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  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
The Mental Militia  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Jul 21st, 2019 03:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
21st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Allow me please to simply drop one little pebble into the smooth surface of the pond of your reflections."

Thank you for your time and effort. To me there is duty, call it a calling, call it a form of work done by a complex brain with a built-in power of law called human conscience, and a huge part of that duty (again to me) is to communicate with other complex life forms in the effort to improve, adapt, survive, and pass on those improvements, pass on those capacities to adapt, to posterity.

If I thought, even for a minute, that no one would ever lend me their brains, in a discussion on vital topics, why would I expend the effort to communicate? A single viewpoint can be compared relatively to many competitive viewpoints, finding where they agree, finding where they disagree, and eventually a more accurate viewpoint is possible for those willing to expend that effort.

Now I contemplate the audacity of the idea of exchanging viewpoints while constrained to the customary measure of a sound bite.

Duty drove by moral conscience, an internal power:

“Mankind was on this planet before any government existed.”

If mankind was built with a complex brain but without the internal government known as moral conscience, then each individual would be out to cut each other’s throat before they suffer the routine throat-cutting themselves. Trial by jury, or the law of the land, was trial by the country, and the process nurtured instead of starving moral conscience.

“The morphing transmutation of the perceived need for group protection against saber-toothed tigers and other natural threats to human life created without design the "Tribe". Tribes congregating in regions created ultimately governments.”

If the true government power did not exist from the beginning there would be no tribe, and there would be nothing to counterfeit, all individuals, including mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, would be at each other’s throats, fathers raping mothers, mothers eating babies, brothers raping sisters, and more baby eating. The true government is an idea that works to help those individuals whose brains lack internal government, to help them see that cutting someone’s throat is going to earn the individual a greater injury than the injury they contemplate upon another. But even those offers of perspective can be misunderstood and turned into a counterfeit copy. I am not speaking about punishment -throat-cutting - set in motion by sociopaths who take-over the collective moral conscience of the tribe, turning the tribe into organized crime under, or not under, the color of law.

I’ll end the sound bite with a hint from the past, and this was written down, but natural law and agreeable man-made law (voluntary mutual defense) had to exist before writing was a thing, these man-made agreements had to exist in times and places sufficient to afford mankind the powers needed to survive well enough to want to survive.

"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." Proverbs 1

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jul 22nd, 2019 02:31 am
  PM Quote Reply
22nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“I agree with you that all edifices of our past be retained as guideposts to our future as intelligent, observant, and well-learned individuals seeking personal responsibility at the individual level as the proper path to freedom, liberty, and self-government.”

What about organized crime? What about organized crime under the color of law?

What warrants action by someone in time and place to act in defense against malicious aggression?

What if the malicious aggressors are constituted by an agreement made by each individual, each individual promises on their honor to aid and abet their fellow malicious aggressors? Each individual constitutes an organized unit of malicious aggressors who put themselves into bondage by that voluntary agreement to aid each other so as to reach the goal of malicious aggression. Is it treason to opt-out of that group once you join it voluntarily?

What if the cost of failing to be maliciously aggressive is to have your individual body turned out of the protection of the maliciously aggressive group, and turned instead into the targeted victim group? Is that treason?

What if the original definition of treason is an errant will applied to an errant act that disturbs the peace of any individual who vows solemnly to avoid that malicious will and avoid that aggressive act, someone who keeps his promise to avoid those malicious thoughts and those harmful acts? So - in that case - the treasonous criminal is the one who willfully, with malice aforethought, aggressively attacks an innocent individual, and in that individual case, that individual attacker disturbs the peace that is founded upon simple concepts such as to do unto others as one would have others do unto one's self. Is that treason instead of the other definition of treason explained previously?

There, then, are two working definitions of treason.

One definition of treason could work for each individual that constitutes a collection of individuals whose will follows the action that is strictly defensive, and the willful offenders are thereby accurately accountable as those guilty of treason by their willful, malicious, aggression.

Everything in that definition is strictly voluntary as each individual can, at will, remain within that lawful conduct, doing only onto others as each individual would have others do to themselves. Those who don’t agree, go outside that law, and those outlaws commit that treason when they specifically, and with malice aforethought, do onto others what they would avoid at all cost having that same thing done to themselves. The outlaws, outside that law, cut each other’s throats because that is what they choose to do regularly.

A few things are voluntary in the other definition such as when the individual chooses to make a victim out of an innocent individual; of course, the victim does not volunteer to be one. That definition of treason is also voluntary when an individual chooses to join that organized group of willful consumers of innocent victims; assuming of course that the volunteer has any idea as to what is being joined. Once an individual joins that group - voluntarily or by extortion - it is treason to unjoin it.

"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." Proverbs 1

“If treason or felony be committed, and one hath just cause of suspicion, this is a good cause, a warrant in law, for any man to arrest the person suspected, but he must shew certainly the cause of his suspicion be just or lawful, shall be determined by the justices in an action of false imprisonment brought by the party grieved, or upon an habeas corpus, &c.”
British Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance
Printed by H.Woodfall and W. Strahan, 1766’’

“Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.”
Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)

I looked into Treason in America by Anton Chaitkin and found these warnings:

{Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman}

“The weakness in this book, and to me it’s a considerable one, is the idolization of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.”

I have read my fill of the works that originate from the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. It is the same basic concepts regurgitated, rationalized, apologized, excused, etc. Am I wrong in that case?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jul 22nd, 2019 04:03 pm
  PM Quote Reply
23rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"If I suggested that book to you, but upon seeing your excuse for not wishing to read the book I have changed my mind and have withdrawn my recommendation that you read it, have I just committed treason?"

If you convict me of going off-topic, then my response is to ask you to write my responses for me, that way I won't go off-topic according to you.

For those who may have been able to grasp the connection between my last comment and this topic, which may be a wild assumption on my part, the connections can be discussed by people who have diverse viewpoints, and the objective of such a discussion is to share those viewpoints so as to reach the possible goal of improving the viewpoints shared.

If each county in each State had Statues in place in each State Park, Statues of King George III, Statues of Oliver Cromwell, just to name a few Loyalists loyal to a specific Oath of Alliance, then, in that hypothetical case all those in America today on the Left, and on the Right, could theoretically join sides to tear down those Statutes, or leave those Statues as their collective will, and their collective actions play out in that opposite case. Thumbs up for keeping those Statues up, thumbs down for tearing down those Statues. Forget about the actual law of the land: who needs it anyway?

There are obvious and not so obvious reasons why Statutes of King George III are not placed in each State Park in America.

Thomas Jefferson
(Un-censored) Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Why censor someone when someone attempts to keep the record straight? I could ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finicum, but they are dead, if they had Statues what would the inscription be: Guilt of the Capital Crime of Speaking the Truth, be warned? Here, here, and here, these are the words that you are authorized to speak, and if you step out of line, well, there are consequences for doing so.

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jul 24th, 2019 01:07 am
  PM Quote Reply
24th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
OK, well no news from my character assassin, so I will move on in the intended direction.

“...this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die....”

Recap:
The quote above is yet another of those very odd messages from one of the so-called “Founders” of both Americas. The name of that so-called “Founder” of both Americas is Thomas Jefferson. The odd quote has to do with Statue (statute) building.

A working definition of a Statue:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Well, that doesn’t agree with the modern version of so-called “Illegal Alien,” does it?

Tear that one down?

Thumbs up
Thumbs down

Who decides any fact at issue according to the law of the land?

Back to Jefferson (off-topic to some, perhaps less so to others):

A fact about Institutionalized Slavery before 1789 is such that only the British demanded an Extortion Payments (taxation without representation) so as to keep their Slave Trade in the Economic Black; rather than the Economic Red. You know: “If we can make the slaves pay for their chains, we are back in business.”

It was not just men enslaved. It was generations of babies unborn, babies allowed to be born, babies before the age of 7, and then people of all configurations after the age of 7 who were, by a Legal Fiction, enslaved by their Human Traffickers, and their creditors, investors, apologists, and sycophants.

So, please know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly who you are choosing by your will power (what remains of it) to share that one bed.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jul 24th, 2019 03:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
25th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Does my request that you stay focused on the topic of this thread strike you as being tyrannical?"

Counterfeit good manners are the opposite of good manners. If someone thinks that someone else is off-topic, an idea is to ask the one that is presumed to be off-topic for a clue, or two, as to what connections are possible between the suspected off-topic information and the topic. Tyrants have a routine that goes like this:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Example 1a:
A Declaration of the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Those are not the words of the off-topic Pike. Those are the words of a Slave Owner with a documented 7 Statues. That is also one of the Slave Owners - unlike George Washington - who tended to treat slaves as employees, or as actual people, who freely wandered onto his land, or was at least invited in at a price, or a cost charged to the invitee. Those words are the words of a Slave Owner who had a documented history of working to free the slaves: do as I say, not as I do.

Example 1b:
Elliot’s Debates: Volume 1
Gradual Approaches Towards Independence
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10, the following proceedings, on the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, are disclosed:
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/

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

"We're all big boys and girls here,..."

My character assassin suggests that I am a child. Is that childish?

"The topic of this thread is in regard to some people wanting to tear down statues which reflect our actual history."

“I brought up the Pike statue piece because I wanted to add a twist to the theme of this thread.”

Another routine that can clue people in as to who is or who is not a tyrant is the routine where the tyrant strictly enforces the do as I say, not as a do rule. Call it setting the stage, or displaying behavior worthy of emulation: counterfeit.

“Wow. I must be going blind.”

That is why it may be a good idea to ask for clarification before going right into attack dog mode. The blind can finally see! Free at last!

I’m all for Statues of famous criminals like Jefferson, or Pike, or George the Third, or even psychopaths like George Washington, or Charles Manson, in Public Places, so long as I am not enslaved so as to pay for them. Those who wander into Public Places, such as Public Forums, can be exposed to all those dynamic actions that routinely occur in Public Places, anyone can wander in unattended, to view Statutes, or learn the history of the people represented by the Statutes, or do the pigeon thing on the Statute, you know: defecation, not deification.

Here in the Mojave Desert, for example, the whole State of New Jersey could be hidden away where no one would ever wander into it. No one has claimed vast portions of this Public Place called the Mojave Desert as their exclusive domain in which anyone happening to wander into it - or invited into it - will have their character ruthlessly attacked by the owner, for the crime of speaking the truth. It just doesn't happen, and a wanderer could wander for years without ever being accosted by some pretentious owner. Yet, someone claiming to own it could conceivably erect a thousand Statutes, and the only ones defecating on them would be what: lizards?

“Yes indeed, and there are reasons why no statues of Donald Trump have been erected on the Moon.”

That political hit is called hyperbole, and it is inserted in place as part of a Man-of-Straw attack on my character; which is done to avoid the actual information offered on this very topic. The only one mentioning Donald Trump is the political hit-man, the pretentious owner of the Public Place, yet the inference is that I am the dummy who goes off-topic with absurd claims that suggest putting Statues on the Moon. That Man-of-Straw, that is supposed to have my name, is an easy imbecile to tear apart with words, once that Man-of-Straw - with my name on it - is constructed out of straw-like thin air; like the purchasing power earned at the “Federal Reserve.” Talk about tyrants!

But that is enough of the off-topic truth-telling, accurately accounting for the aggressor, and his intended target.

A possible on-topic question to ask, and have answered, is: who cares about Statues in Public Places? I don’t, and I certainly would not spend my limited resources on building them up or tearing them down, while statutes, on the other hand, could be useful suggestions offered by reasonable people to other reasonable people, so long as that which is suggested for the goose is also good for the gander. If the goose claims ownership of public places, by hook or by crook, then anything goes as often is demonstrated in fact.

How about a Statue of Barry Soetoro, or the famous one who said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

I trust that I will be clued in.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jul 26th, 2019 04:35 pm
  PM Quote Reply
26th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I don't have all day, so this present effort will dispense with some of the connections, links, references, and sources of offered data. For example, there are 2 opposing processes that have commonly known labels which were made common as people repeat these labels whenever people refer to the 2 opposing processes.

Law

Equity

Law, as in Law of the Land, also known as due process of law, is a process based upon a very simple, eloquent, suggestion known as The Golden Rule. The process called law is a process in which people endeavor to accurately account for the facts that matter in any case of controversy involving any single individual and any other single individual, and of course the process of law also involves any combination of individuals who find themselves in conflict with any other combination of individuals anywhere, anytime, and any place.

As Lysander Spooner points out the concept of law dates back thousands of years, traced originally (perhaps) to Ancient Greece, moving up to Ancient Germany, moving then to Ancient England, and eventually moving, as a concept if not a process, to America.

Again the concept driving the law process is The Golden Rule, and each individual is on an equal, or equitable, footing with each other individual, which is a concept that has many descriptions in words, and symbols, such as the words offered in that famous Declaration of Independence, and that symbol of a blind lady holding a scale. Those who remain on that equitable footing choose to maintain lawful order. Here it is useful to consider the fact that the law is for moral people only, and the law has only one use for immoral people. Moral people, in fact, take the law into their own hands, that is their duty in fact. The only use that immoral people have for the law is to counterfeit it, which is then a very efficient mask for immoral people.

Recap:
The law is for moral people. Moral people maintain the law as individuals. Moral people employ the law to discover, to publish, and to determine the facts, as they exist, in any case where someone is suspected of willfully choosing to break the law. Criminals, as a rule, do not obey the law. Criminals choose to step outside the law, and that choice is what constitutes a crime. Criminals, as a rule, lie. One often told lie, told by criminals, is that they are the only law, and their dictates must be obeyed without question, or else.

Moving on to Equity.

Equity in this context of juxtaposition to Law has an intended meaning that is not commonly understood or employed. The meaning is a mask.

The common meaning for the word equity goes something like this:

“the quality of being fair and impartial”

Or this:

“the value of the shares issued by a company”

Equity - as in Equity Court - in stark contrast to Law has an entirely different, curious, and potentially understandable meaning. Equity Courts are Summary JUSTus Kangaroo Courts. This curious and potentially understandable label (Equity) is clearly a false front or false flag, like cheese in a mousetrap.

Out goes The Golden Rule-based process of individual people endeavoring to keep the record straight, with the process known as the law, on an equal footing with everyone else, and in place of Law is this counterfeit version of law called Equity.

That is offered here and now as a bread crumb along the way for those who may want to know the details, the facts, that help explain what Lysander Spooner offers in the following quote:

"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.”

In the process of Law, the whole body of people are duty-bound to represent the whole body of people as they work on grand and trial juries to ensure that facts are discovered, published, and those facts are placed before a trial jury so that the whole country (the whole body of people) are thereby represented as The Decider.

In the counterfeit law process known as Equity, there are profit-seeking monopolists taking the power from the people, and using that power of cognizance, discovery, judgment, and right, and turning that power against the whole body of people. This is clearly so, and those who are unaware of it, and those who faint (if they dare to do so) argument against these clear facts, prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts in the case. The power to discover the facts, once taken from the people as a whole, and once commanded by the profit-seeking monopolists, ensure that the people as a whole remain ignorant. That explains why you are ignorant about these facts. Take it, it is yours.

If by chance someone, somewhere, is ready to argue that these facts now presented are in any way in error, then be my guest, please. Every shovel dug into this pile of crap will dig the hole deeper, and that is why no one will endeavor to argue in favor of so-called Equity.

Equity comes from Exchequer. Equity is similar to Maritime, Admiralty, Family, or other labels placed upon the same Summary JUSTus System of plunder.

It has taken some time to discover and assemble the information that shows these facts to be facts, and my work is far from done, so have at it, and again: please do so.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Jul 27th, 2019 06:09 pm
  PM Quote Reply
27th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Diverting to another topic:
"Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?"
https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?board=17.0

Jeffrey Epstein could be effectively protected if the law power was in power in America, but it is not, and that same question works for everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Could ___fill-in-the-blank___ being "suicided," be prevented?

Put the name John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, and any name of anyone, anywhere, anytime in the crosshairs of those who wish to "suicide" someone, and what are the obvious answers for every one of them?

People are not protected in so-called "custody." The criminals run the law power. The people themselves run the law power when the law power is genuine. Solid proof of the fact that the criminals run the law power is abundant since so many people confess by their actions, and their words, that they are ignorant of this very fact: the people themselves run the law power: not the government.

If someone innocent (or guilty) is brought before the criminal versions of JUSTus, they are routinely consumed for profit, because that is how criminal versions of JUSTus work in actual reality. Criminal versions of JUSTus are working monopolies that cause the flow of power to begin flowing from a victim group - each victim in turn from birth to death - to a criminal group, and that flow of power is meticulously documented - unarguably - as a matter of fact.

Putting on a fantasy hat that wrongfully presumes that the powers-that-be (criminal), are in any way just, and in any way capable of following the law of the land: What would happen to secure the blessings of liberty for this Jeffrey Epstein (or any) alleged criminal?

The (or any) accusation of wrongdoing is passed from the accuser to someone who can then assemble an independent grand jury. If the grand jury is, in fact, independent, then the grand jurors command all jurisdiction civil and criminal in this case. They can, therefore, subpoena witnesses, including the original accuser. The grand jurors, or someone more familiar with the actual law power, can inform these accusers that they voluntarily place their liberty, life, property, and reputation on the line as an official - not kidding, and no fingers crossed - witness to a criminal act perpetrated by a named perpetrator. Lying is fraud, fraud while serving as a witness is perjury. Accusers are subject to obvious and demonstrable counterclaims of False Accusation; what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the grand jurors find no cause (no probable cause to begin exerting the law power) they can place the accusation in the round file, and inform the witness that they have no cause to prosecute the case, but those grand jurors could inform the witnesses in the case of possible methods that the witnesses could employ in the future to ensure that probable cause is, in fact, established. The grand jurors can thereby excuse those nebulous witnesses and the grand jurors could, on their own authority, pursue the case as they see fit, if they see probable cause other than the nebulous witness testimony.

Here is where the laugh test ought to be employed. If witness after witness brings at least 10 tortured bodies to the “Grand Jury,” along with videotaped evidence recorded by the “accused” showing how those tortured bodies were tortured by the “accused,” and one of the “Grand Jurors” is the accused, then that would not be - laughably not be - an independent Grand Jury to some. To other people, I suppose, anything goes.

Since the case in question involves sufficient evidence to have already caused a Kangaroo court trial involving alleged multiple victims, and the alleged perpetrator has already placed on record a plea deal (which could have been extorted), it is likely that this case would breeze through the independent grand jury phase of a real trial according to the real law, and the presentment from a real grand jury would officially place on record the reasons why the cause moves into action mode: a jury trial by the country, according to the law of the land, which is the common law: not Equity, not Maritime, not Admiralty, not Family, not Military, or any other Summary Justice System of Plunder other than the law of the land, which is the common law.

Note: The actual common law has been counterfeited in England, and that is well documented. The actual common law involves a trial by the people, not a trial by the so-called legal fiction sovereign fake being, or fake government with a black-robed devil worshiper swinging absolute JUSTus and a little hammer.

So, there are the particulars concerning how the accused, who is free to protect himself as best he can, leading up to an offer by the people, who are represented in this case by the grand jurors, for the accused to clear his name, liberty, property, and reputation in open, public, trial by the country, with the help of the government if the government is actually a government. If the government is just another despotic criminal organization operating under a very thin color of law, then anything goes, just ask them, obey them, and don’t question their dictates or else.

If the accused refuses to appear in a trial by the country, then by the actions of the accused - confession by action - the accused willfully chooses to become an outlaw in fact. If the accused is in danger, likely to be assaulted for merely appearing in front of armed bandits (with or without badges), then clearly that alone can excuse someone from attending a dangerous situation which threatens their life, liberty, property, security, health, well-being, independence, freedom, etc.

If you go around doing onto other people that which you would fight tooth and nail to prevent having the same done to you, then it is unreasonable to expect peace in your lifetime. The real law is natural law, you get what you pay for, even if it was falsely advertised.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jul 30th, 2019 03:05 am
  PM Quote Reply
28th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Back to Voluntary Mutual Defense

Colonial Courts and Secured Credit:
Early American Commercial
Litigation and Shays' Rebellion
Claire Priest
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2298&context=fss_papers

"Yet, while the debt-recording interpretation of colonial courts is the dominant explanation of default judgments in current colonial law scholarship, other evidence characterizes the operations of the colonial court system in a dramatically different way. In 1786 and 1787, shortly after the Revolution, Shays' Rebellion constituted a widespread attack on the structure of the colonial court system, culminating in the violent takeover and closing of many county courts in western Massachusetts and throughout New England. The Shaysites (who referred to themselves as "Regulators") raised an armed revolt against the colonial court system.
They condemned its injurious costliness, its fee structure which, they claimed, enabled judges, witnesses, and sheriffs to profit at the expense of litigants, and its cooptation by lawyers."

That is a figurative Gold mine.

As was clearly the case in England previous to a deal made between Barrons and a Despotic King, to document Law in the form of a Constitution known as Magna Carta, the people did JUST fine with something called legem terrae, which was (and is) the law of the land, which was also coined the common law genuine, not counterfeit.

As it was clearly the case in England those who practiced the dark arts of criminal behavior (deception, threat, and violence upon the innocent, so as to consume the innocent) moved incrementally to counterfeit the common law so as to gain power over the targeted population, and that is clearly shown as so-called "Equity," took market share from the common law process.

Now, as this information (I just found) shows so far, the move in America was in principle the same move. The Americans had escaped the criminals (under the color of law) in England (and diverse other places in Europe) to regain individual responsibility, individual accountability, or in a word: sovereignty (of the individual), as opposed to "collective" sovereignty deceptively transferred (against the knowledge, or will, of actual people) from individuals to a Legal Fiction, or State, or "government."

In both cases, the people policed themselves, as individuals do in nature, albeit with standardized common law processes, involving representatives chosen to positions known as Sherriffs, Justices of the Peace (pool for grand jurors in some cases), Grand Jurors, and Trial Jurors (Petty Jurors). The people themselves were prosecutors or defendants, not so-called "lawyers or attorneys" who (as far as my study goes so far) work for a "legal fiction," and assume (extort) immunity from persecution (not prosecution according to the common law), as is their accurate accountability turned on them like shinning the truth. They, meaning criminals posing as representatives of a fictional character (legal fiction), persecute, and they impose Summary JUSTus, as positions in their criminal gangs known as Equity, Exchequer, Maritime, Admiralty, Family, Nisi Prius, and various other false fronts before the false word Court Judges, dictate their (false) Law upon targeted victims who are not paying members of their group.

How is it known who is in, and who is out of, their group? Why is that at all difficult to account for with precision? If the people try a case of Treason, what is a likely form of restitution offered by the people, through their representatives in a trial by the country, to the ones found guilty of treason? If you don't know then it might be a good idea to find out.

Those in the so-called legal fiction group, which are those in what I call the criminal organization that operates under the color of law, typically torture and murder anyone who dares to leave, or "rat on," their fellow partners in crime: under the color of law.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Aug 1st, 2019 01:41 am
  PM Quote Reply
29th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more."

I can posit, of course at risk of obvious consequences.

My posited notion concerning the quote above is what I will call the Ostridge syndrome. Unwanted information inspires the Ostridge to not only stick the sensory mechanism into darkness, said Ostridge leaves a warning sign to any similarly constituted Ostridges: stick head in the sand now.

I've been on forums for over 30 years now, and it isn't so much that the general population cannot be all satisfied with the information offered by so many varied perspectives, rather the routine is such that the so-called moderators claim to fill the demand for those fact-based, or potentially fact-based perspectives, while those same so-called moderators are the first to stick their heads in the sand, and insist upon the righteousness of doing so.

The hideousness of worldwide consumption of posterity is hardly more evident in what has now become "human trafficking." Children, extracted from mothers prior to birth, in pieces, well I didn't want that in my head anymore. Children (posterity) brainwashed as slaves from birth to death, nope, don't want that in my head anymore. Children kidnapped and sold for body parts, again not something I want in my head anymore. Children forced into poverty, by obvious, less obvious, and very well hidden mechanisms, and sold into what? Is it righteously called Satanism? I don't want that anywhere near my head anymore. One of the moments that this fake “legalized” consuming of posterity became current events in my head was an obscure (censored) documentary titled The Conspiracy of Silence; an apt title.

I don’t want that in my head anymore.

I'll save the Ostridge gang the trouble of allowing such unwanted information to pierce their sterilized, secure, environment, and for those constituted with some vague duty to know the truth, and provide for it, those exceptions to the rule (non-ostridges) can find the title of the documentary if they so choose.

I suppose that this is again off-topic, daring to move the topic from Jeffery Epstein, and moving the topic to someone named Steve, as Steve offers some names of people who are known associates of Jeffery Epstein, such as:

“Court papers put daughter of Robert Maxwell at centre of ‘sex slave’ claims” That is a title of a “News” Article, with a reference to a Kangaroo Court Case in the Plantation known as Florida.

Of course, that may be as poor a choice for information as is listening to a fictional character named Jack Ryan, but there are so-called (kangaroo) Court documents, for whatever that may be worth to any current or future ostridge.

Everyone is lying or sticking their heads in the sand?

You tell me, please.

In law (a verb) a suspected perpetrator is offered a trial by jury, which is a trial by the country, and 12 randomly selected people who represent the whole country to determine fact, law, guilt or innocence, remedy, restitution, or punishment, attempt to get all the facts in the case, it is their duty in fact.

In a world run by criminals, the plebes know when to stick their heads in the sand.

"Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Aug 1st, 2019 07:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
30th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"To imply that Bill St. Clair is refusing to acknowledge reality,..."

Did I imply (strongly suggest something), or did someone other than me infer something? Why not just ask? Dictatorial people tend to put words in other people's mouths as if the dictator has a sock puppet. The concept of dictation is one-way communication. The shoe does not fit me. My point had to do more with the process known as gatekeeping.

"...not chasing down every iota of evil is..."

That is called hyperbole, added to a false claim of implication concerning an inference. Why is attack mode the default mode? Why not simply ask? That shoe does not fit me either.

"... smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician..."

That is potentially libelous, but certainly not in that form. Someone is waving an indiscriminate finger at an unspecified evil. Who is an evil politician according to the one making that claim? Who fits that shoe?

"Not wanting to smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician, is NOT the same as being "unaware"."

Who said that the one thing claimed is not the other thing claimed? I did not. This is the Man-of-Straw process. It is routine. The creator of the Man-of Straw puts a fallacious process of thought out into the data stream. Who fits that shoe? I do not. I don't know anyone who fits that shoe. Perhaps the one who created that shoe has in mind someone to fit that shoe on; Cinderella?

A sign was placed in the path of information as such: "I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more."

Does the gatekeeper shoe fit on the author of those two sentences, in the context of this topic?

It looked to me like someone was warning other people about information that they have judged to be unworthy of credit. I can be mistaken. Some people will read that warning sign, read it as a warning, such as keep out, and those people may take that advice. The information does not flow to those people, because they obey the warning sign, that gate is thereby closed by that gatekeeper. Other people may read that sign and be inspired with greater curiosity. The obvious intent (at least as far as my ability to infer such a thing as motive) is discredit aimed at someone or anyone who might credit the information that exists on the other side of that closed gate.

"I believe you have done him a great disservice by your erroneous implication..."

You have inferred something about what you read. I can tell you as many times, in as many words, as possible, to let you know that your inference as to my intended implication is incorrect, at least as far as I am able to find the intended meanings of your words. In your mind, as far as I can tell, you have determined, on your own authority, what my intention “is”, and you have formed a belief concerning your ability to find the intended meaning of my words. Is your trust in your belief accurate or something else? Do you understand the difference between an inference (in your control) and an implication (something I am in control of while I write)?

"...not that he probably cares about your uppity superiority..."

That is called an ad-hominem attack.

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

You do not know me, you have no idea (very likely false ideas based upon your resort to ad-hominem attacks) what is, or is not, my character flaws, of which there are many, and all that is beside the point: off-topic.

"...nor would most of the thousands of people who have read and followed his postings and quest to promote freedom over the years."

If it acts like a gatekeeper, then perhaps it is a gatekeeper. How would one know without asking?

Is it an example of gatekeeping?

Was there already a Court Case in Florida involving the daughter of Robert Maxwell? Is that on-topic? Who might be targetting Jeffrey Epstein? Who might have a clue as to what might be possible if the idea was to prevent a false suicide, which would be an assassination, of Jeffrey Epstein? If someone, or a lot of people, ignore the information from sources like Steve Pieczenik, why - what is the motive - in doing so?

What is the stated motive?

"Bill, THANK YOU for sharing your few minutes of watching that crap, so I did not have to. I join you in not wanting that stuff in my head."

If there is an actual trial, a trial by the people themselves, not a trial by the fake government, then is it possible that the flow of innocent lives flowing into a figurative meat grinder will abate? If the bird is dead, it don't sing; that gate is closed too.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Aug 2nd, 2019 10:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
31st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Posit:
"assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument."

Assuming something, or presuming something, is akin to a hypothesis, which is an idea, which is not a belief, not a conclusion, not a determination, not a judgment, rather it is a "basis" from which to discuss a specific topic from a specified (assumed) point of view. See also rhetoric; as in a rhetorical question.

rhetorical question:
"a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer."

I prefer not to use the word argument, and I prefer to employ the process known as discussion. To me, a discussion is a voluntary effort in which many participants offer their limited viewpoints in the effort to construct an improved viewpoint that is made up of many diverse viewpoints, on a specified topic. The concept of "argument" tends to illicit a winner take all battle of viewpoints, and typically anything goes, as the saying suggests: All is fair in love and war (war with words).

"If I, in my ignorance of language, misinterpreted your statement, then I apologize."

I also apologize for my many character flaws that are painfully obvious to almost everyone save for myself. I can't seem to say anything without either being too wordy, too brief, insulting, boasting, meek, combative, confusing, boring, nonsensical, you name it, I'm guilty.

The topic is if anything a topic about gatekeeping. If the bird can be disappeared, it won't sing anymore. If, on the other hand, the song being sung can be employed factually, so as to account for specific actions done to innocent people by specific guilty people, then those on deck to do the same evil things may think twice out of concern for suffering the same focus of attention in their evil ways.

Nicomachean Ethics
By Aristotle
Written 350 B.C.E
"Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

"Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Aug 6th, 2019 05:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
32nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Recap:

Voluntary Mutual Defense is a description (in three words) of a process by which people create and maintain something people have also called the law of the land, and/or the government.

Here is where idea turns into action. If the idea behind the action is along the lines of “live and let live” (Golden Rule), then the idea is to create and maintain voluntary association, freedom, liberty, or whatever word, in whatever language, means the same thing. The idea is to find out (discover) those forces that tend to destroy voluntary association and do so accurately. That idea then leads to action.

If, on the other hand, the idea is to consume other people as if other people were consumables, like air, food, water, and other power providing generators, then the actions following that idea are opposed to the previous idea. One idea driving action inspires the other idea to act, as in the term cause of action. If there were no people born with this idea to consume other people, ever, then there would never be an opposing idea to discover that destructive idea where and when it is manifested. Words like “follow the money” would be absent from the records of human history if there were never any individual humans born with this idea to consume other people.

The cause (idea) to act in a manner that destroys natural peace, harmony, freedom, liberty, adaptability, creativity, productivity, etc., is precisely recorded with the word crime, and once crime follows from the idea phase into the action phase there are then people who are precisely recorded with the word victim. If no one ever wants to know about crime, placing their heads in the sand, then the first criminal creates the first victim, and that idea (cause) followed by that action (crime) inspires at least two obvious possible consequences, which follow the natural law knowalbe as the law of consequences.

The first obvious consequence following natural laws is that the first crime rewards the first criminal as the first crime is costless, having no negative consequences charged to the first criminal, which then inspires the criminal to repeat the crime, so as to continue following that chosen path, leaving more victims as the next undefended victim is consumed. The rate of new victims can expand exponentially as the criminal discovers improved methods of consuming other people.

The next obvious consequence following natural laws is such that victims may be turned from the “live and let live” idea to the “consume other people” idea for many reasons including the simple transfer of the criminal idea that may have been foreign to the victim before the crime, but after the crime the victim is then aware of that criminal idea: crime pays the criminal something valuable, something that cost the victim something valuable. There is a possibility that this criminal idea can spread like a communicable disease, a plague. People infected with the new idea may be inspired to abandon the old idea. Gone in that individual then is strict adherence to actions that avoid personal gains that are costs born by other people. That natural order in which higher-quality life marches along in liberty, one innovative step at a time, adapting to changes in nature, is incrementally destroyed as that former victim turns to crime, as the new criminal removes more people (victims) from the pool of contributors - as that happens unnaturally - victims may also turn to crime: a potential exponential growth rate from ubiquitous liberty to ubiquitous despotism. The one Hitler, Stalin, or Rosevelt wannabe takes out another potential Aristotle, Michelangelo, Nicola Tesla, Josiah Warren, or any of the many contributors to advanced, high quality, low cost, human life. The infamous criminals set the standard, and no one will ever know the true cost of their actions caused by their idea, an idea that all criminals share: consume other people. No one can know the true cost because consumed people never get the chance to shine.

I don’t know if this forum is the right place to offer these words, evidence suggests otherwise. However, as with the unknown cost of precisely what has been destroyed by criminals, it is also unknown if this information will reach someone and help them. This information may help someone realize that the government they were taught is false. Someone reading this information may find the real government power described here. This forum may last a thousand years for all I know. In some future situation, someone may have access to an efficient search engine - a connection to all the records placed in digital form - and something someone wrote, not necessarily my own words, perhaps something I quote here, or elsewhere, and the message intended may transfer to the individual seeking that message. There is hope for those who look for it.

Example:
“As to “process of attachment for contempt,” it is of course lawful for a judge, in his character of a peace officer, to issue a warrant for the arrest of a man guilty of contempt, as he would for the arrest of any other offender, and hold him to bail, (or, in default of bail, commit him to prison,) to answer for his offense before a jury. Or he may order him into custody without a warrant when the offence is committed in the judge’s presence. But there is no reason why a judge should have the power of punishing for contempt, any more than for any other offence. And it is one of the most dangerous powers a judge can have, because it gives him absolute authority in a court of justice, and enables him to tyrannize as he pleases over parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors. If a judge have power to punish for contempt, and to determine for himself what is a contempt, the whole administration of justice (or injustice, if he choose to make it so) is in his hands. And all the rights of jurors, witnesses, counsel, and parties, are held subject to his pleasure, and can be exercised only agreeably to his will. He can of course control the entire proceedings in, and consequently the decision of, every cause, by restraining and punishing every one, whether party, counsel, witness, or juror, who presumed to offer anything contrary to his pleasure.

“This arbitrary power, which has been usurped and exercised by judges to punish for contempt, has undoubtedly had much to do in subduing counsel into these servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits, which so universally prevail among them, and which have not only cost so many clients their rights, but have also cost the people so many of their liberties.
If any summary punishment for contempt be ever necessary, (as it probably is not,) beyond exclusion for the time being from the court-room, (which should be done, not as a punishment, but for self-protection, and the preservation of order,) the judgment for it should be given by the jury, (where the trial is before a jury,) and not by the court, for the jury, and no the court, are really the judges. For the same reason, exclusion from the court-room should be ordered only by the jury, in cases when the trial is before a jury, because they, being the real judges and triers of the cause, are entitled, if anybody, to the control of the court-room. In appeal courts, where no juries sit, it may be necessary - not as punishment, but for self-protection, and the maintenance of order - that the court should exercise the power of excluding a person, for the time being, from the court-room; but there is no reason why they should proceed to sentence him as a criminal, without his being tried by a jury.

“If the people wish to have their rights respected and protected in courts of justice, it is manifestly of the last importance that they jealously guard he liberty of parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors, against all arbitrary power on the part of the court.”
Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

Summary punishment? Servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits? Does that compute?

I do not expect 1 in perhaps a billion people on this planet today to read through the books I am reading through with a mind to know better from worse, but that above ought to ring some bells in some minds that are less than obedient when it comes to ubiquitous falsehoods that aid and abet the current criminal regimes posing as the governments.

The people are either in power as one to judge the government as a service to the people, or there will be criminals posing as the governments. That is a dynamic process where opposing ideas lead to opposing actions: original offense and cause for defense.

When the people are the government, in Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, generally those people, through their representatives in common law juries, act: the people caused to act in defense will arrest, try, and attempt to redeem, restore, or punish only those who are the worst, first. Why would reasonable people sweep the bottom step first?

And if there be punishment, it will not be torture. That is a clear - in your face with a waterboard - clue as to when the governments became criminal organizations or profitable monopolies.

Example:
“Judging, therefore, from the special provisions in Magna Carta, requiring fines, or amercements, to be imposed only by juries, (without mentioning any other punishments; ) judging; also, from the statutes which immediately followed Magna Carta, it is probable that the Saxon custom of punishing all, or nearly all, offences by fines, (with the alternative to the criminal of being imprisoned, banished, or outlawed, and exposed to private vengeance, in case of non-payment,) continued until the time of Magna Carta; and that in providing expressly that fines should be fixed by the juries, Magna Carta provided for nearly or quite all the punishments that were expected to be inflicted; that if there were to be any others, they were to be fixed by the juries; and consequently that nothing was left to be fixed by “legem terrae.”
Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

People merely want to live and let live, criminals want to enslave, torture if necessary, and when criminals take-over governments, the RULE is that the worst end up on top, and the worst are known to do unspeakable things to the weakest, innocent, among us.

Example:
"The same pattern of grand jury independence crossed the Atlantic to the colonies. Indeed, since the colonies lacked an efficient constabulary, colonial grand juries exercised greater independence than their English counterparts. American grand juries had a penchant for presenting government officials. These presentments could be for crimes or noncriminal violations of the public trust. The latter type of accusation would now, and sometimes then, be called a report. Colonies that lacked a representative legislature often turned to grand juries as a substitute; grand juries regulated areas higher officials did not address. As tensions between the colonies and the mother country grew, grand juries played an increasingly prominent role. They not only refused to indict, but also issued angry and well-publicized presentments and indictments against British officials and soldiers. Because of its boldness and independence in both defending and accusing, the grand jury emerged from the Revolution with enhanced prestige."
Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments, Renée B. Lettow, 1994

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Aug 7th, 2019 07:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
33rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"If that's ostrich syndrome, then I own it, proudly."

The shoe was not meant to fit anyone that does not fit into the shoe, and I hope that these are not too many words, or too few.

Discussion is the real law power, as for example investigatory jurors deliberate in the effort to share viewpoints as to the right or wrong of ignoring false or trivial accusations, and the right or wrong of presenting legitimate accused individuals with a trial date, so as to offer the accused their equal footing of real law power. Similarly trial jurors deliberately deliberate in the effort to constitute a true representation of the whole country of people in the location where an accuser has accused an accused individual of something worthy of unleashing the whole country into action in the effort to remedy a conflict.

Someone creating a pond, on their own authority, on their own land, to then provide water in case of fire that endangers life in the area, is not a terrorist in my view. I am one of those who constitute the whole country of people in the location where I locate. Someone kidnapping babies, or children, or young adults, or adults, or middle-aged people, or old people, and using those enslaved people for amusement or profit is a serial perpetrator of treasonous, heinous, capital, felonies. I would most certainly put my 2 cents into a presentment that moves a Jeffery Epstein from freeholder at liberty to accused, presumed to be innocent, defendant stating his case before the whole country represented in a trial jury in a trial by the country, if I were afforded the opportunity to do so by my fellow Americans. I would do that in the location where I locate because the accused is accused by someone in my location for having perpetrated the accused crimes in my location, according to what remains of the common law in my location.

If we the people have been corralled, cajoled, enticed, or otherwise controlled into becoming a single Nation State, then we are one country now, not many independent localities formed into independent individuals, families, towns, cities, counties, Nation States (example: Rhode Island), and all those independent, sovereign, entities, voluntarily formed into a Federation for our mutual defense of our lives, liberties, property, and our common law.

If, on the other hand, we the people afford each other as much law power as we voluntarily take upon our own authority, then we ought to learn from history and mind our own business in our own jurisdictions that extend roughly as far as we can afford to relocate when duty or necessity requires.

An assembly of the most discrete and honest among us in that area we all can afford to police on our own authority constitutes a grand jury in fact, not in fiction. Imagine a counter virus that works like a cure for the cancer of malfeasance in office and in each sovereign (independent) individual law power, those counter virus empowered people work effectively to discover, find, locate, become aware of, and inspire those who are most discrete and honest, and all of these counter viruses actually form those historic, ancient, cures for the cancer of malfeasance in office, those grand juries in those localities in every area where the common law has always been, and will always be, in power, if we decide to access it.

What would a presentment look like concerning anyone in any office anywhere in each town, city, county, State, or Federation of States? Which one would be good enough? Which presentment would constitute the cause to act in defense of all those slaves yet to be born, all those slaves just born, all those slaves yet to learn how to speak, and all those slaves yet to be shown either lawful behavior or the opposite?

If the shoe doesn’t fit then you don’t wear the shoe.

"Responsibility must be individual, or there is no responsibility at all."
Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, 1852

If you decided to volunteer to be a grand juror, and you were faced with a go or no go decision to place Jeffery Epstein (or anyone similar in your location) before a trial by the country (trial by jury) to state his case, would you help document a legible presentment, and if so what message would you place into a court of record in that, or a similar, case?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Aug 7th, 2019 09:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
34th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Don't be disappointed by a lack of reaction, as most forum members realized years ago that "government" was the problem, so basically, "you are preaching to the choir"."

I think that it is important to point out - in the most efficient way possible - that every time people volunteer to create and maintain a working defense against destructive aggression those people use words to label their efforts, and every time those same words are soon counterfeited.

In other words, the sheep figure out an efficient (low cost, high quality) way to defend against wolves, and then wolves figure out how to disguise themselves as sheep.

So...someone may read your words and see that "government" is written with quotation marks. Someone else may disregard the quotation marks and they might read a message that they interpret as a warning that says all government is bad, and therefore there is no such thing as good government. The sign says: The enemy of all good things is the government.

The message may be interpreted in such a way as to make people believe that there never was, nor will there ever be, anything, anywhere, that can serve all the people in such a way as to provide to all the people who want it, a means by which the lowest cost, and highest quality, defense against harmful aggression can be constructed and maintained by those people who want it.

I’ve met people who believe that message. They tend to call themselves anarchists. I did some homework on that too.

Proudhon and his Translator
The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews

"Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it."

At a time when Andrew Jackson has pulled the plug on the National Central Banking fraud, there was a rejuvenating free-market spirit generally, taking on forms such as Wild Cat Banking, not without the un-free, despotic, and criminal influences of course. In that time-period were people who began writing and producing free-market stuff, such as the words of Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, and Stephen Pearl Andrews quoted above, and these people are claimed to be Anarchists. Josiah Warren, for example, is still claimed to be The First American Anarchist, but the actual man rejected, in writing, such labeling.

This may be a good time to ask a valid question.

Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of government that is strictly voluntary, and a form of government that is adaptive, competitive, free-market, anarchistic, and works to move people toward higher quality and lower cost defense of all free people against all enemies of free people?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Aug 8th, 2019 06:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
35th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Such a government would hardly be a government."

I read that as; "Such a non-government would hardly be a government." or "Such a government would hardly be describable with the term government."

A famous, apt, quote is: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

If the word government means Involuntary Association, then that meaning is the same as the meaning of the term Subsidized Slavery, and then that meaning is the same meaning as Profitable Monopoly Under the Color of Law.

Why would people seeking to govern feel the need to falsify their intended motives and their intended actions if the intended subjects of their form of government knew in advance those intended motives and those intended actions of those people intending to govern in the way they intend to govern?

Example:

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

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

Hamilton and his gang included Robert Morris who was another so-called Central Banker, which is another term that is constructed so as to put the sheep costume on the true motives and the true actions of the Central Banking Frauds.

Hamilton and his gang were not Patriots, not Democrats, not Republicans, not Central Bankers, not Governors, not Law Abiding Citizens, not Free Traders, not the type of people who could be trusted with any power at all, let alone arbitrary, absolute, dictatorial, tyrannical, criminal, power hidden behind a thin veil of easily exposed false words.

“Get the total tax rate, local + state + federal, down to 3%, and the difference wouldn't matter much to me, as long as it was impossible to ever raise it, and an affirmative defense for homicide of anyone who proposed, voted for, or enforced such an increase. Of course, we'd also need real constitutional money, gold and silver coin, and nothing else, except paper and electronic vault receipts that were exchangeable for PMs. Otherwise, the inflation tax could get around the tax cap. And no government borrowing except via bonds sold to the public, at buyer's sole risk.”

An apt quote from Benjamin Tucker (1854 to 1939) fits right here and now:
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.

"It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.

"If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.

"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.

"Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.”
Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism:
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)

So-called Central Bank Notes are counterfeit forms of money. Someone seeks an equitable exchange with someone else, but the other free trader is a fraud intending to perpetrate a crime upon a victim. That is simple like simple addition.

What is not simple is the means by which people can help other people see the more complex math problems such as:

"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.”

Someone meets a so-called Liberal Democrat today, and the motive behind the imaginary someone meeting the Liberal Democrat today is to help the so-called Liberal Democrat find a way to increase the general labor price exchanged between employers with capital stored as money and employees with capital stored as labor. The Liberal Democrat is trained to be an idiot. The Liberal Democrat is trained to be a member of a cult, a subject of ubiquitous falsehoods, and as such, the Liberal Democrat - more accurately knowable as a Marxist Communist - is trained like a Pavlovian Dog to salivate when a bell is rung. Like a trigger the bell ringing causes the well-trained idiot to respond with aggression. But for now, in a discussion on vital topics, I am creating a Straw-Man Liberal Democrat that has command of the power of will; an individual responsibility.

Rather than stupidly and servilely obeying the dictates of your masters, consider the possibility that once those masters no longer convince their victims of the absolute necessity to pay them for fake protection, those former masters can no longer dictate who is allowed to start a new business.

So the Liberal Democrat made of Straw responds with a spark of curiosity. The curious one asks for particulars.

Once the market is flooded with a glut of employers those employers will then run into a curious problem. Those many employers will be spending their capital stored as money to accomplish the goal of discovering, targeting, and marketing their higher quality and lower cost jobs, so as to then get those few employees before someone else will.

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.

"When this body moves, all the little barkings of scribbling and witless curs pass for nothing. To say to this independent description of men, "You must turn out such and such persons at the next election, for they have taken off a great many taxes, and lessened the expenses of government, they have dismissed my son, or my brother, or myself, from a lucrative office, in which there was nothing to do"-is to show the cloven foot of faction, and preach the language of ill-disguised mortification.

"In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness."

So the Liberal Democrat made of Straw (by me) may scratch their head when the math problem moves from simple math to something like basic algebra, or not, depending upon how much the Liberal Democrat has been clubbed with the club labeled government. It is a club. It is a club with a label on it. George Carlin joked about The Big Club, and that is worth something.

"Such a government would hardly be a government."

If it is a Big Club, why call it something other than a Big Club?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Aug 9th, 2019 02:10 am
  PM Quote Reply
36th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"Verbosity can dull the argument, if not the spirit."

The topic is Voluntary Mutual Defense. The topic isn't how well, or how poorly, the messages are offered. If, on the other hand, the topic is much less worthy of discussion compared to the alternative subject, then I am all for discussing the most efficient ways a message can be constructed. Have you read the following?

1. Equitable Commerce or True Civilization by Josiah Warren

Or

2. The Disadvantages of Being Educated by Albert J Nock

I offer that as a means to standardize how I think a message can be efficiently constructed. I can’t do that, so I appreciate actual help. Help, so-called, that merely insults I have a hard time with because I don’t want to waste time dealing with insults. Help arrives in a form that the one being helped can construct improvement; with that helpful help.

From Warren in Equitable Commerce:
"Responsibility must be individual, or there is no responsibility at all."
Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, 1852

From Warren in True Civilization:
“Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.”
True Civilization.
Warren, Josiah
(1863) Boston, Mass.

Note the time period, please.

I won’t quote from Nock since I am very likely guilty of dulling the argument and murdering the spirit; in defense, as I alone see it, and I take responsibility for my error-prone viewpoint.

How about a test? If 1000 working members of the British Accredited Registry, in any county in America, were asked to define the meaning of the word codify, would you find the same words describing that meaning in every case, and if so (or if not) what does that say about that type of authority over meanings, or law power?

“Although in the Saxon"s time I find the usual words of the acts then to have been edictum, (edict,) constitutio, (statute.) little mention being made of the commons, yet I further find that, tum demum. leges vim et viggrem habuerunt, cum. fuerunt non modo institutae sed firmatae: approbatione .communtitatis." (The laws had force and vigor only when they were not only enacted, but confirmed by the approval of the community.)”
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

In that work, which some people these days would find cause to avoid reading, blaming the author if necessary to massage the ego, are steps that confirm Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government if government is defined by the people as a whole, not “government” defined by a Special Interest Group of criminals working under the color of law: VERBOSITY DEFINED).

Voluntary Mutual Defense Association is confirmed in something called The Bill of Rights, but if Criminals take-over said Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, counterfeiting it, turning it into the opposite of the original spirit, meaning, goal, etc., then The Bill of Right can mean anything at all to suit the purpose of the criminals who took over.

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]

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

In the words of Slick Willy: “That depends upon what the word is: is.”

IF I HAD ASKED?

"Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of…”

ORGANIZATION

The point being pointed out is very simple, a very simple math problem, regardless of which words are chosen to present to the intended audience THE math problem.

Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government)

Involuntary Special Interest Profitable Monopoly (i.e. FAKE government)

There is clear evidence (such as a lot of people alive at the moment) that the chicken and egg conundrum is evidently that Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government) came first, and only as a means of usurpation by fraud, by threat of aggressive violence, and by demonstrations of torturous, horrible, terrifying aggressive violence, did government (original) become government counterfeit.

I stand corrected? So, when speaking to the so-called choir I must remember that the word government means a criminal organization formed in place of a voluntary association, and at no time (other than obscure tribes dreamed up by no one precisely) was there ever a working voluntary association named a government. A government, in short (avoiding verbosity), means the enslavement of everyone by a few rotten apples?

Do I now have the choir understood correctly instead of incorrectly? I don’t think so, but I can ask.

“Your question, as I understand it, asks if a strictly voluntary community is possible, I would suggest yes! I believe Bill is correct that there probably have been historical instances, among tribal peoples but I am not enough of a historian to supply any examples.”

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

Codify:
“...to organize and write a law or system of laws.”

Spooner:
“No freeman shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed,or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, (harmed.) nor will we (the king) proceed against him, nor send anyone against him, by force of arms, unless according to (that is, in execution of) the sentence of his peers, and (or or, as the case may require) the Common Law of England, (as it was at the time of Magna Carta, in 1215.)”

Spooner:
"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.”

Step, by step, by step, incrementally, the criminals will take over, but not “no matter what,” and it is a simple math problem to turn things back around. But I am always guilty of verbosity.

Forget about me, which subject is more or less worthy of your time?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Aug 10th, 2019 12:40 am
  PM Quote Reply
37th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
“Is your point communication or argumentation?”

I tried to point out that the word is not the point, the point is that actions are inspired by the nature of specified associations. If you think that the word “government” must be an involuntary association, or it isn’t “government,” then that is fine by me, mere semantics.

If you think that there might be many examples of voluntary associations for mutual defense that have existed, do exist, and can exist, easily, relatively costless, and of high quality, then you might see my point as I continue to quote people who have documented examples of voluntary associations for mutual defense, and they have been known to call it government. So the semantics argument is not with me.

The people who originally formed organizations (they called it a name in another language) for their mutual defense date back before the following example of people:

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

If in their language the word for their voluntary mutual defense association is spoken and written in the Greek language, then there is no argument to have about the English word government. But there are plenty of references in English where the one making the reference labels that early example of an advanced non-tribe of people with the label government; specifically a democratic government.

Example:

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.

"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.

"Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.

"As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.

"Referring them to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.

"Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.

"It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood and the most eligible in practice; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.

"It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and populous as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivalled her own democracy.

"That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system. It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interest of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has already been observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage. It is never in the cradle, nor on crutches. It admits not of a separation between knowledge and power, and is superior, as government always ought to be, to all the accidents of individual man, and is therefore superior to what is called monarchy."
https://www.ucc.ie/archive/hdsp/Paine_Rights_of_Man.pdf

That is early so-called “government,” not a tribe (unless we don’t share the same meaning for that word too), and it was a democratic government. Since that example of a democratic government, there has been a successful effort to counterfeit the meaning of the word democracy.

Gone is the original meaning of the word democracy and in place is an ambiguous nothingness meaning that suggests despotic power wielded by a nebulous special interest group called The Majority.

From the study of one of the earliest Democratic Governments, or Democratic Voluntary Mutual Defense Associations if you prefer your chosen meaning of the word government is the following important message:

“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.”

That sounds like this:

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

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

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

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-an-essay-on-the-trial-by-jury-1852

My point is that there is a simple way to end Involuntary Association, which you can call anything you want, including the word “government.”

So long as the people, not the Involuntary Association, determine fact, law, guilt, innocence, remedy, restitution, or punishment, then the only ones who are subjected to Involuntary Association are those who disagree with the judgment of their fellow members of the Voluntary Association.

This is very simple. This is as simple as the clear understanding that as a rule, a criminal will not obey a voluntary association rule, such as, for example, don’t do onto other people what you yourself would fight tooth and nail to defend against were other people to do the same thing to you.

This is very simple. Voluntary Association Rules are for the volunteers, not for criminals. Criminals, as a rule - decided upon by every criminal in order for a criminal to be one - do not volunteer to obey rules made by the volunteers.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Aug 10th, 2019 01:20 am
  PM Quote Reply
38th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well Tahn L., if you see a contradiction I don't.

You offer ambiguity to me as an intended meaning for the word government.

"1 : the act or process of governing specifically : authoritative direction or control"

What is being specified in that definition? I see "plausible deniability." Someone with 60 years experiences hammering nails without ever bending a nail or hammering a finger could offer authoritative direction. Someone can control everything that will or will not be allowed to contact someone else: arbitrary control of someone by someone: subsidized slavery. Which is it?

Plausible Deniability was once called “construction” as exemplified here:

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788, 6 June

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

If the meaning can mean up and down at the same time, then my advice is to be a bit more specific.

A tribe (if you want to call them a tribe) created one of the first democratic governments according to recorded history available to the general population on earth: it was a working voluntary association for mutual defense. The place was Athens, Greece, the time was quote: "Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BC is famous for being the purest, most extreme form of democracy in human history."

That idea, adapted, improved, and preserved as an ideal moved to Germany, and the Saxons, another tribe, if you want to call the Saxons a tribe, employed voluntary association for mutual defesnse.

Another tribe called the English, if you want to call those people a tribe, learned from the Saxons, adapted, improved, and also maintained voluntary association for mutual defense, and here is where the English word “government” became currency. Not Greek, not German, but English.

Another 13 tribes in America also employed voluntary association. Voluntary association was perfected, adapted, from the English government example, in America, and that lasted from at least 1775 to 1789. I suspect strongly, based upon information I have read, that much of the American version of voluntary association for mutual defense was improved with the help of the Indian tribes already homesteading in America.

