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: Wed Oct 10th, 2018 02:09 am
  PM Quote Reply
41st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
The left criminals are only slightly less criminal compared to the right criminals: both are fighting a privileged war to gain power over each other's privilege.

That has nothing to do with morality.

That has nothing to do, therefore, with true law.

Mathew 7:12 explained:

"All things whatsoever … - This command has been usually called the "Saviour's golden rule," a name given to it on account of its great value. All that you "expect" or "desire" of others in similar circumstances, do to them. Act not from selfishness or injustice, but put yourself in the place of the other, and ask what you would expect of him. This would make you impartial, candid, and just. It would destroy avarice, envy, treachery, unkindness, slander, theft, adultery, and murder. It has been well said that this law is what the balance-wheel is to machinery. It would prevent all irregularity of movement in the moral world, as that does in a steam-engine. It is easily applied, its justice is seen by all people, and all must acknowledge its force and value. This is the law and the prophets - That is, this is the sum or substance of the Old Testament. It is nowhere found in so many words, but if is a summary expression of all that the law required. The sentiment was in use among the Jews. Hillel, an ancient Rabbi, said to a man who wished to become a proselyte, and who asked him to teach him the whole law, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another." Something of the same sentiment was found among the ancient Greeks and Romans, and is found in the writings of Confucius."
Barnes' Notes


What happens when people invest in organized crime under the color of law?


What happens when people decide, by their power of will, to pay for the power struggle to see which criminal gang takes over command of the dictatorship?


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

Is that true?

Who decides?

In a dictatorship, the winner of the turf battle to take control of the dictatorship decides what the slaves must do, and do so without question, and the decider group with their decider dictator, having taken all the power required to make good on their threats will, as a routine, make examples out of those who dare to question that pretenious, criminal, authority: see Lavoy Finicum's murder.


The Revolutionary War was fought over an idea that each individual has equal protection under the true law.


Why is this difficult to understand? Those who are confused, or led down a very evil path, are not confessing.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Oct 11th, 2018 02:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
42nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
When dealing with con men it is often experienced that they say one thing to get what they want: power, money, obedient slaves, and they do the opposite once they get that power. To claim that democracy and a republic are this, that, or the other thing, according to one or two con men begs the question: what did they want, and what were they willing to do to get what they want?


If they wanted to get their slave trade subsidized instead of having it outlawed, then they might say just about anything or do anything (like enslaving people), to get that pork barrel political power flowing.


Thomas Paine Rights of Man
Chapter III
Page 176

"Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As those democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed. Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical or aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.

"As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others.

"It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case.

"The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

"Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

"Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government, for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject."

That was one of the founders before the slave traders con job in 1787 through 1789, so as to subsidize slavery.

And after:

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

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

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

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

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


And what did the actual democrats actually say about democracy?



The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum


"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.

"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2018 05:01 pm
  PM Quote Reply
43rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Jim Boyer,

If choosing the term "talking heads" is an example of your intention not offend, then I'm wondering what terms you would choose when you are intending to offend.

The words quoted are words I wrote, and my name is not Joe Kelly.

Privilege has been understood as a gift from a sovereign (powerful) individual (or group) to the underprivileged (powerless) individuals or groups; especially in the context of so-called government actions.

Case in point:
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution. (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men." Roger Roots, The Conviction Factory.

When the people govern themselves they - the whole people, not a privileged segment of the whole - constitute the judge, jury, and executioner: not a privileged segment of the population taking government power by fraud, extortion, and aggressive violence.

As in the official record of the first Congress of the United States (13 at the time) of America:
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.”

We the people consent to or do not consent to whatever any government, anywhere, anytime, claims as right, true, lawful, legal, justified, or whatnot.

We are the privileged, because we say so, peacefully, in our jury trials.

The case in point is the case where the government perpetrated numerous crimes against the Bundy family and many others, and that case included a so-called judge stating on the record that a so-called prosecutor withheld evidence.

Before continuing with this answer to the comment by Jom Boyer, about talking heads, here is another talking head:

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

So there is a crime in front of God and everyone confessed as a crime by a so-called "District Judge."

Which crime?

"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."
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias

On the statutes that these "privileged" people claim to be their source of authority (under oath no less, and bonded) they are confessing to their crimes in open, public, proceedings under the color of law: i.e. treason.

What do these "privileged" people also claim?

"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").
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

So I can talk my head off, but where is my equal protection under the law that these criminals claim to be their source of authority? They can assume guilt upon anyone they target, anywhere, anytime, and they don't even need a reason. They kidnap innocent people, torture them into submission, take everything worth taking from them, including their lives, and during the process that is supposedly in place to accurately identify those who are guilty of crimes, they - the criminals - claim that they are immune from that process. They not only do this out in the open, but they also do this on their own official records.

The talking head George Mason, who refused to sign the bogus Constitution of 1787, was correct. So was Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, and many other's who knew that rat smell when those rats stole the good name of the American government.

Another talking head:
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property."

Equal protection, or equal footing, or equitable, fair, impartial, actions by people for people - the law of the land - is the Revolutionary idea, but that idea is only revolutionary in places and times when the norm is blind obedience to the dictates of a criminal organization operating under the color of law.

The Patriots against the con job of 1787 knew the criminals were going after our common law trial by jury, and that is why they insisted upon a Bill of Rights.


Back to Jim Boyer:
"I often here this sort of sentiment from talking heads being careful no to offend. But, I don’t understand the perception that representatives on the right are trying to take rights or privilege from anyone."

If access to trial by the country, which is trial by jury, which is the method by which the people consent to or do not consent to anything any government claims to have the authority to do - if our trial by jury process - does not apply to a privileged class that can openly commit kidnapping, torture, extortion, murder, mass murder, and worse crimes, then I think my point is valid, even if some listening heads don't get it: yet.


I will admit error here when someone on the so-called right indicts one of these criminals, like "Judge" Navarro, or why not those Clinton monsters, or how about the author of the Patriot Act? When those on the so-called right stop doing almost the same cover-up of criminals running government job as the so-called left, then there will be criminals in government on trial, according to the common laws of free people, and the whole country will be the judge of fact, law, and remedy, through their jury.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2018 05:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
44th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
When the "government" is a profitable monopoly those who desire it (with malice aforethought) will do anything to get it.

"Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify."
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, March 7, 1788

Neil Wampler:
"...the feverish political divide of today has strong parallels with our country in the 1860s."

That divide was predicted. That divide is the same divide in principle as the one faced by every slave wishing to run away from slavery, or fight for freedom, peacefully if possible, and if the slave masters insist, and there is no place to run, then defensive fighting on the foundation of moral principle is forced by the aggressors.

Why stop looking back once the predictable Civil War is found? What about Shays's Rebellion?

When the criminals took over Massachusetts after the British gave up their aggressive war for profit, that same divide seen now was afoot then, and even then the criminals had to take-over the trial by jury process.

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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 15th, 2018 05:06 pm
  PM Quote Reply
45th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"One vote per state failed 5-5-1 on July 2 and concern was rising that the convention was exceeding its delegated powers."

Those at the Con Con (Con Job) were exposed in the following report by Luther Martin at the Con Con:

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

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

A modern-day version of a Con Con, whereby every globalist worth his or her salary is invited, could hardly do as much damage to free people in liberty as the criminal slave trading, con artist, central banking fraud, aristocrats did at the first Con Con, yet people still ignore both historical and current facts of this matter, like obedient lemmings.

George Mason spelled it out well enough too:

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."

June 6, 1788
George Mason:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {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?"

The criminals who stole the federal government were after our trial by jury.

"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

"...making the courts of the country their tools..."

Patrick Henry: "Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others."

"...concern was rising that the convention was exceeding its delegated powers..."

That was not merely the "concern" for those in the Con Con, where doors were locked, gag orders were issued, and Rhode Island refused to attend. The criminals at the Con Con were exceeding their delegated powers. They had no authority to construct a National Government to replace the existing Federation. Congress, not a convention, was given that authority to alter the confederation, a power given by all the states unanimously, written into the Articles of that existing Confederation.



Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 16th, 2018 01:44 am
  PM Quote Reply
46th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Elaboration is what I think must fill this vacuum. Objection, after all, is absent.

There is a silent minority.

There is a silent majority.

The fake government conflict (attributed to Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Washington, and other "Federalists") is this fictional, scary, obscene, immoral, mob seeking to gain sovereign power over the intelligent, moral, knowledgeable, privileged, aristocratic, and capable elite.

That is a cover-up.

The real battle is a power struggle over which process works better for one of two groups: 1. Everyone, 2. A Faction: a part of the whole that creates a profitable monopoly at the expense of the other parts: organized crime under the color of law.

When the process serves everyone rather than a faction then the process is based upon a principle known as the golden rule.

Example:
Abigail Adams to John Adams Braintree, Mass., March 31, 1776
"I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us. . . . "
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/files/2018/09/Documents-and-Debates-in-American-History-and-Government-Vol.-1-and-Vol.-2.pdf

When the process is made with malice aforethought to disenfranchise a segment of the population that pays all the costs for those making the disenfranchised incapable of affording the process, there is then a real need for deception.

People will not walk into a trap if they know better.

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

Repetition may help:

"...it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird..."

Deception only works on the deceived, and deception works against the deceivers when the targets of deception are not deceived.

The deceived are made to believe that the process is too complicated for average people to understand: justice is too costly.

Why then are people still asked to sit on juries?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Oct 30th, 2018 06:01 pm
  PM Quote Reply
47th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
“The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.”

State sovereignty is proven as a fact when a State, not a National Government, can agree to join or unjoin, pay for, or not pay for, a voluntary mutual defense association (federation) under the common law. Individuals are represented by themselves, and the best way for the whole number of people (res-publica) to be represented is through trial by jury according to the common law. Electoral politics was known to be anti-democratic, and electoral politics was known to lead to oligarchy.

From the Federal Farmer, against the Con Con Con Job, who was a President of the United States of America when those states were Federated, which was before those states were Consolidated into one despotic oligarchy under summary justice "courts:"

"In the civil law process the trial by jury is unknown; the consequence is, that a few judges and dependant officers, possess all the power in the judicial department. Instead of the open fair proceedings of the common law, where witnesses are examined in open court, and may be cross examined by the parties concerned — where council is allowed, &c. we see in the civil law process judges alone, who always, long previous to the trial, are known and often corrupted by ministerial influence, or by parties. Judges once influenced, soon become inclined to yield to temptations, and to decree for him who will pay the most for their partiality. It is, therefore, we find in the Roman, and almost all governments, where judges alone possess the judicial powers and try all cases, that bribery has prevailed. This, as well as the forms of the courts, naturally lead to secret and arbitrary proceedings — to taking evidence secretly– exparte, &c. to perplexing the cause — and to hasty decisions: — but, as to jurors, it is quite impracticable to bribe or influence them by any corrupt means; not only because they are untaught in such affairs, and possess the honest characters of the common freemen of a country; but because it is not, generally, known till the hour the cause comes on for trial, what persons are to form the jury." Federal Farmer 15, January 18, 1788

And from democratic (real, not fraudulent) history:

The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.

"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html

The slave traders, central banking frauds, warmongers, and assorted other criminals took over in 1789. It is never to late for an accurate accounting of the facts that matter.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 30th, 2018 08:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
48th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"By art. 3. sect. 2. “the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States,” &c. What is here meant by equity? what is equity in a case arising under the constitution? possibly the clause might have the same meaning, were the words “in law and equity,” omitted. Cases in law must differ widely from cases in law and equity. At first view, by thus joining the word equity with the word law, if we mean any thing, we seem to mean to give the judge a discretionary power. The word equity, in Great Britain, has in time acquired a precise meaning — chancery proceedings there are now reduced to system — but this is not the case in the United States. In New-England, the judicial courts have no powers in cases in equity, except those dealt out to them by the legislature, in certain limited portions, by legislative acts. In New-York, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, powers to decide, in cases of equity, are vested in judges distinct from those who decide in matters of law: and the states generally seem to have carefully avoided giving unlimitedly, to the same judges, powers to decide in cases in law and equity. Perhaps, the clause would have the same meaning were the words, “this constitution,” omitted: there is in it either a careless complex misuse of words, in themselves of extensive signification, or there is some meaning not easy to be comprehended. Suppose a case arising under the constitution — suppose the question judicially moved, whether, by the constitution, congress can suppress a state tax laid on polls, lands, or as an excise duty, which may be supposed to interfere with a federal tax. By the letter of the constitution, congress will appear to have no power to do it: but then the judges may decide the question on principles of equity as well as law. Now, omitting the words, “in law and equity,” they may decide according to the spirit and true meaning of the constitution, as collected from what must appear to have been the intentions of the people when they made it. Therefore, it would seem, that if these words mean any thing, they must have a further meaning: yet I will not suppose it intended to lodge an arbitrary power or discretion in the judges, to decide as their conscience, their opinions, their caprice, or their politics might dictate. Without dwelling on this obscure clause, I will leave it to the examination of others."
Federal Farmer XV
January 18, 1788

That is Richard Henry Lee against the Con Con Con Job of 1787, and against the use of words deceptively, especially when the perpetrators of this type of fraud (then known as "construction") are claiming to be in favor of a federal (voluntary association for mutual defense) government. Richard Henry Lee was the 6th President of the actual federal government before the criminals took over.

As to the meaning of the first amendment, it is a right for the people who are victims of criminal governments (tyranny) for them to put those criminals on trial: that is the meaning of the first amendment, as demonstrated by the Declaration of Independence.

As soon as the criminals extorted or bribed "RAT-ification" of their slave trading, summary justice, "Constitution," they - the criminals - went to work building their summary justice court system of extortion with their Judiciary Act of 1789. They did that before amending their slave trading "Constitution," with the very poorly written Bill of Rights. When I judge the writing of the Bill of Rights as a poor job, it is appraised according to moral principle, such as the truth setting people free, rather than lies making criminals rich, as criminals subsidize their slave business.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Nov 2nd, 2018 09:05 pm
  PM Quote Reply
49th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/11/americans-identified-address-alone/#comment-5309

"Prior to this citizenship was decided upon at the state level."

Is that true or merely a lie to keep up appearances and cover-up the actual accurate accounts of the facts that matter?

When they consolidated the states into one Nation State in 1789, turning the organic, grass-roots United States of America into a corporation, a profitable monopoly, called the United States, it was done so as to extract all the wealth from anyone who produced anything worth stealing. This is a fact and those who refuse to see it do so at the peril of everyone, including posterity.

An Act providing for the enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States.
"SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That each and every person more than sixteen years of age, whether heads of families or not, belonging to any family within any division of a district made or established within the United States, shall be, and hereby is, obliged to render to such assistant of the division, a true account, if required, to the best of his or her knowledge, of all and every person belonging to such family respectively, according to the several descriptions aforesaid, on pain of forfeiting twenty dollars, to be sued for and recovered by such assistant, the one half for his own use, and the other half for the use of the United States. "
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1790_Census_Act.pdf

How can the criminals extract every dime from every producer if they do not tag each one, account precisely for each one, and pay their minions half of the take once the extortion payments start rolling in?

How do people buy these lies these days? I don't get it. The same people who make sure every single productive cent is taxed, and collected, just so happen to be the same people who forget where trillions of dollars were collected, or merely added by bookkeeping ledger entry, and stored for safekeeping or malinvestment?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Nov 4th, 2018 02:38 am
  PM Quote Reply
50th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Founding documents? How can you publish that with a straight face? Perhaps it is published with tongue firmly n cheek?

There is a Declaration of Independence which enumerates the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the worst criminal running the worst criminal organization that was then on the planet earth. OK, got that one.

There is no mention of the Independent State Constitutions (one state had no constitution: their law was in their collective memory), nor is there any mention of the Articles of Confederation that served and protected well enough to drive off the worst criminal army of aggression for profit that was then on the planet. Why not mention the State Constitutions, the Bills of Rights in State Constitutions, the common law, trial by jury, trial by the country? Too wordy?

Then the slave trading Constitution is hoisted as a "founding" document? The same "constitution" that claims, in no uncertain terms, that anyone found to be resisting government tyranny will be crushed, and everyone will be made to pay for crushing out anyone failing to obey without question.

So by this confusing logic what constitutes a "founding" document?

Is a founding document the same "founding" document that afforded the central bankers all the leverage they needed to enforce their central banking fraud, and the extortion hidden as a tax required to create the demand for the central bank counterfeit money?

That is a founding document?

The founding document is also the order, to be obeyed without question, that subsidizes the crime of African Slavery? That is a founding document?

What is being founded?

The Bill of Rights that supposedly amended the subsidizing slave trading deal, on the other hand, was categorically opposed to the tyrannical Con Con of 1787, so what is being founded in these opposing documents?

What is being founded but a despotic sandwich with meat in the middle carved from liberty lovers who dared to be the bread?


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

What does that say? Anyone care to explain?


"15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"


What does that say, exactly? Care to offer an example of what that means: exactly?


"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Anyone? Does anyone think anymore?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Nov 4th, 2018 03:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
51st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"From a biblical perspective, arming one for spiritual warfare is an essential daily task to prevent being captured by the temptations we face every day and spiritually arming ourselves every day is necessary to help to safely deliver us from the evils all of us face in our lives."


I think that there is a sound basis for all law in Mathew 7:12: the golden rule. The opposite of law, therefore, is for people to do unto others what they themselves would defend against were someone to do it to them. That clearly expresses the moral difference, or lawful difference if the law is, in fact, based on morality, between aggression, with malice aforethought, and defense.

This goes deeper when considering Proverbs 4:14-17, where it is explained in no uncertain terms that an immoral choice, such as aggression upon the innocent, consumes the aggressor as well as the target of aggression: adding more reason to both sides of the Golden Rule.

In our American history is the following from the first congress, while the British were perpetrating war of aggression for profit: rioting in the blood of the innocent:

"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:"

How is that not clearly the same message offered in Mathew 7:12, the Golden Rule, and what amounts to the opposite of the Golden Rule which is Proverbs 4:14-17? What mental gymnastics, what lies that create a web of deceit, are required to fail to see a simple truth?

A voluntary association for mutual defense, which is in itself a benefit, which includes the power required to defend against any aggressor, is the law of the land, at least in America at the start of British aggression.

When Americans are led into an involuntary association, on the other hand, such as subsidizing African slavery, solving the so-called Indian problem with the extermination of those tribes, a predictable war to wipe out any remaining freedom loving, liberty loving people, falsely called a Civil War, on, and on, and on, consuming all moral knowledge in the wake of the march toward an American Empire, modelled after the British Empire, complete with summary justice courts, usurping rule of law, and complete with central banking fraud, with the required extortion methods hidden as tax - when Americans are led or forced by deceit, forced by threat of aggressive violence, and forced by torturous and horrifying examples of aggressive violence - to take the path of involuntary association for mutual destruction, instead of voluntary association for mutual defense, then we all go down with that ship like rats: the same rat smell Patrick Henry publicized for our benefit, or for our choice to ignore the warning, and proceed hell bent on the rat cage path.

If people refuse to see simple truths and are led instead to borrow the complex findings of so-called authorities that concern our temporal salvation, what can be expected? The law of the land, which is something every functioning adult can comprehend, is our power to defend ourselves with a tried and true process that has worked for thousands of years, is gone, and lost for as long as people refuse to see a simple truth.

So far from the law America, and thereby Americans, have become, in point of fact, the majority of even the remaining so-called Liberty Lovers, Patriots, etc., are card-carrying Nationalists bent on Empire Building, and claiming they are in the right, which is the precise opposite of well-established laws based upon facts.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Nov 5th, 2018 07:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
52nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"This is a national issue and must be fought on that level, with everyone having a part in it."

Is that true, can that statement be held to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter? Does that statement suggest that it is National Interest that is at stake, and therefore, in that name, that name of National Interest, something must be done to protect the National Interest?

At the times, and in the places (localities, meaning all law is local), where actual law power was exercised for the people, of the people, and by the people, it was, therefore, demonstrated that the interest at stake was the whole people's interest, not the National Interest.

An example is provided in the history of the process known as democracy, which is not the modern, false, claim that democracy is so-called Mob Rule. Democracy was, and is, people volunteering to be the government themselves, not people obeying, without question, whatever someone claiming to speak for the National Interest must be obeyed or else.

When the interest is the people themselves, as a whole, not a legal fiction such as a Nation with a National Interest, the government is said to be a republic: the public thing is the meaning of the Latin word respublica, from which the English word republic is derived.

In American history the local populations from all over the country formed local common law counties, common law states, which were said to be Nations, and each Nation was an experiment in democracy, the size of each Nation proved to be instructive concerning which size of which democratic republic, or nation state, was a workable size, not too big, not too small, and some Nation State governments began granting access to land because their nation state was too big for a national government, and for other reasons.

Rhode Island was not one of the nation states that were too big. Some nation states grew despotic, while other nation states accepted, protected, and provided the benefits of a sanctuary for runaway slaves, who were merely people willing and able to defend their natural born rights to live and let live, just like the veterans of the Revolutionary War.

Daniel Shays, for example, ran from a despotic turning Massachusetts to Vermont, which proves beyond reasonable doubt, that a federal voluntary association for mutual defense works to maintain experiments in democracy, which is the same thing as saying a free market of government services, to be paid for by voluntary contribution, or not. Daniel Shays was a Revolutionary War veteran.

Someone profiting off of the government monopoly, or despotism, in Massachusetts could have claimed that it was a Federal issue, for their profitable monopoly was threatened by Revolutionary War veterans who thought that the Revolution has been lost in Massachusetts, and that war profiteer in Massachusetts could have also claimed that it was a federal issue that the runaway slave named Daniel Shays must be returned to slavery in Massachusetts, for the sake of the nation state Massachusetts, and for the sake of the federation of independent nation states. Someone in Massachusetts, in command of the despotic nation state in Massachusetts, would have no cause to claim that the federation was one single Nation-State, and anyone found running away from slavery in one state would be required by the National government, in the national interest, to return the runaway slave to the slavers, or else.

So...just exactly what is the current threat to liberty threatening everyone in every county in every single state in America, and why do those threats in those localities represent a National Interest? Are the slaves threatening to stop aiding and abetting the slavers who run their slave business from a foreign corporation located in the District of Columbia? Does that district actually exists, or is it too just a legal fiction?

What might one of the federalists, who was a democrat and a republican, say about legal fictions? Don't ask the slavers, the slavers would call the federalists anti-federalist, and those same slavers would call a patriot an insurgent. Well, you can listen to the slavers if you like, but they lie as a rule. If they did not lie, as a rule, their human trafficking businesses couldn't be subsidized by the slaves, the slaves would know better than to dig their own graves to hell when told to do so with a smile on their faces, or else.

I'd like to know the official facts, but that would require a trial by jury, a trial by the country, so that the people themselves, through their trial jury, can speak as one, so as to establish a fact that matters to everyone, rather than create a falsehood that matters to special interests, like slavers, who create legal fictions like National Interests.

National Interest:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/


The above caused an idea to develop concerning two comparative processes:

Private and Public demarcation lines, such as the explanation for the Civil (private) and Criminal (public) demarcation lines offered in Roger Roots work titled: Conviction Factory.

Is it also a Private and Public demarcation line when, and where, a local government is dependent on local powers to maintain peace through justice, and as the other localities, other counties, other states, a federation of states, and foreign states, or foreign federations of states, or world federations of states foreign to each other, and the same world federation federating federations of states foreign to each other, are - larger bodies of people are - dependent upon the capacity of the local powers to maintain peace through justice in that locality: what happens if the threats to peace through justice in the locality is beyond the capacity of the local government, and the internal threat is exported?


Roger Roots, The Conviction Factory, Chapter 4 Are Cops Constitutional, page 41:

"Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that crimnal claims ostensibly involved an interest in the public at large as well as the victim."


That statement in that book was referrence with a source: Respublica v Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa 1790) (involving action by private individual seeking public sanction for his prosecution)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/112/

"Leave having been granted; on the motion of Serjeant, to file an information against the defendant, one of the Justices of the Peace for Chester County, it became a question, whether the information should be drawn, filed and prosecuted by the Attorney General, or by the party at whose instance it was awarded.

"The Attorney General (Bradford) objected, that it is not the duty of the Attorney General to draw and file this information. It must, indeed, be in the name of the commonwealth, and the prosecutor may make use of the name of the officer, who prosecutes for the State: But there is in England a known and established distinction, between informations filed by the Attorney General, and those filed by him at the relation of a private person, in the name of the master of the crown office. The former are always filed ex officio; and the Court will not, upon motion of the Attorney General, give him leave to file an information against any person. 3 Burr. 1812. They cannot be quashed on motion of the prosecutor. Dougl. 227. nor is the prosecutor liable for costs. But informations, at the relation of private persons, are in a great measure private suits. They are moved for and conducted, not by the officers of the Crown, but by counsel employed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is, in many cases, liable to costs. 3 Burr. 1270. 1305. The Court will not grant it where the prosecutor appears unworthy. Burr. 548. 869. And on a motion for an information for a libel, oath must be made of the falsity of the charges contained in the libel, a circumstance quite immaterial, where the prosecution is wholly on the part of the public. The prosecutor, therefore, ought to be at the expence and employ his own counsel, in this proceeding, in which he is really interested. If it be the duty of the Attorney General to file this information, it is his duty to prosecute it also.

"No informations (except those qui tam) have hitherto been filed in Pennsylvania; and it is of consequence to settle this point. No fees are provided for the duty, in the bill of fees, and the Attorney General ought not, on this occasion, to be considered as the mere drawer of an information, for which he is not to be paid, and with the future prosecution of which he has nothing to do.

"Page 2 U.S. 112, 113

"By the Court: The objection is reasonable and just. But, pro forma, the Attorney General must allow his name to be used by the prosecutor."

qui tam action
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1709

": (kwee tam) n. from Latin for "who as well," a lawsuit brought by a private citizen (popularly called a "whistle blower") against a person or company who is believed to have violated the law in the performance of a contract with the government or in violation of a government regulation, when there is a statute which provides for a penalty for such violations. Qui tam suits are brought for "the government as well as the plaintiff." In a qui tam action the plaintiff (the person bringing the suit) will be entitled to a percentage of the recovery of the penalty (which may include large amounts for breach of contract) as a reward for exposing the wrongdoing and recovering funds for the government. Sometimes the federal or state government will intervene and become a party to the suit in order to guarantee success and be part of any negotiations and conduct of the case. This type of action is generally based on significant violations which involve fraudulent or criminal acts, and not technical violations and/or errors."



Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Nov 9th, 2018 06:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
53rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"Once the concerns about a perpetual body that would assume the characteristics of an aristocracy were somewhat alleviated, the convention then settled on the method of the first senate election. Providing for a rotation that would leave many sitting senators in office would prevent the loss of institutional memory and process."

Once again a meeting of the minds of aristocrats is the crime scene being commented upon in the quote above, and once the assembled aristocrats have somewhat alleviated their concerns over their aristocratic senate being aristocratic, they then moved on to other concerns.

They had more than a few opponents show up to the fraudulent, secret, meeting. How could the aristocrats avoid having plebeian lowlifes show up to their secret meeting when they had to advertise their secret meeting? The aristocrats forming an aristocracy advertised their secret meeting with a call to all governing members of independent states, or at least calling upon the aristocrats in those independent states, calling for some alterations to the agreement. Those are the states formed by agreement into a voluntary mutual defense association. The same agreement that was made so as to form a federation is the agreement that did not afford the governors of the federation arbitrary power. The agreement did not give anyone the power to use the power given to exceed the power given, to arbitrarily replace the agreement with a counterfeit version of an agreement. The strict boundaries of power given in the agreement did not include the power to arbitrarily replace the agreement with something disagreeable such as arbitrary government.

The aristocrats advertised the need to assemble so as to fix, to alter, to improve, to adjust, or to amend the existing federation. That was the federation that was in power when that federal power, made up of all those free minded liberty lovers, and some very powerful aristocrats, drove out the largest invading army for profit that was then running amok, rioting in the blood of the innocent, on the planet Earth: a belligerent, arbitrary, criminal aristocracy, operating under the color of law.

The assembled aristocrats did not advertise their intent to remove and replace the federation, replacing the federation with absolute power in their aristocratic hands. That type of advertisement, a true account of their aristocratic intentions, would spill the beans. So some of the plebs, or aristocrats attempting to represent plebs, showed up to do some fixing: to improve the existing federation of independent states formed into a voluntary mutual defense association, and those representatives who showed up to improve the voluntary federation were in for a rude awakening.

Those in opposition were gagged, the plebes were gagged. The gag order was in place because witnesses (representatives not representing aristocrats) at the crime scene are inspired to inform the intended victims of their pending enslavement: spilling the beans. If the gag order does not work, what are aristocrats inspired to do? Shoot the messenger! Dead men tell no tails, just ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finicum.

Gag orders no longer work?

"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, Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787
http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up

We were all taught that important message in plebe school, right?

As to the aristocratic Senate:

"The senators will represent sovereignties, which generally have, and always ought to retain, the power of recalling their agents; the principle of responsibility is strongly felt in men who are liable to be recalled and censured for their misconduct; and, if we may judge from experience, the latter will not abuse the power of recalling their members; to possess it, will, at least be a valuable check."
Federal Farmer, LETTER XI.
JANUARY 10, 1788.
Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled)
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/federal-farmer-an-additional-number-of-letters-to-the-republican/

Senators representing a profitable monopoly, aristocrats representing their aristocracy, are not the same thing as senators representing independent states or independent people.

If the Independent States (sovereign states) were in fact sovereign, then they could pay for, or not pay for, a stake at the table where governors govern the voluntary mutual defense association: federation. If it is an entirely different government, not a federation, one that is covertly put in place, then the governors governing the profitable monopoly will demand payments from all their slaves: or else. Don't even think about complaining. Sovereigns can hire or fire their employees at will, or they will not be sovereigns. Aristocrats issue gag orders, and shoot messengers, or they will fail to maintain their aristocracy.

"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, New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

Aristocrats are interested in preserving their slave trade that has many forms, how does one become an aristocrat after all?

The so-called aristocrats, claiming to alter, adjust, or fix the existing federation (their source of authority that gave no authority to remove and replace the federal government) were in fact perpetrating the crime of treason: they went outside the law that gave them authority, and they replaced the voluntary mutual defense association with a profitable monopoly, including the subsidizing of their African Slave trade with a National Tax which also creates the demand for their Central Bank Fraud, and to ensure their aristocratic ability to make war on any people in any state who dare to run away from their slavery, and to ensure that the aristocrats in command of their aristocracy fund their power to make their targets pay for the cost of the war on the people, that National Tax serves that interest too.

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

How's that for a declaration of dependence?

Damn history repeats for obvious, predicted, reasons.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Nov 11th, 2018 02:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
54th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"It is an indisputable truth: election fraud is a pillar of democrat party activism. What is unclear is why no Congress and no Attorney General has ever taken the initiative to guarantee our right to be fairly counted in the process designed to preserve our freedom and our power over government."

I think that is the wrong hoax. The worst hoax facing free people isn't that one faction is guilty of serious felony crimes concerning vote tampering, nor is it the most serious hoax that supposedly the other faction isn't guilty of serious felony crimes associated with the failure to hold guilty felony criminals to account for crimes associated with vote tampering.

The hoax is to believe the lie that voting for your favorite dictator to sit atop the dictatorship is in any way going to accomplish anything other than maintaining dictatorship: slaves voting for their own slavery, and paying dearly for it. Just ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finnicum.

The vote that counts to maintain a free society in liberty is the vote that accounts for the criminals in government: holding them to account for their crimes. Since that vote has been successfully crushed out of our collective memory, in all but a few cases (see the Bundy persecutions for example), the dictatorship will be perpetual, so long as the people fall for this voting hoax.

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

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

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

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Another Piece of paper published for public consumption.

Since it is a felony to tamper with voting, or infringe upon the right to be armed, or infringe upon the right to communicate just how criminal the criminals in government have become, then it is the law, and not a counterfeit imposter, that those criminals must be arrested by us, because we are the government. We the people, or one of our actual representatives, not an imposter, must arrest those criminals, and those criminals must be tried by a jury of their peers in the locality where the alleged crime is alleged to have occurred, and face accurate accountability in a trial by the whole people, a common law jury trial through which the trial juries actually represent the whole people: not imposters. If we are not the government, then it is a hoax to keep believing we are anything other than subjects subjected to dictators running the dictatorship.

The peaceful revolution cannot proceed based upon a hoax.

"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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Nov 11th, 2018 04:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
55th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were the aristocratic faction that created a government of factions, so quoting them is ironic.

Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13 Luther Martin:

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

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."

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

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property."

A Farmer, March 7, 1788:

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

A voluntary association of independent people in independent states does not inspire factions to fight each other over the control of something checked by the people themselves, through their trial by jury system: rule of law. A subsidized slave business, a fraudulent form of government, a corporate nation state with absolute power to extract whatever is desired from anyone who can produce anything worth taking, is an obvious prize for factions. Absolute power, arbitrary power, is the prize sought after by factions. Factions operating despotic governments include: aristocrats (Adams), banking frauds (Alexander Hamilton), warmongers (George Washington), all those profiting from the slave trade, and other sorted criminal gangs. Factions will be inspired to fight for control of arbitrary power, when arbitrary power is created and in place, and factions will use any means necessary to achieve their goal.

Actual history is useful for voluntary mutual defense. False history is useful for one faction gaining power over their targeted victims: under the color of law.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Nov 12th, 2018 03:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
56th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
I would like to know a lot of things, so I ask questions, and I keep looking for accurate answers. This is a case in point, as to what might prove? the validity of the statement repeated now: "I think the voters may have opened the door to rising against that theory by electing Donald Trump. All indications so far are that his only objective for taking that office is to work for the betterment of the people and the strength of our nation."

The proof required might not be the same proof to me as to anyone else, but I can offer a possible proof concerning the goodness of Trump as President of the Nation State: which is a profitable monopoly serving the few, at the expense of the many by design.

If Trump honors his campaign promise concerning the crimes alleged against Hillary Clinton, and if there is an actual trial according to the common law, as the law that gives Trump power states (in so many words that can mean just about anything imaginable), then the proof of the goodness of Trump would be available for anyone to read in those court trial transcripts generated during those trials that were promised by Trump, so as to elect Trump, giving power to Trump, such as the power to do his actual job: protect and serve the American people, not protect and serve criminals in government.

There are a few trial transcripts that illustrate this point, such as the Conspiracy Murder Trial of Martin Luther King Jr. A trial like that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Nation State is guilty of conspiracy murder, and since none of the perpetrators were ever put on trial, the Nation-State fails an indisputable mandate.

"7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

...be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law...

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

...shall hold their Offices during GOOD Behaviour...

"3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

In all that legalese above are words that constitute an obvious, undeniable, mandate, a self-evident truth if you will.

If the worst criminals are doing the most damage while occupying government offices, such as conspiracy murder, or aggressive war for profit, or ignoring those crimes while it is your job to prosecute those criminals, then proof of the goodness of someone occupying the highest government office in a Nation-State profitable monopoly would be that the said President would hold the worst criminals to account in the lawful way, according to the law of the land, which supposedly gives that President the authority to do anything while that individual occupies that public office.

A benevolent dictator may not be better than no dictator, but a benevolent dictator is certainly better than a malevolent one: see for example Marcus Aurelius.

"The best revenge is not to be like your enemy."

What constitutes proof of the benevolence of Trump in anyone else's mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud76oHQ9HWU

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Nov 12th, 2018 06:14 pm
  PM Quote Reply
57th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
3 things may be worth knowing when one faction is attempting to regain ground lost to another faction in an immoral battle to gain arbitrary power.

1. The 5 monkey experiment. Look it up.
2. A much better path is a moral path.
3. Learn the much better path, and perhaps you might adopt it, instead of perpetually peddling the hamster wheel.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.​"
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

A competitive wording of the same message (albeit in a different form) is found here:

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

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

As to the National Propaganda Ministry (Public Education):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2018 05:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
58th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Time: 2:35
Civil War in America 2.0
"Is what we think we're seeing real?"
"Is there historical precedence to gauge?"
"How can we look at the current situation in our country and say: yea I think there is a high probability of a civil war coming.?"

Time: 22:31
"It is not going to be like the Civil War...North and South..."
"Probably more like Ireland..."
"...more like the Balkans."

Time: 26:51
Host reading from an article:
"This is the latent pre-insurgency indicators of an attempted coup or regime change or to otherwise alter and change your government unlawfully, but they're using our constitution and our freedoms to hide behind to allow them to openly operate."

Words can be accurate words that mean the same thing to everyone, which is based upon the principle of agreement. If someone says night, and everyone agrees that the meaning of the word is the opposite of day, then like a carpenter asking for a specific length of wood, the effort to communicate accurately is accomplished from one individual to all the other individuals who may need to know the facts that matter. Is it day or night? How much are you willing to bet that the government is going to tell the truth?

Civil War:
a war between citizens of the same country

country:
a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory

The aggressive war for profit perpetrated by the British against the former British Colonies was called a Revolutionary War, not a Civil War.

The former colonies were formed into sovereign countries, each agreed to abide by the common laws of free people, which include certain rights, like the right to hold the people in government to account, as demonstrated, and as exemplified, in a Declaration of Independence, or a declaration of mixed war. When the people in government declare war on the people, that warmongering government is no longer a government of the people, as that government thereby breaks the agreement that was made in order for that government to become the government of the people.

First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled 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:"

One country became criminal and that country was called Britain, it was, and still is, a Corporate Nation State, complete with a functioning central bank extortion racket: a despotic, criminal, government. That country of criminals persecuted a war of aggression on free people in America, people who declared something self-evident on the official records: we are born free, we are not your property to dispose of as you please; thanks, but no thanks.

That was not called a Civil War, for obvious reasons.

What was Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1787?

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

Why would anyone call the pogrom in 1861-1865 a Civil War? What would be the reason for choosing the term Civil War to describe 2 independent, sovereign, Nation States, slaughtering each other's slaves? I call it a culling of the slave population, so as to keep the slaves from any further revolutionary ideas. You can use the false term Civil War as you please.

A country can only be so big before a country becomes despotic, for obvious reasons.

The last battle of the Revolutionary War was fought in Massachusetts, and it is a useful battle for anyone who cares to know what may happen in any country sized area, such as a State, in America. When the government in a country-sized area turns despotic, enslaving the people through central bank extortion racketeering, and other despotic means, the people in history who fought against such crimes serve posterity, if people who constitute posterity care to look.

If it is a federation of states under the common law, then the criminals in government can be prosecuted by the people, through independent grand jury indictments, and trial by the country, which is trial by jury according to the common laws of free people. If it isn't a federation of states under the common law, then the following has already happened:

"This is the latent pre-insurgency indicators of an attempted coup or regime change or to otherwise alter and change your government unlawfully, but they're using our constitution and our freedoms to hide behind to allow them to openly operate."

That whistle was blown loud and clear in 1787:

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

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Nov 18th, 2018 06:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
59th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
"You will still be taxed. You will still go to war."

The aristocratic vote, or electoral politics vote, was known (once upon a time) to be anti-democratic, and thereby anti-republican, but that was before a whole lot of brainwashing done to many generations of slaves.

Some exceptions, such as Ron Paul, prove the fallacy that politics, as a rule, must be bad, or even that all men are bad.

The vote that counts, if people are to rule themselves as one, is the votes made by the volunteers as the volunteers face those who are clear and present dangers to peace in a perishable liberty.

Deception is a very powerful force.

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

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"
George Mason against the Constitution of 1787

Page 40
Private Prosecutors
Roger Roots book The Conviction Factory:

"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.

"Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they ...repair the injury."

How much brainwashing was done in order to convince (con) the people into believing their costly defense of rule of law (common law with trial by jury) during the Revolutionary war was instead a war to copy the British model of Empire Building through subsidized slavery, enforced and funded with central banking fraud, and extortion claimed to be a tax in the National Interest? Even a modern-day patriot, like Roger Roots, is apparently unaware of the fact that the Consolidated Nation State was the beginning of the end of American free market government: freedom defended by volunteers, using common laws of free people, in a perishable, but effectively defended liberty.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Nov 19th, 2018 03:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
60th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6312
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
The point about learning the past is not simply to avoid repeating past mistakes, there is another point behind learning the past. The past provides a number of rules to follow that preserve the power required to defend against certain relentless evils.

Example:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

The evil exposed in that historical study is this evil whereby people use the truth, and distort that truth, so as to make the truth something opposite of what the truth is: to make something beneficial to mankind, and to turn that benefit into our living hell instead.

The ability to use accurate accountability so as to stop criminal aggression in its tracks, for the moment, is exemplifed as recently in the trial of the Bundy family, whereby the whole country of free people (a country is a locality, not a "nation state"), set the Bundy family free: momentarily. What is missing in that case is the same power of the whole people used aggressively on the aggressors.

It is a moral duty to aggressively hold the guilty to an accurate accounting: do so speedily, do so to save current victims from further harm, and do so to prevent, deter, and help save future criminals from further evil they choose on their own volition. All that is voluntary, none of that enslaves anyone.

"For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury

The truth has lasted for thousands of years, aiding to save everyone, through accurate accountability, despite some serious evil powers, and that is worth knowing, as proven by this recent Bundy family victory: in a war that will always continue, a war with falsehood at least: so learn better from worse, it isn't that hard to do.

Look in the following 3 examples, look deep.

1. Declaration of Independence

2. Common law solemn notice of mixed war

3. Common difference in how peaceful, innocent, people treat prisoners, and how in direct opposition evil people confess their malvolence when dealing with slaves (prisoners).

Help to the needy:

"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

"9.2 - Escalation
Further:
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."
https://www.scribd.com/document/258949166/The-Uniform-Bonding-Code-doc

To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king: The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war — a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their , success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.

That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.

Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Lcrge and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry.
https://books.google.com/books?id=KGRAr04iwxUC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=To+the+officers+and+soldiers+in+the+service+of+the+king+of+Great+Britain,+not+subjects+of+the+said+king:+The+citizens+of+the+United+States+of+America+are+engaged+in+a+just+and+necessary+war+%E2%80%94+a+war+in+which+they+are+not+the+only+persons+interested.+They+contend+for+the+rights+of+human+nature,+and+therefore+merit+the+patronage+and+assistance+of+all+mankind.+Their+,+success+will+secure+a+refuge+from+persecution+and+tyranny+to+those+who+wish+to+pursue+the+dictates+of+their+own+consciences,+and+to+reap+the+fruits+of+their+own+industry.++That+kind+Providence,+who+from+seeming+evil+often+produces+real+good,+in+permitting+us+to+be+involved+in+this+cruel+war,+and+you+to+be+compelled+to+aid+our+enemies+in+their+vain+attempts+to+enslave+us,+doubtless+hath+in+view+to+establish+perfect+freedom+in+the+new+world,+for+those+who+are+borne+down+by+the+oppression+and+tyranny+of+the+old.+Considering,+therefore,+that+you+are+reluctantly+compelled+to+be+instruments+of+avarice+and+ambition,+we+not+only+forgive+the+injuries+which+you+have+been+constrained+to+offer+us,+but+we+hold+out+to+your+acceptance+a+participation+of+the+privileges+of+free+and+independent+states.+Lcrge+and+fertile+tracts+of+country+invite+and+will+amply+reward+your+industry.&source=bl&ots=cl3KC326W6&sig=Et1-NN-YXQB2GyEHdqQR4qkBs4k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs382d7eDeAhUkqlQKHWXRDaIQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=To%20the%20officers%20and%20soldiers%20in%20the%20service%20of%20the%20king%20of%20Great%20Britain%2C%20not%20subjects%20of%20the%20said%20king%3A%20The%20citizens%20of%20the%20United%20States%20of%20America%20are%20engaged%20in%20a%20just%20and%20necessary%20war%20%E2%80%94%20a%20war%20in%20which%20they%20are%20not%20the%20only%20persons%20interested.%20They%20contend%20for%20the%20rights%20of%20human%20nature%2C%20and%20therefore%20merit%20the%20patronage%20and%20assistance%20of%20all%20mankind.%20Their%20%2C%20success%20will%20secure%20a%20refuge%20from%20persecution%20and%20tyranny%20to%20those%20who%20wish%20to%20pursue%20the%20dictates%20of%20their%20own%20consciences%2C%20and%20to%20reap%20the%20fruits%20of%20their%20own%20industry.%20%20That%20kind%20Providence%2C%20who%20from%20seeming%20evil%20often%20produces%20real%20good%2C%20in%20permitting%20us%20to%20be%20involved%20in%20this%20cruel%20war%2C%20and%20you%20to%20be%20compelled%20to%20aid%20our%20enemies%20in%20their%20vain%20attempts%20to%20enslave%20us%2C%20doubtless%20hath%20in%20view%20to%20establish%20perfect%20freedom%20in%20the%20new%20world%2C%20for%20those%20who%20are%20borne%20down%20by%20the%20oppression%20and%20tyranny%20of%20the%20old.%20Considering%2C%20therefore%2C%20that%20you%20are%20reluctantly%20compelled%20to%20be%20instruments%20of%20avarice%20and%20ambition%2C%20we%20not%20only%20forgive%20the%20injuries%20which%20you%20have%20been%20constrained%20to%20offer%20us%2C%20but%20we%20hold%20out%20to%20your%20acceptance%20a%20participation%20of%20the%20privileges%20of%20free%20and%20independent%20states.%20Lcrge%20and%20fertile%20tracts%20of%20country%20invite%20and%20will%20amply%20reward%20your%20industry.&f=false

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 11:22 pm 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