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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Rick Koerber  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2017 02:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Initial offer:

Private message first:

You are either ignorant concerning the divisions between so called Federalists and Anti-Federalists, or you are willfully deceiving people, and this can be proven either way. If you censor the information I will now post on your page, then people will know which side you are on, based upon the information that you choose to censor.

Public message (initial):

In response to a video report by Rick Koerber concerning the mutually exclusive divisions between so called "Federalists" and "Anti-Federalists," the following information is offered to a candid word of free minded people in a perishable liberty.

https://www.facebook.com/freecapitalist/

Equal protection under the law, or Liberty, is not the same thing as subsidized slavery, Liberty and Subsidized Slavery are mutually exclusive processes, which are processes that are founded, or framed, from mutually exclusive concepts. Liberty (not subsidized slavery) is founded, and framed, upon moral principle. Subsidized slavery (not liberty) is only possible through deception created and perpetrated upon the innocent (a crime), threat of aggressive violence upon the innocent (a crime), and aggressive violence perpetrated upon the innocent (another crime). That information above provides, anyone capable of moral judgement, a framework from which to then judge the facts that are offered from the following sources, concerning this "argument" about the formation of the 1787/89 (criminal) Constitution by the so called Federalist Party.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2017 03:13 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Exhibit A:

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]

George Mason:
Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?


Exhibit B:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june17/

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


Exhibit C:

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_12.htm

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.

But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national.


Exhibit D:

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


That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

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

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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2017 03:22 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The above documentation proves beyond question that there were 2 diametrically opposed forces in conflict concerning the principles that frame and found voluntary mutual defense association, or the law of the land, in America at the time of the "change" from a federal government, going from voluntary mutual defense (federation), and going to a "national" government.

Those against slavery were those who were on the side of liberty, such as George Mason (founder of The Bill of Rights according to some sources), and Patrick Henry: in their own words. It is not possible to work toward freedom in liberty while extorting earned income from people so as to "subsidize" the crime now known as "human trafficking," but known in 1787/89 as Slavery. But that is not all the bad news concerning those who claim to support the Constitution of 1787/89, which included the willful deception of Americans, so as to subsidize, and finance, the African Slave Trade. I can continue commenting on the additional "mutually exclusive" concepts involved in the "change" from federation to nationalism after offering more documentation relevant to this cause of action.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2017 03:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Exhibit C:

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

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

If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

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

The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

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


Exhibit D:

Trial by Jury Lysander Spooner

For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. [7] This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.

It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor—that is, with the government.

It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, “a trial by the country.” In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, “the country,” or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the [8] government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people.

But all this “trial by the country” would be no trial at all “by the country,” but only a trial by the government, if the government could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial.

If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law.*

So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a “trial by the country,” [9] but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own—not by their own judgments of their rightful liberties—but by a standard dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people’s liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. Unless they judge on this point, they do nothing to protect their liberties against the oppressions that are capable of being practised under cover of a corrupt exposition of the laws. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded.

The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all.

The jury must also judge of the laws of evidence. If the government can dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only shut out any evidence it pleases, tending to vindicate the accused, but it can require that any evidence whatever, that it pleases to offer, be held as conclusive proof of any offence whatever which the government chooses to allege.

It is manifest, therefore, that the jury must judge of and try the whole case, and every part and parcel of the case, free of any dictation or authority on the part of the government. They must judge of the existence of the law; of the true exposition of the law; of the justice of the law; and of the admissibility and weight of all the evidence offered; otherwise the government will have everything its own way; the jury will be mere puppets in the hands of the government; and the trial will be, in reality, a trial by the government, and not a “trial by the country.” By such trials the government will determine its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining their own liberties against the government; and it will be an entire delusion to talk, as for centuries we have done, of the trial by jury, as a “palladium of liberty,” or as any protection to the people against the oppression and tyranny of the government.

The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves—the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially [11] the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2017 04:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
After one response (where Rick Koerber resorts to personal attack, claiming that my responses were incoherent) I sent the following message to his Facebook display of libel.

If rule of law was allowed in these corporate (limited liability) United States, then Rick Koerber might be less likely to resort to libel when confronted with the plain truth, but it is certainly his personal choice to ignore (be ignorant of) those facts; as he pleases.

Another private message from Rick Koerber and my response follows:

Did you remove the information I posted on your Facebook page? If so...then it is an act of censorship perpetrated by you, not me. What you have done on your video is to perpetrate libel against the target of your libel, as you have made false statements concerning the individual who has tried to communicate the facts, as I have done. If you were honest you would admit this, but you are not honest, and you censor those facts that do not fit your narrative. Anytime you wish to debate this topic publicly is fine with me, your narrative is false, and it is easily exposed as false.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2017 12:24 am
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
In preparation for a possible guest appearance on this Media my comments now are offered to those who may want to know something about me, but more importantly, people may want to know more about the facts I have found: facts that are routinely censored. Back when Waco was LIVE on Television, a Patriot named Linda Thomson inspired a lot of people to action, for our mutual defense, using peaceful solutions, but not relying upon pacifism. That Waco event, and previous information gathering on the subject of political economy, sparked in me an accelerated effort to uncover the covered-up facts concerning our law of our land in America, which includes natural economic laws. I ran for congress. I contacted the John Birch Society, Fully Informed Jury Association, United We Stand (Ross Perot), Free State Project (New Hampshire), and I was the California State Coordinator for National Liberty Alliance for one year. Every single organization on that list was - probably still is - controlled by a fundamental deception, which is the deception that ought to be brought out into the light, sooner is better than too late.

The fundamental deception concerns the diametric opposite concepts (mutually exclusive) Liberty and Slavery, and associated actions by people who share those opposing concepts. People acting alone constitute micro effects, while people acting in concert, in either direction (Liberty or Slavery), constitute macro effects: exponentially accelerating in either direction due to economic forces such as: 1. Division of Labor, 2. Specialization, 3. Economies of Scale.

In 1787 the last battle of the Revolutionary War was fought in Massachusetts, and the winners of that battle were the corrupt politicians who had criminally taken over the free state (in a perishable liberty) that Massachusetts was, and once was because the British criminal aggressors were driven out of that land, that independent State, that independent Democratic Republic.

That victory was won at a high cost to the corrupt politicians, as that victory spelled an inevitable defeat of the corruption within the working Federation of Free States in Liberty known then as The United States of America, under rule of law (common law with trial by jury), where 13 States were joined in a grass-roots, organically formed, voluntary, mutual defense association, held together by a voluntary agreement known as The Articles of Confederation.

The Slave Traders, Central Banking Frauds, War Mongers, and Drug Pushers (also counterfeit religious organizations, such as the Jesuits) saw the true cost of allowing the people to create for themselves, and maintain for themselves, a voluntary association for mutual defense, under rule of law (common law with trial by jury.

The power to corrupt, and the power to extort, and the power to persecute, all done under the color of law in Massachusetts, was threated to the core, and that core is the power that those criminals have in covering up the facts that inculpate them as criminals; albeit criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law: such as covering up the crime of African Slavery.

Trial by Jury, according to the common law, was allowed to re-find it's natural position above every other form of fact finding, justification, judgment, and authorizing of what is, or is not, a truly consensual law that is thereby worthy of agreement to enforce, hazarding the dreaded condition known by some, as anarchy, for failure to invest in, support, and maintain said due process of law. That people power, to hold government to an accurate accounting, was too powerful for the corrupt politicians to allow, and they knew the Genie was almost out of the Bottle, so they had to act, and they had to act fast.

The Slave Traders, War Mongers, Central Banking Frauds, and others, had to devise a method by which their "legal fictions" could regain the upper hand, placed fraudulently above our common law, with our trial by jury, whereby everyone - without exception - is afforded the same protection under that law.

These are not statements made by me alone, as the facts were recorded on the official record, voiced by such famous names as Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled), Patrick Henry, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and many others.

The consequence of having failed to protect and serve posterity, by maintaining rule of law (common law due process with trial by jury) directly resulted in demonstrable horrors such as the subsidization of the African Slave Trade, the "Final Solution" to the so called Indian Problem, and the build up, and the pogrom perpetrated by the criminals at the top, known as The Civil War, to name just 3 consequences directly resulting from the criminal take-over of America by the false Federalist Party in 1787/89.

I hope that will help some in introducing me, and the information that I have to offer to those who prefer not to be drones who are controlled by this fundamental deception. Drones that shoot messengers on cue, because the message being offered contends with their Corporate Idealism known as "Legal Fiction."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2017 10:40 am
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
My business here has been inspired by a crime scene that I have witnessed, and this crime scene is recorded on one of Rick Koerber's Broadcasts for The Free Capitalist. The crime is libel. The perpetrator of the crime is Rick Koerber, and the innocent victim is someone who dared to offer information that agrees with fundamental principles, agrees with the official record, and agrees with my independent findings of those same facts: i.e. The Federalist Party was made up of criminal Slave Traders. 

Rick Koerber damaged this individual who dared to speak the truth to power, and the damage inflicted by Rick Koerber was inflicted as a direct result of Rick Koerber's public deceptions concerning this individual, and the twisting of the facts of the matter concerning the criminal take-over of America by the false Federalist Party in 1787/89, whereby it was Rick Koerber who twisted those facts.

It is past time to employ true rule of law so as to peacefully resolve conflicts, such as crimes of libel, and any other much more serious, and much more damaging crimes (such as treason), whereby it is still (even now) possible to restore, redeem, and return guilty people who step outside the law, to return them back in the voluntary mutual protection of the law, if they agree to the judgments made by the country, through trial by jury.

If my accusation concerning this crime scene (that is recorded, and that was witnessed by me personally) goes nowhere, just like so many other accusations that never cause people to act in voluntary mutual defense of the victims, then my point will be proven, and the justification of my accusation will be entered in the public record, which by the way is the actual common law court of record: a collective memory of what is, or is not, lawful according to the people themselves as a whole.

In other words: the reason for our troubles today, with ubiquitous corruption, falls to the accountability of individual people - them selves - as each individual fails to volunteer for our mutual defense, which includes the time tested, and the true duty, known as jury duty. Which includes the duty to volunteer as a Magistrate, or Justice of the Peace, so as to then form, by this framing process, a common law Grand Jury. I will explain if I am able, in the following words.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2017 10:43 am
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am going to choose which information will best explain both the problem and the solution to the problem (the problem is ubiquitous corruption in a counterfeit government power, and the solution is trial by jury according to the true - not the counterfeit - common law) as best I can. First is a note from Thomas Jefferson that spells out something I will call Gate-Keeping. Individual people, people with licenses, people without licenses, people with badges, people without badges, but not people with fake badges, and not people with counterfeit badges or licenses, are people trusted with the vital job of Gate-Keeping, and these people, as with all people, are subject to the same accurate accounting process, that inspires them to avoid making the choices that constitute crimes, because crime no longer pays well, not when the people themselves govern themselves, with effective, expedient, efficient, true, due process: trial by jury according to the common law. 

So following that introduction above (a diatribe to some?) are the words (and link) from Thomas Jefferson concerning what I call Gate-Keeping. Then I will attempt to explain the Job Description of Gate-Keeping in my own words, so as to help someone who may not understand the significance of Thomas Jefferson's words on this matter of who keeps the gate, and who does not keep the gate open, or closed.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2017 10:45 am
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal. If the criminal be a slave the trial by the county court is final. In every case however, except that of high treason, there resides in the governor a power of pardon. In high treason, the pardon can only flow from the general assembly. In civil matters these justices have jurisdiction in all cases of whatever value, not appertaining to the department of the admiralty."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Oct 28th, 2017 10:50 am
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

A question asked by people today is: "Why isn't BLANK (corrupt politician, corrupt judge, corrupt LEO, etc.) on trial for treason, or human trafficking, or trading with the enemy, or misprision, or malfeasance, or fraud, or mixed war, or worse crimes, while good, innocent, pacifist, people like Cliven Bundy are stripped of basis natural rights by the "system" that we call government?"

The answer is that the gate is closed by the corrupt people who counterfeit government. When the gate is manned by qualified people, who work voluntarily, or with just compensation of costs if not working strictly as volunteers, then those minding the gate have no twisted bias toward protecting and serving their ill gotten gains.

So that message you read now, offered by me, may appear to be just another diatribe by just another conspiracy theorist, but please consider the principles involved in the process knowable as government. I am speaking about the process demonstrated in the time period between 1775 and 1789, in America. I am speaking about the process which is voluntary association for mutual defense against all enemies of free people in a perishable liberty, and among those enemies are included Slave Traders, War Mongers, Central Banking Frauds, who are all understood as Tories, or Loyalists, if you employ the vernacular of the time period.

I am speaking about the process whereby the people themselves, in America, re-established true due process, which is truly the way by which the people themselves hold all the criminals to an accurate accounting, leaving no one out. Leaving people out, such as leaving out victims of African Slavery out, is a crime by that understanding: a crime of closing the gate that must be open to all, or the gate being kept closed to some, and open to others, is the divisional, the exclusive, the elite, the privileged, the unjust, the divisive, the criminal gate which excludes some innocent people so as to afford to other guilty people a leverage, an advantage, an unearned measure of wealth, or simple, basic, "political" power.

Therefore in the words of Thomas Jefferson who offered notes on the State of Virginia, which was an independent State, which was not a State that was Annexed into a National Government. Please be clear about this distinction. The notes on the State of Virginia are notes made before the people in America declared their lawful duty to defend against corrupt governments, with lethal force if needed, and therefore it was the people themselves, in America, in the independent State of Virginia, not the British, and not the Nation State, or Consolidated Government formed in 1789, that was in power, at that time, including volunteers, who volunteered to keep the gate open, justly, to all.

People make mistakes, of course, and so long as those mistakes are accurately accounted for, then remedy, restitution, and redemption remain a possible goal worth reaching for, despite the failings of individual human nature.

The information above ought to clearly answer the question above, as to why corrupt government people (criminals) avoid prosecution while innocent victims victimized by those corrupt government criminals are persecuted. The gate is kept by the corrupt government criminals, and that gate was closed by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the creation of a legal fiction, which was warned about, in great detail, by Richard Henry Lee.

Richard Henry Lee was the 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, and he was an abolitionist, and he was against the Nationalization, or Consolidation, or Annexing, of the independent people, in the independent States, of which he presided as President of the Federal Congress when the Federation was actually a Federation in the true sense of the word. So that brings to the table another three Exhibits.

Exhibit 1 explains the deceptions required to falsify, or counterfeit, the voluntary mutual defense association (federation), turning said federation into a consolidated, Annexing, monopoly, power: despotism, tyranny, empire, nation state, monarchy, oligarchy, or legal fiction.

I don't want to get too far from the point, which is the point at which the people themselves regain control of the gate, so as to keep the gate open, so as to hold all criminals (foreign and domestic) to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any crime perpetrated by anyone with, or without, a badge. The trouble with a tangled web, spun into being through deception, is the volumes of lies, each in turn, that must be exposed: nipped in the bud. We have been under this spell for over 200 years, so please give me a break on the often claimed negative mud slung upon me of "diatribe" and such. The Exhibits speak for themselves.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 30th, 2017 11:46 am
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Attempting to add to this (after being blocked from adding to this) I will post an Exhibit from an official source, whereby the First Congress explains the meaning of Federation. The idea here is to establish the fact that - at least - the first Congress of the United States of America, while it was forming, placed into the public record (common law court of record) the definition of federation, and that definition defines a federation as a VOLUNTARY association for mutual defense i.e. the opposite of enforced, involuntary, servitude, known in the colonial, and revolutionary, vernacular as slavery.  

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

________________________
That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

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

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


Now, if I am allowed to add to this, is a clear, concise, detailed, explanation of how record keeping, for our mutual defense, is historically processed - VOLUNTARILY - for our mutual defense. Clearer then, having these 2 exhibits offered in concert, the fact of the matter is such that the Revolutionary War was fought so as to preserve the voluntary nature of human co-existence, maintained through "the law of the land" which was, and continues to be, trial by jury according to the common law: not the counterfeit Admiralty, or Equity, or Exchequer, or Maritime, or Summary JUST US systems of enslavement by deception.

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

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

If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

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

The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

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


Next is an Exhibit again taken from the official record, whereby this Federalist (who was falsely called "Anti") named Richard Henry Lee is credited with having offered the warning that has come true as a matter of demonstrable fact. So...before reading this warning, from the 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, when the Federation was a working Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense, under (not over) the common law with trial by jury, consider - before reading the warning - what we the people had, and what we the people lost, when the prescient, prophetic, accurate, concise, non-diatribe, warning was offered to the posterity that was heading for this future with this CONFIDENCE scheme replacing trial by jury, replacing the common law, and putting in place, by deception, and by lethal, aggressive, criminal, force, putting in place subsidized slavery under "legal fiction."

http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp41-43B

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

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

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

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

If that fails to convince the reader, or at least spark interest in modern versions of patriots, then the following 2 Exhibits, taken again from the official record (common law court of record), may cut slightly into that tangled web called cognitive dissonance, that has been casting a spell on Americans for over 200 years, stealing like a thief in the night, our countries (plural) souls.



http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june16/
Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot
[6 June]

George Mason:
Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?

http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp03

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

Can you not see how the demonic spell works on an individual mind, yours for example? Federal men, patriots, fought for, and died for, voluntary association under the common law with trial by jury, as the means by which all enemies, foreign, and domestic, are held to an accurate accounting, at least within the limits of human error. The whole country of people volunteer as able, to represent One Twelfth part of the moral conscience of the country which works in time and place, in each county, where innocent people actually need protection from those enemies. What was fought for, and lost, was the promise of deterrence against all crimes, including crimes perpetrated by people who falsely claim to be the government, through the peaceful, agreeable, negotiating, of fact finding, and judgment determination, called the common law, with trial by the country, or also known as trial by jury. So...out goes voluntary association, where the promise is that everyone is afforded equal protection under the law, which then, by extension, includes victims of African Slavery, or victims of any form of Slavery under the demonic filtered sun, if the people volunteer.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 30th, 2017 06:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Moving on to yet another founding, or framing, reference concerning the two opposing forces Liberty and Slavery in America, is the following very important point concerning the people of Rhode Island, and what their representatives did, and what their representatives had to say about the (false) Federalist Party as the criminal, Slave Trading, War Mongering, Central Banking Fraud Party was deep into the criminal take-over of an existing Federation of free people in Independent States, formed under a federal agreement for mutual defense, also under the common law with trial by the country, in courts of conscience, adding to the common law court of record along the way. The following was entered into the official record (court of record) and it remains to be for public consumption (republic means: the public thing):

http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp15

No. 15 – Rhode Island Is Right!



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



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

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

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

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

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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 30th, 2017 06:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
For want of proof, perhaps, skeptics may cry foul, but said skeptics have already had their brains rewired shortly after birth, in the land of deception whereby those patriots who fought for and died for freedom in liberty, those federalists, were falsely labeled "anti" as soon as the criminal factions began exerting their criminal minds toward the necessary work required to monopolize, cartelize, enslave, and "change a free government into an arbitrary one." So it may be worth the effort to inform skeptics, that all is not necessarily lost, even if you have signed a deal with the devil, in blood, to aid, abet, and lend both moral and material support to those who "change a free government into an arbitrary one." What follows are messages from those moments and those places that constituted the founding, and the framing, of a voluntary mutual defense federation, out of necessity, because the British were then and there rioting in the blood of the innocent, War Mongering, Slave Trading, and collecting their extortion fees with their Central Banking Fraud. The free people who hazarded the costs of fleeing persecution by the same British criminals, were now defending their return to Rule of Law, in their voluntarily, agreed upon, perishable Liberty in America.


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

6th of October, 1774

_____________________________
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
______________________________

On the 20th day of October 1774

_____________________________________
This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted.
______________________________________


On the 1st of April, 1775

____________________________________
On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited.
_______________________________________

___________________________________________
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.
______________________________________

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

_____________________________________
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.
__________________________________

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 30th, 2017 06:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"...without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous..."

Therein those above words are clues. States have no conscience, no reason, no justifications, no thoughts, and no actions. The lazy form of speech includes the shortcuts taken to say one thing, but mean something else, for it is specific people, in specific states, whose patriotism
appeared ridiculous, because those people claimed to be fighting for freedom in a perishable liberty, while those people aided, abetted, lending moral and material support to the very same types of criminals that had rioted in the blood of the innocent of America during the War of Aggression perpetrated by the infamous British Cartel.

More proof is now offered in 2 messages placed on the public record in what could constitute a true example of an American Court of Record. These 2 messages placed on the public record are messages that do not originate from The British JUST US System of fraud and extortion under the color of law. These 2 messages placed on the pubic record are messages that do not original from The National Government, or the Consolidated Government, that was fraudulently put in place by the (false) Federalist Party in 1787/89. So skeptics cannot claim that these message are British or American National messages. These messages are, by their content, messages that work for the people themselves, when the people are subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, stripped of habeas corpus, stripped of the right to speak against a criminal government legally (see Declaration of Mixed War), stripped of the right to bear arms, stripped of the right to face an accuser, stripped of an expedient trial by their fellow countrymen, and fellow country women, or peers, and stripped of life, liberty, and of equal importance: stripped of the property that is required in the work of ensuring prosperity for posterity.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/

U.S. Supreme Court

Respublica
v.
Abraham Carlisle

Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
September Sessions, 1778

____________________________
This was an indictment for High Treason, which was set forth in the following words:

'The Jurors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, upon their oaths and affirmations, do present, That Abraham Carlisle, late of the city of Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia, carpenter; being an inhabitant of and belonging to and residing within the State of Pennsylvania, and under the protection of its laws, and owing allegiance to the same State, as a false traitor against the same, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, the fidelity which to the same State he owed wholly withdrawing, and with all his might intending the peace and tranquillity of this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to disturb, and war and rebellion against the same to raise and move, and the government and independency thereof, as by law established, to subvert, and to raise again and restore the government and tyranny of the king of Great Britain within the same Commonwealth:

On the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight, and at divers days and times, as well before as after, at the city of Philadelphia, in the county aforesaid, with force and arms, did falsely and traiterously take a commission or commissions from the king of Great Britain, and then and there, with force and arms did falsely and treacherously also take a commission or commissions from general Sir William Howe, then and there acting under the said king of Great Britain, and under the authority of the same king, to wit, a commission to watch over and guard the gates of the city of Philadelphia, by the said Sir William Howe, erected and set up for the purpose of keeping and maintaing the possession of the said city, and of shutting and excluding the faithful and liege inhabitants and subjects of this State and of the United States from the said city: And then and there also maliciously and traiterously, with a great multitude of traitors and rebels, against the said Commonwealth, (whose names are as yet unkown to the jurors) being armed and arrayed in a hostile manner, with force and arms did falsely and traiterously assemble and join himself against this Commonwealth, and then and there, with force and arms, did falsely and traiterously, and in a warlike and hostile manner, array and dispole himself against this Commonwealth; and then and there, in pursuance and execution of such his wicked and traiterous intentions and purposes aforesaid, did falsely and traiterously prepare, order, wage and levy a public and cruel war against this Commonwealth; then and there committing and perpetrating a miserable and cruel slaughter of and amongst the faithful and liege inhabitants thereof; and then and there did, with force and arms, falsely and traiterously aid and assist the king of Great Britian, being an enemy at open war against this State, by joining his armies, to wit, his army under the command of general Sir William Howe, then actually invading this State; and then and there maliciously and traiterously, (with divers other Traitors to the jurors aforesaid unknown,) with force and arms, did combine, plot and conspire to betray this State and the United States of America into the hands and power of the king of Great Britian, being a foreign enemy to this State and to the United States of America, at open war against the same; and then and there did, with force and arms, maliciously and traiterously give and send intelligence to the same enemies for that purpose, against the duty of his allegiance, against the form of the act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.'


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/

U.S. Supreme Court

Respublica
v.
Shaffer

Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

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

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

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

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

But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial.

Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no bias from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it.

But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 30th, 2017 07:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So...contained in the information thus far, and applying that information to modern times, modern places, modern cases of criminals persecuting innocent people under the color of law, what reason, what logic, what cause for action is spelled out in no uncertain terms?

Failure to volunteer for our mutual defense, which is failure to learn what is or is not the true meaning of the law of the land, which is the common law, where such concepts as "innocent until proven guilty," "expedient (speedy) trial," "habeas corpus (meaning give back to the people the body you have unjustly imprisoned, and are inflicting cruel and unusual punishment upon him, or her," "no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence," "that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn," and that it is the duty of free people to resist, with force if forced to do so in defense, criminals who perpetrate crimes, repeatedly, upon the innocent, even when said criminals claim to be the government.

What is missing? Obviously there are GATE KEEPERS who only represent the criminals running the government, and only in rare cases, when they must throw one of their own under the bus to keep up appearances, are there ever, any, of their number (government officials so called) prosecuted in an actual trial by jury, and so...show me the money?

Enter stage left The Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts.

Before linking that treasure trove of inculpatory evidence, which was a GATE KEPT CLOSED for 31 years after the fact of the Conspiracy Murder of Martin Luther King Jr., it is important to reinforce the concept that there is a missing element in our law of our land, which is our common law, as demonstrated in the before mentioned public records. Magistrates, or Justices of the Peace, in each county, are missing in action. Why? Why are those among us who constitute the most discrete and honest in each common law county (independent, voluntary association for mutual defense), in each State, in the Mutual Association of States or Federation - why are those honest people - not able to volunteer, not able to constitute a common law Grand Jury, whereby they command, themselves, independently, all jurisdiction civil and criminal, so as to investigate valid accusations, so as to then put the accused on his trial? What happened along the way? What ought to be done now?

For example. What ought to be done before another conspiracy murder like the conspiracy murder of Lavoy Finicum, or all those innocent people in Las Vegas, is allowed to be perpetrated with impunity?

Clues are offered in the Oregon example. Innocent victims like the Hammond's, for example, were victims of Arson, according to exculpatory evidence in the possession of the so called Prosecutors of the Hammonds. That evidence was said to be witness testimony of BLM agents having set a fire that was designed to burn out the Hammond family, so as then to steal that land from the Hammonds.

Descending upon the crime scene, which are at least 2 crimes mentioned above: arson by so called BLM agents, and withholding exculpatory evidence perpetrated by so called prosecutors, and descending upon the crime scene were armed opposing forces: Those defending the criminal arsons, which at also those defending the criminals who withheld exculpatory evidence, and on the other side were those defending rule of law, which included people organized, and people unorganized, into voluntary defensive association.

The people themselves, in Oregon, were reported to have formed a Safety Committee. Was there anyone in that group who thought to, and suggested, a Resolution which would set in motion the election of county Magistrates, from which the Governor could be contacted for approval, whereby these county Magistrates could constitute a common law Grand Jury, commanding civil and criminal jurisdiction, when the local government fails to provide equal protection of the law, specifically when the local government conspires to aid, abet, lend immoral, and material support to criminal arsons, criminal prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence, armed criminal forces conspiring to murder, and armed criminal forces that perpetrate conspiracy murder, in that county?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Dec 22nd, 2017 12:55 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
This is ironic. The pro-slave trading constitution advocate Rick Koerber is invited to speak at a Lysander Spooner University Symposium?

It was the Slave Traders, the War Mongers, the pro-criminal British loyalists, and the Central Banking Frauds, all together in one room, doors shut, sealed proceedings, gag orders issued, and assembled on false pretenses, that created the Legal Fiction Constitution of 1787. That same Slave Trading, Central Banking Fraud, War Mongering Constitution was then offered to The Mob, like offering a runaway slave to a lynch mob, to create, and enforce, so as to insulate "the government" from prosecution by the people: which is the precise problem facing the Ranchers in the western United States of America (a federation, not a Nation State Despotism). Lysander Spooner pointed out correctly the following:

"There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.

"These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.

"If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States - that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights - it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced."

Those who were fooled into adopting the Slave Trading Constitution of 1787 got what they didn't ask for, but they sure as hell got slavery imposed by a criminal "elite" that isn't even very well hidden behind a false front, legal fiction, confidence scheme. What would have happened if instead of being fooled the people at large were smarter? Smarter like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and all those people who blew the whistle on the criminal take-over by the Human Trafficking Party. What could happen if people today wise up? Could we the people return to the real law of the land instead of being criminally extorted into suffering from the counterfeit law that time and again demonstrates immoral lawlessness?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 12:08 am  
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Rick Koerber Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems