|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||Page: 1 2 3||
|The Mental Militia|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Tue Aug 20th, 2019 05:56 pm||
|There is plenty of evidence available to confirm the opposite meanings of government as explained up to this point so far. My intent now is to explain some of the histories of counterfeit government in America.
As explained in the work done by Leo Richards concerning the Regulation (true government) of the Corrupt Massachusetts government (counterfeit government), the corrupt government agents created a Man of Straw, also knowable as a Legal Fiction, in the form of an Angry Mob that has a common intention. The common intention of the fictitious Angry Mob is to level the incomes of everyone, and this fictitious Angry Mob (that does not exist in reality) will use Subsidized Slavery (counterfeit government) to reach the goal of leveling the incomes of everyone.
Does that sound at all familiar to anyone?
The Angry (fictitious) Mob desires absolute control over everyone (counterfeit government power) so as to level every income “from each according to ability, to each according to need” and the word used at the time was not Democrat. The word used at the time was “levelers.”
In fact, the people who were given the name “levelers,” were Regulators in the tradition of many cases already in the past in American history, the most notable case of Regulators is documented with a Declaration of Independence, and various Bills of Rights. There were other cases of Regulators Regulating Corrupt Counterfeit Government. An example offered by Leo Richards is the example in the Carolinas. For now, consider the creation and maintenance of a fictitious Angry Mob of Levelers.
Go to time 17:00 (or so) in the lecture below:
Speaking about David Humphreys, American Revolutionary War colonel and aide de camp to George Washington, Leo Richards lectures: “...and David Humphryes reported these people were levelers. They wanted to seize the land of the rich, and redistribute it to the poor.” Then Leo Richards adds the opinion of Henry Knox “informing” George Washington about the Regulation against the corrupt government in Massachusetts: “...and he reported the same thing, that these people are really levelers, that they want to take all the property and redistribute it, that they want to overthrow the state.”
This is before a Political Party was formed out of this fictional group of people who do not (yet) exist. There were no democrats in the Democratic Party (™) at this time. No one existed who could constitute such a Party, it was pure fiction. In fact, the actual people who were actually redistributing wealth were the people who were soon going to form a (false) Federalist Party. These people who would soon form a (false) Federalist Party were war-mongers and central bankers. Leo explains how the central banking redistribution of wealth worked in Massachusetts at the time of the attempted Regulation in Massachusetts (1786, 87) by ex-military veterans, families, rich and poor farmers, etc.
Got to time 25:00 (or so) in the Lecture on the Regulation in Massachusetts.
“The problem is by 1780 the notes have all gone to Speculators, they have disappeared. The soldiers who got the notes, they no longer had them, they got rid of them, for whatever they could get, and they had fallen into the hands of people who speculate notes, hoping they will go up in value.”
Start a war. That creates a demand for Promises Not To Pay (Central Bank Debt Notes). People fight the war and are paid in those Promises Not To Be Paid. People are robbed of their ability to make ends meet, to feed the Meat Grinder of War, and they are paid with the same fake money. People who need to produce in free markets can’t afford to hold onto currency, people who produce in free markets need currency to be current, active, moving, so people creating wealth don’t hold onto currency that is fake, counterfeit, and “depreciating,” at the moment. Speculators, War-Mongers, Central Banking Whores, and Slave Traders, on the other hand, can form a Political Party and pay themselves whatever they can squeeze out of their target subjects.
Criminals love Summary Justice Court Systems of Counterfeit Justice. Criminals can issue orders to pay, to pay now, or go to jail.
The opposite, the original, the genuine, the organic, Court System does not allow the issue of an order to pay, issued by anyone in government, nor does the opposite government power allow anyone to go to jail merely at the pleasure of a government agent. The organic government power demands that no action can be done to anyone without the say-so of everyone, unanimously, as represented in both grand and petit juries; according to the real (ancient) common law, not the counterfeit, summary justice, Common Law (™) that was then current in England.
“In fact, 80 percent of the State Debt ends up in Boston, and 40 percent ends up in the hands of just 35 men, who turn out to be the powerhouses of the State Legislature, and also, one of them is the Governor himself.”
So, central bankers, war-mongers, and Slave Traders (previously alluded to in this topic), redistribute wealth by creating a Legal Fiction, an all powerful fictional character, all the while these criminals pull the strings, move the levers, behind the curtain, and that evil beast gives legs to their false authority to “collect” anything they want at their pleasure, and if anyone dares to resist that aggressive force, those who resist will be made to pay even more, as an example of what happens to anyone who dares to step out of line.
“ The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” 14th, so-called, Amendment to the Criminal Constitution of 1789.
That is in your face, uncontroversial, mind control. You, they say, in writing no less, can’t even think about questioning your absolute obedience.
On the other hand is real government power:
“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)
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
|Posted: Wed Aug 21st, 2019 07:03 pm||
|Following is yet another historical record offered in Spooner’s Trial by Jury Essay. To those who have some cognizance of current affairs since Ruby Ridge, Waco, and a growing so-called Militia Movement, these words may offer some help along the lines of affecting an expedient, effective, just, remedy for the problem known as malfeasance in office, or in many other words, such as simple corruption.
Rapin, in his discourse on the “Origin and Nature of the English Constitution,” says:
“There are but two things the Saxons did not think proper to trust their kings with; for being of like passions with other men, they might very possibly abuse them; namely, the power of changing the laws enacted by consent of the king and people; and the power of raising taxes at pleasure. From these two articles sprung numberless branches concerning the liberty and property of the subject, which the king cannot touch, without breaking the constitution, and they are the distinguishing character of the English monarchy. The prerogatives of the crown, and the rights and privileges of the people, flowing from the two fore-mentioned articles, are the ground of all the laws that from time to time have been made by unanimous consent of king and people. The English government consists in the strict union of the king’s prerogatives with the people’s liberties. But when kings arouse, as some there were, that aimed at absolute power, by changing the old, and making new laws, at pleasure; by imposing illegal taxes on the people; this excellent government being, in a manner, dissolved by these destructive measures, confusion and civil wars ensued, which some very wrongfully ascribe to the fickle and restless temper of the English.” - Rapin’s Preface to his History of England.
Any collection of people anywhere in this area known collectively as the United States of America, can affect the expedient, effective, just, remedy at their pleasure. To fail to do so ensures, as a matter of course, inevitable escalations of violent confrontations.
The topic is Voluntary Mutual Defense. The following offering is not offered as a distraction from the topic, so as to then change the topic to relative attributes or flaws of the characters involved in authorizing the next information media offered in context of this present stream of information.
No More Free Wacos: An Explication of the Obvious Addressed to Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
“If we are no longer under the rule of constitutional law but are merely subject to irreversible bureaucratic diktat and we do not fancy being railroaded in a patently unfair federal trial where expert witnesses are denied access to evidence, then our options when approached by ATF agents are rather limited. It is plain, in the absence of the right of a fair trial, that a target of ATF investigation has little to lose by resorting to the right of an unfair gunfight. This may be an unintended consequence of those cases. It is nonetheless real.”
And another excerpt:
“ There's still lots of vicious drug gangs, murderous career criminals and real terrorists out there to keep them busy without picking a fight with honest American gunowners who merely want to be left alone.”
So there you have past experience moving to current experience in so many words. The following offers an alternative to rinse and repeat bloodbaths:
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law."
Additional information from that last source quoted:
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
“But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states.”
That is already a huge wall of text, so for the next effort my intention at the moment is to move to a future step whereby the so-called Divine Right of Kings, with special powers over inferior subjects, is clarified with greater precision, and more importantly what happened in America after the people ended such nonsense, as the law-abiding volunteers took control of those prerogatives that were once the kings exclusive domain.
The idea will be to glue these seemingly confusing sources of data into something useful, a how-to guide for volunteers seeking that just remedy so as to avoid inevitable escalating violence between the criminals in government and the actual people who abide by the law.
|Posted: Sat Aug 24th, 2019 03:13 am||
|Man walks into a bar…
Wait, I’m not Joe King. Actually that is a joke my dad told his 6 kids. Not the “Man walks in a bar” joke.
Guy calls my dad asking for money to pay some nebulous debt. Dad says: “You must be Joe King.”
No, that is not why I’m here to bother people with information.
Man walks up to the BAR...
A treatise on extraordinary legal remedies, embracing mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition
by High, James L. (James Lambert), 1844-1898
A comparison of the writ of mandamus, as now used in England and America, with the writ of injuction, discloses certain striking points of resemblance as well as of divergence in the two writs. Both are extraordinary remedies, the one the principal extraordinary remedy of courts of equity, the other of courts of law, and both are granted only in extraordinary cases, where otherwise there courts would be powerless to administer relief. Both, too, are dependent to a certain extent upon the exercise of a wise judicial discretion, and are not grantable as of absolute right in all cases. It is only when we come to consider the object and purpose of the two writs that the most striking points of divergence are presented. An injunction is essentially a preventive remedy, mandamus a remedial one. The former is usually employed to prevent future injury, the latter to redress past grievances. The functions of an injunction are to restrain motion and to enforce inaction, those of a mandamus to set in motion and to compel action. In this sense an injunction may be regarded as a conservative remedy, mandamus as an active one. The former preserves matters in status quo, while the very object of the latter is to change the status of affairs and to substitute action for inactivity. The one is, therefore, a positive or remedial process, the other a negative or preventative one. And since mandamus is in no sense a preventive remedy, it can not take the place of an injunction, and will not be employed to restrain or prevent an improper interference with the rights of relators.
Footnote: See further as to the distinctions here noted, People v. Inspectors of State Prison, 4 Mich.187; Attorney-General v. New Jersey R.& T. Co., 2 Green Ch.136; Washington University v. Green, 1 Md. Ch. 97; Blakemore v. Glamorganshire R. Co., 1 Myl. & K. 154; Crawford v. Carson, 35 Ark. 565; Fletcher v. Tuttle, 151 Ill. 41.
Legg v. Mayor of Annapolis, 42 Md. 203.
|Posted: Mon Aug 26th, 2019 04:53 pm||
|“I understand the difference between valid and invalid government, but I don't really care. The state ALWAYS becomes corrupt. That is its nature. There is no way to prevent it, except to never allow ANYONE to impose authority on anyone else. Most humans are sheep, so they're not going to do it themselves, and I sure as hell don't want to be cop of the world. So I'm going to live my life as I please, and the rest of the world can do what it will, since it will anyway.”
Note in the above the mixing of terms. In the first sentence the word government is used to describe a process that the author knows (or understands) as both valid and invalid. The author does not care, but I’d like to know which process is valid, and which process is not valid? The same word is used for both opposites.
1. Government (valid)
2. Government (invalid)
The same word is used to denote 2 opposites. Imagine trying to describe a process to someone who cares, whereby this process happens in time and place were some people consume other people for fun and profit, and instead of using the word slavery, or using the word cannibalism, the word used is the word government. Try as I might to describe a specific evil perpetrated by specific evil people, I am prevented from doing so because I use a word that means the exact opposite of the process (slavery, cannibalism, organized crime) I am attempting to describe with words.
What about a simpler example? I try to describe, to someone who cares about good things, a good thing, such as a cure for scurvy. Suppose the one who cares to know about this good thing is suffering from scurvy. Scurvy can be seen as a process that consumes individuals who have a limited diet. In the attempt to describe the process of consuming food that prevents scurvy I use a word that means – to the one suffering from scurvy – the same thing as the current diet that causes the scurvy. Then while confronting this problem of failing to describing a scurvy preventing diet – all the scurvy victim hears is grog, grog, grog: his diet – there is yet another complication. The one suffering from a diet of grog also eats salted meat, so the conversation goes something like this:
Me: “In your language do you have a word for a good diet?”
Scurvy victim: “Grog”
Me: “Good, then if you want to prevent scurvy you need grog.”
Scurvy victim: “I don’t care about grog. Salted meat always goes bad.”
Me: “You don’t want a good diet, you don’t care about it, so I’ll move onto someone who may want to prevent further damage done to them by scurvy. Thanks for your time.”
I’m left wondering what salted meat means, why is salted meat introduced to the conversation that has to do with a good diet, and why would someone involve themselves (voluntarily?) with something that always goes bad? I won’t bother to ask for clarification, since I’ve been informed that this individual does not care. I probably misunderstood most – or all – of what this individual cared to offer as a message in a written language. Perhaps the language barrier is insurmountable.
This is not a mystery. This is a predictable consequence resulting from a process known as counterfeiting.
When counterfeiters decide to counterfeit they have in mind something good, such as free market currency, or accurate accountability, and in place of the good thing in mind these counterfeiters desire the power to consume people for pleasure or profit, and so these counterfeiters design a replacement for the good thing. The good thing is replaced with the opposite of the good thing. Out goes free market currency, and in place goes a money monopoly. Out goes accurate accountability, and in place goes a profitable monopoly.
“Once established as a tool that could be used by a monarch, it also establishes it as a tool for use by the people when they become the sovereign, as happened upon adoption of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.”
Original URL: //www.constitution.org/eng/stat_quo_warranto_1290.html
Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society
Original date: 2014/3/8 — Last updated 2019/8/26
In history people died from scurvy and from criminals in fake government. In history people refused to care about treatments for scurvy and death by criminals counterfeiting government. Before England was turned from free markets, good government, England was for a time a sanctuary where people effectively governed themselves, and that history is well documented by many people including Lysander Spooner in his essay on The Trial by Jury.
(MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721
Notes on Magna Carta
"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”
Before fake government in England, as documented above, people were the government: sovereign individuals, each born with standing in natural law, then known as legem terrae, the law of the land, and the common law, with trial by the country, which is trial by jury. Then the criminals began to counterfeit law. Gone was accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, and in place was placed summary justice courts of plunder. Courts of law became courts of equity. Before equity there was exchequer. The list of fake names from fake government courts is long, a sordid history of counterfeiting good government: accurate accountability of the facts that matter in every case.
I may move to mesne profits next. I may do that here.
|Posted: Fri Aug 30th, 2019 10:03 pm||
|"If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime. On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor ever can exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist; that there is nothing for them to do, and that there is nothing that they can do. They are
confessions that the governments exist for the punishment and prevention of acts that are, in their nature, simple impossibilities." Natural Law, Lysander Spooner, 1882
I was helped on this forum when a link was offered by someone on this forum, and the link was a collection of works by Spooner.
This may appear to be a sidetrack from my original goal, and from my attempt to zero in on mesne profits. The original goal is to offer clear evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that government is - exclusively is - a voluntary association for mutual defense, as proven throughout history where, when, and how people remain free and at liberty. The problem with this goal is the simple fact that criminals have managed to counterfeit government in almost every place and almost every time to some degree or another along the same timeline as free people maintain liberty.
Actual law, which is always a voluntary association, does not require documentation. Actual law exists whenever, and wherever, defense against harm is facilitated by any individual, or any group of individuals who cooperate - by agreement - to facilitate the same shared goal.
Counterfeit government, on the other hand, depends upon a facade such as a sign from an all powerful entity, a tablet of commandments, a book of orders from the all powerful entity, orders that must be obeyed without question, whereby the counterfeiters construct a facade that is put in place of the individual counterfeiters who pull the strings from behind the facade. This is a simple principle known as deception, a framework from which to construct a more elaborate hoax. Simple fabricator, simple target to be fooled, simple employment of the fabrication upon the target, the simple fact that the target is deceived, and while the target is deceived, the simple fact that the target is in some way consumed factually, by one calorie at a time over a long period of time, or many calories all at once.
A thief can employ the basic principle when yelling and pointing in a direction away from an intended crime scene, the thief yells “THIEF!” while pointing the finger, and as soon as people are captured into the hoax, looking in the direction pointed out by the thief, the thief swipes the prize, doing so undetected.
A much more elaborate hoax is organized religion, and I found a prime example in a new book that cost me a pretty penny or two. That example will now be offered to those who may want to dive into this natural law, voluntary association, free market government, conceptualization offered in this thread.
Before offering the next quote from my newly purchased book, I will attempt to reset the stage.
The history of voluntary association did not start with the Saxons, but from those Saxons are proofs offered in Spooner’s work, showing a framework that worked, and within that voluntary association framework was something called trial by jury. Then the English adopted that voluntary association framework as documented in a work known as the Magna Carta. Clearly the people had the framework working in the form of independent trial juries consenting to, or not consenting to, any claim of authority claimed by anyone, anywhere, anytime. In other words the people, represented in their juries, were the judges of law, the judges of fact, the judges of any need for force of government unleashed upon any wrongdoer deemed a wrongdoer by the people themselves, not by the government as such.
That was called the law, the law of the land, in Latin it was legem terrae, and it was known in English as the common law, the same terminology imported to America. The people volunteer to check any government power, to consent to any government suggestion offered by anyone in any position in government, and so long as the people volunteer to do so, so long will there be voluntary government power to resist corruption in government.
One effective method of counterfeiting government in England was a fabricated authority known as Equity. Clearly in the literature there is a demarcation between either a court of law, where private prosecutors prosecute alleged wrongdoers before the country in a jury trial known as a trial by the country, or a Court of Equity where a government agent has already determined guilt and those found to be guilty by the government are processed for a fee. Those deemed guilty by the government are made to pay a fee to the government in an Equity Court. An Equity Court is a Summary JustUS Court.
That battle between private prosecutors prosecuting alleged wrongdoers before the country in a court of law, and “jurisdiction” assumed instead by a Court of Equity (Summary Justice) was imported to America, as documented very well in Shays’s Rebellion, 1786 to 1787. In Shays’s Rebellion (so-called by the victors whose victory was “possession” by conquest) the battle between Law and Equity was clearly a battle won by Equity over Law, as was the case in England, which led to all that Empire Building, which included War with France, The Slave Trade, and so-called Opium Wars.
|Posted: Mon Sep 2nd, 2019 02:27 pm||
|Change of venue:
Individuals may commit a crime. Individuals may be currently committing a crime. Individuals may have committed a crime.
Who in America decides what is or is not a crime?
If the "government" arms an individual is that a crime?
If the "government" disarms an individual is that a crime?
If an individual arms an individual is that a crime?
If an individual disarms an individual is that a crime?
Did the "government" give anyone a right to defend themselves?
If a gun, or a government, is used to perpetrate a crime, is it reasonable to conclude that the gun, or the government, is guilty of the crime?
Who decides if someone is guilty of any crime, anywhere, anytime, according to common laws of free people in liberty?
Who decides if someone is guilty of any crime, anywhere, anytime, according to cult members who blindly follow obediently any order dictated by a legal fiction?
“...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Which individuals are guilty of the crime of infringing the right to keep and bear arms, if in fact doing so has been determined lawfully as a crime?
“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)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
|Posted: Sun Sep 15th, 2019 07:30 pm||
|Having taken a long break in this effort to spell out Voluntary Mutual Defense it may now be worth the effort to recap before introducing a long quote from a Law History book from Cambridge. The quote from The Cambridge History of Law in America spells out the already spelled out falsehood that I call dogma from members of the cult of Might Makes Right.
Clearly there are 2 Parties in conflict throughout the history of mankind as such:
The Criminal Party
The Party formed in defense against the Criminal Party
The Criminal Party has learned a long time ago that they gain a tactical advantage when they counterfeit the opposition Party. When the Criminal Party poses as the Defense Party, the Defense Party is thereby rendered defenseless in fact as demonstrated very well throughout the history of mankind.
Why then is it time and again apparently so easy for the Criminal Party to get away with this obvious fraud?
Here is where it pays to learn the Criminal Party dogma, as previously offered in a quote from the introduction in a book by Nicola Machiavelli titled The Prince.
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction)
The Criminal Party members know how to craft a false message that projects their malignant thoughts onto their targeted victims, and that projection of false evil projected by evil people onto innocent people - so as to falsely justify intended criminal acts - constitute the basic tactical advantage previously spelled out. The targeted victims are misdirected to a point at which the targeted victims defend their enslavement in a collective manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome.
An actual member of the actual Defense Party will be violently destroyed by dupes who are caught by the fundamental lie, dupes who are caught and thereby inspired to attack anyone who dares to tell the truth about the fundamental lie.
The fundamental lie is restated time and again - various forms - throughout history, just as it was done in the quote from The Prince. This now is a lead-in to another restatement of that fundamental lie, where the restatement of the fundamental lie is retold in a book claimed to be a history of law in America.
Before quoting it may be worth the effort to put this piece properly in place on the puzzling map of the ongoing struggle between the 2 distinct - opposing - parties. While the Defense Party (Liberty Party) is effectively rendered powerless by the Offense Party (Criminal Party), one would think that a little truth might go a long way, but that depends entirely on each individual member of either Party, and only when individuals are capable of waking up enough other individuals in the Liberty Party will there then be a collective sum total of individuals who are armed with enough facts that matter (the truth) to constitute an actual (rather than a counterfeit) defense.
The Liberty Party also produces messages that are published for consumption by members of the Liberty Party, and these messages are opposite the messages produced by members of the Criminal Party. An example in stark contrast to the message in The Prince (introduction) is the Golden Rule, a message crafted to inspire actual just thinking, which then may be followed by actual just action. Another example in stark contrast to the projecting of evil being projected by evil people onto their intended - innocent - victims is a document written by a member of the Criminal Party, as that member of the Criminal Party attempts to tell the truth, to confess, and to turn from the Criminal Party to the Liberty Party instead. That document goes by the name Declaration of Independence.
Clearly documented in human history at the time of what became known as the American Revolutionary War is the Criminal Party lies starkly contrasted by the Liberty Party facts that matter in that case where armies of people polarized by evil intend to cause injury to armies of people polarized by the facts that matter in that case.
That is my lead-in to the long quote that I think is worth the effort to transcribe from a book, placing the message in digital form, which can then be cut and pasted by anyone who cares to know these facts that matter in this case.
There is more to this puzzle piece because the two sides are always gaining or losing power as the lies infect the minds of individuals who would otherwise be polarized in such a way as to work effectively at the necessary work required to keep the criminals from hurting themselves and their victims in time and place. The purpose of law - actual not counterfeit - is to deter crime before it ripens in the minds of individual people, and that is accomplished by telling or finding the truth, and spreading that truth that matters in any case; caveat emptor.
Who claims Divine Right to Rule arbitrarily, and it is worth the effort to dispel such falsehoods?
The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
“Virginia was the clearest instance of a land of conquest, but it was by no means the only one. The early charters and letters patent are all liberally scattered with references to conquests and occupations, which for some jurists at least, seem to have been taken to be the same thing. Occupation, declared the most influential of them, Sir Edward Coke, “signifieth a putting out of a man’s freehold in time of warre...occupare is sometimes taken to conquer.”
“The initial claim that America was a land of conquest, was not, however, made in isolation. It was but one, of which the annexation of India by the British Crown in 1858 was to be perhaps the last, of a long series of “conquests,” some more obviously so than others: the conquest of Wales, completed in 1536; the conquest, or at least the seizure, of the Channel Islands (although this was not completed until 1953); the conquest of the Isle of Man in 1406; the prolonged conquests of Ireland between 1175 and 1603; and the initial attempt at union with Scotland or of the subordination of Scotland to an English Parliament, which was to become one of the issues at stake in the Civil War, in 1603. For more than two centuries before the first colonies were established on the eastern seaboard of North America, England has been in a state of constant and determined expansion. It was to remain more or less uninterruptedly in this state until World War I.
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering" the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
“Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settled and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."
"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."
"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World , both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both , as soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."
“By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which , at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."
“Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For if America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law.”
That is a puzzle piece on the war map between lies and crime on one side and truth and justice on the other side, and there are clearly defined borders between the two parties. I felt the need to stop quoting mid stream, as the clearly defined borders between the two parties are only clear to those who are solidly on either side. To those who are caught in the middle there is darkness, confusion, misdirection, and defenselessness; a powerless state, and a ripeness for exploitation.
|Posted: Mon Sep 16th, 2019 02:02 pm||
|Note please the clearly demarcated sides as members of each side define the meanings of words for their side alone, and this tells an important story about Liberty versus that which opposes Liberty.
The word “civil” defined originally by human beings means the development of life from a negative, base, savage, barbaric, bad, form of life that is incapable of adaptation (and therefore destined to suffer extinction without the capacity to adapt) to a positive, principled, cultured, peaceful, good, form of life that is capable of adaptation and therefore capable of surviving as nature demands that capacity to adapt or suffer extinction.
The original meaning of a word such as the word “civil” in English is the same original meaning of any word intending to convey the same original meaning in any human language. To mistake the map for the terrain is a common error worthy of note. To know instead that the terrain is what it is, and to know that the terrain is not the map, is a fact that matters in any case where someone might be making the mistake of mistaking the map for the terrain. The terrain is the terrain. The map is the map. The terrain is not the map. The map is not the terrain. The word is not the intended meaning. The intended meaning is not the word.
The word “civil” was used in the quote from the Law History of America book to mean the opposite of the original meaning. Instead of a positive improvement - an adaptation - of life from barbaric to civil, the word “civil” was used to mean a move from peace to war, or from civilized co-existence for mutual defense to barbaric enslavement of innocent people for the profit of a few investors who invest in the extraction of life from their own kind.
In order for the strategic advantage of falsehood to affect the targeted victims to their detriment the targeted victims must be made to confuse the map for the terrain, and to accomplish this goal the evil people must distract their victims, occupy the minds of their victims, to a point at which the victims are then incapable of accurately discriminating the stark difference between the original meaning of the word, which is a good meaning, and the counterfeit meaning of the word which is a bad meaning.
Civil good: Accurately account for the facts that matter in any case of controversy anywhere, anytime, involving any number of people, and provide for a just remedy, so as to then be less occupied in violent conflict among members of the same species, and instead of that condition of “perpetual war,” the human species can focus their powers on surviving against the forces of nature.
Civil bad: Transfer all political (and therefore economic) control from those who produce excess wealth to the worst criminal individuals currently living, and allow those criminals to run amok on the planet enslaving and destroying everything that pleases them anywhere, anytime.
Why is it difficult to see that the original meaning of the word is opposite the meaning being used by the criminals and their victims?
What is Civil Law?
|Posted: Mon Sep 16th, 2019 08:22 pm||
|As easy or as difficult it may be to know the stark opposites of the 2 Parties always at war in human nature the members of each group meet in combat in time and in place, so there are ways to document - and therefore know - precisely what constitutes either party.
Times where battles are fought are important for many reasons such as the proximity of a battle to someone having a vested interest in those specific battles. A battle yesterday, today, or a pending battle that is planned for tomorrow can be more important to some people compared to a battle that happened over 200 years ago.
Places where battles are fought are also important for many reasons also for the reason of proximity to someone having a vested interest in those battles. A battle where someone is standing is relatively more significant to the one in battle compared to a battle on the other side of the planet.
Another important point to understand about the places where battles are fought is the point at which people claim ownership of land, such as for example a claim called Allodial Title, and for another example, there is a claim called Absolute Dominion.
I did not make up either of those two examples of claims that concern ownership of land, other people have done so, and I can benefit from their work, as it was them who earned the credit for having created these claims of ownership of land. If I want to use their words I don’t have to pay them rent for doing so, and if I want to transfer their words right here and now, on this forum, then I don’t need permission from them to do so. What follows are examples of people documenting the meanings for both Allodial Title and Absolute Dominion.
The first example is now taken from that Cambridge History of Law in America, and this example offered is a continuation of the words quoted in my previous post, so the words now are what followed the words previously quoted. The message context is telling a story, and the point of this is to illuminate the stark contrast between messages from the Criminal Party as those messages can be compared with messages from the Liberty Party that are specific to land ownership.
“It was precisely because all conquered territories were a part of the royal demesne that the monarch was able to grant chargers to the colonies in the first place. For however empty those charters might have been considered to some, they were indisputably concessions made by the Crown. Charters, wrote Thomas Hobbes, “are Donations of the Soveraign; and not Lawes but exemptions from Law. The phrase of a Law is Jubeo, Injugo, I Command and Enjoyn; the phrase of a Charter is Dedi, Concessi, I have Given I have Granted.” If this were so, and Hobbes is here starting a legal commonplace, then in one quite specific sense the English colonies had feudal foundations. Most of the lands in America had originally been granted in “free and common socage” as of the manor of East Greenwich in Kent. This formula allowed for what were, in effect, allodial grants, which derived from a contract between the Crown and the landowner but at the same time avoided the duties of feudal tenure - such as the need to provide auxilium et consilium, in effect military assistance to the sovereign. In this way the colonies were both free and unencumbered while at the same time remaining legally part of the royal demesne, and every part of the terra regis had to form a constitutive part of a royal manor in England, Land in Ireland, for instance, was held as of Carregrotian, or of Trim or of Limerick or of the Castle of Dublin, and when Charles II made over Bombay to the East India Company this land too was granted in “free and common socage” of the manor of East Greenwich. In the proprietorial colonies, by contrast, a large area of land was granted to a single individual, who then allocated lands more or less as he pleased. But even here the Crown still maintained that it possessed the ultimate rights of ownership and that it could therefore dispose of the territory in question as it wished. (The Spanish Crown, by contrast, although often represented as the most despotic and centralizing of the European monarchies, only ever made claims to exercise property rights in several limited areas which were described as being under “the King’s head,” or cabeza del rey.)”
In context the word allodial above adds the words “free and common socage,” and “free and unencumbered.”
Here is another example of what people mean when people use the word allodial:
“In England, this law was derived from feudal tenures in real property as held by a succession of what were called tenants-in-chief and mesne (intermediate) lords or a pyramid of proprietors holding from the Ring on down. These tenures, however, never prevailed in the American colonies, as the Revolution proved. Instead, the land titles (not tenures) in the American states were called "allodial" (see Chapter 36 of the laws of 1787 of New York State as a good example), which meant that they were not, as in England, held from a principal original overlord (Ring or Crown), but each was owned outright by the proprietor. These are the same titles that prevailed in England prior to the coming of William of Normandy. The holders of them were called "roturiers."
COMMON LAW, STANDARD SPECIE & ALLODIAL TITLE
Now contrast the information offered above with the following message taken from a web page which publishes the notes taken during the Federal Congress meeting to discuss the publishing of a Declaration of Independence, 1775.
“That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”
Who has heard of the term Indian Giver? How about the term Receiving Stolen Property?
One more reference to these opposing claims of land ownership:
“To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king :
“The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war—a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.
“That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.
“Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry.
“Townships, from twenty to thirty thousand acres of land, shall be laid out and appropriated to such of you as will come over to us, in the following manner.
“[Every captain who shall bring with himself forty men from the service of the enemy, before the first day of September, 1778, shall receive eight hundred acres of good woodland; also four oxen, one bull, three cows, and four hogs. If this captain is accompanied with his lieutenant, the lieutenant shall receive four hundred acres of woodland, also two oxen, two cows, and four hogs.
“[Every sergeant who shall accompany his captain shall receive two hundred acres of land, two oxen, one bull, one cow, and three hogs.
“[Every soldier who shall accompany his captain shall receive fifty acres of land, one ox, one cow, and two hogs.
“[If a lieutenant, or other commissioned officer under the rank of a captain, shall bring off from his company twenty five men, he shall receive six hundred acres of land, two oxen, two cows, and four hogs.
“[Every sergeant, or non-commissioned officer who shall bring off parties of men, shall receive an additional bounty of twenty acres of land for every man so brought off. And every soldier, who shall come off without a commissioned or non-commissioned officer, shall receive fifty acres of land; and if he brings off his arms and accoutrements, an additional bounty of twenty dollars.
“Both Officers and Soldiers who shall come off together, shall be at Liberty either to separate themselves, or to unite for the purpose of affording to each other Mutual Succor in the Establishments they make, and to form themselves into Townships after the Model of many German Settlements in various Parts of these States, which Exhibit an Example of that Happiness which is now offered to those who are wise Enough to accept of it.
“[Such officers and soldiers shall be at Liberty immediately to employ themselves in the settlement of their farms, without being obliged to do any military duty; and they shall receive rations in proportion to their rank for the space of six weeks.
“[The stock hereby offered shall be given to such officers and soldiers as shall actually settle on the lands respectively granted to them.
“Such of the officers and non-commissioned officers as choose to enter into the military line, shall receive an additional rank in detached corps, which shall be formed of native Germans of those who now reside in America; which corps shall not be employed but with their own consent in any other service than that of guards at a distance from the enemy, or in garrison upon the western frontier.
“Such of you as are skilled in manufactures, over and above these lands and other articles, will find riches in prosecuting your occupations, the necessaries of life being very cheap in proportion to the price of manufactures, and the demand for them is so great, that every mechanick will find full employment. Some of you have had an opportunity of observing the truth of these assertions, and will doubtless inform their countrymen and acquaintance of these facts.
“We have hitherto met you in the field of battle, with hostile minds, urged on by the great principle of self-defense; yet in those instances, where the fortune of war hath delivered any of your countrymen into our hands, we appeal to them that our enmity hath ceased the moment they were disarmed; and we have treated them more like citizens than prisoners of war. We now address you as part of the great family of mankind, whose freedom and happiness we most earnestly wish to promote and establish.
“Distain, then, to continue the instruments of frantick ambition and lawless power. Feel the dignity and importance of your nature. Rise to the rank of free citizens of free states. Desist from the vain attempt to ravage and depopulate a country you cannot subdue, and accept from our munificence what can never be obtained from our fears. We are willing to receive you with open arms into the bosom of our country. Come, then, and partake of the blessings we tender to you in sincerity of heart.
“In the name of these sovereign, free, and independent states we promise and engage to you that great privilege of man, the free and uninterrupted exercise of your religion, complete protection of your persons from injury, the peaceable possessions of the fruits of your honest industry, the absolute property in the soil granted to you to defend, unless you shall otherwise dispose of it, to your children and your children's children for ever.
“Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, who have vacant lands, to lay off with as much expedition as possible, a sufficient quantity of lands to answer the purposes expressed in the foregoing address; for which lands no charge is to be made against the United States.”
Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 10
Which side is the side that affords each individual the freedom to earn a good living by using a portion of unoccupied land, and which side lies to get enough control over their victims to then be in a position to steal everything that can be produced by the subject of that form of robbery?
It may not be an arbitrary employment of English words (or Latin words for that matter) to label a process with the following words: The Law of the Land (legem terrae). As Spooner points out another lie about “feudal times,” these words here document a similar battle between regular people getting along and finding ways to facilitate their mutual defense, and those who threaten that peace with lies, false claims, threats of aggressive violence, and displays of horrid, torturous, aggressive, massive, violence.
“The authority of a Saxon monarch was not more considerable. The Saxons submitted not to the arbitrary rule of princes. They administered an oath to their sovereigns, which bound them to acknowledge the laws, and to defend the rights of the church and people; and if they forgot this obligation, they forfeited their office. In both countries, a price was affixed on kings, a fine expiated their murder, as well as that of the meanest citizen; and the smallest violation of ancient usage, or the least step towards tyranny, was always dangerous, and often fatal to them.” Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852
In time (1775) and in place (America) there was a battle over claims of ownership. For a very short period of time, in many places all over the world at that time, people afforded other people the power to earn a good living. In order to do so people had to deal with the Criminal Party. There never was and there never is a true choice offered by the members of the Criminal Party, that is the price of membership in their cult. Members of that cult, as a rule, lie. In order to be a member in that cult one must pay that price. They will “give” you something you already have, and then they will take from you the power you have to hold them to account for their lies.
I think that it ought to be clear that one side affords everyone their free, unencumbered, cost-less, access to the lawful process to find a just remedy concerning any conflict of any kind, including conflicting claims of ownership, and the other side, as a rule, affords no one but themselves anything, and those criminals on that side, as a rule, hand their victims a bill to be paid to the criminals, to be paid by the victims, for the cost of enslaving everyone.
"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
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Current Published Criminal Party Thought Crime Dogma
So now there are choices to make concerning those who wish to volunteer their 2 cents in asking and answering two questions offered.
1. What is Civil Law?
2. What is Criminal Law?
Next I wish to return to the Roger Roots book for a competitive message that can help answer those questions.
|Current time is 07:49 pm||Page: 1 2 3|
|Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > The Mental Militia||Top|