|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||
|Criminal Take-over USA|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Wed Apr 26th, 2017 02:03 pm||
From Jack Kelley was a helpful suggestion to present the information in a trial by jury format.
Opening Statement Possibilities
Explain problem solution as Organized Crime Under the Color of Law (Involuntary Association, Rule by Criminal Means, Might Makes Right) versus disorganized defense against all enemies of liberty foreign, domestic, and under the color of law (voluntary association, rule of law, liberty, freedom, for all, including potential criminals).
First explain the current situation relevant to War of Aggression for Profit, and/or Human Trafficking. Then explain problem/solution.
1. Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner, specific references to trial by the country as opposed to summary justice (special interest).
2. First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled specific reference to trial by jury as the law of the land, definition of federal relationship.
|Posted: Wed Apr 26th, 2017 02:49 pm||
|Problem within a problem.
Knowing the problem and the solution is one thing, another thing - another problem - is communicating the information accurately so as to empower one another.
Wanting to know the problem and the solution is another thing, having the soul (moral conscience) turned off by external sources removes the individual in time and place from the front lines in the power struggle.
Misdirection (inspired not to ask internally what the problem or the solution is, not to ask if internal moral conscience has been turned off by external power) by opposite language (democratic, republic, federation, liberty, justice, law, jurisdiction, rule of law) also known as counterfeit (opposite) example of the original versions, (rule by the people themselves against all criminals foreign and domestic is replaced by a counterfeit rule by criminal means: organized crime under the color of law) removes the power of direction (accurate information informing defenders in command of moral conscience becomes disinformation covering up accurate accounting of accurate information as the opposite Rule of Law is replaced by Rule by Criminal means.
|Posted: Fri Apr 28th, 2017 12:51 pm||
|Detail what is defined by organized criminals under the color of law what is (black hat evil), and what is not (white hat defenders, Rule by Criminal Means.
1. Rule by Criminal Means Under the Color of Law
Central Banking Fraud/Subsidized Extortion
2. Rule of Law
Matthew 7:12 (or any competitive single or brief explanation = not pacifism)
Original common law trial by jury (or information - Athens Greece, Roman Military Story William Whiting, Trial by Jury Lysander Spooner)
American common law trial by jury (before 1789, or referenced in Bill of Rights after 1789)
Explain pacifism as enabling (empowering) criminals by supply criminals with ready victims) with reasonable examples such as an illustration of a population of all pacifists and introduce a wild (mad dog) animal (foaming at the mouth) in disguise (disguised as a good moral fellow pacifist) whereby the outward appearance of the Mad Dog masks the true colors of the sociopath, psychopath, torturing, enslaving, mass murdering, tyrant to be, and takes-over pacifism and replaced pacifism with the opposite ORDER (to be obeyed without question).
Spell out the three major powers of Rule by Criminal Means:
2. Threat of AGGRESSIVE (willful, premeditated - with malice aforethought - targeting of innocent people, not aggressive defense of innocent people in time and place as a last resort) Violence (for failure to comply with orders that must be obeyed without question = a lie itself for there are always questions and choices: possible competitive alternatives to blind obedience)
3. Aggressive violence by guilty criminals upon innocent victims.
Explain guilt as a function of the employment of will power to knowingly (with malice aforethought = premeditation) cause injury to innocent people. Mens Rea
Explain criminal act (absent guilt) - actus reus - which can offer possible reason for restitution, remedy, reintroduction back into Rule of Law (sanctuary).
|Posted: Fri Apr 28th, 2017 07:50 pm||
|Using 3 existing trial by jury cases the following is a beginning Transcript of a fictional - illustrative - case whereby the accused is George Washington, or any of the conspirators who perpetrated the crime known as Mixed War upon the people in America in 1787, and all subsequent people in America since.
The idea here is to present the case, and explain how the case ought to have been processed in 1787, or 1788, or 1789, on and on, including today, and including any day in the future.
The name George Washington can serve as a place holder, and any current perpetrator (an individual) can be processed in the same manner: Rule of Law.
3 Example Cases are now listed, as these cases serve the purpose of constructing the Mixed War case against George Washington.
One court case for each perpetrator, not a trial whereby a number of people are tried simultaneously: each individual is offered their trial for each charge against him or her.
Each victim is accounted as a victim on their own measure of injury done to them by the criminal in time and place, not a so called "Class Action." (more work on this is needed) See:
Three example cases:
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE, 1 U.S. 35 (1778)
1 U.S. 35 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
September Sessions, 1778
|Posted: Mon Jun 12th, 2017 07:46 pm||
|Working on the process by which we the people voluntarily defend each other for our mutual benefit my inspiration here and now is to begin work from a solid foundation which was offered in the following words:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
From that solid foundation the process of voluntary mutual defense flows naturally within the clearly expressed boundaries of liberty.
Slavery, so called, clearly moves outside those boundaries and off of that foundation as it cannot be considered slavery if the slave manages to turn the tables, to enslave the former master, doing exactly what the slave wants done to him or herself, by doing exactly what the slave wants to do to the former master.
The same application of the founding principle of liberty, freedom, and voluntary mutual defense works for the masters of slavery, which is no longer slavery if the master hands over the whip, the shackles, the enforcing power to force the slave to bear the work load, to the slave, so that the master can then bear the work load him, or herself, rather than having the slave bear the work load. Slavery is thereby at an end when the application of the solid foundation is applied in the case of slavery.
Master may agree to take turns with slave, even-days the master cracks the whip, odd-days the former slave picks up the whip and the former master receives the inspiration to bear the work load. Each does to each other as each would have done to themselves, and who then could call it slavery if the term slavery also applies to the situation whereby masters do to slaves what masters would never allow to be done to themselves, as masters would employ all their power in their own defense against becoming slaves.
1. Voluntary association for mutual enslavement according to the golden rule.
2. Involuntary association whereby masters enslave their victims and those masters would never allow themselves to be slaves at least within their power to defend against such horrible treatment done to them by someone else.
Slavery done to defenseless, powerless, victims, by powerful, offensive, criminals, is a known fact of natural law, and to suggest otherwise, to suggest that slavery done to defenseless, powerless, victims by powerful, offensive, non-criminals, is a clear step off of the founding principle of law, and a clear step into abuse of our ability, as living beings, to employ our time and energy existing in life.
Covering up for the criminals is far from helping to defend against the criminals.
Covering up for the criminals is affording the criminals more, not less, power over their victims.
Covering up for the criminals includes the often repeated assertion that people claiming to be the government exert a lawful, legal, legitimate, power to take from anyone what was once exclusively their own: stealing.
Once that assertion is made, this claim of legitimate stealing by people in government, there is then no limit on the list of things to be stolen by those thieves who have gained that power to steal under the color of law.
Off of the founding principle goes the people formerly bound within moral conduct, and onto any criminal enterprise they go, including extinction of all life on this planet.
Those who are captured into the mind trap of institutionalized slavery (involuntary association for mutual offense) are those who may ignore the facts of the matter.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
From that foundation, following the path laid out thereby, are messages of greater detail, as if the trail might wander from the straight and narrow without specific instruction to stay the course.
"Equal protection under the law."
Please consider that it has been a long time since the criminals took over America and that equal protection under the law was thereby replaced with unequal protection usurping the law, or do unto others as you would never allow other's to do to you if it is in your power to stop them from doing to you what you willfully, and with malice aforethought, do to them: such as enslavement, such as involuntary association aggressively put in place by criminals under the color of law.
Above then is an attempt at an opening statement, which is then a lead into the evidence phase of the virtual trial of the century.
|Posted: Mon Jun 12th, 2017 09:59 pm||
|To begin offering the country, represented by the jury, the evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the criminals had taken over a formerly moral, or non-criminal, government in America, the first witness is George Mason who has been credited for the still existing Bill of Rights which were claimed to have Amended the Constitution of 1789: which is the Criminal version of the Federal Constitution.
Yes, that is what is stated as fact, to be proven in due time, proven beyond reasonable doubt.
George Mason offered to all Americans the following words:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."
Those words by George Mason were entered into the official American (not British) government record "In Convention, Richmond, Tuesday, June 17, 1788" in opposition to the Constitution of 1789. Clearly George Mason, like Patrick Henry, was experiencing that awful, criminal, rat smell.
Exhibit B following establishes the acknowledgment by Americans of the rights and liberties Americans will themselves to defend, and they do so voluntarily.
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
That was the official record of the American (not British) voluntary, mutual defense, government.
Exhibit B documents:
The first Congress of delegates, chosen and appointed by the several colonies and provinces in North America, to take into consideration the actual situation of the same, and the differences subsisting between them and Great Britain, was held at Carpenters Hall, in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th of September, 1774.
The declaration above establishes that American government was designed from the start so as to preserve trial by jury "On the 14th of October..." 1774.
The minds of people may wander and so it is a duty in cases involving serious crimes to redirect, and reestablish, the minds of people back to the straight and narrow confines of lawful conduct, so as to avoid wandering into out-law territory.
Already stated, and now reinforced, is the single minded, single principle, governing moral government of people, who are thereby contained within the natural boundaries of human moral conscience, as we the people - voluntarily - do unto others as you would have others do unto ourselves.
That voluntary moral principle leads people on the straight and narrow, as people offer each other equal protection under that natural law, rather than the opposite, which is no protection for some people, as some people are injured by other people routinely, and people refuse to protect some people, or worse. Far from offering the victims protection, once the criminals do manage to take-over government, it is routinely established that the victims will be paying for their own victimization: each paying tribute, extortion fees, to the criminals running the criminal government, thereby subsidizing their own demise.
Exhibits 1 and 2 above constitute the establishment in America of the cause of action, and the action that was thereby established by that cause.
The cause of action was the enslavement of people by criminals running a false government.
Was that no made clear enough by George Mason?
Returning to Exhibit A, whereby the "Father of the Bill of Rights" explains the reason, the cause, for the American establishment of voluntary mutual defense, or government.
"Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain."
Moral people living moral lives are not going to voluntarily subsidize the enslavement of moral people, at least not while the facts are clearly in view, such as someone chaining someone and selling someone to someone else, as if nothing wrong is being done at all.
That is the mind-set people today have working in their thoughts, and it must end, for failure to do so, failure to end the mind set that accepts legalized slavery is a subsidization of legalized slavery on that intellectual level, which then turns into physical manifestations of legalized slavery.
The defense of slave masters, tax slave masters, or central banking fraud debt slave masters, includes such claims concerning the fact that George Mason owned slaves, or Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and therefore slavery was wrong, but it was justified, because everyone did it, it was acceptable.
The point here is to expose the falsehood in that defense, and to do so in the manner by which all falsehoods are exposed, at least within the confines of human nature which includes human error.
The point here is to point out that at no time has it ever been justified to capture, kidnap, take, by force, someone, or a whole people, to then employ those people as if those people were property, as if those people were not human, such as owning cattle, or owning chickens.
The point here is to point out that moral, voluntary, government, based upon reasonable, logical, useful, effective, foundations, works to dispel, nullify, expose, disempower, end, all criminal behavior, including the criminal behavior that routinely becomes acceptable to too many people when the criminals themselves take-over the government.
So the argument by the defense, which is an argument in defense of slavery under the color of law, exposes the culpability of specific people, such as George Mason, and such as Thomas Jefferson.
Why was there no trial then, and why is there no trial - other than this one - now?
Is that clearly the point?
Is it, or is it not, clear that slavery is not defensible in any lawful, moral, sense? If someone takes up that cause, to defend slavery, then is it something that moral people allow, accept, or finance?
Is it true, according to the country called America, and according to the jury that represents America, that slavery is a crime, even if the criminals themselves confess that slavery is a crime; factually?
Moving now to Exhibit C.
The Original Draft of the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776.
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Is that not a confession made by someone concerning their fall from grace as they fall into criminality?
The difference between someone confessing their criminality, working to stop the crime in progress, and someone claiming that the crime is not a crime, and working to enslave everyone under the same "non-criminal" system of slavery is the point of this trial.
Those who work to finance institutionalized slavery, be it debt slavery, Irish slavery, or African Slavery, are those who have a vested interest in making sure that people who could defend the victims are people who do not defend the victims, and instead of people defending the victims, those people subsidize, or finance, or accept, or rationalize, or excuse, or ignore, the ongoing misery born by the victims at the pleasure of the criminals.
Is slavery a crime against nature itself?
Who judges? What type of judgment can be expected from someone taking pleasure in enslaving people? Will those people taking pleasure in enslaving people reject the idea that slavery is a crime against nature itself? If so, then Thomas Jefferson is an exception in that regard, since the first draft of the Declaration of Independence confesses that slavery is - in deed - a crime against nature itself.
You are the judge too.
Returning to the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
That can be found in the Congressional Record as Thomas Jefferson reports on the effort to publish a Declaration of Independence, as he wrote it, and as it was offered to the many individuals who constituted that congress in 1776.
|Current time is 09:34 pm|
|Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Criminal Take-over USA||Top|