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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Facebook  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2018 05:49 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
It is improper to claim that the Federation is a single Republic, if words are to be employed with one, original, meaning. A Federation can federate any type of human activity, including a Federation of Organized Crime Families.

A Federation of Republics, on the other hand, is a voluntary association for those Republics, and therefore that type of Federation cannot be a Federation of Organized Crime Families.

Federation = voluntary association as in:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

That is a meaning for the word Federation offered in the First Congress of the forming United (Federated) States: where the States are Republics.

Republic = The Public Thing as in:


"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."

That is the meaning of a Republic offered by Thomas Paine in Rights of Man (page 176).

The original Federation was a voluntary association for the mutual defense of the original Republics.

Article III.

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

That is a deal made by Republics, for Republics, which is not a deal (contract) made by individual (sovereign) people, for people. It can be understood that people, in each individual Republic, had to exist in order for an Individual, Independent, Sovereign, State to act on behalf of the people in each Republic (the public thing), but the Federation is a Federation of Republics, and only by inference, or construction, is the Federation turned into, or said to be, a Republic at the same time the Federation is a Federation. Why confuse people with words?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2018 12:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The level of ignorance of each individual concerning what is or is not rule of law is added to the level of ignorance of each other individual which constitutes the absence of the power known as rule of law which then cannot work to deter crime. If criminals are more knowledgeable about rule of law than their victims: rule of law is ineffective. That can be measured anther way. The level of knowledge working in each individual concerning what is or is not rule of law is added to the level of knowledge of each other individual which constitutes the power of rule of law which can then deter crime: potential victims are more knowledgeable about their power to deter crime, and criminals know it, so crime is effectively deterred: crime no longer pays well enough to sustain such an evil vocation.

People, under rule of law, have the power to indict, and try, according to the common laws of free people in liberty, anyone, anywhere, who is reasonably suspected of having injured innocent people.

The criminals take over, as they did in America in 1789, and the criminals enforce a counterfeit version of rule of law, and this counterfeit version of rule of law works to keep all the victims ignorant about the true power of rule of law.

If everyone is working cooperatively at deterring crime before any criminal even dreams of perpetrating a crime, who would call that vigilantism?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jul 30th, 2018 01:24 am
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jim,

I will respond to the answer you offer to my question. To do so I will access quotes, so as not to rely upon my subjective opinion on these mattes. First is a name of one of the Federalist Party members whose claims of authority turned out to be very destructive falsehoods.

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

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy 1st Edition
by William Watkins

The term Republic (according to Thomas Paine), at that time, meant The Public Thing; as in "of, for, and by" the public. We the people are the government. Thomas Paine also explains the misuse of the term democracy, which means almost the same thing as republic, and democracy does not mean "majority rule," as people have been fooled into accepting as the true meaning of the word.

Hamilton is one of the "Federalist" Party members, and that is the one who lied to get into power, and once in power that criminal extorted the American people through that well worn fraud known as central banking.

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

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

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


"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.

"It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practice upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., etc., a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society. It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences."
Thomas Paine, Chapter III, Page 176, Rights of Man

Sorry to say, sorry to know, most so called "patriots" have been sucked into the lies told by criminals since 1789.

Powerless as my words may be, the modern patriot ought to at least consider the words offered by the actual patriots instead of blind belief in the words of the counterfeit "founders."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Aug 5th, 2018 04:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The false narrative is being brought out - once again - from the dark room of willful ignorance and blind obedience, and the false narrative is dragged out from that dungeon into the sunlight of truth concerning facts that matter.

The false narrative is a bold lie that those in power are in power over our salvation, our protection, our property, our lives, our liberty, and our happiness. This lie that the "federal" government exists for our collective protection is here and now naked, a lie. In these summary justice "Admiralty" trials, where normally there is a presumption of guilt previous to any accusation whatsoever, there is now, suddenly, a presumption of innocence after the fact.

If this matter concerning this conspiracy murder of Lavoy Finicum followed the law of the land, our common laws for our collective protection against harm done to innocent people, harm done by guilty criminals, then those representing the government would treat those accused of the crime the same way as every other presumed to be innocent accused individual. There would be no obvious, in your face, double standard: no cause to wonder why there is a double standard.

The accused in this case would not be automatically assumed to be guilty of the worst possible crimes imaginable. The presumed to be guilty in this case would not have an army of armed men assault the presumed to be guilty perpetrator. The assumed to be guilty perpetrator would not be imprisoned after torture, and then the assumed to be guilty perpetrator would not be extorted in the effort to inspire a confession of guilt.

That presumption of guilt by the government is not happening in this case. Why the double standard?

What ought to happen if the government was really in power for our mutual defense?

The people, represented by a Grand Jury, would investigate the matter, independently, which means independent from the government itself, and if the people, through their Grand Jury investigations, where the people command all legal jurisdiction both civil and criminal - if the people - find reasonable suspicion to try the case, to find the truth in that case, then the people themselves initiate a cause of action, the people themselves, not the government, offer the accused a trial by the country, a trial by jury, according to the common law, and the government is in place to facilitate that trial by the country. The people themselves present the accused with their reasonable suspicion so as to offer the presumed to be innocent accused a trial for the benefit of all the people, including the accused.

That was and is the tried and true method of voluntary mutual defense of the people, by the people, and for the people, and it is the process by which fact is discriminated from fiction, and law is discriminated from that which is outside the law: in every case worthy of the cause, as determine by the people themselves, not as dictated - arbitrarily - by anyone claiming to be an agent of the "government."

Clearly this government is not here to help. Clearly this government is here to plunder, enslave, extort, torture, murder, serial murder, and mass murder, and as clearly, in this kangaroo court case, this government is here to let everyone know that this government can do whatever it wants to anyone whenever this government wants to do anything to anyone, anytime, and anywhere. Clearly this government is here to "justify" any conduct done by an agent of this government to anyone.

Clearly the false government is not merely caught murdering someone who dares to point out that the government is guilty of crimes, clearly the government is guilty of counterfeiting a cause of action for a member of the criminal government. One of those who is determined to be innocent after the fact of murder is offered a trial by the same criminal government that ordered the murder in the first place.

If a victim of murder leaves a family behind, and a member of that family accuses someone of that crime of murder, then the lawful process involves a gathering of the people themselves, in a grand jury, to command all jurisdiction both civil and criminal, to investigate the matter, and offer the accused their trial by jury, for the accused, and for the accuser. The accuser, accusing a government agent of murder, would be represented by the people, and so would the accused also be represented by the people, if the law of the land was in force.

The accused is presumed to be innocent of murder.

The accuser is presumed to be innocent of false accusation.

The trial is conducted for the purpose of discovering the truth. The trial is conducted for the purpose of laying before the people the facts that matter in the case, and the people themselves, in their trial juries, determine what is or is not just in that case. The people themselves, not the government, determining if someone is guilty of anything whatsoever.

When agents falsely calling themselves the government presumed guilt before the fact, assault the presumed to be guilty, extort the presumed to be guilty, and enslave, or murder, the presumed to be guilty, then said agents confess their true color: under the color of law.

When the same are then counterfeiting a trial of one of their own, suddenly there is determination of innocence after the fact where the fact that matters in this case is the sudden death of someone surrounded by agents claiming to be the government.

There is hope. Hopefully those who managed to be placed on the jury will be those who can clearly see the facts that matter in this case. Our mutual defense against all criminals, even when the criminals claim to be the government, depends upon individuals who can somehow accurately discriminate fact from obvious, in your face. lies told by people claiming to be the government.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2018 02:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So...new day. The natural mouse trap includes a very complex brain that is capable of very complex choices which are indicated, or referred to, in efforts to communicate with words such as "creativity," which refers to those things that are created with these complex brains that make these complex decisions. That is such a powerful, natural, adaptation that this form of life armed with this powerful adaptation is capable of moving, on its own power of will (so to speak), to other planets.