I don’t know why this is at all hard to point out, seriously.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Aug 10th, 2019 06:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
39th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I may continue this thread or I am may not as time goes on. The idea, as expressed earlier, is to point out something already pointed out by so many people in so many words as to cause (inspire) people to reason out the information being pointed out.

Some people will not ever see it. I don’t write to those people.

I can take information as it exists, and I can attempt to figure out what is intended by whoever constructs the information given.

“If you don't see a contradiction between "being governed" and "voluntary action", we are on such different planes, I don't see how communication is possible.”

Quotation marks are used to identify 2 different planes as such:

Being governed (which can mean anything to anyone)

Voluntary action (which can also mean anything to anyone)

So a definition for “Being governed” was offered and that definition was unspecific and therefore without specific meaning as to what is meant by anyone when someone says “being governed.”

“Authoritative direction” could mean “being governed”?

Authoritative direction could mean an offer by someone or some group concerning experience earned by the offering party. Someone seeking earned experience from people who have earned experience may decide - voluntary action - to take authoritative direction from those who earned experience.

An example was offered, and rejected, apparently. Someone with 60 years of experience in carpentry could offer someone with no experience in carpentry and someone with no experience in carpentry could decide - voluntary action - to take the authoritative directions offered by the one with 60 years of earned experience.

Perhaps “being governed,” is meant to mean the opposite of “voluntary actions,” as was also my inference of the offered definition of government.

The offered definition of government repeated:

"1 : the act or process of governing specifically : authoritative direction or control"

What is control? The meaning of control that I infer is the opposite of “voluntary actions,” and once again, the offered meaning of “government,” is useless if the idea is to specify a specific meaning for a specified phenomenon labeled with a specific word.

Government is either authoritative direction (or earned experience offered to those seeking earned experience) or government is control (or power exerted by someone or some group upon another individual or a group of individuals). Government cannot be both voluntary actions, such as earned experience offered to those who want the earned experience being offered, which can be a form of authoritative direction, and government cannot be the opposite at the same time, which is control, or “being governed,” if being governed means an individual enslaving another individual, or many individuals enslaving many - controlling - many individuals.

If the plane people plant themselves on is a plane where the only meaning for the word government is the same meaning as the word slavery, then why not use the word slavery?

If the plane people plant themselves on is a plane where the only meaning fo the word government is “being governed,” and “being governed” means the same thing as slavery, then why not use the word slavery?

If people today plant themselves on a plane where the word democracy means “being governed,” which means slavery, then those people deciding - voluntary action - to plant themselves firmly on that plane will have to ignore history or deal with history, because history shows that there is a contradiction between the original meaning of democracy and the meaning people choose to plant themselves on.


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

Take the Jeffery Epstein Suicided or the Ranch for Kids Ambushed by Montana Government phenomenon, or “stories,” for example.

No action is allowed to be performed by anyone upon anyone without first gaining probable cause, and if it turns out that the actions taken were based upon false probable cause, then the actor is liable for costs created by the actor who acts with a false cause.

Anyone initiated defensive action upon anyone else without gaining probable cause to defend someone who will be harmed by an aggressor is someone who is, in fact, an aggressor.

Why call those who are aggressors by any other name than aggressors? Why call those who are defenders by any other name than defenders?

How can one defender agree to cooperate effectively with other defenders? Murder them? Why is this hard to see? Is it hard to see because people refuse to see? If murderers are murdering people does it make sense to call them the government instead of murderers? What kind of sense is that?

How many potential defenders, actual defenders, or past defenders, saw as clear as day that Jeffery Epstein would be “suicided” (murdered)? And what is the latest story told by storytellers? Facts are offered, such as perhaps an actual dead man no longer walking, and facts are offered with a little twist, a bend in the information, a spin. Instead of an announcement of concerned defenders forming an independent grand jury to command all jurisdiction civil and criminal in that case of suspected murder by criminals posing as government agents, to present discovered suspects with a trial date, the NEWS is just Spin. How many potential offenders, actual offenders, or past offenders will parrot the lies? Poor thing killed himself, did everyone a favor, now what are the Kardashians doing?

Instead of “Ranch for Kids Ambushed by Montana Government,” which is spin, how about an announcement that is factual?

A gang of criminals posing as agents of the Montana Government ambushed, assaulted, kidnapped, or however many crimes were perpetrated in that case, by the offenders upon the defenseless victims?

"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.”
Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852

I will continue this here or elsewhere.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Aug 16th, 2019 11:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
40th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6358
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
More evidence of the ongoing power struggle between Voluntary Mutual Defense (agreements agreed upon by volunteers) and the opposite which is Counterfeit Law. Note please that some of the earliest attempts to counterfeit Law Power arrived in forms of Summary Justice titled with many deceptive labels: Exchequer, Maritime, Nisi Prius, Admiralty, Equity, etc.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec7f/25c9208eca556b84a673af69dfdf1086f8fa.pdf
Book Review. The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860 by Morton J. Horwitz

"More and more, courts resorted to the idea of damnum absque injuria to deny a plaintiff's claim. By accomplishing subsidization through the legal system rather than through taxation, Horwitz maintains, the ultimate political choices were hidden from view and insulated from debate. The developmental urge had captured the courts, and it was by this allegedly apolitical agency of government that the subsidy was levied."

Exemplify double-speak:
damnum absque injuria
"loss or damage without injury"

Does that depend upon what is is?

If the people decide through their representatives in a Trial by the Country (Trial by Jury) what anyone can do to anyone without consequence, and what anyone can do to anyone with consequence, then that is one thing, one form of government, by a tribe, or by a people homesteading within a specified geographical area. The other thing is not the same thing as a people, through their representatives in a jury, deciding fact, law, guilt, evidence, innocence, remedy, restitution, or punishment. The other thing, other than Trial by the Country, is termed: Summary Justice.

A government by, of, and for the whole people as one, on one side.

B Government by, of, and for Special Interest Groups, at the expense of everyone, on the other side.

Not one meaning for the word government, but two meanings for the word government, where one meaning is truth based, and original, and the other meaning is false based and counterfeit. If you refuse to see it, then that is your choice.

One is original, grass-roots, organic, natural, reasonable, spiritual, religious, honorable, truthful, productive, adaptive, preventive, and this one deters crime before crime ripens to fruition.

The other is counterfeit, top-down, inorganic, unnatural, unreasonable, spiritless, anti-religious, dishonorable, false, destructive, entropic, undefendable, and this one creates criminals exponentially.

Some people caught in the exponential growth rate of counterfeit government are made to ignore the alternative as if there never was, and never will be an alternative to the exponential growth rate of counterfeit government - criminal - power.

What does the following mean in context of Law (due process) versus Equity (Summary Justice)?

Chapter 14
COURTS TO BE OPEN; SUITS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH
Article I, Section 11
BY DONALD MARRITZ
“That justice may be speedily as well as impartially done, and that to prevent tedious and expensive pilgrimages to obtain it, I do for me and mine hereby declare and establish . . . that monthly sessions shall be held in every country in which all sorts of causes belonging to that county shall be heard and finally determined, whether relating to civil or criminal acts. And . . . that every person may freely plead his own cause or bring his friend to do it for him. And the judges are hereby obliged to inform him or her what they can to his or her assistance in the matter before him, that none be prejudiced through ignorance in their own business . . .”

Free stuff?

Volunteers, often without pay, or their pay is restricted significantly according to statute, are given all jurisdiction at law, and these volunteers in government constitute the pool from which a grand jury is formed for the purpose of accepting accusations and moving legitimate accusation to an offer offered to an accused for the accused to defend himself against the accuser, in a trial by the country: NOT a trial by the government.

If the accuser is false, then the right thing to do is to account for that fact, and charge the false accuser a judgment that intends to discourage false accusations.

What is the opposite, counterfeit, law form in as few words as someone of letters can muster?

"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

One is not the other, and the existence of the counterfeit form confirms (does not deny) the existence of the original form.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 08:51 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > The Mental Militia Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems