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 Mar 20th, 2018 07:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
21st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The constitutional republics (13 at the time of the founding which was 1775 to 1789) formed a federation of constitutional republics. The federation was not by definition a (singular) republic, since it was, in fact, a federation of republics. A republic is the public thing, as in of the people, by the people, and for the people, which is also a democracy. Democracy is rule by the people themselves, not rule by majority, minority, special interest, or foreign agents hiding behind effective deception known euphemistically as word magic.

The constitutional republics were consolidated into one despotic Nation State by the (false) Federalist Party during the usurpation known as The Constitutional Convention and subsequent RATification of the Slave Trade, Central Banking Fraud, War Monger, Constitution of 1787/89.

The so called (falsely called) Anti-Federalist like George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee, worked to amend the Slave Trade Constitution with a Bill of Rights. That amending process was done, but it was done after the Judiciary Act of 1789, which put in place these kangaroo (Admiralty/Equity/Exchequer) summary justice courts, moving away from rule of law, and working to subject people to dictatorship instead of people enforcing rule of law with the common laws known as "the law of the land," and "legem terrae," which include such principles as trial by the country (not summary justice), which is trial by jury, and innocence until proven guilty, etc.

So that is what happened to constitutional republics formed into a voluntary federation for mutual defense.

https://redoubtnews.com/2018/03/what-democracy-looks-like/#comment-4538

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2018 03:14 pm
  PM Quote Reply
22nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States) wrote a warning concerning the usurpation of rule of law by a National (not federal) Court System of crime under the color of law.

"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...

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

George Mason, also against the usurpation in 1789 warned:

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."

What was the Dred Scott case? Was the Dred Scott case an example of criminals claiming to be National Judges, and their true color as criminals is confessed in that case?

If someone claims that you are exempt from the law of the land, either you can't be accused of a crime, or you have no protection at all, then it stands to reason that the one claiming such a libelous claim is confessing their criminal mind.

As to the usurpation of rule of law through campaign promises that sound reasonable on the surface, but are unreasable when considering the routine breaking of promises by politicians, those promises to get power, are unreasaonble, and once in power the criminals show their true colors:

"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

The move from rule of law that moved to rule by criminals under the color of law was 1787.

"...attributing the decline starting mid-1900’s is excluding some serious degenerations that happened before then."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2018 04:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
23rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.larryklayman.com/pdf/180808-Filed%20Comp.pdf

This is what happens when the criminals take-over government, and this was warned about by the so called founding fathers who were against that criminal take-over in 1789.

When the law of the land is in force by the people, then the people command all jurisdiction civil and criminal, in their county, common law, grand juries. The people have access to investigative powers, which include subpoena power, and if someone, especially a local county government agent, but including a national agent who enters the county to perpetrate crimes upon innocent people - if anyone - willfully causes injury to innocent people in that county, especially doing so with malice aforethought under the color of law, then the people can present the accused (presumed to be innocent) with their trial by jury.

The presumption of innocence is no longer a presumption when the people, through their trial juries, determine what is or is not guilt, what is or is not law, what is or is not fact, and what is or is not just as remedy, restitution, redemption, fine, or other forms of punishment.

Since the criminals have taken-over then the people have to pay these criminals (under the color of law) while they persecute innocent members of the people, and then when those victims hold those criminals to account, those criminals make the people pay more, so as to bribe the victims, and avoid lawful prosecution by the people, lawful prosecution where the criminals (under the color of law) are on trial for their crimes against the people under the color of law; in a word: treason.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Aug 25th, 2018 03:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
24th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Nobody wrote:

" This violation applies to those who work for the State not the people because the people did not oblige themselves to that duty, the government employees did."

The organic federation was formed before 1789. The usurpation of that organic federation between 1787 through 1789 was a crime scene on the official record. To then point out that the criminal document known as the 1789 Constitution is not being followed is useful because that is more inculpatory evidence piled on top of the official record that documents the criminal take-over of America. They, the criminals, routinely claim to be the law, claiming that the law they follow is written right here, and then they routinely break that law: precisely what was done when the slave traders, warmongers, and central banking frauds, calling themselves "Federalists," broke the law that required Congress, not a convention of 12 states, to alter the existing federal agreement; which was written as a "perpetual" agreement.