No choice? As a specie, a collective sum total of choices, we can outlive our own planet, if we choose. No other live form (known to me) can do this on this planet. That is adaptation on the highest level so far possible: at least according to a common, collective, viewpoint, a working viewpoint, if not the most accurate one possible.

If the choice is to just let nature create any abnormality, and allow any abnormality to control every other example of life on this planet, without choosing to defend effectively against such a potential, destructive, natural course, then what good is the complexity of that, adaptive, natural brain? Absent a natural need to defend against those destructive abnormalities, that species, with all it's power to create, creates it's own destruction instead of creating a defense against it's own destruction, along with creating, by choice, the means to outlive planets, and perhaps outliving solar systems.

Nature makes self-destructive, species destructive, examples. So why are they allowed, with out effective defense, to control all the other life forms on a planet, when it is clearly known that failing to defend against that will result in the destruction of all life on that planet. Why would nature allow that, and we are back to my entropy, ectropy, attempts to create a better illusion.

If nature created a power into a life form that allows that power to effectively defend against destructive mutations, and that power can be called, for lack of a better word, morality, then armed with this morality power, these individual examples of living beings, having moral brains, and having creative choices, can choose to nurture that part of the brain, feeding it, and what happens in that individual example of that brain created by nature with that adaptive part of that individual brain? That example smiles, and like a pebble thrown into a still pond, that smile inspires other smiles.

What happens if the choice is to ignore that moral, adaptive, part of the brain, and the choice is to harm other people with whatever works to do so, such as deception, and such as threat of aggressive violence, and such as horrid, torturous, life destroying, aggressive violence visited upon a targeted by someone, who starts out with a moral brain, but someone choosing to ignore it? Deception like that pebble thrown into that pond works like a wave, and then another wave, affecting more and more water, but not on a flat surface, the pond is what we call experience, and what we call history, which is - at least in my way of thinking - the foundation of science.

Violence works the same way, opposite of a smile, altering the pond, creating ever more violence, along with ever more deception, each initial deception, and each initial aggression, inspires moral brains, and brains without morality, to respond in kind: more deception, and more violence. The pond turns red with blood, and the species causes it's own extinction.

The opposite is a natural order chosen by those with the power to do so, as you point out, to figure out what is at work, when, where, how, how much, why, etc., painting that better illusion, building experience, and choosing to accurately discriminate between false versions of history and true versions: science. I think that is why Stephen Pearl Andrews chose the title of his book: The Science of Society.

In history, when, where, and for how long, the worst ever criminals command the most power, to nurture destructive creativity, there is evidence piled very high where millions of life forms suddenly expire unnaturally. What happens, in those times, in those places, to lead, by choice, to that end result? In those times, and in those places, who wrote history? Who is writing history right now? Is it a choice to be born into a time and place when the worst evil people control the most people? Is it a choice to accept history as it is written, or is it a better illusion to test, and retest, any information, such as history, for validity, before accepting it as it is written?

I think that it is very possible that our time here is not the norm for complex life forms. Complex, natural, life forms normally thrive, and normally are peaceful, because that choice, or that path (even if it is not a choice), is the path that leads to high complexity, and that path leads to more power. I think it is false, and worth investigating for validity, that the destructive path is the path that leads to more complexity, and more power. Simply put the false claim that involuntary association, or blind obedience in falsehood without question, or might makes right, or any other claim of authority based upon enforcement of obedience through deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence, or crime, or slavery, is a false claim, it is what I call rule by criminal means, and it is the path toward less complexity, less power, and destruction of life: entropy. I will quote from my copy of The Prince to illustrate the false experience, the false "better illusion," and the false experience that causes otherwise moral, peaceful, powerful, people to destroy each other.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Aug 13th, 2018 09:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Consensus among all evidence is evidence of fact, contradictory evidence is evidence of error in finding fact, and since law is a natural human condition knowable as morality, then science applied to law is only that law which all humans agree on: voluntary association admits of no decenters; descent and you can move on. I think that the ideas known in our time as anarchism (definitions supplied by such people as Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Benjamin Tucker, etc., and not the definition that agrees with involuntary association forced by some upon others: might makes right) are - voluntary association ideas are - a lot older ideas than what we have been led to believe, such as the quote from the Revolutionary Congress concerning the meaning of federation: voluntary association.

This parallel between a process known (by experience and stored in memory) as science and the process known as law is a parallel that agrees with the voluntary association process. Science places disagreement of facts into a set, or category, that requires greater effort to find facts, in that case, while science remains to be the idea that a fact is only a working idea, a working measure, until - almost inevitably - there are contradictions: so science never admits to having a fact "forever," which then places science into the category of adaptability: that stuff that is required for life to survive. Law, as a process, admits to no guilt unless an attempt has been made to ask everyone for a unanimous verdict, which is an adaptation from an earlier error in finding fact of law: dictatorship, despotism, rule by a few upon many, or rule by one over many.

The law as it existed in the work supplied by lysander Spooner is the law that asked everyone to maintain a voluntary association within reason, expediently (hence the term speedy trial), and in that law process someone found guilty was asked to pay the fine. If the fine was not paid, then the disagreement was charged to the one who disagreed. Having disagreed: the one not paying the fine was volunteering to be an out-law. Once outside the law, by a voluntary choice, the outlaw was no longer, by his, or her, choice, protected with the agreed upon, voluntary, process.

Case in point: Someone wades through the local playground eating all the children. All the people agree that this is proof positive that this outlaw is beyond any law agreed upon by moral people, but the process is applied anyway. The baby eater is found guilt by 11 randomly selected individuals, but one happened to be another baby eater. That one juror refused to agree that the baby eater on trial did anything wrong, and the baby eater was set free. The jury set the fine at an amount that baby eater could afford, which was that law of the land when law was moral and voluntary. The baby-eater, acquitted, refused to pay the fine. That put the baby-eater outside the boundaries of moral law, in that case, by his own choice. Then a mob made up of all the parents of the eaten babies descended upon the outlaw, ending the life of the outlaw, as if the outlaw was a mad dog running loose in the playground.

That is a made up story of course. It would not likely be the case that a fellow baby eater would be randomly selected from the population, and it would be more likely that the jury in that case would step into that grey area of morality, and they would agree that the baby eater was no different than a mad dog, a non-moral-human, and a very serious threat to peace, and babies. The jury would skip the formality of a fine, and the jury would find it a fact that the baby eater was a mad dog type being. The jury, representing the population that doesn't eat babies, claims that the baby eater chose to go outside agreeable law when the baby eater ate all those babies. The jury would thereby allow the public at large to determine what will be done with a mad dog that is caught red-mouthed feasting on the blood of the innocent. Hell, in those days who would claim that whoever was at the baby eating scene would be guilty of any crime, if they killed the mad dog right then and there: taking the law into their own hands?

In the latest book I am reading it was custom in early America for people to deputize themselves, and demand other's the same duty, to quickly, without delay, take up arms and go after known criminals in the area. How did we go from we the people are the government, we having hands, therefore we always have the law in our hands - until we don't agree to do so anymore - while we are alive - going from that - to these idiotic , and servile, situations where we claim that only these people giving themselves license, or authority, can know the law, let alone process it?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2018 10:00 am
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The people in the United States (formerly a federation of independent states) are divided so as to be conquered. The divisions are designed to be aggressively violent against one another as demonstrated in the events known as The Civil War.

The means by which that power to divide and conquer is taken from those who divide and conquer are agreements made by the people as a whole (minus the sociopaths, psychopaths, and their minions) to maintain a process by which the sociopaths, psychopaths, and their minions are held to account for their crimes willfully perpetrated upon innocent people: Rule of Law, as in the common law before Britan was taken-over by criminals posing as the government, and as in the common law in America between 1776 and 1789.

Examples include the power known as quo warranto above, along with mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus, and other remedies. When all those remedies are exhausted there is then a notice of mixed war, which is exemplified in the American Declaration of Independence.

Think in terms of equal footing and the concept of the whole people existing as equals under the law, such as equal protection under the law, which means equal access, and fair, impartial, processes, which lead to trial by jury, which is trial by the whole people represented in a randomly selected jury of peers.

In order for the fix to become real, the people have to learn the true power gained in between 1776 and 1789, and the same true power lost in 1789. This idea that only the "elite" are capable of administering justice has to be placed in the proper context, which then places the burden of learning on every individual who is willing and able to volunteer for our mutual defense: the fix.

We always have the power. I use "we" to mean the whole people minus the criminally insane, whereby those criminally insane are always going to lie, cheat, steal, torture, and mass murder their way to the top of a criminal organization that is formed under the color of law, such as that criminal organization formed under the color of law in 1789 in America.

Our power to fix this is, and always has been, a peaceful process by which the criminals, no matter which office they say they command, are held to account accurately.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2018 10:11 am
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law."

https://scannedretina.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/the_peoples_panel_rotated.pdf

That was England where the criminals took over and the criminals enforced top-down (master/slave) fake government upon people who were formerly independent, free, in Liberty, fixed by common law with trial by jury.

The criminals take the common law courts and replace them with summary justice (master/slave) courts, also known as kangaroo courts.

In England, the King (criminal) was said (false claim) to be the only sovereign. In America after the Declaration of Independence, and during the forming of independent states, and the forming of a federation of independent states, the people did away with rule by one individual, and in place of rule by one individual was placed, firmly, rule by all the people on an equal footing, under the common law.

Whereas the King could issue a Writ, such as a Habeas Corpus writ, or Quo Warranto, in Britan, that type of legal demand for justice was assumed by all the people (who knew about it) in America. We all became kings under our forming association for our mutual defense, under our Americanized common law.

That is the fix, at least the peaceful one, and the violent one is just more of the same divide and conquer boom and bust cycle, where the sociopaths gain more power over their subjects.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2018 01:05 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6098
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
OK Tim Sez, well, it ought to be interesting if the idea (the interest) is to defend against criminals running fake governments. As reported in the Essay on The Trial by Jury the people knew (some still know) how to defend against criminals running fake governments, in essence, that means that the people themselves knew how to govern government; and that process was, and still is, the accurate accounting of what was known as the law of the land, or by another name: the common law, with trial by the country, or trial by jury, whereby the people themselves, through their juries, held everyone, including people in the government, to account for any crime done by anyone to anyone else anywhere and any time: leaving no one unprotected: equal protection.

So that is interesting, or knowable, or of importance to someone wanting to know how to fix a known problem whereby criminals create and maintain a fake version of government. The people knew, in England, before Magna Carta, and before King John turned England into an organized crime cabal, perpetrating very serious crimes against humanity, all done under the color of law.

Much like England before the criminals took over in England is America, whereby Americans also figured out, and then employed, common law remedies, to hold the criminal English Government to account, and that is documented in the American Declaration of Independence, along with the documents that record the formation of the original 13 common law states, all formed as republics, and all joined voluntarily into a federation.

Much like England, the American common law governments were also usurped - the same way - and that was explained in the quoted words from that Essay on the Trial by Jury.

"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."

Stupid and servile people will not self-govern, as a matter of demonstrable fact, in every single case where criminals know very well how to exploit stupid and servile people. It isn't rocket science. It is self-evidently true, but only those who care to know will know.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 07:13 am  
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Facebook Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems