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: Mon Feb 4th, 2019 01:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
101st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike Gay wrote:
"However, I have seen no evidence of murder."

You don’t have to, and that is fine. If there was law in America there would be honest people assembled in a Grand Jury. The most honest and discrete among the people of the county in which the murder took place would constitute a lawful, independent, Grand Jury. Those people, having all jurisdiction civil and criminal, would subpoena witnesses, question the accused, and present their findings so as to begin trying the case lawfully. The trial jurors find the facts that matter in the case during a jury trial, which is a trial by the country. That is what would happen if the law was in force in America. That the law is not in force in America is the point.

Helping to cover up a murder is unlawful at base principles.

Again pretending: The Grand Jury in the county assemble... These people constitute an independent group of regular people, meaning that these are not people on the public dole, people not paid to be the so-called government, with uniforms, badges, and licenses to kill indiscriminately, instead these are representatives of the most discrete and honest people in that county, and they assemble to find out if there is probable cause to try a conspiracy murder case. If there is probable cause, then the accused is put on trial.

If you and I were on the Grand Jury, in this case, then it would be our specified duty to find evidence of murder if that evidence exists. Our duty would not be to make sure that we find no evidence, even if it exists. And that lawful work is merely to establish probable cause to try the case, so the evidence is not yet deemed factual, because that judgment of fact is the duty of the trial jury, in a trial by the country, not a trial by the government.

"However, I have seen no evidence of murder."

Pretending again. In this case, suppose I went out and found the interview posted in my last comment, as a Grand Juror, and you did not find that interview, but that interview is placed before you, as we 2 are members of that Grand Jury, where it is our duty to ensure that conspiracy murderers are not running amok in our county murdering innocent people. We don’t try the case, we merely look for, and hopefully find, probable cause to try the case, if there is probable cause to try the case. We don't make sure that we don't find any evidence, because are duty is to find evidence, our duty is not to make sure we never find any evidence.

If I start out with a predetermined verdict before looking at any evidence, then I’m not honest, and therefore I would be a poor example, and I would not represent the people in that county. That applies to everyone else in any position of true law. But on the Grand Jury, as I pretend it could exist, the pretense is that my mind was open until I found that evidence offered in the last comment.

Radio Transmission: "We need to kill Lavoy Finicum."

I then work to convince you, and anyone else on the Grand Jury to put the accused, recorded on that radio transmission (if it exists) on trial. I do that based upon that testimony alone. That is because I’m pretending law exists in America, as I have not actually verified the existence of that radio transmission between officer 1 and officer 2 during the murder. That radio transmission may or may not actually be already one piece of inculpatory evidence available to the public, because we need to know, or to any accuser or defendant, and anyone else lawfully capable of trying that case, in an actual court of law.

If you wish to ignore that evidence as you comment on a public web page, that is fine. If you continue to make claims as if there was no murder, then, in my opinion, you aid and abet the murderers.

“All your other malarkey is nothing but speculation, sir.”

https://oathkeepers.org/2016/02/9870-2/

“Greg and Stewart discuss how this barricade/roadblock was placed after a curve, which did not afford Lavoy ample time to see the barricade and stop his vehicle. Greg also covers exactly why barricading/use of roadblocks is considered deadly force and inherently dangerous and life-threatening, and why most jurisdictions in the United States considers them antiquated, and have gotten away from using them.”

The use of deadly force, the license to kill, is lawful for anyone, anywhere, anytime, when facing imminent danger, who could argue otherwise, other than someone intent upon killing the innocent, after disarming the innocent?

The point here is that there is a process by which the truth is found in this or any case, but that is not happening, instead, malarkey is the point, so at to cover-up the murder, and afford the murderers their license to murder at the expense of their victims.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Feb 9th, 2019 11:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
102nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"There is no safety in a Republic if..."

It (meaning U.S.A. Inc.) is not a Republic, it has not been a republic since 1789. In a Despotic Nation State. In a despotic nation state those best able to lie, cheat, steal, extort, enslave, are best able to "rise" to the "top" of that type of criminal cesspool.

If it were a republic, meaning something of, for, and by the public, then representatives (jurors) could vote to have the liars, cheats, stealers, extortors, and those who enslave: out of power. That process of clearing the swamp would work aggressively, and work on the principle that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

"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. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents."

LETTER XIV.
JANUARY 17, 1788.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Feb 9th, 2019 11:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
103rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"...the abyssal ignorance regarding the origins of our republic..."

It is not (U.S.A. Inc.) a republic, and has not been a republic since 1789. The abyssal ignorance is not entirely accountable to nature, those who create and maintain despotic (fake) governments know that they must spend the loot they steal in specific ways so as to destroy natural human morality, and one obvious expenditure is false propaganda injected into children.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Feb 10th, 2019 03:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
104th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Show me where in the US Constitution the...."

Why not acknowledge the fact that those who were at the crime scene warned about the consequences of allowing the usurpation from a Federal, voluntary, association, to a National, involuntary one?

George Mason, and many others, can show you where those dangers, and more, are written in the U.S. Constitution of 1787. The document replaced the organic, grass-roots, Articles of Confederation. The document was illegally framed, formed, and illegally enforced. The document creates a national government. The so-called GENERAL government is not federal in any true sense of the word. The National government is a despotic government corporation contract, made despotic by design, and those who wrote it intended to TAKE the authority to do whatever those in control of it wanted to do, and wanted to do with impunity.

"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

Fraud and treason can be propagandized to a point where the victims actually call it legalese, or prosecutorial misconduct, or bad behavior, just as the crime of slavery can be propagandized to a point where the victims of it actually believe that it is necessary for their economy. Dupes are dupes for demonstrable reasons, for example, you can't show a dupe that they are one. If you could, then they wouldn't be a dupe anymore.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Feb 10th, 2019 03:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
105th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"The future holds either unprecedented despotism or civil war."

That can be shown to be cyclic by design. To all those who have suffered from fraudulent government actions, are suffering, or will suffer, such as taxation without representation, or any abuse of government power, anywhere, anytime, that despotism was, is, and will be palpable to them in fact, in time, and in place, each time it is allowed to happen.

"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

This is not difficult to understand if the one expending the effort can shed the brainwashing. Those who abuse power (criminals) know how to avoid accurate accountability. The thief points at nothing and yells "THEIF," and while those who would naturally oppose the crime are focusing their accountability at nothing: what do you think happens?

The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788.
No. 3 - New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism
"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."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Feb 10th, 2019 06:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
106th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"A nationalization of our economy"

All this talk as if the stolen power is in any way legitimate, and the battle is to stab the other criminal party in the back before having those in that party stab "our" party in the back. What a load of BS (Fake News).

"For, even if industry and business should remain privately owned, they would be held hostage to draconian regulation, and only operate at the whim of govt agents."

How about an example of being held hostage by so-called "govt agents"?

"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

Criminals create a despotic nation-state, doing so by telling lies and making threats, and then once the criminals are firmly in power they reveal their true colors.

Those who need to make ends meet produce a competitive form of money, they do so because the better money (gold) was driven out by the criminal infusion of counterfeit money (promises to pay that are lies documented on the very paper printed by the criminal frauds), and what does the so-called government do when people rebel against taxation without representation?

The draconian despot on top of the newly created pyramid scheme abuses the despotic office of President of the corporation by conscripting (enslaving) a national army of tax collectors to invade a former independent state and crush that spirit of liberty out of those slaves in that state. Pay or suffer, and pay without question.

That is an example of this:

"For, even if industry and business should remain privately owned, they would be held hostage to draconian regulation, and only operate at the whim of govt agents."

Farmers were run out of business by draconian regulations, including excise taxes payable in gold, and including the subsidization of a criminal labor force, paid for by the farmers whose capacity to compete with slave labor was already compromised by the draconian regulations that refused to defend the slaves, and then the farmers had to pay the draconian slave masters for the costs spent by the draconian Nation-State in enforcing slavery. Dig your own grave, and don't question the order to do so.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Counterfeiting law is not news, it is the norm since 1789.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Feb 10th, 2019 07:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
107th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
How is it that normal people are led to believe that the fund from which all this criminal government power is funded is in any way "taxpayer money"?

If it confesses that it is tyrannical, despotic, and criminal, and if the actual law process lawfully determines that it is, in fact, criminal, then it is not "taxpayer money," it is stolen loot.

Since it is stolen loot, then those who steal it will inevitably, and perhaps invariably, spend the loot stealing more.

"The Lake Pend Oreille School District has become widely known for its insatiable appetite for taxpayer money, no matter the economy, no matter its enrollment figures, or the impact it has on property owners and, indirectly, on renters."

The bla, bla, bla, criminal organization confesses (widely known for those who want to know) its insatiable appetite for stolen loot, and as a matter (no matter?) of fact the stolen loot must be taken either from those who produce anything worth stealing, or stolen from fellow criminals who have themselves stolen the loot from those who produce anything worth stealing.

Since the Nationalists (criminals) took over in 1789, consolidating all the formerly independent state governments into one profitable monopoly, then either this bla, bla, bla, branch of that trunk is allowed to share the loot, or by some miracle that branch is taking over the turf already well patrolled by the profitable monopoly corporate legal fiction criminal gang.

Why would the national criminal gang members afford these petty local criminals the license to steal so much of their property?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2019 12:51 am
  PM Quote Reply
108th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"...the moving parties rationale for seeking standing to sue."

Failing to understand the nature of a criminal organization leads to this type of farcical argument. The criminals who took over the lawful government in America admit their criminality.

“... [C]onstitutional standing [is] ... a word game played by secret rules.... Characterized neither by the private rights model of the seven common law forms of action nor by the "injury-in-fact" paradigm of modern standing doctrine, these matters took forms astonishingly similar to the "standingless" public action or "private attorney general" model that modern standing law is designed to thwart.... Adjudicatory models premised on a part-whole schema, like mandamus, are ultimately crowded out of our concept of justiciable controversies.... Procedurally, the models of access for raising claims of public right allowed individuals to command the attention of the law, as in the private rights model.... The Frothingham Court began its analysis with a discussion of nonconstitutional doctrines of equity, proceeded to reason from the constituent model in a way that shows clear prototype effects, then rejected the intermediate status of the public rights model, and finally raised constitutional considerations that helped lead to a modern conception of standing.... For over a hundred years, the metaphor of "standing" was shorthand for the question of whether a plaintiff had asserted claims that a court of equity would enforce....”
The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.
Steven L. Winter

When the criminals claim that they fear “democracy,” or “mob rule,” they lie. They fear government by the whole people, and they fear the loss of their power to sway, control, and maneuver the mobs they create with their lies. They fear a shift of power from their hands as that power shifts to the hands of everyone as everyone is on an equal footing when government is enforced by the whole body of people, as it was, and as it is, exemplified in times and places where rule of law takes on a form such as the common law, with independent grand juries, independent trial juries, natural rights, and basic moral principles; such as the golden rule.

“The fact that, in that dark age, so many of the principles of natural equity, as those then embraced in the Common Law, should have been so uniformly recognized and enforced by juries, as to have become established by general consent as “the law of the land;” and the further fact that this “law of the land” was held so sacred that even the king could not lawfully infringe or alter it, but was required to swear to maintain it, are beautiful and impressive illustrations of the truth that men’s minds, even in the comparative infancy of other knowledge, have clear and coincident ideas of the elementary principles, and the paramount obligation, of justice. The same facts also prove that the common mind, and the general, or, perhaps, rather, the universal conscience, as developed in the untrammelled judgments of juries, may be safely relied upon for the preservation of individual rights in civil society; and that there is no necessity or excuse for that deluge of arbitrary legislation, with which the present age is overwhelmed, under the pretext that unless laws be made,the law will not be known; a pretext, by the way, almost universally used for overturning, instead of establishing, the principles of justice.”
Lysander Spooner, Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852

To enslave people the professors of slavery claim ownership of everything, including land. If they can claim ownership of people, and get away with it, they can claim ownership of land and get away with that too. If you disagree, then they alone decide if you have standing, which is the power to disagree.

The common law, moral, lawful, legal, right, to own land, free of encumbrances, which is an allodial title, in so many words in English, is an ancient concept, along with the right to breath air, eat food, make a living, and defend life, property, and thereby maintain liberty.

Why has it been called the law of the land since ancient times?

“We have hitherto met you in the field of battle, with hostile minds, urged on by the great principle of self-defense; yet in those instances, where the fortune of war hath delivered any of your countrymen into our hands, we appeal to them that our enmity hath ceased the moment they were disarmed; and we have treated them more like citizens than prisoners of war. We now address you as part of the great family of mankind, whose freedom and happiness we most earnestly wish to promote and establish.
Distain, then, to continue the instruments of frantick ambition and lawless power. Fee the dignity and importance of your nature. Rise to the rank of free citizens of free states. Desist from the vain attempt to ravage and depopulate a country you cannot subdue, and accept from our munificence what can never be obtained from our fears. We are willing to receive you with open arms into the bosom of our country. Come, then, and partake of the blessings we tender to you in sincerity of heart.
In the name of these sovereign, free, and independent states we promise and engage to you that great privilege of man, the free and uninterrupted exercise of your religion, complete protection of your persons from injury, the peaceable possessions of the fruits of your honest industry, the absolute property in the soil granted to you to defend, unless you shall otherwise dispose of it, to your children and your children's children for ever.1
Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, who have vacant lands, to lay off with as much expedition as possible, a sufficient quantity of lands to answer the purposes expressed in the forgoing address; for which lands no charge is to be made against the United States.” Journals of the Continental Congress, 1778

Previous to the take over by the criminal mobs the actual federal government maintained a competition which afforded the whole people many choices as to which Nation-State maintained the highest quality and lowest cost provider of government services. In that lawful form of federating large areas of land, it was possible for people to invest in the best government that money could buy, and those people who choose independent, lawful, co-existence, had many flavors of that chosen life from which to choose the best freedom, in the best liberty, as they independently judge at liberty.

“Since the establishment of our new government, this order of things is but little changed. An individual, wishing to appropriate to himself lands still unappropriated by any other, pays to the public treasurer a sum of money proportioned to the quantity he wants. He carries the treasurer's receipt to the auditors of public accompts, who thereupon debit the treasurer with the sum, and order the register of the land-office to give the party a warrant for his land. With this warrant from the register, he goes to the surveyor of the county where the land lies on which he has cast his eye. The surveyor lays it off for him, gives him its exact description, in the form of a certificate, which certificate he returns to the land-office, where a grant is made out, and is signed by the governor. This vests in him a perfect dominion in his lands, transmissible to whom he pleases by deed or will, or by descent to his heirs if he die intestate.”
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787.

Before the crooks took over America it was our known duty, our power, to hold the local and the state government accountable by lawful means, such as the discovery of probable cause to indict crooks in government made by independent grand juries, and trial by the country of the accused in those indicted cases of suspected crooks in government. It was the States duty to hold the federal government accountable, and it was the prerogative of the States to choose to remain a member of the federation and pay for it, or not.

That prerogative held by the States was lost, as was the power of the whole people as one to hold the government to account, that was lost too when the crooks took over. Also lost was the power to move from one despotic slave state to a state that was not despotic, to do so without an army of slaves hunting you down so as to return you to your masters, hunting you down in any part of the Consolidated Nation State that usurped the Federation of Independent States.

It would be interesting, in my opinion, to discuss this topic in detail, something an independent Grand Jury might do, but that is not what has been left to us by our criminal ancestors, and we live in a world run by criminals, and those criminals do not want their victims to know anything of value that might tip the scale in favor of rule of law.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2019 01:16 am
  PM Quote Reply
109th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Does it come down to the “Enabling Acts” ?"

Why is this difficult to see clearly? The people as a whole failed in their lawful duty when they allowed the criminals to take over in 1789, subsidizing African Slavery, and paving the way for rule by corporate legal fiction.

Out was the ancient knowledge that afforded the people as a whole their means to defend themselves with rule of law, which included independent, grass-roots, organic, grand jury investigations, and trial jury determinations of facts concerning any controversy which includes a take-over of the lawful government by "empire building" false federalist "Agencies," and any of those who make the same deal with the devil.

So...why is this hard to understand? Is it ubiquitous blind belief in falsehood without question?
Has almost everyone taken the same deal, the same oath to falsehood? Go ahead and ignore the question, as you are told.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2019 04:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
110th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"My rational mind cannot fall upon any other explanation that satisfies, but we need to assume we still don’t have enough data to make our case quite yet and so in the next part of this series we will need to examine the states admission acts before we move on to the case law."

Knowingly jumping off the cliff into the hell created by organized criminals who operate under the color of law is one thing, being led by deception off the same cliff is another thing, in both cases the victims are captured and consumed at the pleasure of the despotic, tyrannical, criminals.

Journals of Congress
April, 1784
Page 277, 278
"That whensoever any of the said states shall have, of free inhabitants, as many as shall then be in any one the least numerous of the thirteen Original states, such State shall be admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the said original states;"
http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/journals%20of%20the%20continental%20congress%201774-1789%20vol%2026%20jan%201%20-%20may%2010%201784.pdf

Claiming to have been given absolute authority, a routine method of operation for criminals who operate under the color of law, is a claim that can be tried by moral principles, such as those moral principles codified in our common laws that include trial by jury, which is trial by the whole people themselves, known as trial by the country, which is not trial by the government.

Claiming to have been given absolute authority is followed up smartly with another claim, and that other claim is such that the only authority that is authorized to enforce the claim of absolute authority is the government itself, not the people as a whole; themselves. Anyone daring to question that absolute authority of that mob called the government will be punished, and all the costs of punishing those who dare to question that absolute authority of that mob called the government will be made to pay for their own punishment.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

The power to create and maintain slaves is a criminal power, even when people are led to believe otherwise; even when people are led to believe that the criminal mob is "our" government. Debt slavery, indentured servitude, or any form in which some people somehow consume other people, one calorie at a time, or all at once, is accurately measurable as a crime, but only to those who actually care to know the facts that matter in those cases.

"Harrington has shown that power always follows property. This I believe to be as infallible a maxim, in politicks, as, that action and re-action are equal, is in mechanics. Nay I believe we may advance one step farther and affirm that the balance of power in a society, accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way then of preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue, is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society: to make a division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates. If the multitude is possessed of the balance of real estate, the multitude will have the balance of power, and in that case the multitude will take care of the liberty, virtue, and interest of the multitude in all acts of government."
John Adams to James Sullivan
Philadelphia, May 26, 1776

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2019 01:19 am
  PM Quote Reply
111th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If the past is a source of solutions to similar problems then an obvious solution is to return to rule of law, not counterfeit (fake) rule of law.


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.

Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury
"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."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Feb 23rd, 2019 05:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
112th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Was that not a reasonable answer?

The work done by many volunteers investigating such crimes under the color of law as the kidnapping of the Bundy family members (and many volunteers helping the Bundy family) constitute the same work that ought to be done by a Grand Jury. The difference is that independent individuals are routinely ignored as “Conspiracy Theorists,” while an independent Grand Jury would be lawful if such lawful processes were not prevented by criminals posing as the government. Preventing an independent Grand Jury from this vital, lawful, duty is a serious crime added to the kidnappings, and the murders of people like Martin Luther King Jr., or more recently the murder of Lavoy Finicum.

The threshold has passed as to probable cause to try the case of the deprivation of rights perpetrated under the color of law, as proven by the criminal impersonating a Judge when that Judge confessed the crimes perpetrated by the criminal impersonating a Prosecutor. That was the Navarro and Myhre criminal cases perpetrated under the color of law, caught red-handed, complete with a confession, all occurring well past that threshold of probable cause. It is the duty of independent Grand Juries to judge the threshold of probable cause to try the case, and if their judgment is determined by them, independently, then a trial by the country must commence according to actual, not fake, law.

“It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him.”

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

Is the obvious answer not good enough?

18 U.S. Code § 242.Deprivation of rights under color of law
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

Independent volunteers have to reestablish rule of law, and that was the lesson offered in the Revolutionary period from 1775 to 1789. So the answer is ignored because the answer is the work that must be done by individuals who ask these questions. The answer is not to ask the “government” to turn themselves in, and volunteer to be put to death for their capital crimes, according to the authority that they claim affords them absolute power. The work that ought to be done is work spelled out well enough above, and this work will not be done by a legal fiction called U.S.A. Inc.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2019 04:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
113th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Remember, every states admission into the union was a political process and so one must also be tempted to believe that the extinguishing of title is ALSO a political issue thereby making extinguishing title, disposal, whatever you want to call the handing control of the lands finally over to the state, first and foremost a political matter. "

When the criminals take-over they know how to indoctrinate each successive generation into accepting arbitrary (criminal) government. That explains how people today have trouble understanding basic moral principles that govern people, such as the Golden Rule.

Previous to the criminal take-over of America in 1789 the people themselves voluntarily agreed to apply common, moral, principles, doing so at grass-roots, and doing so organically. People created voluntary mutual defense associations, in towns, cities, counties, and states. The people hired (elected) to run the towns, cities, counties, and State governments. Those elected to represent the whole people then framed, formed, and created a Federation (confederation) of States to defend against the arbitrary government of Britain. That was all done on the voluntary, moral, basis, and the proof of this is extensive, including the efforts to end the crimes known as African Slavery.

Homesteading was the moral way by which individuals, families, businesses, or corporations acquired allodial title to land within the voluntary associations formed, framed, for mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. Homesteading was exemplified by the early settlers: improve vacant land, defend it, and establish property rights by that improvement, and that defense. The process by which any, and every, controversy among the volunteers was trial by jury according to the common law, which included the adaptation of assembling independent grand juries to investigate accusations of crimes perpetrated by criminals.

So now, after over 200 years of rule by the criminals, people just accept as fact that human relationships are involuntary and everyone, everywhere, is subject to arbitrary rule by these criminals, and everyone, everywhere must obey without question or be deported, or run from this form of (legal fiction) slavery. Where can people run from this form of slavery since the criminals took-over in 1789?

That type of indoctrination is just so much fertilizer, as is this investigation into what has happened to common laws regarding allodial title of land, for individuals, for groups of individuals in cities, counties, and states. So much fertilizer keeping people in the dark like mushrooms.

The actual founders of the actual federation of states actually formed republics, meaning that the voluntary mutual defense associations were actually for the whole people, the public, and not for special interest groups like central bankers, warmongers, and slave traders.

If people give absolute power to criminals posing (counterfeiting) as "the government," what do you think those criminals will do with our lives, property, and liberty?

January, 1782
“Congress having resolved on the seventh day of August last that in case they should recognize the independence of the people of Vermont they would consider all the lands belonging to New Hampshire and New York respectively without the limits of Vermont aforesaid as coming within the mutual guaranty of territory contained in the Articles of Confederation and that the United States will accordingly guarantee such lands and the jurisdiction over the same against any claims or encroachments from the inhabitants of Vermont aforesaid and having on the twentieth day of the same month required as an indispensable preliminary to the recognition
of the independence of the people inhabiting the territory aforesaid and their admission into the federal Union the relinquishment of all demands of lands or jurisdiction on the East side of the West Bank of Connecticut River and on the West side of a line beginning on the North West Comer of the State of Massachusetts thence running twenty miles East of Hudson's River so far as the said River runs North Easterly in its general course, then by the West bounds of the township granted by the late Government of New Hampshire to the river running from South Ba}'' to Lake Champlain thence along the said river to Lake Champlain thence along the waters of Lake Champlain to the latitude of forty five degrees North excepting a neck of land between Missiskoy Bay and the waters of Lake Champlain.”
http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/journals%20of%20the%20continental%20congress%201774-1789%20vol%2022%20jan%201%20-%20aug%209%201782.pdf

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Mar 1st, 2019 02:13 am
  PM Quote Reply
114th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Page 4 Luther Martin

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


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

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutional-Convention/dp/1410203638

The false "Federalist" Party members had to resort to some form of mob rule in order to get the votes they needed to get rid of the grass-roots, organic, free market, moral, golden rule, rule of law, federation of independent states, so they did what was done to reace that goal of disposing of moral government, replacing moral government with mob rule run by them and their kind.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Mar 1st, 2019 06:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
115th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"THE STATES CREATED THE FEDERAL GOVT !"

That is not true, not in this context. That was true when people representing the whole people as one formed voluntary mutual defense associations in defense against a criminal National government known as The British Empire: 1775 up until 1789. Those people representing the whole people as one formed 13 States that were voluntary mutual defense associations. Those representatives of those republics formed the federal voluntary mutual defense association under The Articles of Confederation, and it was a federal government then, after 1789 it was no longer a federal government.

"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." Generalissimo Washington, by Murray N. Rothbard

A federal association is voluntary, a national association is often not voluntary and therefore despotic. Moral, peaceful, people form republics and federations for the mutual defense of all the people. Criminals, sociopaths, psychopaths, aristocrats, or whatever the latest fashionable name is for them, are the people who form despotic versions of so-called government, and they often collect extortion fees to pay for the costs of collecting extortion fees from the slaves: subsidized slavery.

"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:" First Federal (not National) Congress, 1776

"With the Fed now become an all consuming Frankenstein monster, with it’s own “Federal Culture” and it’s imperial claims of “Government Interest”, it is time for the states to flex their rights and re-assert their long atrophied prerogatives."

It is not federal, it is national, and the states are not republics, not since 1789. If it, the association called state, or called government, represents the whole people as one then, and only then, is it a republic. If the association called a federation is not voluntary then it is not a federation, it is a national government. There were 13 republics formed in defense against British criminal aggression, and the representatives of those republics formed a federation of republics. That was true until 1789. In 1789 the criminals took over and created a criminal organization that started out with National subsidized slavery, which is all the proof anyone needs to convict that Frankenstein monster created in 1789 of absolute despotism in fact.

"That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. " Robert Yates at the Con-Con Con-Job.

"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." Maryland Farmer, March 07, 1788

"A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. " E. Gerry at the Con-Con Con-Job.

"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." Melancton Smith, June 20, 1788

“Mr. 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.” George Mason, June 04, 1788

“A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.” Richard Henry Lee, Jan 25, 1788

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Mar 2nd, 2019 02:19 am
  PM Quote Reply
116th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Indeed, even General Washington, one of the strongest proponents of a more “Energetic” central govt, had his doubts about the Philadelphia convention and declined to preside over it until prevailed upon by Madison, Hamilton and other Federalists."

Generalissimo Washington had banked (fraudulent central banking) on stealing land from patriots during the pogrom perpetrated by the British Nationalists, the so-called Revolutinary War. Once that land grab by Generalissimo Washington was threatened by patriots in the last battle of the Revolutionary War in Massachusetts (so-called Shays's Rebellion) Generalissimo Washington broke his political promise to retire from politics and he then joined the criminal Nationalists who hid behind the Federalist name, so as to perpetrate the treasonous crime known as the Con-Con Con-Job.

That was explained very well in the work done by Leonard Richards.

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

Washington also invested in whiskey markets, which lends cause for his involvement in conscripting a National Army to crush the spirit of liberty out of the people in his Dictatorship which became known as the so-called Whiskey Rebellion.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Mar 2nd, 2019 11:29 am
  PM Quote Reply
117th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Your comment is awaiting moderation. 5:01 am 3/2/2019


If "we" want to enslave people all we need to do is claim that God made us do it. Slaves are, after all, not Christians.

Now that "we" have this God excuse to help massage our egos, "we" can then blame God for the Civil Wars that "we" cause by our criminal actions that subsidize our "need" for institutionalized slavery.

"We" do this even though "we" were clearly warned about how subsidized slavery (a.k.a. despotism) under the color of law leads to pogroms that "we" will call a "Civil" War. But those warnings can be safely ignored, forgotten, and not heard while the same cycle of institutionalized violence caused by "us" with our blood-soaked hands perpetuates indefinitely, because all "we" have to do is, once again, blame "our" false God, and teach our children the same lies.

So how is that any different than this so-called left (Criminal Marxist/Leninists) when they blame the State for all the violence they cause when they make slaves out of everyone including themselves? God is a corporation, a legal fiction?

"Most wanted to put a few bucks in the donation can and let someone else do the real work."
AND:
"We don’t need to stoop to their lows, but we do need to get actively involved in electing the government representatives that we want in office to protect our rights and liberties."

If people create a corporate Monster, a false God, to "protect our rights and liberties," that corporate Monster will be employed by the most powerfully evil people, as a demonstrable rule of nature, a rule of nature as powerful as gravity, and those evil people will "protect our rights and liberties" in name only, as RINOS, or Marxists claiming to be "progressive," or Aristocrats, Elite, or whatever false name works to keep the slaves firmly set on the hamster wheel.

"We don’t need to stoop to their lows, but we do need to get actively involved in electing the government representatives that we want in office to protect our rights and liberties."

If the “government” is actually institutionalized, subsidized, slavery, run by “government representatives,” then those who "you" send to run it will be corrupted absolutely. That is proven in all but a very few cases, such as Ron Paul. If you claim that it, this form of organized crime (subsidized slavery under the color of law), is necessary for any reason: because God said so, or because The State says so in so many words on paper or stone, then "your" excuse evaporates rapidly under closer scrutiny. That is the nature of deception, it is fragile in the light of truth.

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

It is easy to spot those few people who actually do something effective to fight against criminal governments, they are routinely murdered by criminals running criminal governments. Those who are actually doing something are those who are murdered in cold blood by the same “government” that is claimed to be a God-given "government." What does that say about that two-faced God? Do as I say, not as I do, nothing up my sleeve?

People like Martin Luther King Jr., and more recently Lavoy Finicum, are merely informing people about very specific crimes perpetrated in the name of “the people” (res-publica), and they are murdered in cold blood. Those people are doing the work that ought to be done by Grand Juries.

What due process is owed to the victims in those cases where “the government” murders those innocent people, assuming that the law of the land is true and not demonstrably false? What more proof do you need that the law of the land left, the Grand Jurors are hiding under their desks?

A group of murderers murder thousands of people on September 11, 2001, and there is no Grand Jury investigation, and there is no trial to hold the perpetrators to account for those murders. Instead 2 countries (places full of people), having no connection to the murders, are targets of aggressive war for profit: Oil in Iraq, and Opium in Afghanistan, and that is the “government” God gave you? That is your version of rule of law?

The family of Martin Luther King Jr. insisted upon a trial in that case, and the “government” that murdered that innocent man stonewalled, but a trial was allowed to follow through, and the representatives of the whole people, the jury, in that case, determined that the “government” was guilty of murder in that case. The actual murderers got away with it, probably under their golden parachutes.

What do you people actually expect to happen when the criminals take-over a government, as was done in 1789, when those criminals actually got away with Institutionalized, Subsidized, Slavery Nation Wide?

God made you think that it was legit? Your “Founding Fathers” had to do it, to save us, they said it was necessary, and you believed them, or your parents believed them?

"For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions. . . " Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1745

A God (Satan) will exact revenge in due time, not for sins, but for willful, purposeful, injuries done to the innocent, by the guilty, done with malice aforethought. That is the nature of humanity, nature explained well enough in scripture.

The Golden Rule is the law of cause and effect, explained so eloquently, with so few words, saying so much, offering so much useful information, in a sound-bite. The bright side of things.

There is a dark side too.

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

“A nation gets the government that it deserves”

If it were a federation of states, then a "nation" would be California, or Nevada, or New Jersey, not U.S.A. Inc. Legal fictions did not make anyone hide under their desk, or believe these lies, or murder so many innocent people after torturing them for centuries.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Mar 3rd, 2019 04:44 am
  PM Quote Reply
118th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Is it possible that you were born at this time in history by coincidence?"

Yes, or no, depending upon the intended meaning of the word coincidence. I can measure a force called ectropy, which is nearly the opposite of entropy.

Ectropy
"The overall increase in the organization of a system."

I can call that power to increase the organization of a system: God. I can do that, demonstrated now.

"Is it possible that you were born at this time in history by coincidence?"

No, it is not a coincidence, it is, in fact, a measurable consequence of the God power ectropy. I am here now because God (ectropy) put me here now.

"Are you here right now in 2019 to just watch and listen?"

No, I breathe, eat, think, act, and do what I can to perpetuate life, make life better, worth living, as I see fit as an individual, within my limited powers to do so.

"OR to are YOU here to ACT?"

I have a Jury notice in the mail at my desk. I will call on Monday, to represent my country, if possible. I ran for Congress of U.S.A. Inc. in 1996, an act that cost me a lot of time and energy while I worked 60 hours a week, hard labor while raising 2 children.

"If you are one of the above who thinks this is all a random, godless wonder, don’t worry yourself about it all."

Worry is, perhaps, a sickness. Concern may be a cause to act expediently, efficiently, and purposefully so as to address the specific concern. If there is any wonder at all as to what is or is not God, then that concern can be addressed, or that can be something that causes worry.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Mar 3rd, 2019 04:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
119th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Unfortunately the 17th amendment, which ended the state legislatures appointing their Senators and gave the choice to the popular vote, vexed this system and moved the country closer to a democracy, a form of government the founders hated."

The "Founders" who supposedly "hated" democracy were the Nationalists, like Hamilton, who hid behind a federalist label, a false label, because they were Nationalists, and they were not Federalists. Nationalists wanted absolute power over all the people, meaning the Nationalists wanted dictatorial power over and above the whole people. Nationalists were therefore not republicans, they were, in a word, Aristocrats, or to use a modern term: Elite.

Nationalists hate something, and as is true with all the deceptive words used by deceptive people, the term "democracy" is also twisted into a counterfeit, opposite, meaning. They, the Nationalists, the Aristocrats, the Elite, they, as a small segment of a population, a "Special Interest," hate the loss of their absolute power over the whole body of people, and therefore they hate the law of the land, which is the common law, which includes independent grand jury investigations investigating Nationalists, Aristocrats, the Elite, and "Special Interests," so as to put those suspected of "bad behavior," "prosecutorial misconduct," "human trafficking," "treason," and other disturbances of the peace, on trial by the whole people as one, which is the law of the land, which is trial by jury, which is trial by the country, which is expressly not trial by the government, trial by the Nationalists, trial by the Aristocrats, trial by the Elite, and trial by Special Interests.

That power to hold everyone, including the Nationalists, to account, through due process due everyone without exception, is what the so-called Elite hate, and so they call what they hate by a different name, they call the law of the land, due process, trial by jury, the real common law, a name that divides so as to conquer, a deceptive name, a counterfeit name, and that false meaning, deceptive name chosen by the Nationalists is "democracy."

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."

That is what the Nationalists hated, they did not hate democracy, in fact the Nationalists employ the so-called Angry Mob as a tool to keep people fighting against each other, and they do so by expending the loot they steal by spreading false information, now known as fake news, so as to misinform, misdirect, propagandize, and ultimately control the so-called Angry Mob.

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.”

That Special Interest Group, hiding behind the name Federalist, used specific forms of deception, in order to remove the law of the land, trial by jury, the common law, due process, that afforded the people as a whole the power to indict, and try, those members of those Special Interest Groups.

Your ancestors were fooled, why do you keep on fooling yourselves now?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Mar 4th, 2019 09:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
120th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“What is the final straw that starts all this and who makes that decision?”
It might be a good idea to learn from history.
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.
“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.”
Many possible scenarios can lead toward the commencement of aggressive internal war for profit, something euphemistically called a Civil War.
The current Dictator in power issues the orders required to confiscate all privately owned firearms.
A number of state governments attempt to return the Dictatorship to rule of law, failing to do so those state governments attempt to secede.
Missing the point however is the already demonstrated fact that the creation of a dictatorship (as was done in 1789) inevitably leads to various forms of internal conflict large and small.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 09:53 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