So...how high is the pile of evidence proving the fact that the criminals have taken over the government today?

"The Constitution is the law for government not the law for the people. The people would not be criminals for giving every government employee the death penalty, the people ARE lawless for not doing so. "

That was the existing, organic, federation when The President of the United States of America was the president of the federation, not some dictator presiding over everything every individual in every state might produce.

"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

What was the Whiskey Rebellion but proof positive that the criminals had taken over the government that organically formed in defense against arbitrary, criminal, government; whereby the criminals claiming to be government routinely break the laws that they claim to be the source of their authority.

The criminal British, for example, prosecute a criminal war of aggression upon Americans, which breaches at least Magna Carta.

The criminal Washington, for example, prosecute a criminal war of aggression upon Americans, invading Pennsylvania, which breaches at least a Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation.

If someone still claims that Washington was right to assemble a conscripted army to enforce an excise tax in Pennsylvania, then someone could also use the same reasoning to claim that it was also right to enforce the return of runaway slaves, confessing the fact that the apologist for criminal acts is constructing an immoral version of "facts," filled with falsehoods.

Rhode Island Is Right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Aug 28th, 2018 06:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
25th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

If the phrase "...does not exist in a vacuum..." means something along the lines of "...openly try to influence..." as in: infiltrate, subjugate, subdue, manipulate, and usurp, then I think your take on what was or was not the Communists (Trademark?), the Anarchists, and the Utopians is superficial, if not simply wrong.

A more clear example of what was not operating in a vacuum is the Patriots working to organically create a federation of free markets, free people, in free, independent states, under the common law. The federal people, working to organically create, and maintain a federation were not working in a vacuum. Any seats of authority left unfilled by volunteers working to organically create, and maintain a federation were filled with criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes.

First checking evidence on the "Real Communists:"

"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated” classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. "

Utopian, socialist/anarchist, was represented by Fourier and Owen, just before Proudom coined the label anarchism as "free market," do no harm, independent, and the sovereignty of the individual. Clearly in the Communist Manifesto 1788 edition, quoted above, the "Real Communists" (TM) were as openly criminal as the slave trading fake Federalist Party, an in your face declaration of dependence, whereby those "Real Communists" openly called for violent, criminal, offensive, take-over of power over all people. Sure there was, and always will be, a thin covering of nice talk, which has only one purpose, and has nothing to do with honor, promise, responsibility, accountability, peace, or justice. That type of doublespeak, that thin coating of good feeling verbiage, salted with a healthy dose of vengeance as a reward for obedience, is just a copy - the Communists copy - of the fake Federalist criminal usurpation by deceit, threat of aggressive violence, and real examples of aggressive violence where dead bodies start piling up in mass graves.

If you look into works like Anthony Sutton's work, it is actually the American fake Federal Criminal Gang - thinly hidden behind a government facade - represented by "Wall Street" financing the "Real Communist" criminal gang.

As to the benchmark in the 18th century set by the fake Federalist Party, setting the example to follow for all future usurpations such as the "Real Communist Party," there is ample evidence proving this fact of wolves hiding in sheep's clothing.

Friday, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith

"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."

As to breaking windows, or throwing tea in a harbor, to agitate, to go on the offensive, violently, destructively, to break the peace, by anyone, anywhere, anytime, there was, and is a peaceful alternative.

If those in power claim to have lawful authority then they can prove it, or prove otherwise, when the people gather organically into grand juries, according to the laws that those in power claim to be the source of their power, and if the people suspect, have probable cause to suspect, that those in power are guilty, then those in power can agree to their trial by jury.

If those in power somehow claim to have the power to raise their pay at will, and place themselves above the law, claiming immunity from prosecution, then that is a clue for the clueless.

As to the so-called poor whites, poor blacks, poor any race whatsoever, the claims made by Mark Twain notwithstanding, our world, in peace, is abundant with every power required to create almost unlimited wealth, for all, and that ought to be known as a fact because it is a fact, a powerful one.

Those who claim otherwise are often reaching into the victims pocket while saying so.

As to what you consider to be involuntary, or voluntary, and my working meaning of those words, I can say that we do not share the same working meaning of those words.

As to modern labels such as Fascist and Crony Capitalism, there is again that benchmark of a criminal gang operating under the color of law, those fake "Federalist" Party members, and the words of warning from Thomas Paine about those criminals, setting that benchmark.

"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."

A profitable monopoly and the people as slaves, under the color of law, by any name is still the same thing.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2018 06:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
26th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

First in order of importance in my opinion concerning that which threatens our temporal salvation is deliberation, such as that which happens in trial by jury according to the (real) common law. We are deliberating here and now, but without the power of voluntary government for our mutual defense (jury trial), so it is to use a phrase: just for fun.

Second, when I say wealth or voluntary association, you appear to see something other than what I see. Wealth is an individuals value judgment, not a claim made by an individual as to what everyone will value: or else. See: "The power of the peg of how much gold or silver is in a monetary instrument is another facet; if you have the power of the peg you can get $20 Trillion from one ounce of silver by decreeing that 1,750 atoms of Silver equals $1.00." Boyd White, 2018, Redoubt News Article "The death knell of slavery was sounded and the decennial census was founded." Discussion

"If the 13 Colonies intention was to be free, independent States, then, they would not have bound themselves to the Articles of Confederation. And mind you, in this list, “criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes” you can also find examples under the Articles of Confederation."

Who speaks for they, you? Those who made a lot of profits from the war, or stood to make a lot of profits from the war, spoke for themselves, and they lied. Those who actually acted morally, lawfully, so as to create and maintain a republican form of government under the common law spoke for themselves. Who is accountable for which people then, you?

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10

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

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

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

The slave traders were making war on, at least, all those African slaves, and all those "poor" Americans put out of work because the slave trader, warmonger, central banking whores, created, and maintained, a poor for them, rich for us, fake government.

Who were the warmonger, slave trader, central banking whores, then?

Who was the republican, free in liberty, defenders, creating a grass-roots, voluntary association for the mutual defense of all, a government under the common law?

Who told lies to gain power, then began enforcing dictatorial orders to be obeyed without question?

14th of October, 1774

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

On the 20th day of October 1774
"This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."

On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."

What is the method by which the people as a whole consent to any government by anyone, anytime? What is the method by which the people hold everyone to account for anything?


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

I am deliberately grinding a particular ax here, one that you appear to marginalize: deliberately.

"They were in the process of Creation. They were not hell bent on wickedness."

Who are they?

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.

Patrick Henry, Monday, June 9, 1788
"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."


Page 13 Luther Martin

One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.
https://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up

Boyd White:
"So how do they prevent the crime? Grand Juries is one legal way."

Don't you get it? In 1789 the legal way was outlawed by the criminals who took over, why is that hard to see?


1788, June 6
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?

December 7, 1787
Rhode Island is right!
"The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it-for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time- serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed."

"They would look at our lives and our imperious observations on their lives and probably would not give our opinions too much weight or credit."

They are who? We are who? They did not all, in unison, enslave mankind with malice aforethought, but some did, those individuals were not stupid, perhaps criminally insane, but not stupid. Many of them, then, were moral, peaceful, and willing to give their fortunes, and their lives, for moral goals, and many died: culling.

We are similarly diverse from one end of a moral perspective to the other end, and is it not useful to know the difference accurately? Is it not useful to have a process by which facts, and guilt, and remedy, is found, and found accurately?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2018 11:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
27th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"I hope you find some place to live as you want to."

I am going to assume that the above is directed at me, which then leads me to make the follow observations.

1. I try to make the best of whatever I face, so that statement is, to me, inappropriate.
2. Why would someone assume that someone else fails to make the best of whatever they face?
3. Is the statement quoted above a claim made by the author whereby the target of the author, who is me, has started a campaign of demonization? The target, me, is some sort of utopian dreamer that will not likely ever "find some place to live as you want."
4. No attempt was made to answer the very serious questions that affect our temporal salvation.

The following questions are questions that affect our temporal salvation.

1. We now are similarly diverse from one end of a moral perspective to the other end, and is it not useful to know the difference accurately?

2. Is it not useful to have a process by which facts, and guilt, and remedy, is found, and found accurately?

3. Did the warmonger, slave trading, central banking fraud criminal political party known falsely as the "Federalist Party," willfully, and with malice aforethought, take from the people the known method by which criminals are found, tried, and offered a remedy, redemption, or if there is no possibility of remedy, said convicted criminal is deemed outside the law?

4. If our best hope of a prosperous future, in peace, in a perishable liberty, is to regain our tried and true method of accurately discriminating between fact and fiction, law and outlaw, remedy and destructive revenge, then ought we not at least acknowledge that fact, even if we car not to do anything about it?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2018 02:11 am
  PM Quote Reply
28th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Methinks thou doth protest too much."

Notes:

1. The questions that so dearly affect our temporal salvation are set aside so as to attack me personally, which is standard, routine, practice for those who wish to avoid answering the questions that so dearly affect our temporal salvation.

2. I do not protest. I volunteer for jury duty. I attempt to deliberate with other people - just for fun - on matters that affect our temporal salvation, and I do so because my viewpoint is improved when I can find viewpoints that offer answers to questions that affect our temporal salvation, such as an answer to the questions concerning why some people got away with subsidizing slavery for 20 years into the future from the date 1789, when those criminals managed to get that usurpation, that crime, perpetrated.

"Well isn’t that nice."

Why has a deliberate exchange of information concerning matters that affect our temporal salvation turned into a personality contest: a pissing contest?

"Let’s see, uhm, with all history to pick from…let’s pick the Ukrainians in cattle cars being shipped to Siberia on 15 minutes notice. Happy faces everyone…let’s make the best of what we face."

How can you not get it?

"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.

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

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html

"To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

You want to now turn the subject matter to what is happening in Europe, some time ago, and your choice of events is so far removed from the local matters in America, as to be only linked, possibly, by the flow of money flowing to the criminals in Serbia, flowing from the criminals in America. How can you fail to see that the events you now place on the discussion table are financed because the criminals in America took-over in 1789?

I'd like to know how anyone can fail to see what was abundantly clear when it happened.

"Nature abhors a vacuum…your politics are clear…and a lot of your politics I agree with…but when the U.S. Constitution is gone which is seeming what you want what will replace it? Are you really that delusional to think it is going to be a smooth segue? That your switches and faucets will keep working?"

You make claims that are demonstrated as false, as to what my "politics" are, or are not, as if you assume this power to know arbitrarily. You want to have this power, so you arbitrarily assume that you do have this power, and in fact, you do not have this power, so what can be done about it?

You can go on assuming powers that you do not have, until you, on your own, realize that fact.

Apparently, you have this idea that the power to keep "switches and faucets" working is a power dependent on something other than the individuals who know how to keep switches and faucets working. You apparently think that the Constitution of 1789 is in some way this power that keeps switches and faucets working.

My view is such that the State Constitutions are independent recipes for people to volunteer for our mutual defense, and the better State Constitutions have working Bills of Rights, whereby common law, with trial by jury, still rules the day, and the people still consent to, or do not consent to, any government, by any means, of any kind, anywhere, anytime, with, or without a Constitution.

"I want to hear now about how you face REALITY? Acquiring calories and conserving calories. The last breath of many a person who died hard from hunger, thirst, heat and cold was spent uttering, “I did the best I could do.”

Somehow you have painted this picture of someone incapable of surviving without the Constitution of 1789, and if this dependent, poor soul, you have created get's the wish you put in this poor souls mind, then this poor soul will no longer survive, and that poor soul you create has my name on it.

Where did the conversation about matters of our temporal salvation turn into this straw man creation routine, where a personal attack is the means to the obvious end of character assassination?

"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."
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1974

Is your next move to declare that I am a terrorist for the thoughts you place in my head?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2018 02:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
29th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The process by which corrupt politicians are held to account is a process known as rule of law, and it is the process that was demonstrated in the Revolutionary War. People, not the government, either hold the government to account, as documented in a Declaration of Independence, or people will suffer until suffering is no longer possible.

A Declaration of Independence follows the process of rule of law, whereby the people enumerate the actions perpetrated by those who corrupt government, and an offer is made by the people to afford the accused, corrupt, government a remedy. When the answer to that offer is open violence initiated by the corrupt in government, then how can it be any clearer that the government no longer follows rule of law?

June 8, 1776:
"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:"

The people command all legal jurisdiction civil and criminal through their common law Grand Jury process and their common law Trial Jury process. The government exists to aid the people through that process. If the government obstructs that process instead of aiding the people through that process, then the government is guilty of something known as Mixed War.

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. "

A peaceful solution is always an option for peaceful people. Corrupt government, on the other hand, demonstrates routinely just exactly what is a corrupt government, leaving no doubt whatsoever when the people set the record straight through the lawful, peaceful, process.

Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:

"THE COURT: Let me ask you, do all of you
agree with this verdict?

"THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

"THE COURT: In answer to the
question did Loyd Jowers participate in a
conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther
King, your answer is yes.

"Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes."

http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf

Page 434 MLK Trial:

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

Which News Media would quote from court transcripts if the government did its job and these accused, alleged, criminals were on trial by the people, for the people?

Using the example of the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial as a benchmark of what is supposed to happen, although that trial was delayed for 30 years until the perpetrators had successfully got away with conspiracy murder, but none-the-less using the trial as an example, what would a trial look like with Bill and Hillary as the accused?

In the murders of John and Bobby Kennedy, which were murders before and after the Martin Luther King Conspiracy Murder fact, the "Media" (monopoly corporate media) successfully covered up those conspiracies. Only the Martin Luther King Jr. case was documented through the lawful process.

People today can call someone a "Conspiracy Theorist" when someone points out conspiracy in the John, or Bobby Kennedy murder cases. People today cannot call someone a "Conspiracy Theorist" in the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder case, as it is on the official public record that the people, through their jury process, has found the government guilty of conspiracy murder in that case: just read the transcripts if in doubt.

So...there are the paths open to Americans in America.

1. Actual rule of law, proceeding according to the common law, whereby the accused is offered a remedy, and the remedy is found through trial by jury, and then the people know, without having to rely upon Corporate Monopoly Media, what actually happened in that case. The result of that trial by jury then stands as a deterrent for any future conspirators.

2. No official, lawful, remedy whatsoever, and a continuous flow of false information that divides the people into factions that are set against one another perpetually.

MLK Trial:

"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. "

Had the government and the media faced common law due process in 1963 for the conspiracy murder of JFK, it is possible that MLK and RFK would not have been murdered.

When murderers run the government with impunity what is expected to happen? Will those criminals sell off everything of value in America? If instead a potential criminal begins to contemplate using government for criminal purposes and that criminal faces the people armed with their lawful process, will that power of the people holding the criminals to account for their crimes, on the official public record, deter those wannabe criminals from using government as their facade that covers up their crimes?

If the people maintain their own public records through their common law due process, what would reporters report on other than the official record of facts documented in official transcripts like the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial?

Would people choose to listen to CBS, NBC, Fox, The Washington Post, or would people prefer to read the transcripts documenting the Bill and Hillary Trial?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Sep 4th, 2018 05:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
30th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"It was found to be a conspiracy theory with no evidence of fact."

Who found what to be a conspiracy theory?

If anyone claiming to be an authority of government obstructs an effort by the people, through their grand juries, to bring someone in government, such as Hilary or Bill Clinton, to answer for their alleged crimes, then the claim of authority is false, and the one obstructing due process is a criminal in fact.

The problem is that almost all government since 1789 in America obstructs when it is a government agent perpetrating crimes. That proceeded that way by design.
The proof of this is proven in each case where a subject of government is processed one way, and a member of the government is processed in an entirely different way: a double standard.

Example:

1. Lavoy Finicum is found guilty by the government and sentenced to death by the government.

2. The one who obeyed the order to kill Lavoy Finicum is found innocent by those who ordered the execution.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2018 03:03 pm
  PM Quote Reply
31st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The problem with written laws, as opposed to general voluntary government, a.k.a. Liberty, is no two people agree on the meaning of words until there is a deliberate effort to do so, in such processes as Trial by Jury.

Example:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

If Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi read The Bill of Rights and they then work together to censor lawful presentments from grand juries which indict government agents for alleged crimes, then Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be guilty of Seditious Conspiracy according to U.S. Code 18 2384 quoted above, according to my own interpretation of The First Amendment.

If the same seditious conspirators then begin to work together to disarm the public, so as to take wealth from the public, so as to arm their sedition conspiracy with the required armaments needed to disarm the public, then my interpretation of the Second Amendment allows me to discover yet again those specific seditious conspirators.

The problem with the current fake government is that the seditious conspirators have made it a "law" that only they can indict one of their own, for plea bargaining, or perhaps if they choose, a trial by jury that they stack-up their own way, as they see fit.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2018 11:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
32nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Blaming Satan for the willful actions of living examples of life, such as blaming Satan for whatever Hillary Clinton has done, is a routine process called diversion.

While defensive minded people are thereby misdirected to defend against Satan, instead of Hilary Clinton, that actual devil Hilary Clinton is afforded every opportunity to continue her crime spree.

There has been, and is, an effective way to hold actual people to account for the willful injuries that they cause to innocent people: Rule of Law.

It might be a good idea to know that that Rule of Law stuff is exactly.

Here is one possible source of useful information for those who prefer to avoid being misdirected:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/cary-sparks-heyoka/how-to-fight-corruption-lawfully/10154192342141409/

“This is how we get corruption out of our country.”

That is one of many sources of information that may inspire actual people to actually start defending themselves from the actual criminals who routinely perpetrates crimes under the color of law.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Sep 9th, 2018 04:03 pm
  PM Quote Reply
33rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Cal,
The 1787 Constitutional Convention is a well-documented crime scene. On the official record, the perpetrators documented their crime when they willfully proceeded outside of their constitutional powers to create a legal fiction and enforce a legal fiction over and above the common law.
That part of that crime scene in 1787, the so-called “Constitutional Convention” was explained by Richard Henry Lee in the following excerpt:
“A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.
“If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.
“If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.
“The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .”
The creation of a profitable monopoly or Nation State out of the existing Federation was an unconstitutional act, there was no agreed-upon authority to allow it, and there were rules in place to prevent it, such as “…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states…”
That clearly does not say: “12 States can form a convention so as to alter the perpetual Federal government, and once 12 States write up a new National Government to replace the Federal Government, those 12 States can then proceed to sell the dirty deal to the masses with their near monopoly power over the printed press.”
Rhode Island refused to attend the convention and therefore Congress never agreed to alter the government in the first place. That did not stop the perpetrators, and from then on all National Statutes are null and void from a legal standpoint as you have shown:
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
That type of voluntary law, or common law, never stopped organized crime under the color of law, as it is a requirement of criminals, in order for them to be criminals, to operate outside the law by their willful choice.
“One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. ” Luther Martin blowing the whistle on the frauds working the first Con Con Con Job.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Sep 18th, 2018 09:41 am
  PM Quote Reply
34th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
A "convention" of 12 States had no lawful power to "propose" a National Government that would then replace the existing voluntary mutual defense association: federation. "Constitution" day is celebrated by either frauds or their marks. Each State became independent of any National Government (such as The British Monarchy) during the Revolution that only became a war when the criminal British perpetrated War of Aggression for Profit (enslaving the targets targeted in the War of Aggression for Profit). Each State (except one) had their own Constitution. The Federal Government (not National) had a Constitution.


The Constitution governing the Federal Government (not National) was bypassed by the out-laws who "proposed" a National Constitution to replace the existing Federal Constitution.


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

Rhode Island refused (did not agree) in Congress to convene in a convention that alters the existing Constitution on that Constitution day.


How idiotic can people get, how fooled are the foolish?


Not these guys:


All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . ."
Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled

"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"
George Mason Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 6, 1788

"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."
Patrick Henry
June 9, 1788

"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
"But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national."
June 14, 1788

"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."
George Mason
June 17, 1788

"Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against the idea of an extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and nature of things, against it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it."
Brutus
October 18, 1787,
To the Citizens of the State of New-York.

"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

"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

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. "
Luther Martin writing notes at the Con Con Con Job in 1787 (Gag orders issued)

"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

"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. "
A Farmer warning of the potential for Civil War (which in fact came true) due to alteration from Federal (voluntary) to National (involuntary) government.

Rhode Island also, officially, spelled out that "the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government", and note: they did not say that Congress had agreed to propose an alteration from a Federal to a National government as was the law according to the Constitution.


So bemoan all the un-constitutional criminal acts perpetrated by your modern day faction that opposes your faction and realize it is par for the course that was set when the first perpetrators perpetrated that un-constitution act to alter the constitution on that constitution day.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Sep 18th, 2018 07:19 pm
  PM Quote Reply
35th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"What they did not have in their day was some means of setting things right in their relations to a Govt gone rogue, that is, short of war. "

The common law was the means by which the revolutionary forces dealt with the criminally aggressive British. The Declaration of Independence was a simple common law notice of mixed war.

To claim that "our" founders were all on the same page, and they were outlaws is patently false.

"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 as true now as it was when it was entered into the official record of the First Congress of the forming United States (plural) of America. That above, as well as the Declaration of Independence, describes the crime of mixed war.


To claim that the victims are the outlaws is a ruse, why do people fall into that clap trap?


"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."

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

"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."

http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2018 07:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
36th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"It has become apparent that the process of governing our country by the cooperation between opposing political parties is collapsing."


When the criminals took-over the existing federation (voluntary association for mutual defense under the common law), doing so by fraud, threats, and committing treason, they, those criminals called The Federalist Party, created this divide, so as to conquer, situation that is commented upon in such messages as the one quoted above: who expects opposing political parties to cooperate?

I think it is a contradiction in terms, those who are opposed are opposed or they would not be opposed. Those who cooperate, cooperate, or they would not be cooperating.


Put in other words:

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

That is a work titled: New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

Those comments were offered as a statement of the obvious, at least obvious to some.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Sep 30th, 2018 11:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
37th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“Is it only about Roe v Wade?”

It is a battle over which faction takes over the profitable monopoly. Those who win these wars, or conflicts, or “hearings,” get control over the profitable monopoly. This is not news.

If it were not a dictatorship then there would be no battle between factions over which faction gains control over the dictatorship.

It is a dictatorship and has been one since 1789 when the Summary Justice (above the law) Court System of Plunder Under the Color of Law was created with the Judiciary act.
I personally don’t know why this is such a mystery to some people, and they aren’t confessing.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 2nd, 2018 12:51 am
  PM Quote Reply
38th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“The so called collapse of the two party system isn’t coming about because the democrats have moved too far left. It’s come about because every time the democrats moved farther left, the republican moved left also.”

What is left in context concerning the above message?

If by “left” the meaning is the same meaning as a criminal organization under the color of law, then I think that the message has meaning.

“Republicans moved to the center, then beyond.”

Ron Paul, as far as I know, is the only one I know who represents the whole people, the public, as in res-publica (the public thing), and therefore he is a republican. All the others, again, as far as I know, are republican in name only, and once they are seen as naked as they are, as emperors without clothes, who say one thing so as to gain power, and do the opposite once power is gained.

Vote for me to end the criminal wars of aggression, they say to gain power. Once in power they start or continue wars of aggression: a crime perpetrated by the British to subjugate Americans under their dictatorial rule, and a crime perpetrated by Nazis.

The right versus left scale applies only to those democrats in name only, along with those republicans in name only, as those posers take control of the criminal organization that operates so well under disguise. Left in that context means more overt criminal acts, less plausible deniability, and moving more to the right in that context means less overt criminal acts with more plausible deniability: it is easier to imagine the clothes worn by the Emperors moving to the right on the organized crime (under the color of law) scale.

Why this is hard to see I don’t know, it was once common knowledge.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Oct 2nd, 2018 04:51 pm
  PM Quote Reply
39th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Judicial and prosecutorial misconduct..."


According to the codes that these individuals are under oath to follow, they are not merely guilty of misconduct. A prime example is the codes governing individuals whose job it is to prosecute government agents caught in the act of withholding exculpatory evidence.

When they claim, under oath, to be in a position of authority to prosecute people who are guilty of the crime of withholding exculpatory evidence, while occupying a position of authority, such as occupying the position of a prosecutor or occupying the position of a district judge, and they fail to do the job they are bound by the laws they claim to be their source of authority, then that is hardly "prosecutorial misconduct."


They break their bond. They go outside the law. They are outlaws. They, by their actions, perpetrate crimes according to the laws they claim to be the source of their authority. They, therefore, commit treason. Claiming that treason is merely prosecutorial misconduct is a false claim.

Not only is it natural (natural law) for people to demand, and enforce, moral conduct from those whose job is to demand, and enforce, moral conduct: see Mathew 7:12 for example, it is also written in statutes, even if said statutes are written as a false cover used to cover-up so-called "prosecutorial misconduct."


"The Disciplinary Rules, unlike Ethical Considerations, are mandatory in character [and] state the minimum level of conduct below which no lawyer can fall without being subject to disciplinary action."
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

"The legal restrictions stem from both criminal procedure law and judicial case law. For example, criminal procedure law requires the government, upon request, to produce documents to the defendant that are material to the defense or will be used as evidence by the prosecution."
"47. See Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 16(a). "
Same source linked above: Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Lisa M. Kurcias


Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16
"(B) Defendant's Written or Recorded Statement. Upon a defendant's request, the government must disclose to the defendant, and make available for inspection, copying, or photographing, all of the following: ..."

"(2) Failure to Comply. If a party fails to comply with this rule, the court may:
(A) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection; specify its time, place, and manner; and prescribe other just terms and conditions;
(B) grant a continuance;
(C) prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence; or
(D) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances."

Like a dog sent chasing its own tail, a dog is rendered powerless.

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."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

"Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be imprisoned not more than five years and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in this title."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/287

If they say that the laws that they claim to be the source of their power and authority apply only to those who they target, then it might be a good idea to question that claim of authority.

Prosecutorial misconduct, really?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Oct 7th, 2018 05:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
40th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
" It and a few other steps removes one from being in ‘ Dishonor ‘ and a debt slave to being ‘On Honor’ and being a live man the people again with authority to use the correct system to put the courts in order so you a live man a non- citizen national can contract correctly with those court and enforcement Corporations as the corporate officers are now personally liable and their respective bonds can have a lien filed on them for costs."

If the people claiming that someone is in dishonor are perpetrating a fraud, then why would anyone want to go along with that fraud? According to the criminals perpetrating this fraud, there is a step by step method for the victims of their fraud to get free from this fraud, so long as the victims follow the rules set up by the same people who perpetrate the fraud in the first place?

And so, the story goes that if there is a misstep made by one of the victims of this fraud, then the victim remains a victim of this fraud.

I'm not buying into this wild goose chase. This type of response credits (giving support to) an ongoing fraud. How about an analogy? If a victim of the modern scam involving a "Prince" in Africa spamming email lists, whereby this "Prince" claims to need someone to help him transfer millions of dollars into a new bank account opened by the victim of this scam were to seek remedy from this scam would it then be wise for the victim to follow the rules set-up by the "Prince" for that purpose? Get out of my trap the "Prince" claims, just follow these steps I have laid so generously at your feet.


How about another analogy?


If a group of criminals kidnap, torture, rape, and enslave people for generations, is it a good idea to seek remedy according to the criminals currently perpetrating those crimes upon you?

What is it about the natural law that is so hard to understand, such as the natural law that criminals (by their willful actions) do not obey moral laws?

If someone claims that the Amended (Bill of Rights) Constitution of 1789 is their source of authority, then the people through their common law trial by jury tribunals must be asked before anyone can be lawfully punished, according to that authority.

In other words the people (represented in tribunals), not the government (represented through election into office, or not), judge fact, guilt, and what does or does not constitute remedy in any case of any significance or, it is bogus, fake, fraudulent, and ought not be supported in anyway, and rather than supporting it, it ought to be defended against peacefully, lawfully, according to common principles that constitute our common laws.

Example:
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Lisa M. Kurcias

"The Supreme Court held that the suppression of favorable evidence violated Brady's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 69
69. Id. at 86. The Due Process Clause states that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV."

"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

So there is a crime scene. People willfully counterfeit lawful authority as proven by their official records.

What ought to be done, ask them how we are supposed to defend our liberties, and follow their suggestions obediently: without question?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 12:17 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