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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:    1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Redoubt  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Jan 25th, 2018 05:06 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/changing-us-constitution/#comment-4233


Boyd White curiously references the work of James Madison.

James Madison was a pro-slave trading "Constitution" man during the crime that turned the federation into a corporate nation state. That crime scene is documented on the official record to this day, so the need to reference anything else, other than the hands firmly recorded - on the official record - in the cookie jar are not needed, yet Boyd White does reference James Madison’s “The Notes of the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787," which will afford the reader of that work a measure of evidence concerning what went on in those closed door, secret (gag orders issued), "convention" of representatives from 12 Nation States.

Rhode Island refused to attend: they smelled a rat. The fact that Rhode Island refused to attend nullified any proposed changes to the existing Federation of States under the common law, and under The Articles of Confederation. The Nationalists went ahead and broke the statute that gave them authority anyway.

James Madison soon jumped from the Nationalist ship to form an anti-nationalist group calling themselves the Democratic Republican Party. James Madison along with Thomas Jefferson published The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which clearly express specific crimes perpetrated by the Nationalists.

As to the claims (accusations) made against Lysander Spooner, the claims that to me amount to libel, the accused won't get his lawful remedy in that case. For one thing Spooner is long gone, and for another thing the Nationalists have been stacking juries since 1789.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 26th, 2018 02:42 am
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Libel Exhibit A:

"Spooner goes above and beyond to misconstrue the facts of the creation of the Constitution; there is no excuse for that since Spooner published “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” in 1867..."

The above is hyperbole and ad-hominem. The libeler may have failed to actually understand the work of Lysander Spooner, and rather than find out who is actually guilty of misconstruing the readily available information, said libeler goes on the attack, whereby the victim of the attack is claimed to be failing an intelligence test of some kind, a test offered by the libeler after the target of the libeler has already been in the grave for over a century.

Then said libeler goes from ad-hominem to hyperbole with the additional false claim that his victim had "no excuse" for the fake crime of misconstruing an intelligence test offered to the victim by the victimizer over 100 years after the death of the victim.

The tester (libeler) offering the test to the victim (Lysander Spooner) apparently assumes dictatorial powers as judge, jury, and executioner concerning what is, or is not, a lawful document: such as in this case a contract, or "Constitution."

The actual jury is still out on this, so the law of the land, which is trial by the country, has yet to try the case. None-the-less, said libeler speaks for someone, or some group, with an air, or a color, of authority.

Apparently the libeler has claimed - in so many ambiguous words - that the target of the libel is guilty of misconstruing the Slave Trading Constitution with a "contract." Proof of this crime of "misconstruing," according to the libeler is that those Slave Traders who didn't want the Pro-Slave Trading Constitution signed, were against signing it, or some other reason.

Example:

Mr. Govr. MORRIS “…He remarked that the signing in the form proposed related only to the fact that the States present were unanimous.”

Again, in defense of actual law, and in defense against further deception, the confession exists in that quote. All the States were not represented during the closed, secret, gag orders issued, conspiracy to throw out the voluntary mutual defense association - federation - and replace it with a slave trading, central banking fraud, war mongering, Nation State, and since all the States were not present the said Pro-Slavery Constitution was null and void as it sat without signatures, or with signatures.

Signing the Pro-Slavery Constitution - as a matter of fact - identifies the conspirators for their conspiracy. George Mason refused to sign it.

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."


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?"

As to the actual crime perpetrated - on the official record no less - by the Slave Traders, War Mongers, Central Banking Frauds, and others in the first "Convention:"

“Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

One of the most important requirements demanded by those representatives in most of the states was that their consent was as powerful as the consent of any other state. Rhode Island refused to attend the conspiracy, on many grounds, and therefore the crime here is that all the other representatives in the other 12 states who signed the Pro-Slave Trading document were willfully perpetrating a crime against the will of those who agreed to form the original, grass-roots, organic federation on that specific, demanded, condition of equal protection under the law: consent.

If the libeler misconstrues this fact, unknowingly, out of ignorance, that is one thing. If the libeler knows this fact, and attempts to further deceive other people, then that is all together different. The responsibility of knowing better is born by each individual.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 28th, 2018 03:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The "facts" according to Boyd White versus the official record (court of record in common law terms) can be a method of gathering evidence for individuals who may want to know better.

Example:

Luther Martin

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."

Those are the words of someone who was at the first Con Con Con Job.

Compare that to the offering offered by Boyd White.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2018 04:09 am
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/legal-gibberish-challenge-jurisdiction/

This take over by legal fiction was predicted. It was predicted by a number of people, before it happened. One of the people predicting this take-over by legal fiction was the 6th President of the United States of American in Congress Assembled. That president was Richard Henry Lee.

Example:

"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. . . ."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2018 04:26 am
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"The word “democracy” never appears in the constitution. That was by design, as the framers did not want a democracy, they wanted a “republic” because they knew that majority rule was dangerous to individual freedoms and could turn into a mobocracy or rule by mob."

That is demonstrably false. The word magic at play here concerns original, grass-roots, organic meanings of words and - opposite - counterfeit meanings.

Democracy - for example - is a word that once meant the opposite of "electoral politics" see for example the democracy exemplified in Athens Greece during the Golden Age of Greece. There was no election of anyone unless the election was done by sortition: random selection from the whole number of people.

See also the perversion of the term Republic to mean anything that a despot may want it to mean one day, and then it may mean something else the next day. The original meaning of republic - in Latin - is THE PUBLIC TING: not special interest dictating whatever they want to everyone else: as they please.

The example that ought to be understood here is the example provided by the joining of a former Nationalist James Madison with a true Federalist Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson was falsely labeled an "anti" federalist), with their formation of the Democratic Republican Party in opposition to the Aristocratic Party (Nationalist Party falsely claimed as The Federalist Party) whose crimes included the First Fraudulent Bank of The United States Corporation, the Whiskey Excise Tax to pay for the fraudulent bank, The Whiskey Rebellion Aggressive War for Profit, and the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The democratic republicans (opposite meaning to the modern counterfeit meanings) wrote The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which entered into the common law court of record the crimes perpetrated by the first 2 criminal Administrations of the Corporate United States (tm).

See also Thomas Paine's reports of these matters, in at least 2 published works.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2018 02:45 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/changing-us-constitution/

If fraud is legal, then what else can be claimed as legal: slavery? I have a very hard time listening to people who patently justify every kind of evil on a nebulous “legal” authority they imagine themselves, or are told to “believe” because some how, some way, some time, some one once said this or that crime is legal, and therefore justified.

All moral people have a hard time with this type of rationalization, covering-up, aiding and abetting, criminal acts perpetrated by criminals with (or without) badges.

All immoral people require this type of fraud, this type of excuse, this type of fake justification, this type of covering-up of their crimes, but only because there are moral people. If there were no moral people then eating babies for fun, or harvesting babies for profit, would be no different than sitting down in a chair.

All amoral people sit on an imaginary fence put in place by immoral people, and maintained by amoral people, and maintained by immoral people, so as to prevent any action taken that causes moral people to volunteer to work effectively for their own defense against immoral people, and their amoral counterparts.

That is why I have a hard time with those people who actually work at “justifying” the crimes perpetrated by the extremely immoral people.

Jefferson – in the first draft to the Declaration of Independence – offered the following (cryptic) message:

“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.”

Thomas Jefferson also entered into the official record (common law court of record) the following confession concerning why the indictment against African Slavery was taken out of the Declaration of Independence. Also, the Declaration of Independence is Statute #1, a common law document, recording (in a common law court of record) a declaration of Mixed War against the British aggressor criminals. Statute #1 for the voluntary mutual defense association – federation – of independent states under the common law.

“The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

The closed door, gag ordered, secret, nefarious, deceptive, extortive, coup d’état, crime scene is only called a “Constitutional Convention” so as to cover-up, “justify,” “legalize,” “legitimize,” a crime scene whereby those who profit from crime are then able to accomplish the task of weakening the people in the states that were moral: and against slavery. What does augmentation mean: as in the warning by the founder of the Bill of Rights George Mason’s words: “augmentation of slaves”?

It means this:

“Part of Garrison’s opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed “the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools.” Phillips argued that this experience proved “that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery.”

That from this:

Garrison’s Constitution

The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made

Winter 2000, Vol. 32, No. 4

By Paul Finkelman

So called Liberals, Progressives, and those on the so called Left may call harvesting babies stolen from moral parents by so called Child Protective Services legal today. How is that any different than a so called “Federalist” in 1787 calling their Slave Trading “Constitution” legal?

So…today someone claims that the “founding fathers” were one group of like minded people, all of which were in favor of a Constitutional Convention so as to legally, lawfully, justify the removal of the existing federation and putting in place a corporate Nation State Dictatorship. That is a lie made out of either ignorance or malice.

So in the future the people looking back at us today may claim that everyone was 100 percent behind the founders of the new “Constitution,” and whatever may be in that new “Constitution” is “legal” because we all agreed to it, or some other pretend justification? All those against it here and now are sent to the memory hole?

There isn’t any room here to explain to you, or anyone else, the actual law, which is the common law, whereby the entire country is represented by 12 randomly selected people, in tribunals concerning any conflict, and unanimity is required before any action is taken to restore the victim, or redeem the criminal, in a case where the whole country, through the jury, unanimously determines that the individual criminal, in that case, has perpetrated a crime.

If, on the other hand, the paper here says that eating babies is OK, well, then let them eat babies.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2018 04:35 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
See also court transcripts during the Revolutionary period: challenging the so called British (criminal) "jurisdiction."

Example:
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (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."

Also see the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial. If the question is: "Is It Legal Gibberish To Challenge Federal Jurisdiction?"

Then, by example, here is an answer:

"THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including government agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?"

"THE JURY: Yes (In Unison)."

See also recent verdicts in the Bundy cases.

See also an explanation of the meaning of federation in the First Congress of the United States of America during the meeting to decide on a Declaration of Independence:

"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:"

See also Bonding Code:

"9.2 - Escalation

Further:

"A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).

"When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."

See also innate, moral, common sense. When those claiming to be protecting and serving everyone are caught red handed protecting and serving only themselves at the expense of everyone (including themselves) it is past time to judge the matter factually; for Christ's sake the "federal" government has already been caught red handed in conspiracy murder.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2018 05:35 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If Boyd White, or anyone else for that matter, has volunteered to see nothing, and know nothing, other than what they are told to see and know, then that is their individual business deal that they have made with whatever power they agree to make such a deal.

"Ok, take a deep breath and say, “The U.S. Constitution is legal BECAUSE ALL 13 STATES RATIFIED IT!” That is the only reason it is legal; not because some people signed it; not because some people said so."

The criminal take-over was very well documented as such. The mountains of evidence include the illegal creation of a slave trading document against the nullification done by the people of Rhode Island (through their representatives) who refused to attend the nefarious Con Con Con Job, as they smelled a very stinky rat, and therefore there was no legal way for the criminals to create a new National government out of the existing, grass-roots, organic, voluntary mutual defense, federal, confederacy of independent states.

The crime included the creation of the National Constitution, done so illegally, so there was no legal step made, from which to launch a RAT-ification process.

Again, if anyone fails to get that fact straight, then they do so out of either ignorance, or malice. The evidence exists right there on the official record.

All that legalese is beside the principled point. How about allowing the people of Rhode Island to explain the principle point?

"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 Jan 29th, 2018 06:45 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/01/legal-gibberish-challenge-jurisdiction/

A rational equitable allegiance is a voluntary one. The point offered, or the principle offered, in the ancient common law is voluntary mutual defense, where the people as whole, through juries, consent to, or do not consent to, anything claimed to be "a rational equitable allegiance" or otherwise. Spelled out well enough by Lysander Spooner, the principle of consent, or voluntary association, is supreme, as in the supreme law of the land, which renders all government offers on an equal footing basis: let the highest quality and lowest cost alternative win the competition.

That is also well explained in the following work:

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

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2018 07:03 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
How about a comparison of judgments?

Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia:

"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."

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (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."

Above are judgments offered on the public record before the criminal Constitution of 1787/89 which subsidized the African Slave Trade, and gave carte blanc to the War Mongers.

Below is a judgment since the take-over in America by the criminals.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT

First National Bank of Montogmery, Plaintiff
vs Jerome Daly, Defendant.

12/18/2003

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it.

"Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

"See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318.

"The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."

Ask, perhaps, why "The Federal Reserve" has not been indicted?


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2018 10:22 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Criminals do not obey laws, and often criminals pose as the one, and only, protector of innocent people from guilty people.

That leads to 2 conclusions. 1. Innocent people do not need government. 2. Criminals need government.

If people are going to do what they do naturally, which is live and let live, and do so without government, then people need to teach criminals that crime does not pay: innocent people need to teach the criminals that their criminal choices will not result in any benefit realized by the criminal: at all.

When government was called Legem Terrae, before Magna Carta, in England, the routine was for judgment to be determined by the whole country, unanimously, through their juries. Judgment was typically limited to a fine offered to a convicted criminal; an amount of cost to the criminal that constituted a redemption offered to the criminal, to allow the criminal to return from outside the law - a voluntary choice was made by the criminal to step outside the law - and a judgment was offered by the whole country, through the jury, to afford the criminal a choice to return back inside the protection of the law.

Law was (still is) to offer those who choose to step outside the law a choice of redemption; which is also considerable as a choice to restore the injured, innocent, victim in any case.

Criminals refusing to pay the fine, which was a fine that did not cripple, destroy, or ruin the offender's capacity to live free in liberty, would be a choice made by the criminal to thereby volunteer to remain outside the law.

Someone outside the law, voluntarily, is someone who refuses to pay the judgment, and that is someone who is taught to know that if the outlaw is found dead by the obvious hand of another man, that killing of that outlaw is not considerable as a crime: no more than finding a dead Mad Dog would be considerable as a crime if the Mad Dog was found shot to death today; perhaps in the school playground, perhaps shot by a parent maintaining the right to be armed.

Someone refusing to pay the judgment, or refusing to accept a trial by the country, would then be someone unprotected, and likely threatened, if not killed, and thereby inspired to make a better choice, such as attend his trial, and such as pay the fine to restore the victim, or pay the fine to redeem himself; all of which is done voluntarily.

In that context offered in those words above, which are merely my own words, not the words of George Mason, or Thomas Jefferson, or Lysander Spooner, just my own words, but the message is similar, if not exactly the same, based upon a simple, voluntary, principle - with that in mind - what place does the following belong?

"The most obvious hurdle is what protections, duties, and obligations are to be attributed to the dissenters (Those who won’t sign/contract) who reside within the jurisdiction/borders?"

Do you mean to ask something else? For example: do you mean to ask moral, honest, innocent, non-criminals, if something ought to be done with criminals who, with malice aforethought, perpetrate crimes upon innocent people?

Which contract does someone have to sign? Is there a contract that says "I will not be a criminal."?

Criminals will sign that contract; it is a perfect cover: fingers crossed.

"But a “Term of Allegiance” does not solve the first hurdle…what obligations can, without being offensive, be attributed to the dissenters (Those who would not sign)?"

In England, during the common law period, as described in the Essay on The Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner, the tax demanded by the people as a whole was for people to volunteer for jury duty, and for people to volunteer for military service (any service, in any way possible, by each volunteer, at a minimum, the service of refusing to aid and abet the enemy) during aggressive war for profit (rape, pillage, pogrom, "colonization," "empire building," whatnot), while the enemy is past the gate, in the playground, and doing what criminals always do so well: horrify, terrify, torture, enslave, extort, deceive, mass murder, and demand oaths of fealty to the new boss; same as the old boss.

Those dissenting (not going to jury duty, and not in some way defending against invasion during invasion), if caught, would be subject to their trial, and if found guilty, would they pay a fine?

If the jury, in that "traitor" case was not representative of the whole MORAL people, then said jury catching a jury dodger, or traitor, might decree something worse than a fine. People are not perfect, therefore voluntary government will not be perfect either. Involuntary government, on the other hand, is merely crime with a fake name.

Why is it a given that the wheel must be invented anew? A wheel is always round. Voluntary association, or law, is always what it is, not the opposite of what it is: not square.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 30th, 2018 12:20 am
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
More of the same justifying slavery done once again by someone living today. How is it possible? I don't know. I can ask.

How do you, someone living today, Boyd White, find cause to aid, abet, cover-up, justify, "legalize," or otherwise support the crime known as slavery?

Then, setting that obvious aid to slave traders aside, and moving from principle to legalese, it is instructive to point out, once again, that there was no legal way to change the government from a voluntary mutual defense association, under the common law, documented with The Articles of Confederation, without unanimous agreement from each State's representatives.

There was no provision agreed to originally, by which some of the state's representatives, working against the other state's representatives, could legally, lawfully, rightly, or morally, discard the Articles of Confederation, and write-up a criminal (slave trading, slave trade subsidizing, usurping of the common law) "constitution." Not having that legal avenue available to a portion of the state's representatives agreed upon, there was no validity to that slave trading constitution. It was a confidence scheme, albeit a very effective one, to then claim that the Slave Trading Contract can be ratified, or not ratified.

Once again:

1. The Constitution fails lawful justification because The Constitution falsely claims to make the subsidizing of slavery legal. How many crimes are involved in just that single fact of crime?

Example:
"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."

It (the slave trading contract) fails the laugh test.

Look at the hoop jumping that must be done, even today, by people like this Boyd White apologist for slavery, to "justify" the false, fake, counterfeit, stealing of loot from productive people, so as to then finance, subsidize, the "crime against nature itself," to pay for out of the tax payers pocket,
"such a trade" that "is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind, as if none of that ever happened, or could ever happen today. See nothing, hear nothing, know noting about it, certainly not acknowledge it, not when the work being done is to "justify" it.

Hoop jumping: ignore just how ridiculous false patriotism is in fact.

So setting aside the morality of the crime in question, and then moving back to the illegality of it, as if the morality of the crime was somehow "justified," which it was certainly not, but for the sake of keeping the record straight, and asking the modern day version of a slave trade apologist a pointed question, concerning his claim of "legality" for the crime of the past millennium:

"“Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

Mr. apologist for slave trading Boyd White, please inform anyone reading this as to what constituted agreement in a congress of the united states? What constituted agreement in a congress of the united states which thereby authorizes those in congress to agree to get rid of the voluntary mutual defense association, to turn it on it's head, and replace it with a document (a contract or not) that proposes to subsidize African slavery?

What is that process by which congress, under the Articles of Confederation, reach that goal of agreement, which then authorizes that change from voluntary mutual defense association, under the common law, turning that instead into involuntary dictatorship, above the law of the land, which included the extortion of productive capacity from producers in every state, and said loot stolen would be used to enforce the enslavement, abuse, and who knows what else, of millions of people from Africa?

"No. 3 - New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

"Like the nome de plume "Publius" used by pro Constitution writers in the Federalist Papers, several Anti-Federalists signed their writings "A FARMER. " While the occupation of the writers may not have coincided with the name given, the arguments against consolidating power in the hands of a central government were widely read. The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788. The true identity of the author is unknown.

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

"Whether any form of national government is preferable for the Americans, to a league or confederacy, is a previous question we must first make up our minds upon. . . .

"That a national government will add to the dignity and increase the splendor of the United States abroad, can admit of no doubt: it is essentially requisite for both. That it will render government, and officers of government, more dignified at home is equally certain. That these objects are more suited to the manners, if not [the] genius and disposition of our people is, I fear, also true. That it is requisite in order to keep us at peace among ourselves, is doubtful. That it is necessary, to prevent foreigners from dividing us, or interfering in our government, I deny positively; and, after all, I have strong doubts whether all its advantages are not more specious than solid. We are vain, like other nations. We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history. Should we not reflect, that quiet is happiness? That content and pomp are incompatible? I have either read or heard this truth, which the Americans should never forget: That the silence of historians is the surest record of the happiness of a people. The Swiss have been four hundred years the envy of mankind, and there is yet scarcely an history of their nation. What is history, but a disgusting and painful detail of the butcheries of conquerors, and the woeful calamities of the conquered? Many of us are proud, and are frequently disappointed that office confers neither respect nor difference. No man of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments - he will be respected in none. After all, what we call respect and difference only arise from contrast of situation, as most of our ideas come by comparison and relation. Where the people are free there can be no great contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter become slaves. In all governments virtue will command reverence. The divine Cato knew every Roman citizen by name, and never assumed any preeminence; yet Cato found, and his memory will find, respect and reverence in the bosoms of mankind, until this world returns into that nothing, from whence Omnipotence called it.

"That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal. The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to the hardy Helvetians alone.

"If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable - a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact.

"Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.

"That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. . . .

"As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics . . . it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprizing ambitious.

"That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated, will not now be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance. Gibbon relates that some Roman Knights who had offended government in Rome were taken up in Asia, in a very few days after. It was the extensive territory of the Roman republic that produced a Sylla, a Marius, a Caligula, a Nero, and an Elagabalus. In small independent States contiguous to each other, the people run away and leave despotism to reek its vengeance on itself; and thus it is that moderation becomes with them, the law of self-preservation. These and such reasons founded on the eternal and immutable nature of things have long caused and will continue to cause much difference of sentiment throughout our wide extensive territories. From our divided and dispersed situation, and from the natural moderation of the American character, it has hitherto proved a warfare of argument and reason.

"A FARMER"

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 30th, 2018 01:43 am
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://committee.org/Court/grandjuryduty.htm

"Requirements: Should have a sense of justice and understand that an Indictment is not an indication of guilt, rather, a determination of probable cause for the Jury to hear all evidence from both sides of in the matter. They should be able to work with the other Jurists (within the forum, so that a record of their business is made) to discuss and make a just determination as to the sufficiency of the Complaint, prior to issuing and Indictment."

So how does someone connected to that type of process rationalize the legalization of subsidized slavery? It is a powerful spell.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 30th, 2018 12:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, for those interested in discovering the facts in the first nefarious case of "Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!", please do yourself a favor and get out of the STATE of ignorance, and get into the following information:

http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20ONLY%20Lawful%20Government.pdf

Please note that the above source is 1 of many competitive sources offered by real people whose real concern is similar, or precisely the same as: "Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!"

Perhaps much of the confusion, leading to apology for criminal slave traders, has to do with brain washing. I will address that brain washing factor directly, but first note the fact that the Con Con where the Con Job was perpetrated was not Congress. There was no agreement by Congress - stipulated in the Articles of Confederation (which is a contract, and if not a contract, a trust contract for example, then what is it?) - to replace the existing contract (trust contract?) with a new one: one that just so happens to create a Corporate Nation State out of a former Federation of Independent States.

The work done by the people in that link offered above includes the additional proof of crime, inculpatory evidence, that concerns Land Patents (law of the land is the common law), Allodial Title, and admission of new Territories into the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation Trust Contract.

Vermont was the safe haven for runaway slaves and runaway Patriots. Please note that fact.

So the slave trade apologists, the despotic Nationalists, the central banking frauds, and the war mongers did, in point of fact, counterfeit the Federation of Independent States in 1887/89, and they did so on the official record (court of record in common law terms), but the point to ponder now concerns the first 10 Amendments that offer to the people our common law remedy. When I say "our" what I mean is the people as a whole, but to be more specific - for Christ's sake - I mean the moral people as a whole, informing the immoral, and amoral, people, through true law (common law with trial by jury), that crime will not pay: it can't, as anyone with any true religious knowledge knows:

"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."

Those who are truly evil, those who are incorrigible, only God can save them, because they can't save themselves, and they don't want any help.

For those who stand on principle, which is law, our actions follow a Golden Rule, but we can use help to stay in that narrow boundary.

Bill of Rights.

How much more power - as if all the power has not already transferred - will quickly transfer from productive, moral, people in America, as power flows to the criminal elite, if those criminals can get rid of our common law trial by jury due process that applies to everyone all the time the same way: as a RULE.

Criminals do not follow rules.

On to Brain Washing 101.

From the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:

"Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has
been a long road -- how you regard -- what is
your explanation for the fact that there has
been such little national media coverage of
these -- of this trial and this evidence and
this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
which is the first trial ever to be able to
produce evidence on this assassination --
what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
is not sounding but is in fact totally
silent -- almost totally silent?

"A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be
deafening. Disinformation is not only
getting certain things to appear in print,
it's also getting certain things not to
appear in print. I mean, the first -- the
first thing I would say as a way of
explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
of disinformation over a long period of time
that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
official line has been that James Earl Ray
killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing
like the short period when the line was that
the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
did it all by himself.

"And when that is imprinted in the
minds of the general public for 30 years, if
somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's
a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99
percent of the people wouldn't believe him
because it just -- it just wouldn't click in
the mind. It would just go right to -- it
couldn't be. It's just a powerful
psychological effect over 30 years of
disinformation that's been imprinted on the
brains of the -- the public. Something to
the country couldn't -- couldn't be."

There you have it. The criminals took over in 1787/89, they stole the soul of America, but the true Patriots fought for and won back our common law remedies.

Those who have been brainwashed, generation after generation, for over 200 years have a rude awakening to deal with, or not. Ignorance is counterfeit bliss.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 30th, 2018 04:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
History according to Boyd White:

"The primary objective of the Constitution was a self interested desire to break away from privileged rule. They did it for themselves…Caucasian males…with the long term hope the trend to liberty would prevail by creating a system of checks and balances where ratiocination would have a chance."

Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787

Page 13

Luther Martin

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

So...they resorted to deception, also known as fraud. When fraud is perpetrated by Federal officers, and their goal is as stated above, the crime is treason. Even if the officers are National officers, not federal, the crime is still treason.

Under the Articles of Confederation, which was under the common law, there was a check to balance criminal treason, despotism, tyranny, empire building, slave trading, central banking fraud, etc., and that process was (and still is) trial by jury according to the common law.

Articles of Confederation

"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."

All Thomas Jefferson had to do was to grow some balls and set in motion due process the very moment Jefferson encountered the slave traders who insisted upon subsidizing slavery; but then again Jefferson also had his hand in that cookie jar, even as he wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence: slavery is "a crime against nature itself."

Jefferson, or anyone else, had plenty of political leverage, help from every single state in the federation, to move forward with the indictment stated in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, to bring the slave traders to their trial by jury, and rescue millions of innocent people.

For people to fail to see that situation then is one thing, for people to fail to see the same situation now is another thing. People like Craig Sawyer stepping up to the plate, working to rescue millions of children, from the likes of the criminal Clintions, Bushes, etc., demanding PUBLIC TRIALS, isn't - in principle - any different than Richard Henry Lee, or George Mason, or any number of fellow abolitionists, working against the criminal powers, seeking to rescue those in need, in time, and in place.

The criminals must cover-up, weaken, render powerless, our common law due process, failure to do so ends their criminal careers.

Why is that difficult to see?

"Because I recognize the value of the Constitution in that regard does not mean I support slavery, indentured servitude, or corporal punishment…none of those three things the Constitution abolished."

Who anywhere, anytime, and anyplace, has the audacity to claim - with a straight face - that slavery is legal?

"Rhode Island RATIFIED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! There is no crime, there is no Con-Job, there is no conspiracy. You might not like, it might not be the best thing, but it was above board."

Boyd White did it.

"Results from Rhode Island’s State Ratifying Convention (5/29/1790):
"AYE: 34
"NAY: 32"

Boyd White identifies the inculpatory evidence proving the fact that 34 people, on the official record, makes that outrageous, ridiculous, criminal, false, claim that slavery is not only legal, but everyone in the new Nation State will have to pay for enforcing said crime against nature itself: or else.

Now this is telling:

"And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”."

That case of Machiavellian maneuvering can be compared to the following:

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-2.html

"The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."

And this:

Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia

"Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."

And this:

Declaration of Independence (before censorship by slave traders)

"he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by 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."

How is it that someone today cannot see this evil for what it is precisely? Not seeing it is one thing, now making claims that blowing the whistle on it is frivolous is another thing entirely: a malicious thing.

From Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:

Page 442

"The movement was aimed at reversing
that. King's motto was, the SCLC motto, it
was not civil rights, it was redeem the soul
of America. That was our motto.
So you see right away that that is
much larger than getting a hamburger at a
lunch counter."

So the student of Machiavelli resorts once again to this type of communication:

"And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”."

Frivolous in this case are those slaves not yet enslaved at that moment when The Dirty Compromise was at play in Philadelphia in 1787.

https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf

From nearly 1 million to almost 4 million (souls) victims of slavery between 1790 and 1860. But that is not the only victims. Everyone is a victim, including the criminals themselves. All things are relative, but the sum total of harm done, without question, falls disproportionately upon the helpless, innocent, apparently forgotten, children.

What do you think happens when a family exiled from Europe, rescued by a very costly trip to America, and said family encounters markets dominated by Corporate Subsidized Slave Labor? Does that sound at all familiar to anyone?

"So when you damn the United States for creating the Constitution in 1787 without fully acknowledging what else was happening in that era…including slavery and oppression in the domains listed above…there is a substantial amount of cherry picking."

OK, now this libel is entering the Man of Straw phase in earnest. Whoever those words are aimed at: it is not me.

This fellow Boyd White, if that is even a real name, is creating someone out of thin air, a fictional character, and he is attempting to brand me with that fictional character of his construction.

Who is guilty of the charge "you damn the United States"?

It is not me. Specific individuals were perpetrating specific crimes upon specific people in specific places, and they were called out for doing so, at the time the crimes were perpetrated. That is factual, and it is on the official record. That is a fact even if I do not exist. So why is Boyd White resorting to this type of Machiavellian maneuvering?

Then this Man of Straw (with my name on it) is guilty of "cherry picking"?

If I don't, for example, choose to add the information concerning the common law adjudication of Allodial Title to this dicussion concerning the first, and potentially a second, Con Con Con Job, discussion, I would not be doing so because I didn't want to pick that cherry, it is because there is a need for brevity. The subject of what is, or is not, moral, lawful, right, legal, conduct concerning land adjudication is vital information necessary in forming a comprehensive understanding of political economy; as vital as the information concerning labor, and the fruits of labor.

"But since the Framers did not give us the best Republic they could, only the best that was to be received, there is hope and reason to believe a better Republic can be created."

I suppose that those words could be interpreted as a pro-con con con job stance.

The "framers' then, like potential re-"framers" today are individuals, some are criminals because the pay is much higher for criminals who work under the color of law, compared to the lowly drone criminals paid for their work by the criminals in fake offices.




Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jan 31st, 2018 12:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
That sure is an interesting choice made by P. Schreiber: to mention John Adams in the context of false patriotism.

John Adams was one of the false Federalist Party members whose goal was to recreate an American Monarchy in place of the organic American Federation; the Monarchy in America, according to the actions (not the lies) accountable to the membership of the false Federalist Party, was to be fashioned after the British Monarchy.

To see this clearly all someone has to do is look at the work done by the false Federalist Party members, such as The Judiciary Act of 1789, which was done before Amending the slave trade contract (Constitution of 1787/89) with the Bill of Rights.

False Federalist Party Monarchs = Judiciary Act of 1789
Actual Federalists like George Mason = Bill of Rights

What does one piece of work look like compared to the other work?

Which work looks like the work of British Monarchs, Oligarchs, Aristocrats, Despots, Tyrants, Slave Traders, War Mongers, Central Banking Frauds, and Top Down Dictators running a Dictatorship with Summary Just-us courts, legal fictions, standing armies, and excise taxes?

Which piece of work looks like organic, grass-roots, common law, law of the land, equal protection under the law, voluntary, mutual, defense, association?

1. Judiciary Act of 1789
Then later in time
2. Bill of Rights.

Also see Thomas Paine's letter "To the citizens of the United States"
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.

"As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.

"There is in America, more than in any other country, a large body of people who attend quietly to their farms, or follow their several occupations; who pay no regard to the clamors of anonymous scribblers, who think for themselves, and judge of government, not by the fury of newspaper writers, but by the prudent frugality of its measures, and the encouragement it gives to the improvement and prosperity of the country; and who, acting on their own judgment, never come forward in an election but on some important occasion.

"When this body moves, all the little barkings of scribbling and witless curs pass for nothing. To say to this independent description of men, "You must turn out such and such persons at the next election, for they have taken off a great many taxes, and lessened the expenses of government, they have dismissed my son, or my brother, or myself, from a lucrative office, in which there was nothing to do"-is to show the cloven foot of faction, and preach the language of ill-disguised mortification.

"In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness."

And also in the same letter by Thomas Paine:

"When the plan of the Federal Government, formed by this convention, was proposed and submitted to the consideration of the several States, it was strongly objected to in each of them. But the objections were not on anti-Federal grounds, but on constitutional points. Many were shocked at the idea of placing what is called executive power in the hands of a single individual. To them it had too much the form and appearance of a military government, or a despotic one.

"Others objected that the powers given to a President were too great, and that in the hands of an ambitious and designing man it might grow into tyranny as it did in England under Oliver Cromwell, and as it has since done in France. A republic must not only be so in its principles, but in its forms.

"The executive part of the Federal Government was made for a man, and those who consented, against their judgment, to place executive power in the hands of a single individual, reposed more on the supposed moderation of the person they had in view, than on the wisdom of the measure itself.

"Two considerations, however, overcame all objections. The one was the absolute necessity of a Federal Government.

"The other, the rational reflections, that as government in America is founded on the representative system any error in the first essay could be reformed by the same quiet and rational process by which the Constitution was formed, and that either by the generation then living, or by those who were to succeed.

"If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves.

"As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostasy of those who first called themselves Federalists.

"To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father's foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control."

"Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters."

See also the formation of the First Bank of the United States, Naturalization Act 1790, Excise Tax on whiskey 1791 to confiscate all specie, Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation to crush Liberty in Pennsylvania with a slave (conscript) National army 1791, and John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Acts 1798 to punish anyone daring to publish words that favored the French instead of the British.

That last one is very curious because it was the French that tipped the balance of Military Power in favor of a Victory for the Revolutionary side in the Revolutionary War against the criminally aggressive British Empire Builders.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Feb 18th, 2018 08:19 pm
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/02/time-change-narrative/#comment-4385

The narrative can change officially when the people demand a return to rule of law, which is the common law, which includes some basic, common sense, principles. If any of these murders were to follow the due course of law, generating trial transcripts, then official facts would be public access information, which then supplies those facts to fill the demand for those facts, thereby changing the FAKE narrative (counterfeit) to fact based discussion.

As lies beget more lies, and as violence inspires more violence, the opposite direction works similarly, a smile is contagious, and the light of truth sparks a demand for more of the same.


If a public trial recorded information on public access transcripts, then the perpetrator of any murder, at a school or not, would afford anyone concerned about said murder the facts in that case. Was the murderer working for someone as a paid assassin? Was the murderer groomed for violence, including the use of drugs that are known to instill violent behavior into the individual? Were there more than one long gunman involved? Were there any military drills performed at that location at that time when the murderer, or murderers, murdered the victims? Where there any paid actors acting as "victims" or "witnesses" at that location, and if so who paid them to perform that service?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 26th, 2018 06:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/02/defendants-drop-lawsuit-malheur/

Nobody,

My use of quotes are offered specifically for the purpose of validating the information that you offer at a crucial time. People reading this who are unfamiliar with such terms as indictment, True Bill, and presentment, may want something more than the words of someone responding to an article on the internet, to validate the information you have offered.

I think there is a remote possibility that the information you offer might actually help people who are in this specific situation where they seek actual due process of law. Rather than having financial transfers flowing from public funds: awarding victims of "government overreach," rather than that the true goal is to hold each individual perpetrator to account for the specific crimes perpetrated by those criminals; and if there is punishment then it is the whole country, through the petty jury, whose job is to decide on what constitutes redemption, remedy, and restoration. Punishment, or revenge, is not the goal.

I've heard this specific type of thinking expressed by Ammon Bundy in an interview with Kelli Stewart.

Wrong: Government entity pays damages to victims of crimes perpetrated by individual government agents: money is (counterfeited, printed out of thin air?) to pay damages to victims of "government overreach." The perpetrators are free to resume criminal activity under the color of law.

Right: Victims employ their "equal protection of the law" access to a (common law) Grand Jury: see Bill of Rights. Grand Jury is made up of people who are not affiliated with foreign corporations posing as legal experts (not BAR members), and the charges brought to them by Finicum or Bundy family members are investigated and in at least one case there is a confession of withholding evidence already on the official record, recorded by the "judge" (BAR member), the Grand Jury members (unless they are criminals themselves) would have a clear duty to move the course of due process (common law: see Bill of Rights) to the petty jury trial phase. The people as a whole are represented in the Grand Jury, specifically not BAR members, specifically not employees working for a corporate (for profit) business, and as such they are free, and at liberty, to see the facts before them for what they are, a clear case of - at least - withholding evidence, and that part of due process moves the accusation from mere accusation to the petty jury phase.

The trial then generates a public access transcript. An example of a public access trial transcript is The Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcript.

Example:
Page: 434

"Then when they had the
plea-bargaining business, I said to myself,
here is this justice system, the most
important American perhaps other than the
President of the United States has been
killed, and they are going to have a
plea-bargaining instead of a full-scale trial
so that a court of law can tell us, can give
us a full transcript of what that murder is
about."

Correctly pointing out that the victims in this or any case ought to attempt to gain access to the grand jury in their county so as to follow the prescribed due course of law is a very important point.

I had also heard during Interviews with the Bundy's that they were unaware of a system that would work toward the goal of holding the individual perpetrators to account, and that confession of ignorance reinforces the need to point out this specific step in due process.

If the judge is not a real judge, confessed by action if not words. If the prosecutor is shown to be a criminal in the official words of the judge. If the defense attorneys are unaware of, or failing to advise their clients of the purpose of a grand jury (according to the known common law principles, if not named as such) so as to validate the accusations against the members of "the government" who are accused of crimes, and put those individuals on their trial (according to the common law: see Bill of Rights), then it might become clear to more than a few people, that the government has been counterfeited.

If the government has been counterfeited, where then is the real government?

Is it true (or not true) that these specific people have tried to gain access to the local, county, grand jury, so as to move the real government due process through that crucial step?

I don't know.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2018 10:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Boyd White points out the fundamental fact of the matter when criminals counterfeit democratic republics formed into a federation under rule of law. Criminals replace "we the people" united in liberty with a divided "us and them" war zone.

Rather than a whole group of people existing within the boarders of a federation all acting as one to redeem, restore, and to deter crime with accurate accounting of the facts: the criminal element seeps in, like a cancer, and replacing redemption of the soul, and restoration of damage done by criminals charged to the individual criminals, the criminal virus works to blame every-one and no-one all at the same time, collectively punishing everyone for the crimes actually perpetrated by the criminals, and said criminals are never held to an accurate accounting: instead they are perpetually hidden behind their well maintained fake badges.

The group that enforces "their" decisions, when "their" numbers are the common law grand juries of non-BAR member people, investigating crimes perpetrated by criminals with fake badges, is the whole people as one, that is the enforcing group: we the people. We the people are represented by 12 randomly selected petty jury members, with each individual juror representing 1/12 part of the whole people, who then determine guilt based upon fact, and whose historical job was also to fix the sentence: seek remedy, and restoration.

When the whole people rule, not divisions of the whole set at each other's throats, it is democracy: not majority rule. Democracy is rule by the people themselves, not one group ruling another of various sizes.

When it is a republic it is the public thing. The public is the people as a whole.

When it is a federation, at least according to the first congress of the actual American federation as the federation was forming from grass roots organically, then a federation is a voluntary association.

The first Congress of delegates:

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:

Mixed war is a crime perpetrated by fake government agents, and it is known by the whole people who constitute the common law; or not.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2018 08:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6178
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
P. Schreiber "Presuming the doofus Ryan is on the General Election ballot, I’s be surprised if he gets over 1% of the vote."

That is an example of the common law crime known as libel.

Who says?

I do, but I am a potential juror (grand or petty) in California, not Nevada.

If Ryan Bundy becomes Governor (a real possibility for those who have followed such campaigns as Ross Perot, Ron Paul, and now Donald Trump), then Governor Bundy could return Nevada to a common law state, with grand juries made up "of the most discreet and honest inhabitants" "nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor."

As in:

"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." Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia.

See also:

"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law."

he People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Page 3

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

"But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."

When Oath Keepers warned Lavoy Finicum of the criminal government making moves to injure Lavoy Finicum they suggested that Lavoy Finicum move immediately to a nearby county where a "Constitutional" sheriff (common law sheriff) would protect Lavoy Finicum. Constitutional Sheriffs defend innocent people from harm done to them by anyone, including posers posing as law enforcement.

If Governor Bundy can influence (Bully Pulpit) people in each county of Nevada, it is conceivable that each county of Nevada can host common law Sheriffs, and common law juries both grand and petty.

If a fake government stacked jury can inspire the fake government "judge" (Navarro) to turn on the fake government "prosecutor" (Myhre) and call a mistrial in the Bundy versus the fake government kangaroo trial, then it is entirely possible that true rule of law can deter almost all crime, even libel.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 02:54 pm Page:    1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Redoubt Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems