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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Rules  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2017 02:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/constitutional_convention_new_york_ratifying_convention.php

While re-visiting the above information it occurred to me that the moral people (as in we - the moral, non-criminal people - are separate from the criminal, immoral, people, and that separation is created by the individual criminals acting alone (lone gunman) as well as the organized criminals who conspire to destroy a perishable liberty.

On one side are common laws created through agreement and maintained through agreement among moral people.

On the other side are organized criminals whose organizations often take a form that is intended to counterfeit the common laws of moral people who agree to live free in a perishable liberty.

On one side are common law rules found and maintained by moral people agreeing to abide by common laws which are often based upon natural laws with as often references to spiritual laws.

So my thinking moved to address the information found in the Debates in New York quoted now:

__________________________________
Next day, the committee of regulations brought in their report, on which the following resolves were passed, viz.: —
 
1st. That, at the meeting of the Convention each day, the minutes of the preceding day shall in the first place be read, at which times, mistakes, if any, shall be corrected.
 
2d. That all motions and addresses be made to the chair, and standing.
 
3d. That every motion made and seconded, except motions for adjournment, shall be handed to the chair in writing and there read before any debate or question taken thereon.
 
4th. That, upon every question taken, the yeas and nays shall be entered, if requested by any two members.
 
5th. That, if two members rise to speak, and there shall be a dispute which of them rose first, it shall be determined by the president.
 
6th. That no interruption shall be suffered while a member is addressing the chair, but by a call to order by the president, or by a member through the president.
 
7th. That no member be referred to by name in any debate.
 
8th. That, if any member shall transgress the rules a second time, the president may refer to him by name; that the Convention may examine and censure the member's conduct, he being allowed to extenuate or justify.
 
9th. That any member, making a motion, may withdraw it before the question is put thereon; after which any other member may renew the same motion, if he thinks proper.
 
10th. That the appointment of all committees shall be by ballot.
 
11th. That none be admitted within the bar, excepting the members and secretaries.
 
12th. That the preceding rules shall be observed when the Convention resolves itself into a committee of the whole.
________________________________


A federal government (voluntary agreement to defend innocent people from guilty people) already existed under the common law in America before the criminal slave traders, central banking frauds, war mongers, and drug pushers began their efforts to steal, and counterfeit, that federal government in 1787, which included the effort to deceive the moral people in American, and lead by deception those moral people into a deal with the devil, to sell out their freedom in liberty for nebulous profits that would be taken from productive people by force, and by deception, where those profits are then placed into a National FUND, which is a FUND that is then accessed by privileged individuals, to then pay out to the "share holders" their portions of the stolen loot.

So...the criminals must maintain a false flag, or façade, or Confidence Scheme, involving a play acting charade, where the criminals act as if they are proceeding according to lawful, agreeable, rules of order.

Who wrote those rules of order, and which rules, exactly, are we speaking about, when we are speaking about rules of order?

So the light bulb went off in my head.

Has anyone heard of Robert's Rules of Order?

How about Parliament Procedure?

I looked and found:

https://participedia.net/en/methods/roberts-rules-order

___________________________
The first edition of Robert’s Rule of Order appeared in 1876. The author Henry Martyn Robert (1837-1923) was Brigadier General in the U.S. Army whose original motivation for the title came in 1863 after being asked to preside over a church meeting in San Francisco.
___________________________

Before Robert's Rule Rule of Order there was Parliament Procedure. I think that the criminals in the British Parliament, you know the one's, the one's that ordered the criminal attack on the people in America, which was then the inspiration for the moral people in America to defend themselves from that criminal attack by the criminals RULING the English people.

So...what rules of order do common people agree to when facing destruction and enslavement by criminals who counterfeit lawful government?

I found the following:

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4336&context=law_lawreview

January 1937 From Common Law Rules to Rules of Court Laurance M. Hyde

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2017 02:48 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
___________________________
Our practice and procedure, as well as our substantive law, came to us as a part of the common law of England. It seems to be the popular impression that common law procedure was judge made procedure. It was, in fact, neither a set of rules made by courts nor a code adopted by a legislative body. Instead, it was a conglomeration of legislative enactments, rules and orders of courts, ancient usages, and judicial decisions; the haphazard growth of six centuries. Because it was a patchwork which had been patched until it could not be made suitable for modern conditions by more patching, it was finally superseded, about the middle of the last century in most American jurisdictions, by statutory codes fundamentally changing the whole system.
___________________________

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2017 02:59 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/magna-carta-and-the-common-law

_______________________________
For a considerable part of the period when the common law was taking form in England there may be observed in the writers on law a certain struggle between the Roman idea of “lex” and the mediæval conception of law as immemorial usage. The judges of those times, who were generally in orders, were better acquainted with Roman legal conceptions than many of their brethren of a much later time. Their knowledge and reverence for these ideas, coupled with the necessity they were under of administering a law of a different origin, at a less advanced stage of development, but with roots so deep in the traditions and habits of the people that its binding force was unquestionable—these are the chief explanation of apparently incompatible statements concerning the basis and extent of the royal authority, which even the “addiciones” in a text like Bracton’s cannot wholly explain. In the field of private law somewhat the same struggle is to be seen between “lex” and “consuetudo”; the one a product of the classical period of Roman law, the other a growth of the Middle Ages out of roots that are quite different. The mediæval desire for unity led the jurists of the time to make interesting attempts to reconcile these conflicting conceptions. Constantine’s famous dictum, “Consuetudinis ususque longaevi non vilis auctoritas est,1 they gladly fasten upon, but it will not fully serve their needs until it is practically inverted.2 So the author of Glanvill feels it necessary to apologize to his learned readers for an English customary law which he never thinks of questioning.3 Glanvill is quoted word for word by the author of “Fleta,” but without acknowledgment.4 Bracton also begins his treatise with the usual liberal quotations from the “Institutes,” and borrows from Glanvill the sentence identifying “consuetudo” with “lex,” but his treatment of the subject is fuller and much more valuable.5 It is clear that these mediæval writers are faced with a “cousuetudo,” a “lex non scripta,” which is binding much as “lex” was binding in the later Roman Empire. In order then, to apply their favourite texts in support of the existing law, they are under the necessity of including within “lex” what was certainly not included in Justinian’s time. The outstanding fact is that custom had really become “law”. It was accepted by common usage “pro lege”. This is almost the central fact in early English law; but we moderns, like the Romans of the later Empire, are so prone to identify “lex” and “law” that we can hardly appreciate the difficulty in which Glanvill and Bracton found themselves. Glanvill’s apology for “consuetudo” was directed at the classicists, and is easily understood by ourselves; to a twelfth-century Englishman, if unlearned in Roman law, it probably had very little meaning.
_______________________________


That information can be added to the information offered in the Essay on The Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner, where the two forces of good and evil were confused by the evil people as a counterfeit good was created and maintained by evil people. A dictatorial "class" of people claimed to be "protecting and serving" the people, and the actual people were instead enslaved and the product of their labor was stolen by this common legal fiction.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 10:51 pm  
Power Independence > Power Independence > Discovery > Rules Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems