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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Redoubt  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2018 10:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
81st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
What better cover for someone seeking blind obedience than a white or black robe, a badge, or a fancy hat, complete with a fabricated slogan like "I shall not tell a lie," or "free the slaves," or "I'm here to help"?

How can anyone ever set aside moral (which is spiritual) considerations? Morality is logical. If someone is going to consume you, and you simply do not want to be consumed, then it might be a good idea to do as suggested in so many warnings such as "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts."

Age of Reason, Thomas Paine:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"Paine’s theology was frequently associated with Jeffersonian Republicanism, mostly by the clergy that tended to be aligned with the Federalists. Among many in America, a vote for Thomas Jefferson was perceived to be a vote for Satan himself."
https://inside.ucumberlands.edu/academics/history/files/vol13/ransonsmith01.html

So...dupes will always do what dupes always do, they blindly believe lies, no matter how destructive (evil) the actions of the liars always end up being as proven with piles of (innocent) bodies.

"But let us not forget that violence does not and cannot exist by itself: It is invariably intertwined with the lie. They are linked in the most intimate, most organic and profound fashion: Violence cannot conceal itself behind anything except lies, and lies have nothing to maintain them save violence. Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle. At birth, violence acts openly and even takes pride in itself. But as soon as it gains strength and becomes firmly established, it begins to sense the air around it growing thinner; it can no longer exist without veiling itself in a mist of lies, without concealing itself behind the sugary words of falsehood. No longer does violence always and necessarily lunge straight for your throat; more often than not it demands of its subjects only that they pledge allegiance to lies, that they participate in falsehood."

Washington was a warmonger, as warned by many people, including a very well done piece by Murray Rothbard:

"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."

Washington was also a false "Federalist" (Nationalist) whose reason for hiding the true Nationalist ideology was the same principle behind King John hiding his true color behind "Royal" authority, and the same principle behind the Pope hiding behind a false claim of Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"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."

The "Fundamental change" has always been from natural born freedom in liberty, the adaptive, creative, competitive, free market of ideas, actions, improvements, that lift all boats, rising standards of livings, and lowering costs of living for all except the few who want to replace freedom in liberty with blind belief in falsehood without question: arbitrary government of the blindly obedient done violently and deceptively by the false "elite."

Sure all that is a lot to take in, but missing are references to the truth about Abraham Lincoln, and those evidences that lead to further truth about the current false god named Trump. Even if people demand to set aside moral considerations - for some strange reasoning - the man is on record placing Zionists before Americans.

One more thing on this false religious stuff, having to do with the "innocent" Pope reclaiming ownership of "His" property with an edict announcing the nullification of Magna Carta. Those who are willfully blind will never see, but those who have at least a care in the world to see past the obvious facades will find their way, perhaps with help.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2019 04:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
82nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

All this talk about socialism and it is demonstrably a pack of pots calling a pack of kettles: black.

Hypocrisy is rife.

What is the check on hypocrisy if not a discovery of the facts in an official manner? Then the hypocrites can collectively ignore those facts, while those who prefer something other than hypocrisy can seek greater awareness of the facts that actually matter.

What are common (collective) characteristics attributed to this so-called socialism stuff?

One fact of that matter is a collection of all the wealth into one collection of collective wealth.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The RINO hypocrites are collectively pointing their fingers at the DINO hypocrites for a reason, and that reason is expressed in the phrase "divide and conquer."

Before any more slaves are born into the collective ownership of everything worth stealing by hook and by crook, those slaves owe - according to the official record - 66,752.00 units of blood sweat and tears, commonly referred to in that phrase, and another common phrase: "fruits of labor."

The RINOS will claim "it" to be a Republic, the same "Republic" demanding that extraction of wealth from those yet to be born.

That is a bare faced lie told by all those RINOS. Those same RINOS pointing their fingers at those DINOS.

The incorporated extortion by fraud racket started in 1789, this US thing, was not a Federation, nor was it a Republic once the criminals perpetrated that crime in 1789. If it was anything it was what people now call socialism: the collection of everything worth stealing into one pot, a pot that funds the collection of everything worth stealing.

You people will get what you deserve because you pay for it willingly, as you point your fingers at the other socialists, while falsely claiming that you aren't socialists. Meanwhile, the process continues without delay, accurately accounting each calorie extracted, from each victim every day.

A lesson could be learned here, learning from all those socialists, with their fetish for precise accuracy concerning what they will take from anyone daring to produce anything worth stealing, taking and adding to the collective pot, and that lesson is this process of accurate accounting.

One of the true federalists, also one of the true republicans, who was also one of the true democrats, offered this lesson, a lesson worth repeating, and heeding, here and now.


"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert."
Federal Farmer
LETTER XIII.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 4th, 2019 01:13 pm
  PM Quote Reply
83rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Lessons learned?

A number of people agree - at liberty - to form a corporation. There are no boundaries, therefore there are no jurisdictions, other than those boundaries and jurisdictions agreed to in the laws governing the voluntary corporate association. Once someone steps outside those boundaries, they volunteer - at liberty - to remove themselves from the corporation. All actions performed at liberty, all things done in a civilized manner, all things civil.

Then one corporate member invents and projects falsehoods that knowingly deceive others in the voluntary association formed in a corporate manner. That is called many names including fraud.

If that voluntary - at liberty - fraudulent action willfully - and with malice aforethought - causes intentional injury to others, then there is - in a phrase - a disturbance of the peace, an injury to the public at large. The general population of individuals who are at liberty to do something about any threat to peace, posterity, rising standards of livings, and lowering costs of livings to all, are collectively injured when anyone is injured: in theory. In theory the one injuring someone is one who can then injure someone else the same, or in a similar, way. A criminal running amok in the public domain can be seen as if a mad dog was let loose in the school playground.

These deceiving criminals in Corporate offices threaten, and injure, all. These traitors threaten and injure all, including all those who are foreign, and including all those who are domestic, including also those in or out of any corporation, any voluntary association.

When the threat is not dealt with effectively, which is proven while those injured by those criminals increase in number, then the threat itself becomes a power, which is a power to extort anything those being extorted will pay, including their lives, their children's lives, and the lives of everyone foreign as well as domestic. When that extortion racket becomes universal, those who are extorted will pay dearly, they will be made to give up on the truth that matters.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
U.S. Corporate Nation State Constitution (not a republic, not a democracy, not a federation of democratic republics)

"FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.
That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government.
It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.
To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,} from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government.
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..."
Amendment 5 to the U.S. Nation State incorporating document of 1789

Right there in the paperwork is a voluntary path by which the volunteers can drain the swamp.

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

"Likewise though it be said here, that the King hath given and granted these Liberties, yet they must not be understood as meer Emanations of Royal Favour, or new Bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a Right unto before; For the Lord Cook at divers places asserts, and all Lawyers know, that this Charter is for the most part only Declaratory of the principal grounds of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of England, no new freedom is hereby granted, but a Restitution of such as lawfully they had before, and to free them of what had been usurped and encroached upon them by any power whatsoever; and therefore you may see this Charter often mentions Sua Jura, their Rights, and Liberats suas, their Liberties, which shews they had them before, and that the same now were Confirmed."
Care, Henry, 1646-1688.

It is not so much bottom up versus top down as it is simply good versus evil. Those who do unto others before others can do unto them first, known as might makes right, or also known as American Exceptionalism, are evil by their willful actions that intend with malice aforethought to injure innocent people. If people will defend themselves against harm being done to themselves, and those same actions that harm are what people will initiate upon others, then those people confess their evil minds in that way. Those who aggress, in ways that they would be hell bent to defend against, confess - with blood soaked hands and deceptions - their evil: a fact that matters.

If people merely point that out, then the Golden Rule applies only if people seek, ask for, want, the same accountability focused upon themselves: the finger pointers want fingers pointed at themselves.

A Grand Jury composed of an angry mob seeking to murder anyone they - collectively - don't like is no different than a Corporate Congress infested with liars who cover up for corporate mass murderers: no different in principle.

It is sad to consider the possibility that we the people are almost all evil criminals, yet it is just as emotional, in a good way, to consider the possibility that those same people might set the truth free again.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2019 04:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
84th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Peaceful Solutions.

"As Ammon has said, what do you do when every appeal and attempt at redress has been ignored ?"

An armed protest, in defense, has already proven to be one option, tried, tested, and judged. The country through something similar to a common law trial by jury said no to government criminal aggression.

If people figure this out then people will go on the offense instead of defense, doing so peacefully, lawfully, legally, morally, judiciously, and orderly.

Be prepared for a return to rule of law, of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the "elite government," by the "special interests," and for the "corporate legal fictions."

Example:

"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."
From Bonding Code
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

And

"In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right."
From THE COMMERCIAL LIEN RIGHT AND THE MILITARY LIEN RIGHT
http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033

When those pretending to be the government (of the people, by the people, and for the people) obstruct the proper, legal, lawful, moral, etc., filing of legal documents, or charge exorbitant costs for gaining access to rule of law in any way, obstructing justice, then those who are guilty of said obstruction are added to that list of perpetrators, and added to that list of crimes documented on declarations of independence for modern times.

If the law does not adapt it perishes, and I don't know anyone who can reasonably argue that fact of that matter: there is no law in America, not since 1789. The ability to adapt is structured into the true law of the land, which remains to be the common law, as documented in at least the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

The "elite government, special interest, corporate fictions," do not give their subjects law power, far from it, that power is earned by those who discover it, understand it, and employ it for our common, mutual, defense: peacefully.

"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."

Clearly the battle will return to, focus upon, Grand Juries, in due time. People will volunteer to sit on Grand Juries, and command the power to indict, and they try, corrupt lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and politicians. Waiting for the corrupt to do this is insane. If that does not happen then violence will be let loose, as the phrase "dogs of war" suggest.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2019 01:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
85th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Trump is an accomplice to all the crimes perpetrated by the Clinton's and any other major criminal infesting public offices, and that is true because as Dictator in Chief the so-called President has the power to - at least - put in place those who would indict and they try those criminals for those crimes that are well beyond alleged.

This article of revisionist history is precisely the same type of mind control perpetrated by the so-called "Federalist Party" warned about by Thomas Paine.

The reason this type of fraud continues is the same reason why criminals continue to infest public offices, there is no law in America, there has been no law in America since 1789.

For those who prefer factual accounts instead of this latest version of fanciful fiction:

"During the campaigns of 1777 a suspicion began to well up among many Americans that Horatio Gates was an excellent general and Washington a miserable one, and that maybe something should be done about it."
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo

If people are publishing fiction as if it were fact then they are guilty of false propaganda, and if they do so knowingly, then they are by that willful criminal act: frauds. If their stories presented as fact endanger the public liberty, as are these cases involving Dictators infesting public office, then those propagandists are traitors. The lives of posterity are ruined by this type of loyalty to falsehood, this blind belief in falsehood without question.

You will get what you invest in. When you insist upon investing in falsehood, you will get further and further from the truth.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 13th, 2019 09:50 am
  PM Quote Reply
86th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am speaking about the tried and true method by which people defend themselves from all deceivers foreign and domestic.

Examples:
"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." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Feb. 27, 1787

"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors

"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."
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:
1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,
2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.
The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.
All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

As in the phrase Ballot Box, Cartridge Box, and Jury Box, the natural, organic, lawful, order includes the fact-checking process: trial by the country.

When criminals take-over governments they - as a rule - remove the fact-checking process - trial by the country - from the country.

"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 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?"
George Mason, June 6, 1788

"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").
"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function").
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

When the criminals take-over governments - as a rule - they must maintain a facade, a false front, complete with a false flag, and a false storyline, so as to counterfeit (meaning opposite) the law, to thereby maintain immunity from accurate accountability.

That was proven and is being proven, in the recent cases involving Rancher families: Hammond, Bundy, and Finicum. That rule by which the criminals deceive with fake law was also proven in the Kennedy assassinations, the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination, Ruby Ridge, Waco, U.S.S. Liberty, 911, and many other notorious cases of subsidized deception.

You can take the following case to the bank.

"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."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 15th, 2019 11:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
87th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So...have a clue, please.


Law (voluntary association for mutual defense) cannot be formed, founded, framed, or otherwise created by deception. To claim so is to be stupid, or worse, to be criminal.

The Articles of Confederation were organic, made from as close to grass-roots as ever has happened in recent human history, and that voluntary association was deceptively usurped by an "Elite," "Aristocratic," "Warmongering," "Slave Trading," and "Central Banking Fraud and Extortion Racket," army of criminals who managed to get people to believe that they were the "Federalist Party," and they were here to help promote the public peace.

Why is this at all difficult to acknowledge, know, realize, or if you actually "believe" you have a leg to stand on, refute?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jan 17th, 2019 04:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
88th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Fabricating fiction so as to cover-up the crimes perpetrated by evil people is noted.

The "power to tax" according to those who construct fiction out of fact is, in reality, the power to perpetrate fraud and extortion under the color of law. People are not always servile and stupid enough to buy into that construction of that fraud.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States." Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

"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."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy, by William Watkins

"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. "
"Rhode Island Is Right! "
The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787

Back to fiction:
"That Articles of Confederation were abandoned; they could not even obtain a quorum to conduct business."

While Americans were dealing with enemies of Liberty domestic, in each county, in each state, in the federation of independent states, a revolutionary battle occurred that proved the validity of voluntary mutual defense association, and at the same time that revolutionary battle sent the enemies of Liberty domestic into full-on, desperate, criminal action. the criminals set out to "abandon" the voluntary mutual defense association (where tax is voluntary) and replace that voluntary mutual defense association with a fraudulent, counterfeit, version, whereby "Tax" is instead of sound investment, "Tax" becomes a covered-up form of Debt Slavery.

Those who created false debt, doing so by fraud, demanded their pounds of flesh, and they would get those pounds of flesh by hook and by crook, and their modern counterparts have learned well by the examples offered in fact based history. Pay your fiction writers well, pay them out of the stolen loot fund, give them cause to help ensalve everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jan 17th, 2019 05:20 pm
  PM Quote Reply
89th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Prepare accordingly. Reclaim the power to hold the worst threats to a lawful, legal, moral, accurate, accounting of the facts. Failing this preparatory goal ensures violence as the only remaining remedy.


The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

The 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. "

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 6, 1788

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 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?"

When Oath Keepers called Lavoy Finicum, to warn him, and to encourage him to move to a safe place immediately, those events offer a clear message. In one county the criminals who counterfeit the law powers will lie, cheat, steal, murder, and mass murder with impunity. In a nearby county that type of power is not absolute. Why?

What can be done in every county, in every state, in a reforming federation of independent states, in order to prepare for these warnings concerning an impending war between so-called Black Hats, and so-called White Hats?

Clearly what is needed is one county after another, is a reforming of independent Grand Juries, Trial Juries, and Prosecutors who will investigate, present, and offer the worst evil people daring to show up in that county, trial by the country according to the law of the land.

The people needed to accomplish this are the people who will not be fooled into aiding, abetting, and lending moral, and material support to these criminals who are well beyond alleged criminals, and as clear as spring water, these criminals are soaked in innocent blood, guns smoking, and they are on the public record confessing their guilt, or turning each other in, ratting each other out, to whom?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jan 17th, 2019 05:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
90th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Prepare accordingly. Reclaim the power to hold the worst threats to a lawful, legal, moral, accurate, accounting of the facts. Failing this preparatory goal ensures violence as the only remaining remedy.

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

The 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. "

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 6, 1788
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 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?"

When Oath Keepers called Lavoy Finicum, to warn him, and to encourage him to move to a safe place immediately, those events offer a clear message. In one county the criminals who counterfeit the law powers will lie, cheat, steal, murder, and mass murder with impunity. In a nearby county, that type of power is not absolute. Why?

What can be done in every county, in every state, in a reforming federation of independent states, in order to prepare for these warnings concerning an impending war between so-called Black Hats, and so-called White Hats? What can be done to prepare for another one of these:

“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.”
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, A FARMER, March 7, 1788


Clearly what is needed is one county after another, is a reforming of independent Grand Juries, Trial Juries, and Prosecutors who will investigate, present, and offer the worst evil people daring to show up in that county, their trial by the country according to the law of the land.

The people needed to accomplish this are the people who will not be fooled into aiding, abetting, and lending moral, and material support to these criminals who are well beyond alleged criminals. As clear as spring water, these criminals are soaked in innocent blood, guns smoking, and they are on the public record confessing their guilt or turning each other in, ratting each other out. Who are they confessing to, and who are they ratting each other out to; if not the moral people who will then hold them to an accurate accounting according to common, moral, just, laws?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jan 17th, 2019 11:39 pm
  PM Quote Reply
91st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"That does not sound voluntary…not to mention some States did not honor their obligation."

That, once again, is fiction. Following is a very well written explanation of voluntary association for mutual defense.


"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

In the First Congress of the Federated (confederation) of Independent States is the following:

"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:"

Someone writing fiction today may assume the opposite of voluntary association to be the definition of the power of law. Rather than a voluntary association for mutual anything, other than mutual destruction of innocent people for profit, the power of law is turned up-side-down and claimed, falsely, to be involuntary servitude whereby the subjects of the false flag, false front, false law, are consumed in the process of extracting everything worth stealing from them, in due time.

Example:
"That does not sound voluntary…not to mention some States did not honor their obligation."

So...the example set by Generalissimo Washington, after the criminals took over, is to enforce extortion payments by conscripting (enslaving) a National Army to invade the formerly independent State so as to collect the National Debt payments from those who dare to refuse to pay it. No investigation by Grand Jury in the county where the alleged "tax evader" is busy producing anything worth stealing. No presentment presented to the one individual who is presumed to be innocent of any crime. No offer of remedy offered to the accused after an investigation by Grand Jury in that county. No trial by the country to determine, in that county, if that alleged "tax evader" is guilty of anything at all. The dictator enslaves a massive army of aggression for profit, taking whoever can be hijacked from every formerly independent state, and the dictator does what dictators always will do when assuming absolute power.

"Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands."
Philadelphiensis IX
February 06, 1788

"As far as the States being innocently minding their own business that is not a historical fact."
Fiction writer on this web page.

The fiction writer now creates a fictional character that has made an easily disputed claim, but where is this fictional character? The character making that dubious claim is not me. For one thing, no State can be innocent or guilty, since individuals are responsible, and accountable, for what individuals do, and the collectivist mindset of dubious origin is exemplified in this type of fiction. For another thing, some States were handily taken-over by criminal elements that include those criminals in Massachusetts running their central banking debt scam, shown in the events that later became known as Shays's Rebellion. And there were those States taken-over by the Slave "Owners", including the carriers, or Slave Merchants, and Slave Traders.

Then Mr. Fiction writer turns to the Money Monopoly Scam idea. To help refute that idea that there has to be one money, one purse, one "official" money lender, the following help may be welcome to those who want help.

"In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.
There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/gary-north/fools-gold-2/

Or from less recent history:

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.
It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.
If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.
This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.
Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism:
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)

Back to the storytelling:

"And another example to refute that ALL Americans were just wanting to left peacefully alone in the Counties and States in that era:"

Who made-up such an outrageous story? The answer is clearly that the fiction writer alone is accountable for such an outrageous story.

More from His-story:

"As John Adams wrote of the ensuing hysteria in the streets of the capital city of Philadelphia, “ten thousand people….day after day threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect a revolution in the government.”

Washington (warmonger), John Adams (British Loyalist), and Alexander Hamilton were members of the so-called (falsely called) Federalist Party. Those people made a deal with the Slave Traders in the south, to subsidize the African Slave Trade for as long as they could, and in return, the Warmongering, Aristocratic, Central Banking Fraud Criminals created a National Government, but they had to do so by devious means: perpetrating fraud. Fraud at that level is treason.

Each individual is responsible, perhaps not accountable, to their own willful, or accidental, actions. If someone starts claiming that the State did it, and they do not mean to account for each individual doing whatever they did in time and place, then someone starts down that stupid, and servile, collectivist story telling.


_____________________________________________
3 Attempts to publish the above at Redoubt News. I sent a message through Contact. I asked if there is a way to fix this problem when comments fail to post.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2019 01:35 am
  PM Quote Reply
92nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So...it is no longer a federation. It is, as the anti-criminal nationalists claimed, a national - not a federal - gang.

"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith

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

"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: Fri Jan 18th, 2019 01:43 am
  PM Quote Reply
93rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Unfortunately, during the Federal Convention of 1787..."

The local fiction writer makes a dubious claim. It was not a federal convention, to claim so is to construct an opposite meaning of a word, as if doing so makes the word have the opposite meaning for everyone. That works, to change the meanings of words, so long as enough people are inspired to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, the counterfeit meaning.

"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."
New Constitution Creates a National Government;
Will Not Abate Foreign Influence;
Dangers of Civil War And Despotism.
Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2019 03:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
94th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"What Are the Step 2 Consequences for Any National Healthcare Program"

Note the word National in "National Healthcare Program".

The intent behind changing the meanings of words is analogous to baiting a net to catch a bird.

The bait is a federation of independent states, where people are free in those states, and then the switch (bait and switch) is an all-powerful, consolidated, Nation State, which thereby catches all those birds that were once free.

It would be nice to be free from insults aimed at me personally, at my character. It is as if the subject matter does not matter. It is as if what does matter is my personal character. Why? Is that just another form of censorship? The same applies to creating fictional words written by some fictional character, and then suggesting that I wrote those words. Why do that, why resort to deception?

Malancton Smith, in a Debate in New York, on June 20th, 1788, is on record exposing the bait and switch job being done by the aristocratic gang. The aristocratic gang included Slave Traders, Warmongers, and Central Banking Frauds, and they were out for blood, just not their own blood.

The point of pointing out the difference between a voluntary association for mutual defense, and an involuntary association for the benefit of a few at the expense of everyone is explained well in the words offered by William Watkins in his book titled Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy.

The point is:
"Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy."

In a federal system, which is not a national system, those who object to the policy of the national system have other national systems to choose from within the same federation of independent nation states. Those choices include choices of "policies" such as subsidized slavery. If you don't want to pay for your own enslavement, then you can move to a nation state that does not subsidize slavery. Daniel Shays, for example, went to Vermont. Other slaves could run away from slavery to Vermont, or they could run to Rhode Island. Pennsylvania was also a sanctuary for runaway slaves.

June 17, 1788
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."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 22nd, 2019 04:20 pm
  PM Quote Reply
95th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"1) Under the Articles of Confederation there were Slave Holding States with no limitations."

The point pointed out is the opposing connections among people. One connection among people is called a Federal (voluntary) connection. The opposite connection among people is an involuntary connection. Clearly, slaves are not connected voluntarily. Masters are not federated to their slaves. Slaves are not federated to their so-called Masters.

A federated connection among people is explained by the first congress during the decision to publish, or not publish, a Declaration of Independence. People exerted their right to secede from the federal union with the British Slave Trading, Warmongering, Central Banking Frauds, pretending to be Christians.

"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:"

That is reinforced in the following 2 quotes:

The Uniform Bonding Code – (UBC)
9.2 - Escalation

"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."

THE COMMERCIAL LIEN RIGHT AND THE MILITARY LIEN RIGHT
"In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right."

The people working under The Articles of Confederation at the Federal level did not enforce a National Tax, so as to create the demand for a National Debt-based Money, run by Central Banking Frauds. It was a federal connection: voluntary.

In some States people were connected federally, at least in the sense that they could go to another, less costly, State, when a State became despotic, as was the case in Massachusetts. Some states subsidized profits flowing from Slaves to so-called Masters. Some States worked to free those slaves.

Under the Articles of Confederation (a federal union in fact) States reserved the right to secede from the Union, for obvious, demonstrable reasons. America, as a federation of independent states, was in the process of seceding from a federal union with a despotic British Empire, a criminal organization operating under the color of law. People in each State were familiar with the consequences of assuming that the association is mutual, beneficial for all, and therefore voluntary, and then when the blood starts flowing the opposite is demonstrated as a fact.

I wish to be absolutely clear that many individual people within the set of people called the British are always individuals, and at no time is there a creation of a separate being, a corporate being, an all-powerful single entity that takes on responsibility itself, and is accountable IT-self. Each individual is responsible and accountable. This applies to people who constitute the false Federalist Party, or people who constitute the Nazi Party, each individual is responsible: the things, like the Nazi Party, or the Federalist Party, is not responsible, nor is it accountable for itself.

If I say the Federalist Party did this or did that, such as perpetrating fraud, or treason, or warmongering, or extortion under the color of law, the words are intended to convey a need to apply due process of law, on each individual accused, so as then to try the case before the country, so that the country, in trial by the country, can decide the fact at issue concerning any individual, so as to facilitate effective remedy, defense, restitution, or other lawful cures.

That is what the British could have done when facing a Declaration of Independence, or an angry Mob throwing tea off a dock. But the British Aristocrats had their Slave Trade profits to protect, their Central Banking Fraud profits to protect, and their Aggressive Wars for Profit to maintain.

The British criminals did not agree that the American connection to the British was Federal. Is that clear? Can that point be prioritized over any further attempts to assassinate my character by creating a fictional version of me?

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,…”

That amounts to a confession of criminality of the highest order, leaving no need to try the case, it is a confession in fact. Whoever wrote that, or signed that, is accountable, and responsible, for that confession in fact. Millions of innocent people were thereby sent to hell on earth. As to what the country might decide about that crime, there is only conjecture, since there was never a case (as far as I know) following that crime up through the due process of law.

There was never a case (as far as I know) whereby an innocent individual slave went to the county grand jury, to then seek equal protection under the common laws of free people in liberty, whereby the impartial, honest, and discrete members of the grand jury investigated and found cause to present the accused slave “owner” with a court date. Instead the people, as a whole, ignored the law in those cases whereby criminals made slaves out of innocent people. That is law turned on its head, and is that clear or not? Can that be acknowledged before any further diversion from the topic to my personal - and my fictional - character?

Many did not look the other way, but none of the people, as far as I know, afforded those innocent people their equal access to the law, which perverts the law on fundamental grounds. It is fundamentally right to defend yourself when there is no law afforded to you, or where the law is perverted and turned into a criminal organization that subsidizes crime against you. For that same fundamental reason it is fundamentally right in the case with the British invasion of America, those defending had the right to do so; it works by the same fundamental principle. The same fundamental principle works on the individual level, in any case, anywhere, anytime, or there is no law in that case. When the criminals win, there is no law, proven by the injuries that continue to be inflicted upon the innocent. When the defenders win, winning their freedom, there is law, proven by the fact that the criminals are no longer injuring the innocent. Is that unclear?

"So, you purport on previous posts the Article of Confederation were superior to the Constitution…but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert to Holier-Than-Thou Anarchic principles. So innocent."

The Articles of Confederation were not superior according to those who broke the rules written in the Articles of Confederation, as those people created a Nation State in place of the former Federation of Independent States. So, for those people, obviously, those Articles were inferior, not superior, to the crimes they launched in place of that voluntary association. Lacking the power to subsidize the African Slave Trade in every State, is not as superior as having the power to enforce African Slavery in every state, depending upon who has the power to decide what is or is not superior. The so-called Constitution, in writing no less, subsidizes a known crime, the crime of African Slavery. Who decides what is superior or not superior, and what process is used to make that decision?

More fiction:
"but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert..."

The problems with the Articles of Confederation included the problem of paying off debts to whoever was owed debt in fact. I offered an answer to that specific problem. An example of how that problem was working out, within the federal association, was the events that became known as Shays’s Rebellion.

Shays's Rebellion, so-called, was explained very well in that lecture (fact-based instead of fiction based, not “holier than thou”) whereby an obvious abuse of the law power in Massachusetts occurred, concerning the collection of dubious debt, and efforts to access due process of law failed. The people against the criminals in government lost the battle and they ran like runaway slaves to a free state, a less criminal state, a state where runaway slaves can find a semblance of due process of law.

In that federal case, the federal government ought to have stepped in, and the law ought to have been reinstated, affording each individual due process of law, trial by the country. Rather than help the criminals in the Massachusetts government return to law, provide just remedy, etc., the federal government employees did nothing. Does that make the Articles of Confederation inferior to something better, or is that a failure attributable, accountable, to individual people; people in positions of power?

Did the federal government have the power to help restore law in Massachusetts under the Articles of Confederation? The Federal government afforded the people a means by which the British, the largest criminal army on the planet, were driven from their goal of enslaving Americans. The Federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, was somehow incapable of returning Massachusetts to rule of law? Blame the piece of paper, not actual people with names? Blame a Man-of-Straw?

Did the people in the federal government have the power to intervene in Massachusetts, to return to the people their power to try any case, of dubious debt, or corruption, or any other fact that matters? Do the people in government, anywhere, anytime, have the power to return law power to the people themselves, give us back our due process, as eluded to in the Bill of Rights, or exemplified in that Declaration of Independence?

So the defects of any federal agreement are thereby comparable to any other type of connection between any number of people. In the federal agreement, if you don't want to pay a dubious debt, you don't, and if there is law, then the country, through trial by jury, which is trial by the country, is afforded jurisdiction to settle the matter definitively; not a dictator doing whatever he may please to do to satisfy what he alone wants anywhere and anytime.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jan 23rd, 2019 02:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
96th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"In order to have a Republican Form of Government, one must have representatives who are elected as delegates to represent the people from their Districts, Counties, and Towns."

That is false unless words can mean anything, anytime, as explained by Bill Clinton in his famous non-answer during questioning concerning abuse of his power: "It depends upon what the word is, is."

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Chapter III, Page 176:

"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.
Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it."

Warnings concerning this ability to construct meaning out of words:

George Mason, June 6, 1788:
"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 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?"

The counterfeiting of the meaning of the word democracy is also a modern device of deception used to gain political power, it was used by those who treasonously counterfeited the federation.

The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

If a Mob perpetrates a violent crime upon an innocent victim, then individuals, not the Mob can be held accountable in fact. Who determines what is, is? Who determines if the Mob is guilty or the individual instigators, or agent provocateurs, are responsible?

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Respublica
v.
Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

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

How many millions of innocent people were enslaved by the angry Mob known as America after the Constitution, with its National subsidizing of African Slavery, was fraudulently, and treasonously, put into criminal action? It is sinister, criminally negligent, to call an Angry Lynch Mob, enforcing Slavery upon innocent people, a Republic.

If the people in American won't stand up and protect each other from the false federal government, then that Angry Lynch Mob in Washington D.C. will continue to murder on a massive scale. If all it takes is a few word changes to divide, so as to conquer, the American people, then words will continue to be counterfeited, leaving each successive generation incapable of meaningful discussion on important matters.

A jury managed to protect and serve the Bundy Ranch victims of persecution, and that ought to be something worth knowing, for future encounters with angry mobs waving counterfeit badges, counterfeit money, and counterfeit words.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 25th, 2019 11:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
97th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
As right as it may be to apply the analogy to some of the people, it may be a good idea to accurately identify (actual due process not counterfeit due process) the facts that matter in these cases where criminals consume the innocent.

Many people willingly fund the wolves, because those wolves wear sheep clothing, or no clothing in the case of Emperors without clothes: another apt analogy.

People anywhere, anytime, willingly, paying wealth (blood, sweat, and tears monetized) to these wolves in sheep costumes, aid, abet, lend support to (moral and material) those criminals: accessories to any crimes perpetrated by those criminals. That was why the people in Germany were blamed for the Nazi atrocities, those who knew, and did nothing, were complicit at best. A profitable monopoly, a criminal profitable monopoly, operating under the color of law, and some people not only work to pay for it, they also work to defend it.

Germany is just one case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEYle7DVxDI

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 29th, 2019 11:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
98th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"I offer you a presentation of what & how we should be protecting our Constitution." http://sheriffhoyle.com/

Whatever happened to protecting innocent people from guilty people? I checked out the webpage and found a video, but no presentation of what and how "we" should be protecting anything. The video starts out with revisionist history, telling a fictional story of how American somehow started with that Constitution in 1787.

That is worst than a half-truth, it is aiding, abetting, lending support to criminals. If there is a way to return to rule of law, which includes many fundamental rights, such as the fundamental right to protect the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, then present, please, the means to that end.

If the idea is to "protect" a document written by criminals, signed by criminals, and criminally enforced by criminals, then that idea is already well demonstrated.

George Mason Speech Virginia RATifying Convention
June 04, 1788
"M. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Feb 1st, 2019 12:07 am
  PM Quote Reply
99th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
In the context of true law power, which is the verdict of the country through their representatives known as jurors, those deliberations leading to that unanimous verdict would include such things as the opinion (stated as fact) offered by Mike Gay.

If every member of the jury agrees with Mike Gay, concerning what Lavoy should have done, then that jury fails to represent the whole country. I know that if I am on a jury to render a verdict in this murder case, then my opinion would be that Lavoy ought to have taken the advice to travel to the safe county the day before, so as to avoid that ambush. The murderers are guilty of murdering Lavoy Finicum, that is as plain as it is wrong to use a badge to cover-up murder, or use a public access information outlet to help cover-up murder by people with fake badges.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Feb 2nd, 2019 05:14 pm
  PM Quote Reply
100th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
My name is spelled, Kelley.

Question:

"Tell me, how many times have you fled officers from a traffic stop?"

That question does not apply. I will proceed as if deliberating as a juror in a lawful jury trial where the accused "officer" who murdered Lavoy Finicum is on trial for that murder, and even more importantly, I will proceed as if those who paid the murderers to murder Lavoy Finicum are on trial for conspiracy murder, and on trial for treason since those "officers" would be guilty of treason for using their "license" afforded to them for the purpose of protecting the innocent from the guilty, to murder the innocent instead.

I have never faced a murderous "officer" intending to murder me, and so I have no experience in the situation faced by Lavoy Finicum as he faced numerous murderous "officers" intending to murder him. If you, as a juror (again me pretending that law could exist in America), wish to ignore the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that these murderers murder Lavoy Finicum, then in my opinion you aid, abet, lend support to those murderers, you do so by your willful ignorance as a member of a lawful society whereby it is your duty to defend the innocent from the guilty in time and place with or without the license to try the case as a juror.

As you help cover-up this murder, with demonstrable ignorance, or willful deception, the fact remains that you aid, abet, and support by your willful ignorance, or your willful deception, those murders perpetrated by those murderers.

That is my viewpoint, based upon available evidence, which includes recorded confessions of malice aforethought to murder Lavoy Finicum. If anyone cares to look into some of the evidence, they can.

https://www.facebook.com/mllpodcast/videos/263894004282166/UzpfSTE2MjE1NTY1MTQ6MTAyMTY0NzYxODY4OTAxNTI/

1 hour into that interview there is a reference to a radio transmission that is not front page news. If it is not “information” from “Major Media,” it does not exist, to some. That willful ignorance affords all those people their “plausible deniability” concerning their duty as free people in perilously perishable liberty. If you are not told to do your duty, you won't, and that is what Germans were blamed for, during the murderous Nazi regime, and that is what the Russians, at least Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, confesses during the murderous Bolshevik regime: failure to respond in defense of the innocent against the aggressive guilty criminals in fake government.

The following applies to all willfully ignorant aiders and abettors of those murderous criminals infesting government:

"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."

If you are not told to help preserve liberty, but you are told to pay up and shut up, then you obey, blindly, and without question. That type of blind obedience to falsehood without question, in my opinion, disqualifies you as a juror on a lawful trial, just as it disqualifies fellow conspiracy murderers during a conspiracy murder trial.

So, in a return question, a valid question, what is the pay-off you seek when you decide to help cover-up or rationalize this specific murder? I’ve been on a jury, and this is the type of question you would face, not just from me, but for anyone exercising their moral conscience.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 04:16 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Redoubt Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems