end your life for a trumped-up (false) crime such as speaking the truth?

You are targeted, you are executed, and then you are dead.

Example:

"Audio of Haunting Oath Keepers Phone Call With LaVoy Finicum Two Days Before His Death"
https://oathkeepers.org/2016/02/new-audio-files-of-the-last-conversation-had-between-lavoy-finicum-stewart-rhodes-todd-engle-and-jason-van-tatenhove/

That is good government. In effect, those who are adept at predicting future crimes based upon past crimes (perpetrated by counterfeit government agents: criminals under the color of law) offer a warning to those who are in the crosshairs.

If it is you and you volunteer to go right ahead and jump head first into the trap, then in a way you get what you pay for in fact, in time, and in place.

The difference between volunteering to be the next victim of criminals counterfeiting government, and someone wandering into an avoidable trap, is an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, which is the goal and the ends to the goal of good government.

Surely the victim in one of the most public assassinations perhaps since Martin Luther King Jr, this fellow named Lavoy, was not intending to be assassinated, to offer his life, and effectively degrade his family members lives, as a Martyr. One step led to another, to yet another, and then suddenly it is a death trap, and you are the one trapped in it.

Does that sound at all familiar?

"The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise."
That is from an Essay on The Trial by Jury.

How about this:

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."

The trap was sprung a long time ago, back in 1787 to be precise, and you have been warned. The warning may not have reached you, and the warning may not have rung true in your mind if you got the message delivered to you in time.

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?"

Good government can be destroyed by those who choose to do so rapidly, even all at once if the power to do so is in their hands, or very slowly, incrementally, one step at a time, if the power to rapidly destroy it is not yet stolen.

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."

Place a name, or label, on those who do manage to exemplify good government, doing the necessary work required to publicize, make known, accurate accounts of the facts that matter in any case, the vital work once performed by people labeled as grand jurors, and the fact remains that those individuals do the work with or without the name, with or without the credit they earn, and with or without a counterfeit badge or license to act responsibly when necessary to preserve life and the means to preserve and improve life.

Those caught in the trap believe that the murderers in the case have, in fact, a legitimate license to kill at will.

That is not so much a sad reality, it is a very dangerous precedent to set. What I mean is that it is a very dangerous precedent to set when people simply ignore that danger, to let it lie, to do so without questioning the claim of legitimacy.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jun 12th, 2019 05:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Voluntary Mutual Defense
6-12-2019

From simple to complex the devil and the details are here and now offered to a candid world, for consideration actual, not for counterfeit forms of discussion.

Simply put the law is either an agreement among defenders to hold to account offenders, or there is no law, and offenders gain ready access to victims.

Counterfeit agreement is not the law.

“Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.”
Josiah Warren, 1863

Criminal:
“I am here to protect you, give me everything of value in your current possession or I will break your legs, or worse, my gang will rape you, torture you, for the rest of your life.”

Defender:
“No, if I do so you will go to my neighbor and counterfeit the same agreement only this time you will have my help. My conscience does not allow me to do so. You do know that everyone with a working conscience knows that your so-called Emperor is naked, don’t you? So...why pretend that you are here to protect us?”

Criminal (under the color of law):
“We the People, says right here, consented to this charade. So pay up.”

To be continued, please be civil actual, not counterfeit.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jun 13th, 2019 04:08 am
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"none of those points disprove nationalism."

How about some information concerning the actions done by people to other people according to those who agree with Nationalism, and then some information concerning the actions done by people to other people according to those who agree with Federalism?

Example 1:

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."

So Federalism maintains a voluntary association where Nationalists do not. Nationalists offer the non-option to leave the Nation State.

Federalism is shown to be Free Market Government Services, where Free Market Forces tend to force quality up and cost down.
Nationalism is shown to be Subsidized Slavery of everyone, where dictatorial forces tend to force quality to nothing and costs skyrocket to a point at which the only people who can afford anything of value are the psychopaths, sociopaths, and their army of sycophants, because that is the type of people who get to the top of Nationalism, also known as Corporatism, National Socialism, Communism, Socialism, Oligarchy, Arbitrary Government, Despotism, Empire, and various other euphemisms.

Example 2:

Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the actual federation known as The United States of America:
"But what do we mean by a federal republic and what by a consolidated government? To erect a federal republic, we must first make a number of states on republican principles; each state with a government organized for the internal management of its affairs: The states, as such, must unite under a federal head, and delegate to it powers to make and execute laws in certain enumerated cases, under certain restrictions; this head may be a single assembly, like the present congress, or the Amphictionic council; or it may consist of a legislature, with one or more branches; of an executive, and of a judiciary. To form a consolidated, or one entire government, there[163] must be no state, or local governments, but all things, persons and property, must be subject to the laws of one legislature alone; to one executive, and one judiciary. Each state government, as the government of New Jersey etc., is a consolidated, or one entire government, as it respects the counties, towns, citizens, and property within the limits of the state. The state governments are the basis, the pillar on which the federal head is placed, and the whole together, when formed on elective principles, constitutes a federal republic. A federal republic in itself supposes state or local governments to exist, as the body or props, on which the federal head rests, and that it cannot remain a moment after they cease. In erecting the federal government, and always in its councils, each state must be known as a sovereign body; but in erecting this government, I conceive, the legislature of the state, by the expressed or implied assent of the people, or the people of the state, under the direction of the government of it, may accede to the federal compact: Nor do I conceive it to be necessarily a part of a confederacy of states, that each have an equal voice in the general councils. A confederated republic being organized, each state must retain powers for managing its internal police, and all delegate to the union power to manage general concerns: The quantity of power the union must possess is one thing, the mode of exercising the powers given, is quite a different consideration; and it is the mode of exercising them, that makes one of the essential distinctions between one entire or consolidated government, and a federal republic; that is, however the government may be organized, if the laws of the union, in most important concerns, as in levying and collecting taxes, raising troops, etc. operate immediately upon the persons and property of individuals, and not on states, extend to organizing the militia, etc. the government, as to its administration, as to making and executing laws, is not federal, but consolidated."

If people running one of many Nation States, such as New Jersey, in a Federation of many competitive Nation States, and the people running that single Despotic Nation State picks the pockets of individuals, taking whatever is worth stealing from everyone, except the criminals running it of course, and their investors who get “tax breaks,” then people could vote with their feet to a less despotic Federated State such as Rhode Island. When everything has been consolidated into one Profitably Monopoly by the criminals who take-over governments, and their investors, then those who are fine with having pockets picked can tell all those who don't like it to leave the one Profitable Monopoly run by the criminal cabal. You don’t like it, terrorist, get out, while I call Homeland Security and rat you out.

This is not really news.

Example 3:

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."

The cabal loves investors, and in order to incentivize investors who are perfectly willing to invest in the cabal, there are emoluments and other goodies. These bargains are given out to those who tow the official line, those who don't tow the official line are often found guilty of thought crimes, and either tortured or murdered.

"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."

Don't question the cabal's arbitrary power, there are many investors, and you will be first asked to leave, and that is a subtle hint concerning what may come next. There are gang rapists housed on your dime and they would like your fresh meat.

Example 4:

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.”
“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.”

So Federal governments afford places where slaves can run away from people running Slave States into places where the concept of liberty, equal footing, and individual sovereignty isn’t just a campaign slogan used to subsidize the slave trade within the profitable monopoly. Those investors in slavery in the slave states can tell the slaves if they don’t love it, then leave.

There are many more examples involving a money monopoly power, aggressive force (criminal force) monopoly power, land monopoly power, just-us monopoly power, and the all too familiar extortion fee monopoly power claimed as a “tax” for your protection of course. The evidence is uncontroversial, clear, unambiguous, and straight to the point.

December 7, 1787
Rhode Island Is Right!
“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.”

Melancton Smith
June 20, 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.”

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jun 13th, 2019 04:24 am
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The next source of information is actually a sound bite when compared to the demand for the power required to deter the criminal opposition, the opposition that works under the color of law.

The next source of information is vital if the idea is to understand true government power commanded by individuals who are then constituting an aggregate or "collective" sum total of individual, voluntary, defensive, power.

Since there are no responses yet, I think the following fills the void in a very special way.

"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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jun 14th, 2019 01:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Spooner may have riled the Austrian Economic Professors with his Paper Money Essay, I know Murray Rothbard printed derogatory words aimed at Spooner in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays. It turns out that at least Rothbard is willing to join the Cult of Might Makes Right; in my opinion.

I think also that this was pointed out by Gary North here:

"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?"
The Gold-Plated Sting, March 3, 2007, Gary North

For the purposes of this Topic the main point is well stated in the quote from Spooner repeated for effect:

"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."

Those words are not ambiguous, at least not in my opinion. Those who allow their actions to place them in The Cult of Might Makes Right, with or without pledges, oaths, licenses, contracts, and counterfeit authority of law, are those who subscribe to the idea that criminal means justify criminal ends, and that is the first step down that slippery slope that turns into a torturous hell on earth for everyone as the mass of mankind gains momentum, as the slippery slope turns inevitably into a vertical drop to extinction.

The pretention of authority that is false, counterfeit, opposite of true lawful authority is expressed well in the forward to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli here:

"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."
The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction)

Similar words explaining that basic fraud, or self-deception, that is both stupid and servile, are explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo

Also here:
"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.”
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, 02/18/2008

To the point, individuals decide (often with malice aforethought) to injure innocent people so as to consume innocent people, to take the life out of innocent people, and that decision is followed by actions that are necessary for reaching the imagined benefit. There are 3 basic actions as such:

1. Deception aimed at innocent targets
2. Threats of aggressive violence aimed at innocent targets
3. Aggressive violence perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims

There is a connection between violence and deception, and that is explained well enough by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, which will follow, so as to end this post in this Topic, after one more comment of my own.

In order to begin down that slide into man-made hell on earth someone, somewhere, has to invent and then infect other people with this unnatural, suicidal, genocidal, destructive path, a path that can be described with the word entropy. The path is chosen by the first criminal, then the next, and along the way there is a founding, a framing, a forming of what I call The Cult of Might Makes Right, whereby all those members in that Cult share the same lie, and that lie is the price of admission into the cult, it is the unstated oath. If mankind were as self-destructive as the lie being told suggests, then why not hold the worst to account, if for no other reason than to keep score? Is it just a coincidence that those in (criminal) power always remove from general use the power to hold those in power to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter?

"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, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jun 17th, 2019 09:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
6-17-2019
Voluntary Mutual Defense

The simplest form of law is a power built into the species, that power is moral conscience, and for that simple example there is offered a relevant quote:

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

Simple laws that work naturally are turned into complication as the devils put into human contact those devilish details previously listed as:

Deception, so as to consume the lives of innocent people.
Threat of Aggressive Violence, aimed at targeted innocent people.
Aggressive Violence, perpetrated by guilty people upon innocent people; with malice aforethought.

The most basic, simple, deception is a well-worn claim made by powerful criminals whereby the targets are convinced that the criminals constitute the only hope for innocent people, the only form of protection available to innocent people.

That is clearly exemplified in those events that became known as the founding of America. Previous to the deception described above the people in America started a voluntary mutual defense association that was based upon rights afforded to all people by all moral people. No one in their right mind then or now can argue the legitimacy of the lie used then, the same lie used now, in complex forms, or in simple forms, not without resort to further lies.

The deception that starts out simple, “we the people,” give a band of criminals absolute power, because that band of criminals said so. Then the simple lie becomes a very tangled web of deceit in short order, doing so by natural laws. Power begins to shift from moral people who volunteer to create and maintain an effective defense of all people as the criminal gang begins to extort everything that is worth anything from those moral, productive, people who manage to maintain enough liberty to actually get productive work accomplished.
I will end this sound bite with a common form of the lie as the lie begins to go down that path of the exponential increase in lies, a natural course governed by natural laws, as each lie will require more that one lie to cover up the first lie.

The original lie where the criminal gang claims that they are the government is soon followed up with the lie that criminals will obey criminal made laws. That is an accurate description of the lie told by the criminals who counterfeit government. The lie is not a confession, so the words used by the criminals are not accurate words. The lie used by the criminals is not as it was just stated, the criminals do not say: “Criminals will obey the laws that we criminals force upon our victims.”

Instead of that type of confession, the lie takes on a form that convinces the targeted population that somehow, this time, even though it is a required condition necessary for a criminal to be a criminal, that criminals, as a rule, do not obey man-made laws, this new (counterfeit) law, as the lie goes, this additional law added to the pile of laws already not obeyed by criminals, this new law will be obeyed by criminals, and that they say is why this new (counterfeit) law must be enforced by our exclusive group. Although it has never worked in the past, this time it will work. Although it is a condition required for a criminal to be a criminal, that the criminal does not obey man-made laws, this time they say it is necessary to add yet another (counterfeit) law.

The simple form of the lie is objectively exposed as a lie in every actual criminal case where there is an innocent victim, there is in fact, a guilty criminal. The crime scene is not a crime scene without that fact working whereby the criminal, as a rule, does not obey the man-made laws that advise criminals about natural laws.

If you kill some innocent victim, with malice aforethought, as a rule, you are a murderer in fact.

When people claiming to be the government murder people, in fact, they are guilty of murder.

Well, I rambled on when my intention was to be brief, but that last sentence could be exemplified with something resembling a common law trial by jury case:

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).

The Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee
Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, 1999

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jun 23rd, 2019 08:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The natural order proceeds by natural laws as lifeforms interact. There are exceptions to the natural laws that proceed to throw the natural process off the tracks and here is a very specific example. Natural laws governing life, and governing life very well thank you, are replaced with counterfeit copies. Powerful counterfeiters employ deceptions that are well-documented facts that matter.

People naturally cooperate for mutual benefit so as to survive and thrive. People live and let live according to natural laws that some people attribute to one all-powerful God. The law is to do unto others as if other's are one's self. As clearly as one might expect to react to actions done by other's to one's self, so can one expect other's to similarly react to those same actions done to them, such as forced labor under penalty of torture, death, or worse. Why would anyone start on such a path to hell on earth? Why would anyone attempt to excuse it?

What forces are working to cause people to believe in these ongoing rationalizations that attempt to excuse forced labor under penalty of torture, death, or worse? It is as if a lie told often enough can turn a criminal into a saint.

"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."

People are led to believe the lie that doing evil onto others before others can do the same is the law of the land.

In America, that alteration of truth, turning truth into a lie, is well documented on the official record kept by the perpetrators who got away with that crime against nature itself. In your face, if you care to read it, is the evidence proving the fact.

Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1745
"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
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."

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."

Among those now called The Founders were a group of criminals posing as so-called founders.

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.”

Those criminals were Nationalists at a time when Nationalism was understood as a form of subsidized slavery or an organized form of crime under the false pretense of religious or lawful authority.

The actual founding of a revolutionary idea was based upon the idea that all are equal (equal footing) under the law, and at that time the law of the land was understood to be called the common law, with trial by jury. Trial by jury, not trial by the government is the law of the land. Trial by jury was also known to be trial by the country. Trial by the country, not trial by the government is the law of the land. The actual founding idea was such that the anointed “Leader of the Free World” was no such thing, in fact, the Royal claim to authority was a sham, and everyone is as naturally authorized to be the lawful power as everyone else: equal footing.

No more sham “Divine Right of Kings,” now we the people are either going to defend our rights against infringement by scam authorities, or we will live and die as slaves.

The criminal Nationalists had to get rid of those ideas, to wipe those ideas out of human consciousness. The criminal Nationalists had to replace human conscience with a destructive counterfeit. Out had to go accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, anywhere, anytime, involving any victims harmed by any criminals, most importantly criminals posing as the government, and in place of accurate accountability of the facts that matter in each case is the return to rule by criminals posing as the government: orders to be obeyed without question.

The revolutionary example was set as it was documented on that Declaration of Independence. As that document was first written, it was the awful truth of the matter. Then the official record which recorded the revolutionary idea was censored. The truth was edited by the criminals infesting government during the founding process.

The criminals infesting government got away with it then, the criminals in government get away with it today. Is that our future? Is that what is left to posterity?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jun 25th, 2019 07:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?board=82.0

JUST-US in America has been what it still is since 1789.

They (so-called government) judge what they do according to their lapses of conscience, and they are the only ones they afford that power: ever.

They (again so-called government) judge what we (everyone other than so-called government) do according to the same lapses of their twisted consciences.

They (same cult members in so-called government) punish whosoever dares to oppose their power with regular severity, including “execution” (murder) for the "crime" (duty) of telling the truth about them.

If they (the cult members) can get away with murder, serial murder, conspiracy murder, mass murder, aggressive war for profit, torture, mass torture, slavery, central banking fraud, and worse crimes, regularly, routinely, for over 200 years, then who has this idea that now they are going to police themselves with something remotely resembling moral conscience?

Natural laws apply to those cult members too. They (the cult members that constitute fake government) routinely stab each other in the back while smiling at each other, or they hire a backstabber or two, or a gang of them ready to pounce on the side of the road, or in the middle of the road after a blind turn. They will wipe each other out internally and externally someday, but not before consuming posterity.

So what is the idea here in this effort to discuss or communicate the events involving the two-sided coin known by so many terms, such as Electoral Politics, or the Two-Party System?

Will they hold each other to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case whatsoever? Will that process proceed according to the law of the land: the common law?

Team A authorizes an individual (or a gang of cult members) to serve an individual in Team B with a friendly official notice of legal action. Then what?

How about some specifics?

One of the Team B members, Barry, or a Clinton, is officially notified of impending legal action. Perhaps Team A entrusts this Unitary Executive Barr dude as the point man. All is fair right?

Team A informs Team B of the conflict of interest, a legal matter, a criminal legal matter to be precise, a matter of interest to the public at large in fact. At least one member of Team A informs at least one member of Team B that there will be an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in a very serious criminal case involving that accused member of Team B. If the accusation is false, then the term used is ignoramus. If the accusation is false, then in a word the accuser is risking that label accounted to the false accuser: ignoramous.

Does the matter then involve at least one affidavit to put the accuser on the spot: no fingers crossed? Does the accuser seek a county grand jury to judge the validity of the accusation, grand jurors trusted to do so without team affiliation of any kind, other than the fact that their duty is to protect and serve everyone within the set of people known as the Public? Are those members of that county grand jury then afforded all necessary power (jurisdiction) civil and criminal, and thereby capable of issuing a presentment to be served to the accused with the court date? Let the trial of the Millennium begin!

That is not how it is done in America. It is not done according to the actual law of the land. But there is hope, right? This one time it will proceed according to common laws of free people in a perishable state of liberty?

Will the accused be deemed guilty first? Will there be a demand for the guilty to prove innocence, after the guilty is run down, assaulted, kidnapped, tortured, and extorted into a so-called “plea-bargain?” Will it be business as usual for cult members and their fodder alike?

No, unless a Black Swan shows up, things will proceed according to the plans used by those cult members when cult members deal with fellow cult members. Things will not proceed according to the methods used by cult members upon non-cult members. Things will not proceed according to any semblance of lawful (moral) order. There won’t be an official act intending to uncover the facts that matter in the case regardless of Party affiliation. The Public will not be represented according to the common laws of free people. The process will not proceed according to lawful order as documented in such examples as a Declaration of Independence and a Bill of Rights.

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.

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.

Article the seventh... 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 offence 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.

Article the eighth... 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 defence.

Article the ninth... 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.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jun 25th, 2019 08:22 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"The only way to change this nation is the ballot box or the ammo box."

Ignoring the truth-finding option offers predictable results.

"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

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.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jun 26th, 2019 08:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Back to Agitator, Voluntary Mutual Defense Association.

The lie restated:

“...all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity…”

And:

“...the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good…”

And:

“...the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual…”

If all men are bad then none of them ought to be given arbitrary power. Those who tell this lie confess they're obvious deception when they tell their fellow criminals, and when they tell their targeted victims, that among all the men who are bad there is one exception, and that single exception is always the liar, or the liars sycophants. The sycophants, as in the Emperor’s New Clothes, put the imaginary clothes on the fraudulent exception to the rule. Once the lie has legs, and boots, it starts kicking ass at will with impunity.

How does one place one’s self outside of the law that is meticulously enforced upon everyone else? One claims to be above the law that is the same law claimed to be the one’s source of authority. That is a self-made confession of lawbreaking.

“Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE.”

Falsehood only works on those who believe the lies that create falsehood.

Digging deeper may help the skeptics who remain willing, even eager, members of the Cult of Might Makes Right.

As far back as people have documented their lessons through life there has been evidence of counterfeiting the true law power.

Returning to the words in the introduction to my copy of The Prince is the term Republic:

“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.”

In that reference, someone could be misled as to the meaning of the term republic.

Is a republic a voluntary association for mutual defense, such as an insurance policy as explained by Lysander Spooner?

Counter, opposite, in opposition to, and counterfeiting a voluntary mutual defense republic: is it instead an involuntary association falsely labeled a republic?

Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense = Republic

Or

Involuntary Association to force the slaves to pay for their own enslavement = Republic

Of course, it can be both, but which is it in any case involving a controversy, or conflict of interest? What is a republic in a case where there is a clear and present danger to any single innocent individual member of the amalgamated group of individuals known as the public?

If it is a private conflict of interest then those involved in the conflict can remain inside the law, if they choose to do so.

For those who are confused about the true meaning of law see The Golden Rule. The true law can be confused with rules, statutes, suggestions, offers, hints, and friendly advice, which are expressly not the law. The law can also be confused with counterfeits of law such as edicts, proclamations, and oaths of allegiance to falsehood without question: The Cult of Might Makes Right Oath.

Those involved in private conflicts of interest can remain inside the law by doing onto each other that which they would want to be done to themselves. That is a choice to remain inside the law power. Those in conflict can agree to remain inside the law, and one or both, or however many are involved in the conflict can decide to step firmly outside the law by doing onto the others as they themselves would defend tooth and nail to prevent having that act done to themselves.

Those inside the law choose to remain inside the law. Those who do not choose to remain inside the law choose to step firmly outside the law. Law is a voluntary association. Those who step outside the voluntary association (the law) choose to do so, and in order to step firmly outside the law, a victim must be willfully created by the guilty criminal who chooses to step outside the law power.

Who keeps score, and where is that score kept these days?

Before writing things down the scorekeepers who operated courts of conscience (individuals with memories volunteering) kept score and the amalgamated total sum of all those scorekeepers constituted a collective court of record in human memory. Many conflicts concerning which individual kept the more accurate score could be solved inside the law. Many conflicts concerning which individual kept a less accurate score, or intentionally false score, constituted a conflict of interest, and the score could be solved inside the law, or the conflict could be solved outside the law, according to individual choices ruled by nature.

Trial by jury, a voluntary association for mutual defense, has been traced back, in various forms, to ancient times, and places, including places where people were not writing things down. In those places, there was also a process known as trial by ordeal. Trial by ordeal evolved into something called a Duel. If you wonder why the early American patriots and their opposition (who were known as loyalists) were so polite to each other consider what happened to Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr over alleged defamatory statements made by Alexander Hamilton against Aaron Burr.

A court of record functions as a memory bank where all recorded conflicts of interest have been resolved, and recorded, within the confines of the law power. Those who agree to remain inside the law power do so, those who choose not to agree don’t agree, and they choose to move outside the law power. It is a clear distinction, a matter of fact, that criminals, as a rule, choose to step outside the law (Golden Rule) power. Those who believe in the lie that puts imaginary legs on counterfeit law will have other’s believe that law applies to criminals as if criminals will, by some magic, obey laws that apply to criminals. That is the same lie that places criminals who counterfeit government outside the law, as those same criminals claim that their authority to be above the law, immune to it, is the same authority that no one is above the law; an obvious lie.

Criminals confess their crimes as they perpetrate their crimes, as a matter of demonstrable fact.

Criminals do not obey laws. Criminals may choose to leave other people alone, let them live and let live, most of the time, but the fact remains that crimnals must step outside the law power in order to become criminals. Criminals must, as a rule, target, and then injure innocent victims, and they do so despite the fact that doing so is outside every form of law worthy of the name.

So where is the evidence, in the collective memory of people, written and unwritten in this bank of memories called a court of record, accounting for the true meaning of the term republic?

I’ll end this effort with a quote from Thomas Paine, and then something from a court of record.

"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.”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, page 176, 1791

“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)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jun 28th, 2019 07:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Back to Voluntary Mutual Defense

I was not inspired to watch the Marxist fake debate (so-called democratic debate), but I did watch the competitive Clown World alternative offered by the gang at Infowars.

Biden was not molesting children at that time, and another Marxist criminal threw Biden under an imaginary Bus, the bus may have been figuratively used to segregate races, and Rosa Parks may have been on that bus in spirit.

Those are not democrats, and I guess I know how people can give up on words so easily, as the counterfeiters construct opposite meanings for previously useful words.

True democracy was explained, in time and place, by democrats (is the capital D an enforceable trademark for Marxists?):

The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long, 1996

"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."

Did you know that the same counterfeiting job applied to the word Republic (voluntary association for mutual defense), which was also applied to the word Democracy (voluntary association for mutual defense), was the same counterfeiting job applied to the word Federation?

Here in the Congressional Record before 1789:

“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:”

When the criminals who counterfeit government begin to extract power from their victims it is the duty of the victims to - at least - keep an accurate score of that fact that matters.

When the criminals took over America by fraud, by threat, and by aggressive force, they left confessions on the official (court of) record. They had to get rid of the actual federation of independent states (a federation forms a voluntary dependency or division of labor), which was formed officially by Articles of Confederation.

The criminals counterfeited the term Federalist, like a King who might don imaginary clothes, and all those who were dupes at the time put legs on the false name, redefining a voluntary mutual defense association, turning a former state of liberty into subsidized slavery of everyone, including the criminals themselves. Life is much less costly for those criminals who make their slaves work hard to allow the criminals to afford luxurious lives at first, but natural forces also destroy the criminals who create counterfeit governments.

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“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.”

Patrick Henry sniffed out (called out) that Rat Smell as the criminals falsely claimed to be Federalists.

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.”

Melancton Smith also called out the Con as a Con. Those in favor of voluntary mutual defense for all, an invitation to live and let live, and the means to defend those rights born into people, were mislabeled, mischaracterized, misinterpreted, misjudged, and publicly smeared by the counterfeiters who were counterfeiting an existing federation (voluntary mutual defense association).

Later, much too late, that fact that matters became an obvious fact to Thomas Paine.

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.”

What power does Thomas Paine illuminate: the power to defend the innocent from the guilty, or the power to extract everything of value from the subjects of arbitrary government?

The criminals confessed, they always do, but who keeps score?

Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.
Philadelphia 14 May 1787.
Convention.
"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."

They knew that what they were doing was outside the boundaries entrusted to them, and right there is the confession, so skeptics can look elsewhere for holes in the storyline. The criminal slave traders, along with central banking frauds, and warmongers whose propensity to fund all sides all the time in all wars is well documented - all these fellow cult members - stole liberty from those living then, and they stole liberty from posterity, up to these times in these places now.

We have the means to reestablish that perishable liberty.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jul 2nd, 2019 02:19 am
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Voluntary Mutual Defense 7-1-2019

The means to reestablish that oh-so perishable liberty (in time and place: all “politics” is local) is rational, reasonable, logical, time-tested, agreeable (to moral people), relatively costless (compared to the inevitable alternatives), and supported with mountains of evidence including scripture.

Example:

Mathew 7:12:
Golden Rule

John 8:32:
The freedom goal is achieved by way of the truth: establishing it, acknowledging it, recording it, passing it on to the next generation, and the next, or similar message in other words.

Proverbs 1:8-19:
"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."

Call that a suggestion concerning involvement and consequence, or if you can’t do something good, don’t be the problem yourself, hidden costs blow back.

There is a thread on this forum eluding to studies that suggest a physical part of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Those who gain arbitrary (absolute) power suffer from brain damage over time.

You extort, and you suffer as a result, or you pay the extortion fee, and you get what you pay for.

So…

Stop being the problem, and that is a step toward affecting a solution to the problem.

If you don’t want other people giving power to your enemies, consider what happens when you give power to their enemies, and that can be called Blowback: see for example Ron Paul’s critiques on (corporate) U.S. foreign policy. Where do the members of corporate U.S. get their power to execute what they call “Foreign Policy?” See: National (not federal) Debt Clock Real Time.

Finally, there is a tried and true method by which the people as a whole can inspire voluntary membership in a group of moral people whose participation is a process that has at least one truthful goal: such as finding any fact that matters in any case involving any controversy anywhere anytime, so as to set us free, please?

If it isn’t your duty to discover the truth that matters, then the least you can do is admit that your “contributions” to the Empire may blowback on you or posterity. Admit that to yourself, if to no one else, even if it an unwanted, ignored, fact that matters to you. If it is your duty to discover the truth that matters, including the facts concerning what is being done with your “contributions” to the Empire, then it might be a good idea to find a way to help other people reach that goal too. There is a process, and it is relatively costless.

Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)

Barrister.
My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair.

Jurym.
Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with.

Barr.
I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray?

Jurym.
I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour.

Barr.
It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service.

Jurym.
You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath been much to my loss.

Barr.
I commend your tenderness and modesty; yet must tell you, these are but general and weak excuses.

As for your time and trouble, it is not much; and however, can it be better spent than in doing justice, and serving your country? to withdraw yourself in such cases, is a kind of Sacrilege, a robbing of the public of those duties which you justly owe it; the more peaceable man you have been, the more fit you are. For the office of a Juryman is, conscientiously to judge his neighbour; and needs no more law than is easily learnt to direct him therein. I look upon you therefore as a man well qualified with estate, discretion, & integrity; and if all such as you should use private means to avoid it, how would the king and country be honestly served? At that rate we should have none but fools or knaves entrusted in this grand concern, on which (as you well observe) the lives, liberties, and estates of all England depend.
Your tenderness not to be accessary to any man's being wronged or ruined, is (as I said) much to be commended. But may you not incur it unawares, by seeking this to avoid it? Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jul 10th, 2019 02:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
You are welcome Tahn L.

I wish to be clear about something infecting people in such a way as to cause powerlessness in defense against crimes such as the coup d'état in 1789.

Each individual moves by a combination of the individuals own will power and powers external to each individual. The powers external can be called peer pressure on one end of a scale and brainwashing on another end of a scale. Some people are very independent-minded while other people merely obey any official-sounding order; doing so without question.

An example of this phenomenon is exemplified well in the whistleblowing effort by Murray Rothbard on the myth of George Washington:

“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.”
Murray Rothbard, Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty

One individual action is added to another, and another, and either by coincidence or by concerted, organized, combined, effort in a team of individuals, the sum total of the actions affect a coup.

Out goes precious liberty, a value worth a defensive fight, as valuable as life itself, and in place of liberty is blind obedience to falsehood without question: the slide into man-made hell on earth.

“And on top of this we are threatened by destruction in the fact that the physically compressed, strained world is not allowed to blend spiritually; the molecules of knowledge and sympathy are not allowed to jump over from one half to the other. This presents a rampant danger: THE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION between the parts of the planet. Contemporary science knows that suppression of information leads to entropy and total destruction. Suppression of information renders international signatures and agreements illusory; within a muffled zone it costs nothing to reinterpret any agreement, even simpler – to forget it, as though it had never really existed. (Orwell understood this supremely.) A muffled zone is, as it were, populated not by inhabitants of the Earth, but by an expeditionary corps from Mars; the people know nothing intelligent about the rest of the Earth and are prepared to go and trample it down in the holy conviction that they come as “liberators”.”
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture 1970

I want to be clear about who “they” are; as in:

“I can understand why they waited until Jefferson was out of the country, before beginning the "coup" against the Articles of Confederation.”

They include everyone on all sides. Every individual on the defensive truth-seeking side and everyone on the falsehood creation and maintenance side are constantly in a struggle to either move the collective sum total of human action toward liberty or toward the willful extinction of life on earth.

Thomas Jefferson could have employed the common law to hold the Slave traders, the slave owners, the slave torturers, and the slave criminals in the federal government to account for their crimes against nature itself. He did not, and that is probably because he feared for his individual life, and any combination of other reasons or excuses. The fact that the whistleblowing by Thomas Jefferson in his published writings on the crimes of slavery exist is one of many facts that matter to all generations that constitute posterity. People even today scoff at the idea that slavery is a crime, hell they are slaves, so they would have to admit that fact that matters to themselves, but they do not, for some obvious, and some less obvious reasons.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

"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

“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

John C. Calhoun, November 3, 1837
"Of all the interests in the community, the banking is by far the most influential and formidable—the most active; and the most concentrating and pervading; and of all the points, within the immense circle of this interest, there is none, in relation to which the banks[484] are more sensitive and tenacious, than their union with the political power of the country. This is the source of a vast amount of their profits, and of a still larger portion of their respectability and influence."
John C. Calhoun, PUBLIC LETTER TO J BAUSKETT AND OTHERS, EDGEFIELD DISTRICT, November 3, 1837

“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.” 14th Amendment (thought crime)

Who is doing what, when, where, to move the force of liberty in the accurate accountability direction inside their own mind, or external to their own mind, and who on the other hand is suppressing the facts that matter to life on earth? All politics is local, and to be clear, the Emperor's naked body has no clothes on it, and the little man behind the curtain is not the all-powerful Wizard of Oz. The reason King John did not want to sign the confession known as Magna Carta was (at least in part) because that document entered into the public record (court of record) accurately accounts for the power of each individual (volunteering on a jury) to nullify any law made by any so-called dictator.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jul 15th, 2019 01:51 am
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Voluntary Mutual Defense 7-14-2019

Skeptics persist in the face of overwhelming evidence, perhaps.

Skepticism is necessary on the path seeking an elusive truth: accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case.

Willful ignorance of the facts that matter is necessary for the creation and maintenance of violence, falsehood, and fake government.

Some will agree with the lie parroted by every single criminal who has made the choice to create and maintain counterfeit government. Call that lie whatever you want, in any words you choose or borrow from the pile of lies that document the process created and maintained by criminals and their ignorant victims.

Example: The Strong Man Fallacy

If we do not find and empower our own Strong Man, those people over there will enslave us with their Strong Man.

In principle, those who exist in liberty, naturally, can voluntarily associate for their mutual defense against the Strong Man Fallacy, but they can’t do so if they are sucked into that lie too.

Next is further evidence from a previously mentioned source, a discovery of facts that matter, offered to all those who are skeptics, and placed in front of those who may stumble upon this evidence even as they willfully ignore this evidence.

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."

When did the liars get away with the lie? When did those lies begin to emit that familiar Rat Smell to those who prefer liberty over despotism?

Those who insist that “our” Strong Man must sit upon our arbitrary “government” to kick ass with impunity upon “our” innocent targets before they can attack “us,” will ignore the facts that matter in the case. That will happen in that individual mind, in that individual place, at that individual time, and that fact will contribute to obvious consequences down that road to those who seek the obvious causes of those obvious consequences.

Patrick Henry:
“Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.”

Sam Adams:
“From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

In truth like so many before him, Sam Adams turned his coat during Shays’s Rebellion, and that ought to be entered into the public domain right here and now.

The following is for the skeptics, remain vigilant, but if you can Smell that Rat Smell, consider the value of the information on its own merits; please.

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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jul 16th, 2019 08:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So-called Majority Rule

Extortion:
“The use of force, or the threat of force, to obtain money, something else of value, or services from a person is often known as the criminal offense of extortion. Many jurisdictions classify extortion as a “crime against property” or a theft-related offense, but the threat of harm to a person is an essential element of the offense. This could consist of physical harm, financial harm, destruction of property, or abuse of official power.”
Source Justia

Example:
“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)

Note:
“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.”

That is America. That is Mob Rule. That is not democracy.

What ought to have happened then is the same as what ought to happen now. It is very simple, all that is needed is an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in the extortion case that is euphemistically called Mob Rule.

At the State Level:
IV. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.
Source: Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

At the Federal Level:
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.
Source: Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781

Who decides if in fact members of the Pennsylvania legislature were extorted, if extortion is a felony, and if so does that injury cause the people (who are the government) to act in defense of the victim?

“The principles that judicial tribunals should conduct open, public proceedings and give redress to every person who has suffered a legal injury are two of the linchpins of AngloAmerican law. Other basic precepts require that notice and hearing precede such hearings, and that tribunals be impartial. Together, this modest bundle of principles—in large part procedural—defines what people think of as the vital core of our legal system. Everything else flows from them.”
Source:
Chapter 14
COURTS TO BE OPEN; SUITS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH
Article I, Section 11
BY Donals Marritz
https://www.pabar.org/public/committees/lspublic/atj/Chapter14-final.pdf

When the mob is the government, what is the rule?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jul 17th, 2019 07:55 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Stupid, Servile, and Disenfranchised

Those who are victims are those who bear a measure of accurate accountability for having failed to avoid becoming victims.

Why?

Evidence:
“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.”
Source:
Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

The English victims were collectively stupid and then servile.

Why?

Evidence:

Exhibit A:
"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

Exhibit B:
“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 English victims collectively paid for their eventual servitude as they collectively lost the power to hold to an accurate accounting the criminals in pubic offices.

In America, the same routine occurred in which the criminals took over the power to hold the criminals to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, in any case, civil or criminal, foreign or domestic, in or out of public office.

Evidence:

Exhibit A:
"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

Exhibit B:
“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.”
Source: The People's Panel, The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger,

Exhibit C:
"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."
Source:
The Conviction Factory: The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, Roger Roots, 2014

Exhibit D:
"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").
Source:
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias, FordhamL. Rev. 1205 (2000).

Reminder:
“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.”
Source:
Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

Prescription:
Hold the worst criminals to account first, do so lawfully, and then move down to the next one on top of that pyramid scheme.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jul 20th, 2019 02:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6382
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I was not inspired to join the right against left statute conflict until the link to Pike was added, fortunately.

Why Albert Pike’s Statue Must Fall
The Scottish Rit’s Ku Klux Klan Project
By Anton Chaitkin

In that work are words describing what I see as a written confession. In the words of the authors of these written confessions are found - inculpatory evidence - which constitutes all that an independent individual in a free society needs to get rolling that process often called the law. That process often called the law can be counterfeited; of course.

What warning (cause of action, probable cause to act in defense, etc.) are the following words confessing?

“Magic is the science of the ancient magi….Magic unites in one and the same science, whatever Philosophy can possess that is the most certain, and Religion of the Infallible and the Eternal. It perfectly...reconciles these two terms...faith and reason…[T]hose who accept [magic] as a rule may give their will a sovereign power that will make them the masters of all inferior beings and of all errant spirits; that is to say, will make them the Arbiters and Kings of the World….”

That is a confession of intent to deceive targeted victims - a confidence scheme - so as to overpower and then consume - enslave - those “inferior beings.”

That is in another word a confession of treason, but treason as to what?

The left (Marxists) will convict all those in the right (Fascists) of treason because the left has been conned into believing everyone the the right is inferior (errant spirit) while everyone on the right has been conned into believing everyone on the left is inferior too.

Also in the document that eludes to a confession concerning a specific con-man named Pike are these words:

“President Zachary Taylor faced Quitman down. President Taylor was determined to bring the new southwest into the Union of free states. On June 21, 1850, nine days after the secession convention, Governor Quitman was indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the U.S. Neutrality Laws!”

The whole story-line is false. The law can be expressed this way:

“If treason or felony be committed, and one hath just cause of suspicion, this is a good cause, a warrant in law, for any man to arrest the person suspected, but he must shew certainly the cause of his suspicion be just or lawful, shall be determined by the justices in an action of false imprisonment brought by the party grieved, or upon an habeas corpus, &c.”
British Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance
Printed by H.Woodfall and W. Strahan, 1766

What does that mean in context?

How about fast-forwarding the same principle conflict that put in place a false “Federal Grand Jury” System of Plunder Under the Color of Law in 1789, which is the same principle conflict that then inspired the pogrom falsely called The Civil War, and instead of applying the basic principles to history, the idea with the fast-forwarding, is to apply the lawful principles to the current situation.

Those who are inspired to tear down statues of their opponent's sides Con-Men in HIStory can apply the basic principle of law in their partisan way. Those who are inspired to tear down statutes of their opponent’s sides Con-Men in HIStory can apply the basic principle of law in that opposite way; targetting the other side’s Con-Men in HIStory.

Why tear down any of the statutes of any of the Con-Men in HIStory? Why not let them hang themselves (figuratively) with their own words for posterity as a warning that is not to be forgotten; perhaps forgiven, but not forgotten.

Had people been inspired to avoid becoming the enemy of freedom, and liberty, they could have, an can do so now, employ the law power as the law power is intended. The law power is intended to be a deterrence, a sign on the wall that says Keep Out. The sign on the wall says Crime does not Pay here. Crime does not pay in the land where the law of the land is to hold all the Con-Men seeking false Public Office to account for the facts that matter in each case.

Trump can wash his hands of the whole dirty business, as can the members of the Clinton Crime Syndicate (which operates even today under the color of law), as the people themselves take the law into their own hands where it always is in fact.

But that won’t happen until the people crawl out from under the Magic curtain that hides the little man pulling the levers. That won’t happen until the people crawl out from under the Magic that dons the Con-Men with invisible clothes.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 03:42 am Page:    1  2  3  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > The Mental Militia Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems