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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
National Liberty Alliance  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Sep 15th, 2013 06:13 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5677
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Here are people who I categorize as Networks Rising in defense of Liberty.

I am on board with almost everything I've read so far as to the concept of Rule of Law applied to everyone and especially applied to those who are hired to enforce Rule of Law when those employees are currently perpetrating very serious crimes upon many innocent victims.

I have a huge problem with the required Oath to a so called Constitution.

Here is a link and a cut and paste of said required oath:

Oath PDF

"I do solemnly swear that I will obey the constitution for the United States of America, and all the directives and prohibitions, and that I will faithfully serve justice and discharge the duties of the office of Grand Juror honorably, according to the best of my ability; so help me God”

The group demanding said Oath as a requirement for participation in defense of Liberty, holding the employees accountable for their crimes while the employees are hired to apply due process to everyone without exception, claim that honor, justice, and mercy are also required.

Here is my problem with an obvious contradiction. I cannot be honorable if I claim to be obeying an ongoing fraud that started in 1787; which is that so called constitution.

I can either be honorable or I can do the opposite.

I can either be honorable and expose the ongoing fraud that is that so called constitution or I can falsely claim an oath that I won't obey since the constitution is a fraud in progress, or I can be honorable and join the criminals who are perpetrating that crime in progress.

Honor among thieves?

Now, as may be claimed, by those who fail to recognize a crime in progress while it is in progress, there can be an exercise done immediately concerning this concept of assembling Jurors to judge a case.

I am claiming that the constitution is a crime in progress and my injury has been every dime stolen from me and then that legal power to purchase was then used to finance further theft, further fraud, and crimes too numerous to list in one sentence but the crimes include child sex slavery, torture, mass murder, and mega murder.

The charge is not specious, and the evidence I alone can provide is more than enough to remove any doubt from any moral, reasonable, human mind, in my opinion, and absent evidence to the contrary, the case is closed as far as I am concerned at this point. 

Exhibit A is a docuemnt assembled by those few who were attending the secret proceedings that later became known as The Constitution Convention.

Exhibit A

Quote:

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

Moving next to two documents that are clearly claiming opposing forces whereby on one side is a force of Liberty; whereby there is a duty of human beings to, at the very least, disconnect from criminal governments.

Exhibit B

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Note: The Declaration of Independence was followed by an invasion by a Criminal Government Military Force comprised of conscripts (slaves) and mercenaries (murderers for hire) and under a Democratic Federated Republic form of government the Constitutionally Limited States, in a voluntary union, defeated that Military force which was the most powerful Criminal Military Force then plaguing this planet and this human species.

Next is the document that makes The Declaration of Independence unlawful.

Exhibit C

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Why on earth would the same people who had just conducted an insurrection then claim that insurrection was against the law?

The answer is that they were not the same people, and this fact was clearly understood during those days of The Declaration of Independence, an insurrection against criminal rule by the British Monarchy and those who controlled it, which were even then members of what is now knowable as a Central Bank or a Legal Money Monopoly Fraud and Extortion Cabal.

Next is a leap ahead in the time frame to a modern writer employing quotes from one of the members of the False Founding Fathers:

Exhibit D

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.

Note: In order to finance criminal government there must be a mechanism by which the victims provide the means by which they suffer, and that means is a combination of fraud and extortion whereby an involuntary tax is enforced by fraud and by military arms, and the fraud that covers up the extortion is a claim that the "tax payers" are borrowing from (or are in debt to) Legal Money Monopoly Bankers or Central Bankers, when in fact the source of Credit that Central Bankers borrow from are those same "tax payers."

Next is an explanation as to how Central Bank Fraud combined with Involuntary Tax Extortion works and this explanation was one of the sparks that ignited the very temporary victory of The Revolution in America (insurgency):

Exhibit E

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
The Democratic Federated Republic worked as Free Market Government between 1776 and 1788 before the False Founding Fathers, known as Federalists, took over and declared that The Declaration of Independence was illegal (see Exhibit C) and to demonstrate how The Democratic Federated Republic worked as a Free Market Government there is a Legal precedent that became known as Shays's Rebellion.

Exhibit F

Washington, Knox, and Bowdoin may not have taken these words seriously. But others did. To them, the people's obligation to "throw off" destructive and tyrannical governments not only was clear, but it had been further sanctified by the thousands who fought and died for the Revolution. It had become a sacred trust, a moral imperative, an "indispensable duty" as Judge William Whiting put it.
Daniel Shays was one of many Revolutionary War veterans who continued the Revolution because the criminals took over Massachusetts and began to enforce the same old combination of fraud and extortion consistent with Central Bankers or Legal Money Monopoly criminals. The precedent being set in this lawful action (if The Declaration of Independence is considered as a lawful document) is such that the Revolutionary War veterans were defeated in Massachusetts but those who were not kidnapped or murdered escaped capture by those criminals running Massachusetts and some of them, including Daniel Shays, fled to Vermont.

As far as lawful concepts go, again if The Declaration of Independence is meaningful, the Revolutionary War veterans, exemplified by Daniel Shays, was considered a SLAVE by the criminals running Massachusetts, and therefore, to anyone caring to know, a Slave escaped a Slave State, and the runaway Slave ran to another State in that Democratic, Free Market, Federated Republic.

What was the fugitive slave laws enforced at that time when a Democratic Federated, Free Market, Government worked as a Free Market Government?

The Massachusetts Slave Masters demanded the return of the Slave known as Daniel Shays. Vermont employees who were employed to defend Liberty ignored those demands.

What did the so called "Federal" government do in that case of that demand by Slave Masters to return their runaway slave while the employees who were employed to defend Liberty in Vermont ignored said claims of ownership of those supposed slaves?

You now know, or should know, why the criminals had to conduct those secret meetings in Philadelphia. Perhaps you are not yet clued in, because you may not yet understand the goal that is always sought by these types of criminals that are now known, or now called, Central Bankers.

Exhibit G

Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.
What was sought after, and what was gained, was the POWER to steal at will, without any accountability, and if anyone dared to question the order to pay, the so called Federalists would make the rebels pay.

Exhibit H

And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
That Spirit of Liberty was thereby crushed, and it was a money competitor, in the form of whiskey, that was being crushed.

So, respectfully, I am all for returning our government back into power, whereby due process is due to everyone without exception or it is not truly government, however there is no way I can claim to be honorable while obeying that crime in progress called The Constitution.

I can not obey orders to commit crimes such as crimes enumerated in that so called Constitution.

Exhibit IA

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, inlcuding those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
That became known as The Dirty Compromise. That is slavery made legal. That has since been replaced by the following; according to that official sounding source.

Exhibit IB


Section 4. 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.
Let him or her who can in good conscience obey such orders, let alone declare an oath to do so, stand up and be counted. It is not me.

Exhibit J

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!
Exhibit K

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.
More evidence:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
That is legalized piracy.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Failure to submit to slavery is a crime according to those criminals who use this so called constitution.

Washington was a "Federalist".

Exhibit L

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.
John Adams was a "Federalist."

Exhibit M

Signed into law by President John Adams in 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts consisted of four laws passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress as America prepared for war with France. These acts increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to fourteen years, authorized the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" and restricted speech critical of the government.
Alexander Hamilton was a so called Federalist too, he was the one who worked effectively to begin a Central Bank fraud: claiming credit from people and then selling it as debt (see Exhibit D).

The reason why a Democratic Federated Republic works as a Free Market Government Power is due to the maintenance of the force of competition as explained in the following quote (see Exhibit D).

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.



Those who were for a true Republic or Democratic Federated Republican form of government, or confederation of constitutionally limited State governments where labeled as Anti-Federalists and those who were for a true Republic (falsely called anti-federalists) clearly understood the Free Market aspect of a competitive arrangement of constitutionally limited State governments.

Exhibit I

What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause:—that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

This, sir, is the language of democracy— that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen, standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I cannot help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone forever. We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the House of Commons, in England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body cannot continue oppression on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of one tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

And:

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.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Sep 16th, 2013 01:35 am
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5677
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sent to John at the National Liberty Alliance:


John,

I appreciate the effort in defense of Liberty, however you have set up many roadblocks that signal to me a measure of resistance that weakens my power to participate.

I can explain in great detail.

The following link is just a start:

http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=961&forum_id=10

To condense that information down into one statement I can say that there is no way I can make an oath to a known fraud in progress.

Setting that obstacle aside, or rewording the oath, still leaves much in the way of contention concerning the meaning of words and the accurate identification of true principles.

I have stopped the Jurist Orientation Presentation at the point where capitalist propaganda (false from my view) was being claimed as fact, another obstacle. Why can't there be a truce concerning which side of the fictional fence a person agrees to belong?

Setting that aside, so long as the actual association is able to get past ideas concerning property, and the association can be mutually understandable as a voluntary association, there remains to be room, at least it seems to me, for my participation.

It is unfortunate that the divisions among the targets (involuntary capitalist versus involuntary socialist) infects even those who are averse to any involuntary associations whatsoever, no matter by which ideas of property or ownership the individual happens to favor in Liberty.

I will try to join, and listen, and avoid disruption of proceedings on Monday Aug 16, 2013.

I can't agree to that oath to obey a crime in progress, that would be dishonorable on my part.

Joe 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Sep 17th, 2013 11:45 am
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5677
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
My notes on the Monday Meeting (Internet based):



NOTES: National Liberty Alliance Aug, 16, 2013

Constitutions are not law if orders authorized by people employing the constitution are ordering unlawful actions.

Examples abound and Suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion is one of the first major examples. The Alien and Sedition Acts is the second.

The struggle is over the POWER to PUNISH.

From the onset it is EVIL, because CRIMINALS FORCE the issue.

A statement by John concerning the concept of being on a witch hunt, along the lines of the idea that we are not a witch hunt:
No, this is a witch hunt, but it is the witch hunters that are in office and they do burn people alive. This is a POWER STRUGGLE.

Know the opposition first.

They are now, each in turn, covering their own asses, and they are finding among themselves their own actual leader.

POWER means: who first will prove the POWER of this specific path?
1.       Indict for the first trial THE person who is given the notice to appear.
2.       Will that person be a clerk, a Sheriff, a Judge, a Union Lawyer?

Witch HUNT?

The Emperor has no clothes, and the POWER that maintains that facade (that legal fiction) is EVIL.

Which person, in human form, will be the first to prove the POWER of this path, if this path is viable?
Tell me.

Talking points while talking to witches; why spend a minute (or second) bogged down in speaking with people who are covering their own protection rackets, their own profitable ventures where crime is legal, when any time spent with those people delay the goal, and allow them more time to contact their real leaders, and then formulate a method of dealing with free people seeking defense against them.

John: We are going to hold their heat to the fire?
Same John says this is not a witch hunt?
Talk about Freudian Slips?

This is all about MEDIUMS OF EXHANGE or “money,” whereby the idea is to serve notice (not secretively) so the idea is to reach a point of order, and then serve public notice.

So…(in response to the claim that Common Law Juries are not subject to other authorities) who will be the first test case of a criminal (witch) put on trial?
1.       A Clerk
2.       A Judge
3.       A Sherriff

I asked:
Workshop item: which will be the first case of a new Jury Trial? 1. Clerk, 2. Sherriff, 3. Judge, 4. other, and how will that proceed in fact?
I asked that online.

Danger of relying upon a Union Judge is that Union Judges change their minds.
Going to the Clerk? If that is the obstacle, then go to the press, again, public notice.  Get readership. Inform, and this is all about open, public, (Not secret) proceedings, to inform, to discover the facts, to report the facts, to identify the criminals, to deal with the criminals with honor on our side (obviously not their side), with justice on our side, and with mercy on our side. You won’t proceed? That is fine, I will report your resistance to proceeding lawfully. I will proceed lawfully, if law does exist, it will be proceeded, acted upon, and if you want to be the first test case, then so be it.

Report to who? Is there a Jury or not? Report the actions that are obviously representing criminal activity to the other jurors. There is no Jury? There is no jury because of the resistance to forming a jury?
What?
Who is in charge?

Are there enough people right now to constitute a Jury? Then failure by people who are counterfeit, or fraudulent officers of the law, resisting the formation of a lawful Jury, is then CAUSE for ACTION to form the Jury without that specific “magic” seat in that “magic” building?

Convene a Jury (what are we doing right now) to deal with that SPECIFIC person, or that specific human being (people?)  who is obstructing justice in FACT.

No it is not a witch hunt, but do you really think that there won’t be witches imposing their lies, their threats, their violence on this path?

“We have to Hunt down…we have to give them an out...a final has to proceed with action.” Good stuff.

We can’t do this outside the court.

Preventing gaining access…need for 5 counties…power in numbers…another court house.

Which will be the first court house, and why not go to the press when resistance (witches) impede justice (impeded gaining access to those “keys”)?

Where is the precise POINT between the POWER of Liberty (justice in this case) and the POWER resisting that specific ACTION?

What will be the FIRST Jury, where, and then what is the first case? What is the POINT at which the actual ACTION meets the CAUSE of the action (the presumed to be innocent criminal asked to be tried by peers for crimes that have been perpetrated in FACT)?

PUBLIC NOTICE!

So many people claim that Majority Rule (Democracy) is the witch. IT IS THE FACT.
No, freedom is only difficult for the criminals (with or without badges), and that is another measure of that concept of democracy (not the counterfeit version which is Mob Rule).

George Mason, Patrick Henry, worked for The Bill of Rights.

How about a score board whereby there is a Map and a point on the map where there is a level of progress toward access to RULE OF LAW whereby Jurists work toward and then gain access one way or the other.

Monopoly of LIBERTY is the goal, Monopoly of Crime made legal is the enemy (witches)  and it is the witches that burn innocent people alive (that is what is at stake here, look into WACO) so…

Judiciary Act of 178

Rule of Law, or The Golden Rule, or God’s Law, or if you are not religious then Natural Law (Scientific fact) is reported by an Oath as the POWER in FORCE when I say I will tell the truth, and that is

Democratic Federated Republics are empowered for defense against larger aggressive (criminal) powers.

1200 AD Number of Grand Jurors established.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Sep 17th, 2013 11:00 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5677
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jury Orientation:
 
Objection on Principles concerning ownership:

Stewardship is much more accurate in my view, and more useful, since ownership suggests mankind being above natural law.

Example:  An owner can choose to abuse their physical and mental condition of life and in the ownership dogma that is right, or justified, because the owner is all powerful. I think the more accurate and useful concept is stewardship, as Natural
Law overpowers the so called owner in cases of physical and mental abuse. Who is your daddy now that you willfully place that monkey on your OWN back?

This may appear to be minor but it is not, this is the stuff that separates/divides the many stewards of life into one group that is against the other group because of these divisions of ideas where on group OWNS and the other group contends with that ownership in cases of abuse. Also, as a matter of record, it is this OWNERSHIP claim that is often used by the most serious of evil criminals.

An owner, such as a father, or mother, who now has children and who abuses their own mind and body to a state of destruction, incapacity, is an owner that obviously steps outside of Natural Law, as the children suffer without parents who could otherwise nurture their development into a state of similar OWNERSHIP? 

The children learn the meaning of OWNERSHIP by example.

In the video:
“To deny this is to claim that another person has a higher claim on life than you do?”

That is false if the objection is as I have stated, in fact the claim is not that another PERSON has a higher claim on life than the so called OWNER who abuses his, or her, stewardship. 

Having a Natural Law, or a God’s Law perspective is such that Natural Law takes over if someone human does not find a way to intervene and help the person who is stuck in this dogma of OWNERSHIP as the OWNER decides to abuse their Natural or God given Rights. Of course evil people can claim to be better Stewards than the Owner, but any lie works, but which truth is better? Which liar uses which truth to use as their cover story, since lies are cover stories covering up the actual willful injury intended upon the innocent victims?

1. Ownership (false capitalists claim false ownership)
2. Stewardship (false religious people claim false stewardship)

What is the source of any tile of ownership? You tell me, then I can ask that person where that person gained his power of ownership.

Property Rights are very controversial and are solved, in any case, upon discovery of the facts, whereby a victim is accurately identified as a victim and a criminal is accurately identified as a criminal, and the criminal is offered a means by which remedy is possible. 

Why is someone claiming to know what is, or is not, property before there is a case of injury? Where is the victim? I strongly object to this information that is easily confused with other capitalist (false) dogma.

Why did The Declaration of Independence use the words Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and then there was a change to Life, Liberty, and Property?

Disputes over claims of ownership can be equitably settled by free people in any case, anywhere, until such time as one person causes injury to another person.  How is that injury measured precisely so as to leave no reasonable doubt as to which individual person willfully causes the injury to which individual person?

When does this concept of property become real? If it never does become real, then it isn't real, it is another fiction.
 
Why does this concept of property cause confusion, division, conflict, argument, strife, weakness, and powerlessness?

Why not use the concept of stewardship?

A person is trusted, by Natural Law, or God’s Law, to take care of a portion of land, for example.  A deal between the creator of he land, the creator of the human being, and that deal is made with that individual human being.

How does that work? God says I don't want this anymore, you can have it, do with it as you please, I relinquish all rights to that property that is no longer mine, it is now yours? 

What happens if I supposedly own a source of water going down a river, and even an underground river? If I add lethal poison to “MY” land, then I am FREE from defensive intervention because I own the land? God gave me the title?

If you refuse to listen to reason here, then you are accessing dictatorial powers, how does that work for you?

Why resort to dictatorial power?

Why does the capitalist dogma propaganda fail to identify what happens when a falsehood (such as this property dogma) is believed by the victims and then the victims act upon that fraud? No longer is there a willful intent to injure by the true believer in the lie, because the true believer truly believes the lie, so such failures of knowledge are apt to impede reason; if the idea is to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not an injury was willfully perpetrated by the criminal upon the victim, then a true believer in a lie is going to have a hard time standing on his quick sand, and there is a case in point local to my experience.

PG and E poisons the ground water and under their dogmatic (capitalist) ideals they have a right to do so, and according to them it is the socialists who force upon them an injury when people start suffering from those poisons and those poisoned people seek remedy: the subjects of the willful injury by the true believers may even be actively, still, drinking the water. 

So the people signing the order to dump the poison in the water are not willfully forcing people to drink the poison.  But how do you explain the covering up of the internal decisions made by the company officers who defend their capitalist ideals from the socialist MOB, when they willfully hide the facts that the water being consumed by the victims downstream is poisoned?

Why start down that road of “property ownership” at all?

What happened between Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, and then somehow all that turned into enforced property rights?

Who gave you the right to enforce property rights upon me? To me it is pure dogma and I can pin point where capitalist dogma became dogmatic.

OK this property dogma is really going wild now in this video.

Quote:
“You have the right to protect your own life, Liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. “

Your incomplete (or my incomplete) history may be contributing to this division among us, as Land Titles began with a false claim made by very evil people in these places we reside currently in stewardship.  Those who negotiated use of land justly did so in history, some did, some did not.

Now is now.

Are you claiming that, for example, the Land Patents for California were justly acquired?

Disputes over ownership vanish once stewardship is understood as the superior claim. Natural Law, or God’s Law, is a trust upon me to use the land I now occupy, from here, to here, to here, and so long as I do not injure an innocent person my stewardship is valid under any scrutiny of counter –claim.

Some misdirected soul wanders on "my property" and I have the just right to shoot that person dead? Would it be better if I torture the invader for months and then hang him on a fence post for all to see, since I have my property rights firmly established so justly? Why mess around with something, if it is true, then it is true, so go with it, and go strong?

Who,  and what army of men, can claim otherwise, and by what justification is their claim based?

A Land Patent?

Those enforcers are long gone.

We are here now.

Why do you claim ownership while I have proven to be a good steward of this land right here, to here, to here?

This is going to be a proving grounds of ideas, and you had better get your story straight before presuming authority on this ownership stuff.   When you start reaching for proof that this man has imposed his will upon this man, to gain this ownership, then you may confess the source of your ownership dogma, it is more of the same Rules of Man upon Man. 

Have you done any title abstracts?

This becomes very problematic in cases of tax lean sales. There are battles among men claiming the God given right to own land at the end of this rainbow. Is that the principle on which you are going to stand?

There is no need for any of it. Stewardship is a much better concept, and then the introduction, or lack of, injury to innocent people, having nothing to do with ownership, and having everything to do with willful intent to cause that injury replaces, supersedes, and is of much greater utility, importance, jurisdiction, than any claim of ownership.

What is the injury?

Trespass?

What is the cost to the injured party? Was the trespasser dumping poison into the water well?

What happens in cases where the true believer in ownership dogma is claiming to be helping the people injured: for their own good? Now you have accurately identified the POWER that is not often recognized, as if it were unspeakable, whereby the inventors of the lie, those who know it is a lie, infect their victims with the lie, and then there is an army of do gooders, so called, saving humanity with their dogma, which happens to be in every case, a weapon, and an injury, to those who are supposedly being saved by this generous help.

1.       The liars who know the lie is a lie, and they willfully intend to injure innocent victims.

2.       The true believers who believe the lie, and are not willfully intending to injure innocent victims.

3.       The victims who know the lie is a lie, but are powerless to defend against it.

4.       The victims who believe the lie, and they actually pay the criminals and their minions payments to perpetuate the lie and to suffer the injuries willfully caused by the liars, and unwillingly caused by their minions; the true believers.

5.       The former victims who realize the lie and no longer pay into it in any way including the concept that for evil to exist good men do nothing.

Note the fact that resort to the property concept instead of the stewardship concept is that Intellectual Sloth spoke of in the video.

The enforcement of property rights will lead you, again (it is called a Title Abstract), to claims of ownership founded upon the principle of might making right, and then the conquerors profiting from dividing up those spoils of aggressive war for profit. 

Make your bed in that and you will be one of them.

If instead the idea is to upgrade the concept from property to stewardship then negotiations in cases of injury by someone upon someone can utilize those same Title Abstracts from a principle of current understanding even in the face of very serious past errors, without dictated further repetition of those same errors in judgment.

Might does not make right, it is a lie.

Property is just a word, as is Stewardship just a word, so which word expresses the higher quality and lower cost concept that is free from willful fraud, willful extortion, and willful aggressive violence by criminal human beings upon innocent human beings?

This does not have to be sold by me to you; this is an offer, to consider the evidence whereby property has been the word used by so many criminals who willfully slaughter innocent victims who happen to be doing a fair job of stewardship on their native lands without all that help is saving those natives from themselves.

You do not have to repeat past mistakes. Please consider competitive options.

I am not saying that the video is too destructive to be used by you, and my advice is not to pull it from the Jurist Orientation, I am merely letting you know of a competitive viewpoint that may be a more accurate viewpoint, higher in quality, and lower in cost.

That viewpoint speaks to capitalists who are well versed in capitalist dogma. That viewpoint will turn away anyone knowing better other than few exceptions who may see past it, and how many dare to let you know about it?

Of course I am assuming that you have time to read my opinions.

Sources:

Equitable Commerce

The Science of Society

The work of Frank O'Collins

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Sep 18th, 2013 12:24 am
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5677
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
John Birch Society Video concerns.

John,

I was a member of the John Birch Society until it was obvious to me that it was a top down organization.

The definitions of Anarchy and Democracy are contrived; they are useful to the people at The John Birch Society in demonizing anyone not agreeing to their way of seeing things.

It is much simpler to understand the concept of defense of Liberty as being a power employed voluntarily in avoiding crime.

That means that the power is used to avoid being victims as well as the power being used to avoid becoming that which the victims supposedly abhor which is to say that the power of defense is used in the avoidance of becoming criminals.

No left or right box to be placed into, and instead the idea is to accurately identify the difference between those who are, in demonstrable fact, innocent victims and those who are again demonstrated factually, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be criminals.

A seriously unfortunate effect of the willful demonizing of people who understand a competitive definition of democracy and of anarchy is such that those voices are not heard and compared to the MONOPOLY, Top Down, and Dictatorial viewpoint.

Which is the more accurate, higher quality, and lower cost definition of democracy or anarchy?

An anarchist will confess that it is wrong to claim that anarchy is life without rules while an anarchist will offer, voluntarily, instead of that error in judgment, an alternative definition whereby anarchy is life without false rulers.

There is a big difference.

Someone claiming that there is life without rules is obviously wrong. Gravity, for one of many examples, is a rule, and so far everyone follows that rule.

If someone claims that gravity is not a rule, then someone can offer a counter claim, and an anarchist is likely to reject the false claim by the false ruler.

In that way of thinking, life without false rulers, the anarchists are in line with those who wrote The Declaration of Independence.

The competitive definition of democracy, not the demonizing contrived one, and not the false definition, is the definition that merely claims that people rule themselves, and again that definition is in line with those who wrote The Declaration of Independence.

I see no point in me listening to the rest of this orientation video produced by the John Birch Society.

I understand the thinking behind a Democratic Federated Republic. The idea is to invent, create, and maintain a Free Market of Government. There are in this idea a number of Sovereign, Independent, Constitutionally limited Republics formed as defensive powers defending innocent human beings from large armies of roaming bands of criminals.

Then those many (in the case of the Confederated States under The Articles of Confederation there were 13 in number) constitutionally limited Republics form a Voluntary Defensive Association or Federation or Confederation.  The idea was such that divided those constitutionally limited Republics would fall at the hands of The British Empire, one by one. The British Force was a Legal Money Monopoly Power then ruling the planet Earth, so those leaders in those constitutionally Limited Republics formed that voluntary defensive Federation as a means of gaining sufficient Defensive Power to defend against the very large Aggressive War for Profit POWER that did in fact invade and attempt to enslave all the people in all those constitutionally limited Republics. That was after the Declaration of Independence officially began an insurrection against the criminal rule of those criminals running that Central Banking Fraud.

The beauty of the design of a Democratic Federated Republic was realized during the time between 1776 and 1788 when those people actually drove off the invaders.

It worked as a defensive power.

Then an even greater power was realized during the events that became known as Shays’s Rebellion.

It was found out that the idea of Free Market Government works as the tax payers could shop for and find the best constitutionally limited Republic within the Voluntary Defensive Association.  That POWER of consumer FORCE was then forcing the leaders in each constitutionally limited Republic to raise the quality of constitutionally limited government and lower the cost of those products, those States, those Sovereign States, those constitutionally limited Republics.

Or, having failed to keep up with the best of the best, failing to increase quality and lower costs, a State failing to do so, what happens?

If the leaders fail to provide what the tax payers demand, then the tax payers could freely migrate from one constitutionally limited government to another on the same continent, and there were 13 to choose from at the time.

It worked as advertised. The legal precedent under The Articles of Confederation was the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion, and I can offer much information on how that worked the way it worked.

If the people at the John Birch Society don’t know this then they are libel to fall for the song of the siren that turns us into beasts, whereby Free Market government is thrown out in favor of a Monopoly, or Consolidated, Un-Free, love it or leave it, obey without question, dictatorial, either you are with us or you are a terrorist, top down, false, threatening, and aggressively violent version of the true thing, where costs to the tax payers rises steadily, and benefits evaporate (such as freedom from crimes perpetrated by criminals with badges) as time marches by under legal Dictatorships, Consolidated Governments, or whatever false front hides the fact that it is a Central Banking Fraud covering an Extortion Tax Cabal.

I will link another person who understands this and I can quote words explaining how this Free Market Voluntary Association concept is intended, by design, to work.

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/sim/1403963037/2?o=9

“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.”

Common among the people who employed Common Law in those days were the words Democratic Federated Republic, and the word Confederation, they had studied how Holland and Switzerland worked, as Free Market Voluntary Government powers.

This type of understanding is almost absent for some strange reason, and that absence is like an infection, and I tried to clue the people at the John Birch Society concerning this information, but they are a Top Down, Exclusive, and secretive Organization based upon my personal experience as a member.

I am working to get through this Jurist Orientation and it is troublesome for me to be in the position of finding so much room for competitive offers of reasonable improvement concerning the information in this Jurist Orientation Presentation. 

I understand how deep the infections go, but I do not like being so alone in this regard; hence my trouble. If I can be shown where I am wrong then I ask many people to please do so, and not for lack of my own due diligence there are very few who are in a position to correct my errors.

I can offer many sources if asked, or if there is anything resembling a discussion of competitive perspectives employed in the effort to find the truth and discard thereby the identifiable falsehoods.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Sep 18th, 2013 02:12 am
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5677
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Collectivist versus Individualist concerns:
 
John,

The contradictions within all this Jurist Orientation information is piling very high at this point.

Individualism was a historical wave or meme of a concept that became synonymous with anarchism.

This wave began officially with a book concerning experiments done by Josiah Warren where the book title was Equitable Commerce. Josiah Warren is now said to be the first American Anarchist. He was among the group of Individual Anarchists (so called) including Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl  Andrews, and then such notable historical figures as Benjamin Tucker who published a periodical titled Liberty in the late 1800s.


If you have not read the work of Lysander Spooner in his work Trial by Jury, then you are missing a lot of very important information.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

On one hand, during this Jurist Orientation, anarchism is being demonized and then, on the other hand, individualism is being credited. It is much simpler to see both anarchism and individualism as proponents of voluntary associations.

How do people defend against being victims and becoming criminals themselves?

That is the required information if Liberty is going to be defended by innocent people who are innocent of being the people (criminals) who are causing the injury.

So the Collectivist Versus Individualist Dogma is a demonstration of the wrongs that are claimed to be wrongs why the same people claiming to offer the right terminology.

If the problem is crime, then it does not make sense to call criminals by any other name than criminals. If the problem is criminal acts done as a result of people failing to realize that they are perpetrating crimes, they are still criminals, but their crimes are no longer measurable as willful, or premeditated, crimes. So called "collectivists," if they are not willfully intending to injure innocent people for fun and profit, if in stead so called "collectivists" are injuring the innocent people they injure as a misguided attempt to offer help to the innocent people being injured, the level of criminal behavior, going from willful injury upon innocent people to some lesser level of criminal behavior, crime by error, whatever you want to call it, still results in injury to the innocent victims by the criminals.

So why can't it be easy to know the true nature of the struggle for Liberty as being defenders of Liberty versus criminals who perpetrate crimes upon innocent people?

If by use of the word collectivist the intended user of the word is endeavoring to point out that these so called "collectivists" are injuring innocent people, then the English word for that is criminal, not collectivist.

I Pastor at a Church can pass the collection plate and then said Pastor becomes a collectivist by that action. I that a criminal act?

False labels are used by criminals so as to hide their crimes, to somehow justify those crimes, so fellow criminals, and victims, who collectively agree to use those false labels are aiding and abetting those criminals by that willful act.

Meanwhile, in the Jury Orientation process, collectivism is being defined by the opponents of collectivism as if a Priest in a church passing the collection plate is thereby punished collectively by the dictators dictating this ONE MONOPOLY definition of one word collectivism.

What do you call that? When the victims and the fellow criminals agree to use the words that the criminals use to hide the inculpatory evidence that the criminals are willfully (or mistakenly) injuring innocent people then how do you, if that is what you choose to do, justify such a measure of aid afforded to the criminals at the expense of the victims? You help hide their crimes, and you do so willfully or as a function of you, yourself, being misled by those false labels?

Voluntary taxes are possible, proven under specific conditions not limited to the example provided by the time period between 1776 and 1788 within those constitutionally limited Republics joined together voluntarily into a Confederation or Federation of  individual Sovereign States.

Defensive power used voluntarily in defense of Liberty, it is not a difficult concept to understand.

Involuntary taxes, on the other hand, are merely covers covering up the fact that the criminals take over and the criminals are running the former government which is no longer worthy of the word government.

I am losing confidence in this effort to return defensive power, and sanity, back into our collection of collected people who are voluntarily collecting themselves on the own volition into this collection of Sovereign States where sovereign individuals find their domiciles.

There is no way that free people can win the war defined as "who can confuse the most people the soonest" since that is willful deception. so why do it?

Why add to the deception whenever someone willfully agrees to label a criminal anything other than a criminal?

I suffered through the video previous to this so called "collectivist versus individualist" battle, and there was no mention in that previous video of it being the work of the John Birch Society. 

The voice sounded like John McManus. I may be mistaken.

I will try to suffer through this collectivism versus individualism dogma.  This really burns my butt. "The true debate of our time" my ass.

Anyone who claims the right to enforce economic power transferred from those who produce it to those who get it are by that act created a crime.

You, or anyone, can call it TAX. You, or anyone, are merely criminals as the crime being perpetrated upon the innocent person who created something worth stealing is targeted by you, and when that enforced transfer of that economic power is complete the act is known as theft.

How many labels are needed to justify theft?

There is no end to the number of labels because the first on is a lie, and there will never be an end to the number of lies required to falsely justify the first lie.

If this group of supposed Jurists is founding their, your, justifications on this involuntary tax (theft) lie, then I cannot be a part of it because there is no honor among thieves.  It is a crime to steal from innocent people. There can be no justification for stealing from innocent people.

Voluntary collections of economic power freely transferred from the volunteers to a central collection, or FUND, is exemplified in the concept of insurance, so where does the justification for involuntary transfers of economic power from the many to the one FUND originate, and perpetuate?

Not me.

More false words flow as I suffer through this Collectivist versus Individualist DOGMA as now am being told that rights are abstract and undefinable COLLECTIVE consciousness?

Are they willfully distorting the measurable facts or are they misled into exemplifying that which they claim, by their own words, to be worthy of discredit?

Collectivism is bad, according to this "information" and then the same people claim that rights are defined by the collective power of human perception?  Rights disappear, are no longer in existence, if everyone fails to acknowledge the existence of rights?

That is wrong, and it is demonstrably wrong, so why claim that it is right?

Rights can easily be demonstrated as fact, measured precisely as fact, as a negative and a positive. Each criminal act acted out by a criminal upon an innocent victim is proof of the absence of rights, as the criminal destroys rights in time and place, as a measurable fact, as the victim targeted by the criminal suffers injury caused by the criminal.

Rights can be accurately measured positively as each human being exercises the right to defend against a criminal intending to steal from the targeted victim that is targeted by the criminal. If the intended victim says no thanks, and if the intended victim can afford an effective determining deterrent to the criminals aggressive aggression, not only communicating disagreement, but effectively nullifying the aggression, which can be merely deterrence, the the positive, accurate, measure of rights are those items that would have been stolen if the defender did not defend against the crime intended to be perpetrated by the criminal.

It can be understood that the expense of defending against crime is an investment in the form of insurance, because criminals will perpetrate crimes if good men (and women) do nothing to deter crime; to make crime an unfordable act for criminals.

The expense of defending against crime, in that light, is as reasonable as defense against attack by wild animal, or defense against attack by communicable disease, or defense against any natural disaster, or defense against accident.

Defense is not automatically (prejudged) as a cost, or loss, taken by a criminal that does yet attempt to perpetrate a crime. Locking the door, building a fence, learning how to employ weapons, gaining defensive weapons, are all forms of insurance against many possible injuries including the possible injuries perpetrated by human beings who decide to injure innocent people for fun and profit.

Make crime pay less, and there will be less high paid criminals.

Make it a "Law" that criminals have to be paid as much as the criminals demand and you define the meaning of the term CRIME, not STATE, not Collectivist Collections of Collectivism, you define, by those involuntary transfers of POWER (economic power) the fact that a crime is being perpetrated by criminals upon targeted, innocent, victims, as soon as any victim disagrees with the transfer being transferred, and the victim prefers to use what power the victim has in defense against such crimes perpetrated by such criminals no matter what FALSE label is used to cover up those obvious, measurable, crimes by that, or those, criminals.

A badge, or license, or Edict, or Dictate, claiming a RIGHT to steal is no right, it is crime, so why call it anything but a crime?

"Rights are born on the battlefield"

That is supposed to be an offer for agreement as to the true definition, the true origin, and the true nature of rights, so as to have a working definition of rights?

I not only smell a rat here I can clearly measure that rat smell. Justification for "rights" here is MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, and that is the essence of the criminal lie.

Did that speaker in this video quote MAO?

Really?

Now I am being told that people win wars? No one wins wars. Wars are the ultimate crimes and failure to avoid wars are failures paid for by defenders as well as aggressors. This "information" is clearly, demonstrably, false.

Now I am being "informed" about how much better the Bill of Rights is compared to the United Nations claims of rights to be given or taken away?

The Constitution claims that the so called "Federal" government (clearly, demonstrably, not Federal) can TAX (as in demand payments without question) the targeted victims that are not spelled out as target victims, for such language would be too accurate, such language would be true, in fact, so such accurate, factual, true language has to be covered up with false words such as United States Citizens or who knows how many more lies are "offered" by such crafty criminals?

This was all clearly stated by the opponents of that Constitution FRAUD.

Example:

"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former." George Mason July 4th 1788

NOW the video reports another example of the Might makes Right dogma with an illustration of nebulous construction concerning 3 (and then 2) people fighting over the last bit of sustainable economic power. That is willfully deceptive.

There is a very good example of what human beings do under extreme economic hardship, and the lessons to be learned can be explained in great detail, having to do with the true power of authority, or leadership, as a competitive market of ideas. The one who has the best solution (not kill or be killed as the "final solution") wins the market of ideas, and that proves to be true authority in any case.

Look here:

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-Sea-A-Novel/dp/0316738883

Someone other than a true leader, in times of economic extreme hardship, might come up with the idea of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, which taken to the logical conclusion is CANNIBALISM.

So this video, as far as I can tell at this point, is a thinly disguised justification for CANNIBALISM, or, Might makes Right, or Do unto others before they can do unto you, or whatever FALSE label is used to cover up the fact that the idea is the same criminal idea used by every single criminal who ever disgraced, or discredited, the human gene pool.

This is very difficult for me to suffer through, and I am only 1/3 of the way into this "information" that is part of Jurist Orientation?

Now I am being informed that rights do not come from the power of numbers as if I must be incapable of remembering the earlier statement that rights a won by the greater power in war.

Is there no limit to how much contradiction a person can willfully offer, as if a target of such offers of contradiction is incapable of accurate measures of said contradiction?

What lie, in other words, is too outrageous to be believed by the intended victims?

How about the lie told by Hamilton so as to convince the targeted victims that their productive power can be the source of CREDIT (Good Faith and Credit of the American People) while at the same time that power is National Debt?

In other words the actual people who produce anything worth stealing is stolen by those Central Banker Frauds, and then that stolen power is loaned out, at interest, back to the people who were robbed in the first place, and then the thieves then claim that the victims own that National Debt, as the criminals spend the actual economic power in the futile effort to produce the never ending stream of lies required to cover up the crime in progress?

"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."
From:
Reclaiming Revolution


In other words: If people are stupid enough to believe that lie, then people are stupid enough to believe that Might makes Right is true while at the same time Might does not make Right?

This:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Thomas Paine 1776

That becomes this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Section 4.
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.
No longer this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
Opposites can be believed at once? Bad is Good and Good is Bad all at the same time?

I think the term is Nihilism or even the condition known as necrophilia.

Now I am being told lessons on the meanings of words such as Democracy?

This is the old Mob Rule dogma, which is a measurable form of deception.

Here is are sources and quotes as to the use of the word democracy used positively, not negatively:

Rights of Man

"It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy." Thomas Paine

Rat-ification of The Constitution

"Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I was possessed with talents, or possessed of any thing that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts. I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing —the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England—a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland—an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."
Patrick Henry June 5th 1788

I can explain in detail what I think is part of the origins of this lie that intends to discredit the concept of democracy from it's original meaning to the current falsified or counterfeited meaning, but who would listen?

I finally managed to get through the Collectivist versus Individualist false propaganda, which including some reasonable information along with the obvious contradictions.

Now I am having trouble with the Virtue video in Jurist Orientation.

I do not have trouble with the words quoted, so far, so much as the obvious problem of the words being offered by people who say one thing and then they do the opposite.

George Washington practically ruined the Volunteer Military of The Revolution, and that is well documented and reported by Murray Rothbard in the following work:

Generalissimo Washington

His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces.
Here in Washington's own words (or he may have hired someone to write these words):

Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation


And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
Hamilton, Washington, and John Adams were all false Federalists.

Washington under the obvious direction of Hamilton assembled a conscripted (slavery) Army of National Troops (as large as the Army Washington commanded during the Revolution) to crush the revolution that was happening all along the American Frontier, and Washington invaded the former Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Republic of Pennsylvania as a show of Aggressive War for Profit that the Federalists (so called) now commanded. They crushed a money competitor.

Further into Jury Orientation there are quotes from John Adams. Who do you think was behind The Alien and Sedition Acts as the Federalists who favored English (the supposed bad guys that had invaded America during The Revolution) and those same Federalists, such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams, made it a law to punish anyone saying anything in favor of France (The French actually helped The Rebels Defeat the English in The Revolutionary War) with those Alien and Sedition Acts.

Thrown in, so far, with the quotes by the criminal Washington, and the criminal John Adams, are the words of Jefferson, who was no where to be found during the Secret Proceedings that hatched the Usurpation, the Fraud, that was later to become known as The Constitutional Convention, and Jefferson was also absent, as far as I know, during the Ratification Process whereby the Federalists ran their campaign to sway Public Opinion with false promises of Federation; which was not Federation as was clearly reported by those who wanted Confederation, or true Federation, those people like George Mason and Patrick Henry, who were somehow, as if by magic spell, where called Anti-Federalists.

Explanations offered here:

Reading list

In particular this:

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

Quote:

"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. "n 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."



The Federalists (Central Bankers and probably in league with The Bank of England) could not allow MONEY COMPETITION, not World Wide, and certainly not in America, because America working as a Federation is designed to work, would quickly become much too powerful to be ever again subjected to a World Wide Banking Fraud.

So the Central Bankers had to kill off that Spirit of Liberty before it was allowed to grow too powerful.

From the same source of Hamilton's deeds quoted above is the following explanation of how Free Market Government, or a Democratic Federated Republic, such as the one under The Articles of Confederation, work as designed:


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.



Now I can return to Jurist Orientation, and I am not finding trouble in Law of the Land.

How about an original version of common law and then a possible counterfeit version or common law:

Original:
Trial by Jury Lysander Spooner
_____________________________________
And other authorities abundantly corroborate this assertion.[8] The king was, therefore, constitutionally the government; and the only legal limitation upon his power seems to have been simply the Common Law, usually called "the law of the land," which he was bound by oath to maintain; (which oath had about the same practical value as similar oaths have always had.)
_____________________________________
And
______________________________________
"The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terrae,as in the statute of Magna Carta,chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terrae;as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III., chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae,as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, "Nolurnus leqes Angliae mutari,"&c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni(the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. -, and de quo warranto,and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas,cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes." - 1 Hale's History of the Common Law, 128.



Counterfeited version:

http://one-heaven.org/canons/positive_law/article/259.html

_______________________________________________
The word “common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”.
________________________________________________


Those criminals running the Foreign (and repugnant) Private Corporation Bar Association (Union of "Law" Professionals) use the counterfeit version of Common Law, and thereby there is much in the way of potential confusion when someone acting in defense of Liberty thinks that they are referring to the genuine concept of Rule of Law, Law of the Land, or common law, or Common Law, based upon Natural Law, or God's Law, or The Golden Rule, or no one being above the law, people being subject to Natural Law, and then people being above insurance investments or so called "governments" that are either voluntary or they are criminal.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Sep 24th, 2013 12:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5677
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Notes on Monday Meetup 09/23/2013

Sacred may be better than Solemn for the concept of referring to a method of recording honorable status in driving forward from a specific principle.

If the specific principle that is honorably driving action is moral then it is beyond the individual human entity. In other words the source of the power is whatever power created human beings. Call it the power behind creation scientifically or religiously, it is the same thing so long as it is not the opposite principle knowable as Might makes Right, where a man (or woman, or group) rules other men (mankind), against the knowledge, or against the will, or against disagreement, or against consent concerning said rulings by said Might makes Right RULERS.

1.
Law based upon the power of the creator (God or ectropy or genetics or whatever isn't Might makes Right)

2.
Crime made legal, or Might (lies, threats, aggressive violence) making "Right"

A sacred oath for a scientist compared to a solemn oath for a scientist can be compared to a sacred oath for a God fearing (See Proverbs 8) Christian or religious human being, compared to a solemn oath among a band of brothers, or a case of honor among thieves.

In other words the concept is equal power governing all mankind or power exerted by an exclusive membership of some people over other people.

1. Equity/Liberty/prosperity/for posterity

2. Iniquity/slavery/misery/for extinction 

So the solemn oath includes (historically, presently, and well understood as a good idea on into the future) a sacred object from which the driving principle is authorizing further human action.

Under any scrutiny or onfusion as to who wanders off the path of equity, any claims of anyone in error, or in repugnance to the guiding principle, is traced back, each step of the way, back to the source of authority that launches said actions intended to reach said goals.

Solemn oaths, as a possible case of incapacity to remember what was said during the solemn oath, or a possible cause of incapacity to remember what the words written in the oath meant, pertained to, or was, in FACT, the guiding principle launching further actions to reach a nebulous, misunderstood, goal: from the beginning, can compare to a Sacred Oath made while holding the object that records the unmistakable principle behind the Sacred Oath which then authorizes followed orders of actions as they become actions in time.

If the point of origin is nebulous then any mistakes along the way are nearly certain to be mistakes because on error compounded upon another error removes the power of removing errors. Lies work this way, so this should not be difficult to see.

A person asks for a measure needed to make a board while building a house. Anther person says it is 25 units exactly. The board is cut and it is much too short. I was using metric, one says, while the other says I was using the standard foot measure. Now, listen, here is where the principle comes in, as both agree to cut the short board one more time, so as to make the short board fit.

If the board is not long enough to fit, it makes no sense to keep cutting more wood off of the board that is already too short.

Another 3 competitive ways to look at the idea of having a Sacred object, and not simply a solemn oath, is to see how two phrases in English clarify the reasoning for doing things this way.

1.
Take me to your leader
2.
The buck stops here
3.
Follow the money

To me The Declaration of Independence offers me a Sacred Object to base, by way of objective principle, the leadership, the source of authority, where the buck stops, and where following all the subsequent currency that may be produced from that principled authority is traceable back to that original point of production, that foundation.

I pledge a sacred Oath on that sacred object because that is the point at which I begin a journey to defend the human species from self destruction as some human beings are launching their actions based upon pure greed, pure self preserving actions whereby their desires are purchased by stealing the souls of many innocent victims.

Later on, in any case of error, on my own discovery of all the evidence of my own deeds, or with the help of any other person challenging my deeds driven by my founding principle, there can be a step by step (bread crumbs) trail back to that source, that Sacred Oath, and that object I hold as the Sacred Object present, referred to, as being the foundation from which all subsequent actions were justified, authorized, or enabled.

Take me to your leader, and I can refer to that Sacred Object. That is my leader. I am not led by any man, or woman. I am led by the power of creation. The power of creation is Sacred, all powerful, and it was that source of power behind the construction of that Sacred document, that Declaration of Independence, and it was what I held when I made my Sacred Oath, without any question, without any room for error, as that principle drove me on the path I took after making my Sacred Oath.

Well why did you go to the Bar and drink too much on the night of the 17th, on and on?

That is my personal business, not yours.

Well why did you write that Notice and Demand and transfer that document with that seal on it to the person having this name at this office in this court building on this date?

That can be traced back precisely to my Oath taken with this Sacred Object in my hand at the time of my Oath. Let there be no mistake as to why I was authorized to preform that duty as I see it.

Declaration of Duty

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The person who was in the office was asked to provide evidence of any oath of any kind concerning the actions that person had made, or failed to make, while they were supposedly authorized by that office.

Next are words that I think aught to be understood concerning an error I made during the Monday call, that I hope will be published on the National Liberty Alliance Web Page in due order.

I had spoken words indicating that defenders of Liberty can "sic" the people I call Legal Criminals upon each other, in so many words, and I want to explain that in greater detail, in my defense.

I do not mean to say that my intention is to harm anyone. My error was to fail to acknowledge an offer of remedy in any case of dealing with anyone, so as to offer, and the receive, consent.

A case I was eluding to had to do with someone in an office whereby the person in a office obstructs the proceedings that are authorized by the laws that created the office where the person is obstructing proceedings.

The idea is that their position at that point is to decide which side they are going to consent to be on. If they desire to be among their fellow usurpers of Liberty, then they will be chewed up in that meat grinder by their fellow conspirators; hence my wording of "sic" as in "sic the dogs of war upon them," but the meaning is not what may first appear on the surface.

The dogs of Aggressive War for Profit is at stake for those who have invested in it.

The defenders merely offer a merciful way out, and at that point the receivers of the offer are able to consent to that offer offered at that time, as an offer authorized by Sacred Oath to a cause, well enough explained in a Sacred document, and if there is no consent, then the person in question will probably be a liability from that point on in the criminal Cabal chosen to be the source of that person's authority.

Here is where it may be a good idea to understand the implications of Moto Proprio.

The former "leaders of the free world" have lost their power of authority, which was based upon lies in the first place, but now the point has reached at which even among their own, there are now confessions of having done terrible wrongs.

Mammon, it seems, is self-destructing.

The concept of Sacred Oaths among Friends of Liberty is such that we prefer to get off that Long Black Train, in no uncertain terms.








Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 03:31 pm  
Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > National Liberty Alliance Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems