View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Mon Oct 29th, 2018 09:36 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
"Therefore all things whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

For humanity's sake.

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

For humanities sake we the people agree to volunteer for our mutual defense.

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:
First Congress USA

In order for people to fail our lawful duty we must either resort to crime - doing hateful things to others; things we would defend ourselves against if those hateful things are done to us - or we are victims of crime to an extent that moral people are rendered powerless against the might of the criminals. There is a tipping point at which criminal organizations - operating under the color of law - will gain more power than their targeted victims. Past that point there are no longer any moral options: we are all criminals. That point is distant but possible.

The tipping point cannot be reached while the law power remains in force. The law power is the collective power of individual moral people whose actions constitute the effective defense of the innocent from the guilty in time and in place. The law power remains in force while people can publish accurate information concerning the crimes perpetrated by the criminals, thereby offering powerful warnings to all potential victims. That type of law power was exemplified in the American Declaration of Independence. That law power is also the true meaning of the First Amendment to the 1789 Constitution.

Criminals, as a rule, do not follow moral, agreed upon, rules. That is how criminals define the meaning of crime; they - the criminals - disagree with moral rules. It may be a good idea to hold criminals to an accurate accounting of the facts; employ your right to do so. Criminals do not follow moral rules. Moral people agree to follow moral rules; holding each other accurately accountable. Criminal rules are enforced by criminals, one individual decides to act against another individual; each guilty criminal targets each innocent victim each time and each place. Past victims, present victims, and future victims can agree to abide by rules that work effectively for our mutual defense against immoral criminals; such as employing a process by which each criminal is held to account for each crime upon each victim.

The power struggle between guilty criminals and innocent victims is initiated by guilty criminals; willful aggression on the part of the criminal. Victims are defended, or not, by first finding, and then by holding to account those guilty criminals. People who are aware of the fact that they will be held to account for their crimes are potential criminals who are thereby deterred from making a criminal decision; the light of truth keeps people from the darkness of crime. A false claim that holding criminals to account will not deter criminals is a powerfully false claim; a claim that empowers criminals at the expense of victims.

Natural rules dictate that actions will likely inspire known reactions, such as those actions that are eluded to in words like voluntary mutual defense, deterrence, retribution, restoration, redemption, vengeance, revenge, dictatorship, revolution, and even the modern term blow-back. According to natural law, dictated as laws in the genetic code, people act when stimulated by actions. People may aggressively start a fight. People may react to an attack and run from a fight. People may be enslaved. People may defend against all perpetrators who seek to enslave. All human actions are determined by natural laws; knowing the natural law is part of the natural law. Ignoring the natural law is part of the natural law. Weakness is where criminals will attack: in the darkness of falsehood. Defenders can know an attackers weakness so as to execute an effective defense: shine the light of truth.

Natural laws determine what can happen when people act cooperatively or non-cooperatively. Man-made laws are either voluntary agreements to cooperate for mutual defense - liberty - or agreements by guilty criminals to enforce the enslavement of the innocent: organized crime. If there never was or never will be a criminal, then there would be no need to defend against someone who does not exist: those who seek to enslave. If there are criminals and people act as if there are none, then people know that they can be a criminal without being held to account for their crimes: weakness created from falsehood enables crime. Most people know - some more intimately than others - that there are criminals as a matter of demonstrable fact: knowing that fact is a duty. Since natural law includes the choice among people to choose crime, there then is a demand for cooperation among the innocent victims to choose to cooperate for the effective mutual defense of the innocent from the guilty. Asking the criminals to stop being criminals follows a natural course, a predictable course, which includes a false response, a fraud, perpetrated by a criminal, as a criminal reacts predictably to a plea, from victims, to stop. I will stop, a criminal may claim: beware of criminals bearing gifts. A false answer from a criminal is predictable. The false answer by the criminal misdirects the targeted victims and renders the victims defenseless. Knowing that criminals do not obey moral laws, as a rule, is a form of knowledge, a power, that can empower targeted victims. The criminals know this and they organize effective work that keeps their slaves ignorant. The work required to be ignorant is work done by the victims themselves when they are told what not to learn, or ordered to learn false information. Obey without question.

Since natural law dictates that there will be criminals seeking to enslave innocent victims, it is, therefore, a natural law that failure to defend against crime ensures that crime will increase. Lies require an ever greater supply of lies, the first lie requires additional lies to cover-up the first one, and each additional lie requires an ever-expanding increase in the effort to cover-up the tangled web of deceit. Each violent act multiplies, expanding like waves on the surface of water flowing out from the center in reaction to an object dropped into the water, as violence begets ever-more violence. The cycle of deception and aggressive violence - under the color of law - can go on, and on, for generations, enslaving those people who did not act effectively for their mutual defense as soon as the need to do so was readily apparent to all: failing to nip the spread of falsehood and violence in the bud.

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

The Crime of the Millennium occurred in America in the late 1700s; the 18th century. The Crime of the Millennium was against the good people who showed the world - humankind - that it is not only possible for good people to defend themselves against the worst criminal organizations on this planet, but more than merely possible: good people can win the fight.
We the people can win our freedom and maintain a perishable liberty if we agree to do so and if we stand by our word. Actions must follow words: we must stand honorably on principle.
It may be a good idea to hold the worst criminals to account for the worst crimes - perpetrated under the color of law - first. Nip the worst in the bud first.

Before the people suggest a voluntary rule concerning which plants ought not be consumed, it might be a good idea to hold the counterfeit government to account for the Crime of the Millennium: stealing, perverting, and counterfeiting our moral government process, turning our power to defend each other into a criminal power that works under the color of law, destroying everyone, and consuming posterity. Sweep the top step first.

The Crime of the Millennium is a history that has been erased from collective memory by the criminals who perpetrated The Crime of the Millennium. That is the bad news. The good news is such that each individual can, and perhaps enough will, defend against that effort to cover-up The Crime of the Millennium. The tide can turn from blind belief in falsehood without question - our current collective master/slave condition - to a voluntary mutual defense of all. Moral people can once again be our voluntary moral government. We can insist upon true rule of law. We can facilitate our due process. We can maintain our equal liberty. We can exchange power equitably. This we can do for ourselves and for posterity. We, as one defensive people, can take back what the criminals stole and we can do so peacefully.

If we find the truth, acknowledge the truth, know the truth, then, and not before then, we can accurately identify the criminals, discriminate between guilty criminals and innocent victims, and be thereby in a position to effectively defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals. We can accomplish that and reach a point at which crime no longer pays: deterrence.

The peaceful solution is always within reach, the counterfeit solution is always, like a tripwire, in the way. Every effort to hold to account, and to deter criminals will encounter every effort by criminals to confuse, divide, misdirect, and render powerless those efforts that work voluntarily for mutual defense. Criminals will lie as a rule followed by every deceptive criminal. Criminals will threaten aggressive violence as a rule followed by deceptive or violent criminals. Criminals will perpetrate aggressive violence upon their powerless victims as a rule followed by every violent criminal in each time and each place a violent criminal targeted each helpless, undefended, innocent victim.

But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970

The Crime of the Millennium can be summed up as a counterfeiting of the moral and defensive government powers in America. Good individuals were responsible for, and accountable for, defeating the worst criminal organization on this planet during the late 18th century. The Revolutionary defenders did so under the common law due process powers. Good government, defensive government, moral government, was won by good people in response to aggressive violence covered up by a false claim of authority.

Then in the late 18th century, the criminals retook their position as masters of the slaves; doing so under the color of law. Deception won after the aggressively violent criminals destroyed enough innocent defenders.

Before the criminals won with deception the good people had reestablished the common law, with trial by the country, as the law of the land, a law above any pretensions made by oppressive, dictatorial, tyrants. The people defended against tyrants seeking to master their victims: their slaves. The good moral people employed the common law, with trial by jury, to reach for, and to arrive at that goal of effective, voluntary, mutual defense. Liberty then perished in America.

The whole country of moral people through their consensual, truth-seeking, tribunals, had, for a short time, established themselves as the individuals who collectively enforced moral, consensual, defensive law power. They formed common law counties, common law States, all formed as public things (republics), and all federated (voluntary) into a unanimous, moral, defensive whole. The whole people, the public thing, was created by, defended by, and maintained by good, moral people. All who volunteered were voluntarily under the same common law; a law common to moral people for thousands of years, a law based upon the golden rule. All who didn't agree to do onto others equitably are those who decided to turn to crime, to aid, to abet, to nurture, to enable, to fund, to give moral support to, and to give material support to criminals operating under the color of law. Rebellion against arbitrary, criminal, government was won by volunteers agreeing to abide by common laws of free people in a perishable liberty; for a short time.

Reciprocity and equity - in a perishable liberty - is actionable. Execution of true law power is a duty, a responsibility, and those defensive actions are accurately accountable to those who choose that path. Under common law agreements, made by individuals, defenders reject crime, and the whole people agree to defend against crime. The whole people, through their common laws, effectively deter crime in time and place: even when the criminals claim to be the government.

That is what a Declaration of Independence documents.

The revolutionary people applied the golden rule, and they did so in time and place. The aggressive, slave trading, warmongering, fraudulent government criminals, including The British criminal government powers, enforced their malevolent will by deception, by the threat of aggressive violence against the innocent, and by horrid, terrifying, violence upon innocent people: rioting in innocent blood. The organized criminal British Empire builders knew they had to destroy as many honorable defenders - of the innocent - as was inhumanly possible, or their Empire would weaken and collapse. Aggressive violence covered with falsehood had to crush the revolutionary spirit of liberty, failure was not an option for the slavers, crime does not survive the light of truth.

Patriots defending liberty with voluntary law powers fought criminals who were loyal to a false government, loyal to a criminal government, loyal to a slave trading government, loyal to a warmongering government, and loyal to a money counterfeiting organization hidden within a criminal government power. Patriots loyal to morality were forced to defend themselves against criminals loyal to immorality. For a brief time, the patriots won.

The British government powers had allies in America, infesting our moral government powers with infiltrators: rats.

Rewording the summation of The Crime of the Millennium in simple terms, but justifiable terms: the good people who reestablished voluntary association for mutual defense were fooled into accepting slavery instead. Enforced, subsidized slavery, by criminals upon innocent victims, was extorted upon the masses of humanity soon after the patriots won the Revolutionary War. Soon after the patriots won their liberty the people were led to believe that subsidized slavery, instead of moral liberty, is a preferred form of government. Instead of the voluntary association for mutual defense that was hard won during the Revolutionary War, involuntary servitude under the color of law was forced upon the patriots, and everyone else, who had lost so much during the defensive war, which was a natural reaction to an aggressive assault perpetrated by a false government power.

Most readers are bound by natural laws to be good people, and as such, they (as individuals) demand proof positive before convicting otherwise presumed to be innocent people of any crime: let alone The Crime of the Millennium.

Ok, fair enough, good people, moral people, just people, readers, the proof is plentiful, abundant, conclusive, uncontroversial, and guilt is accountable beyond reasonable doubt, as a matter of fact, on the official record. But before diving into the mountains of uncontroversial proof it is asked of each of us, in voluntary association for mutual defense, to be mindful, assertive, aware, accurately judgmental, willful, doubtless, by reaching into our consciences, our souls, and consider the readily available facts of our situation here on this planet right now. What proof today serves to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the criminals have in fact taken over our moral form of voluntary government for our mutual defense? If it can be acknowledged that we are now slaves in a slave world, under a demonic, criminal, fake government power now, then we can then discover what was done, when, and by who, during the criminal take-over. Once those steps are taken, it is then possible to realize, and acknowledge, how to return to rule of law.

Is freedom in liberty secured for posterity by us right now?

If we the people won the Revolutionary War, as we are told, then: can we say, with confidence, that all the criminal organizations around the world have been rendered powerless by these good people in America setting the example to follow, to copy, and to export? Are the good, moral, lawful people in America, employing the golden rule, and utilizing our own government, of the good people, by the good people, and for the good people - are the moral people in America - showing the world how it can be done in time and place? Are we the people in America the world wide example of moral government; of the people, by the people, and for the people, the example that the whole world can emulate, copy, and follow our moral, principled example of leadership? Have criminal organizations around the world withered to a state of powerlessness by our collective accountability bearing down upon all those who threaten to consume posterity?

Is it so?

Who today cares to look? Who today volunteers to try the case?

Who assumes responsibility to hold any criminal organization to account, let alone the worst of them? Who cares to investigate? Who has the power to present any accused individual with a court date: to try the case? Who among us has the power to accuse, let alone try, the worst criminals who claim to be the government?

Have the people collectively found the American National government guilty or innocent in any case whatsoever?

The movement was aimed at reversing that. King's motto was, the SCLC motto, it was not civil rights, it was redeem the soul of America. That was our motto. So you see right away that that is much larger than getting a hamburger at a lunch counter.
Reverend Jim Lawson, Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial, November 18, 1999

If it is a fact of the matter that the American National Government is collectively guilty of conspiracy murder, then it might be a good idea to know this factually, on the official record, and it might be a good idea to figure out how to hold those who are guilty to account: to deter. Waiting for the criminals in government to grow a conscience is often a fatal decision: following natural laws that are knowable.

We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

It is not so.

We did not preserve liberty in America. Criminal organizations operating under the color of law are now very busy consuming posterity, and the moral people are powerless - defenseless - in ignorance.

Eyes were shut. Eyes are shut now.

People are busy all over the world doing onto others as people would never allow to be done to themselves, including organized enslavement of children for unspeakable exploitation: consuming posterity.

This is not a casual matter. This concerns our temporal salvation as a species: the continued existence of humankind.

Human-kind has been replaced with human-unkind, and that was done in America in the late 18th Century by some of the worst examples of our species; the worst ever to disgrace the human gene pool, and they have positioned themselves falsely as our saviors.

Our collective history is patently false.

Let your mind know what was lost when the criminals took over; please. Knowing what was fought for, what was won, and what was lost must be accomplished before people can once again reach for, fight for, that which is worth fighting for; for our mutual defense.

If we the people can no longer hold the criminals in government to account, then what can be expected from this point onward? Will the criminals in government voluntarily turn themselves in, and if so: to who? Will the balance of power shift as the criminals in government decide, on their own volition, to give all that stolen power back to their victims? Will the people all become entangled in a web of extortion, feeding from a rapidly declining pool of productive earners, until there are no longer any people capable of producing anything worth stealing, let alone holding the criminals to account for their crimes?

What was won in the Revolutionary War? What has been lost since?

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, An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852

The Crime of the Millennium was, and is, and will continue to be, the counterfeiting of moral law, the usurpation of voluntary association, and replacing The Golden Rule with abject, terrifying, horrifying, self-destructive slavery: under the color of law. Out went the fruits of the labor, and lives, of the Revolutionary forces, winning their costly freedom in liberty, and in place of that victory was placed a counterfeit version of voluntary association. Moral, productive, adaptive law was replaced by a morbid imposter.

So the FBI wanted to make a deal with me. Little wonder. The FBI couldn’t make a case without a deal. I remembered studying “Deals 301” in law school. Professor George Washington Carver Jones, the only black professor at the University of Wyoming, taught the class.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation has merely fallen in line with the preponderant persuasion in America—that deals are what it’s all about—mergers, takeovers, magical paper transactions that reap immediate wealth and make the dull and unproductive instantly rich and famous. Fuck this making stuff,” Professor Jones cried as he paced in front of the class. That’s why Professor Jones always got the highest student evaluation in the law school. The students loved to hear him use solid words. “Fuck this work, for Christ sakes! Work is for (the n-word.)” The kids loved to hear him say the “n-word.” He was the only one who could say it. “The money is in deals. Deals, man! And that’s how the FBI sees it too.

“Today, in modern America, the FBI pretends to investigate, but its agents tap phones and plant bugs under beds so they can listen to the snoring and love-making. They’d rather hear a couple of (n-words) fuck than make an honest case,” Professor Jones said boosting his rating ten points. “Occasionally an agent subpoenas a document, and if things get boring a couple of honkies with the collars of their topcoats turned up and wearing snap-brimmed fedoras and imitation Porsche sunglasses corner a witness and scare the living shit out of him. But they don’t engage in detective work. They are merely getting things set up to make a deal.
“Now when the guy is ‘ripe,’ as the Bureau likes to phrase it, when the pressure has been on the suspect for Lord-knows-how-long, and the poor bastard has laid awake for six months staring up at the ceiling wondering how to convince his wife and his kids and the old folks at home that he is really innocent, when he gets up in the morning and the first thing that hits him is a ghastly fear that makes his heart beat out of sync, then like the Chinese water torture, the fear dripping down, the terror of the unknown having captured his mind, the pain of it, minute by minute, hour by hour, day after relentless day, wearing away at him until he has endured one drip too many, well, then he disintegrates into an inglorious pile of blubbering fucking rubble at the feet of the FBI, and he’s ready for a deal!” At the conclusion of the longest sentence uttered by a professor in our law school career, we erupted in loud hoops and applause.

Professor Jones bowed slightly and continued. “The FBI has several classes of deals available. The Class I deal is made with subjects who are guilty of nothing and against whom the Bureau has no case whatsoever. But they have been harassed so long they think they’re guilty, or still believing themselves innocent, they’re helpless to defend themselves, and stupefied by fear, they’ll testify to anything or against anybody if the Bureau will only leave them alone.

“But the FBI makes Class II deals, too. The Class II deal is for subjects who are actually guilty, but still running at large. Usually the more guilty you are the better deal you can make. The Class II dealee might be more guilty than the guy they’re after, but to nail the ‘target,’ the Class II dealee can walk or take ‘short time’ in exchange for his testimony against the target who will likely get twenty years to life. The target could be innocent. That is not the point. The point is the deal. The government isn’t in business to solve cases. It isn’t in the business of bringing criminals to justice. The government has but one function and one function only—to make good, solid, saleable deals!”

“Amen,” some smartass in the back hollered. But Professor Jones paid him no heed.
“Then there are the Class III deals—for inmates. Here the Bureau scrapes the bottom of the deal barrel. Everybody wants out of prison, and if an inmate can conjure up a good enough story against the target, the Bureau will make the inmate a fucking deal. I don’t use the word loosely but with legal precision, because…” He paused with perfect timing, surveying the class. We waited, our hearts pounding with excitement. “Because the deal is to fuck your brother. Deals! Buying and selling! That’s what life in America is all about today. After the Class III prisoner testifies he’ll be placed on the Witness Protection Program. A Class III deal is a peachy deal for convicts who have a good story and are good salesmen. Most crooks are. Most honest people are not.”

We tried to write down every word the professor uttered. “The Class IV deal, the most common deal of all, is one in which the suspect is both the fuckee and the fuckor. He may be guilty or not. If he admits his guilt the government will be easier on him than if he makes the government prove its case by bringing in Class I, II or III deals against him. When you’re the target it’s pretty frightening. You’ve been rotting in jail awaiting trial for eight months without a single ray of sunshine once touching your sickly black hide, and they’ve got you charged with something that pulls ten to life, and you’ve got for a lawyer a honky public defender fresh out of law school with 150 other cases. You’re just one more n-word. You can get out in two if you plead guilty, and you get good time for the eight months you already spent in jail. You make a Class IV deal. I repeat: It doesn’t make any difference whether you’re guilty or not. The Bureau doesn’t care. It’s another case closed. What counts to the Bureau is that they made a deal! ”

I stole a glance at the woman student sitting next to me. Her mouth was open and her lips wet like Marilyn Monroe’s. Her eyes were filled with love or lust. In the excitement of the moment I couldn’t tell the difference.

Professor Jones continued, “If you want to be a success, specialize in making deals with the government. Besides, it’s risky to try a case these days, because jurors know that the last innocent person in America was John Wayne.”
Argus tell us: How the FBI solves its cases

When the criminals take-over they - by force of nature - make criminals out of everyone. In order for good people to fail their lawful duty they must either resort to crime - doing hateful things to others; things they would defend themselves against if those hateful things are done to them - or be victims of crime to an extent that good people are rendered powerless against the collective might of the criminals.

At the time of the Revolution in America the following was in force by moral, defensive, volunteers:

On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.
First Congress, USA, 14th of October, 1774

There in those bold words above is the Golden Rule, the law power, the law of the land in America, and it is called the common law. It is called the common law, and the law of the land, for good reason, and it is enforced by individuals, each in time, each in place.

The moral, good, voluntary, defensive people knew the process of law, and it afforded the people themselves an effective means to reject tyranny: expose the tyrants as such. Those declarations of what was, is, and always will be law, true law, are declarations describing voluntary association for mutual defense. The power of law is the power of agreement. We the people agree to follow our lawful duties according to our conscience. We agree to hold the criminals in government to account, because failure to effectively do so follows a natural, destructive, course.

Hell, it has been said many times: criminals do not obey laws. Some people understand that fact. Criminals in government prefer ignorance by the people, of the people, and for the people. Criminals prefer holding their slaves to account for every unit of productive wealth worth stealing, knowing the futility of milking blood from stones.

Those who don't agree to follow laws are those who instead choose, by their power of will, to reject law, reject voluntary association, and they willfully consume posterity as their willful, premeditated - with malice aforethought - choice. They, as outlaws, reject voluntary association, agreement, and instead, they, as outlaws, enforce disagreement, enforce enslavement by some people upon other people: by criminals upon victims. The most effective criminals are those who breed generations of slaves who are made to believe that the criminals are the government.

Criminals want victims. Victims, as a rule, do not want to be victims. That is the opposite of the Golden Rule. That is the opposite of law. Law is agreement. Law is voluntary. Law is for our mutual defense. Law is for the defense of posterity. Criminals consume posterity. How is it that crime can so easily be confused with law? How is it that people can accept slavery as if it were lawful?

They, those outlaws, as a rule, do not admit their criminality. They, those criminals, as a rule, claim to be saviors rather than criminal slavers breeding generations of slaves.

Victims of lies are those who believe lies. Why do people today believe so many lies told by criminals who perpetrate crimes under the color of law? Is it an American tradition?

It may be worth understand these finer points associated with simple messages like the message offered in Mathew 7:12: The Golden Rule and the basis for moral law. Criminals, as a rule, do not agree to abide by law. It may be a good idea to realize that fact. When the criminals take over, they gain unlimited power only when the criminals managed to fool their victims into believing that the criminals, and only the criminals, have the power to determine what is, or is not, a crime.

Abigail Adams to John Adams Braintree, Mass., March 31, 1776
"I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us. . . . "

Tyrants define the meaning of tyranny: a well established fact. If not for tyrants there would be no tyranny. If not for slave masters, there would be no slavery. Tyrants claim that tyranny is the law. Tyrants claim that slavery is the law. What will the tyrants claim next? When the slaves are fooled into believing that tyranny is the law, and slavery is the law, what lies will the slaves not believe? After tyrants claim authority over law, what is next? Is there insufficient data available to hazard a guess? Do Empires that are built upon the misery of slavery - under the color of law - fall? Do Empires go on forever consuming posterity? What is not built in the first place, cannot fall, to be built again, to fall again, by tyrants on their demonic schedule.

John Adams to James Sullivan Philadelphia, May 26, 1776
"Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level." ​

If a tyrant makes a rule, will the tyrant obey the rule? Give me all your extra cash, demands the tyrant, as the tyrant dictates the law to the slaves. Will the tyrant give all that cash back, having suddenly been infected with a conscience, doing onto others as the tyrant wants done to himself?

It was explained in no uncertain terms by Lysander Spooner in an Essay on the Trial by Jury, offered above, precisely what was fought for and won, and then lost again, in the Revolutionary War in America. Voluntary association for mutual defense, utilizing a time tested methodology, accessing the unanimous conscience of humanity, in a local area, so as to eliminate the potential criminal powers associated with arbitrary government was, and is, the law. Voluntary association for mutual defense is the moral law; it is always ours to command at will.

The final say so, concerning whatever any poser posing as an authority might dictate, is the entire country speaking unanimously through a tribunal known as a jury: the country of moral people determine fact from fiction, law from out-law. In trial by the country, which is trial by jury - according to the common law - the people, not the tyrants, determine the true meaning of tyranny. We, acting as one, through our juries, acknowledge the true meaning of tyranny on the official, lawful, record. Tyrants lie as a rule, tyrants can be counted upon as deceiver and aggressor. Tyrants can be accounted for, as a criminal power in force consuming posterity, a well worn fact of the matter. No other man-made authority is above the unanimous agreement of the entire country through their (the people themselves) tribunals, especially not tyrants. Any segment of people less that the whole, other than a trial jury randomly selected to represent the moral conscience of the whole people, is under, not above, the people themselves. In other words the people themselves have learned to solve their tyranny problems by electing the people themselves as the deciders of what is or is not lawful, what is or is not just, and what is or is not tyranny. The people as a whole have already determined that the people as a whole constitute the law, and that is documented in historical examples such as the common law with trial by jury, a Declaration of Independence, and a Bill of Rights.

When the moral people determine the law, the law is voluntary association for mutual defense. When the criminals take over, such as tyrants, despots, mob bosses, corporate bosses, whatnot, the criminals enforce criminal rules that benefit the criminals at the expense of their enslaved innocent victims. What starts out as the golden rule agreed to, for our mutual defense, becomes a counterfeit - up-side-down - version of law: criminals deciding that whatever they do to their victims is lawful, and anything done in defense against the tyrants is a crime.

No corporation is above the people themselves. People representing the whole moral conscience of the country, in their trial juries, constitutes the law of the land. That was fought for and won in the Revolutionary War. That is what was lost, and the usurpation of moral law, turning moral law into enforced immorality, is the Crime of the Millennium.

Not an individual, and not a group of individuals other than a trial jury composed of moral people, determine lawful fact, guilt, or innocence, in any case. No segment, large or small, majority or minority, constitutes the law other than a trial jury, which is a representation of the whole people as one. That is the actionable meaning of consensual government, of the people, by the people, and for the people. We, the people, are our government, because we say so, and because we act accordingly.

No King is above the people themselves. No king is above the people representing the whole moral conscience of the country in their trial juries. No Parliament is above the people themselves. No parliament is above the people representing the whole moral conscience of the country in their trial juries. No President is above the people themselves. No president is above the people representing the whole moral conscience of the country in their trial juries. No Congress is above the people themselves. No congress is above the people representing the whole moral conscience of the country in their trial juries. To assume individuals, or groups of individuals less than the whole, are authorities over and above, dominating consensual, voluntary, government is false, and a lie told to slaves, and a lie believed by slaves.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
5th Amendment to the 1787/89 fraudulent Constitution

Take a moment and check your polarization, please. Which criminal side have you been roped into representing? The criminals, in their efforts to make criminals out of all of us, routinely divide the people so as to conquer them. Left is created. Right is created. Left and Right are then so exhausted cutting each other's throats, stabbing each other in the back, digging ever deeper down the pit to hell, that there no longer remains any power to actually find, let alone hold to account, the actual criminals who create both Left and Right factions.

Everyone, on every side, with very few exceptions, will turn their heads and shoot the messenger who dares to claim that the 1787/89 - the counterfeit - constitution in American history is a fraud; a fraud upon posterity. Members of the left will shoot the messenger. Members of the right will shoot the messenger. Once the messenger is silenced the message can once again be ignored, as the masses of slaves return to the sound of that siren. Each faction is fooled into thinking that their faction rules as master over the other faction. Each faction is fooled into thinking that the opposition faction must be rendered as the slave faction. All the while the real slave masters - under the color of law - pick your pockets, steal your children, and do unspeakable things while they consume posterity.

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

The history that most dearly concerns our temporal salvation has been censored, removed from general knowledge, sent down the memory hole, and in place of the knowledge of actual law processes is a demonic version of "let's make a deal."

The man who championed The Bill of Rights, George Mason, refused to sign the 1787 Constitution, and as one of the major whistle blowers of the day, he expressed his concerns - concerning our temporal salvation - in no uncertain terms.

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

Before the criminal class - operating under the color of law - destroyed the trial by jury, common law, natural law, system of law, there was in place real law power: power commanded by the people themselves, which is voluntary mutual defense. We had the power, we can have it again. Good people fought to keep that power then, but they lost it. The fact is that the people lost their power to defend themselves. Our power over our law, our means of voluntary mutual defense, is clearly, demonstrably, based upon The Golden Rule: " being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn…"

They, the criminals elements, those individuals, actually got away with subsidizing slavery under the color of law, and people today simply ignore that fact, or misunderstand who was guilty, and who was victim. You people, almost everyone alive today, worship the slave masters today, because you believe the lies told to you by the slave trading criminals running the criminal organization posed as the government. The posers took over in 1789. The frauds took over in 1789. The Slave Traders took over in 1789. The Central Banking Extortion Racket Operators took over in 1789. The Aggressive War for Profit - Warmongers - took over in 1789. They did so on the official record. They did so in no uncertain terms.

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

Stupidly, and servilely, like sheep led to slaughter, like slaves led to a perverse "love" of slavery, Americans since 1789 have ignored their power to govern themselves effectively, efficiently, systematically, according to very well established, tried and true, centuries old, laws. Stupidly, and servilely, slaves were made to believe that powerlessness, in ignorance, is good. Slaves have given to the criminals the power to decide what constitutes a crime. Criminals take that gift with malice festering in their guilty minds.

The destruction of trial by jury was a crime perpetrated by the slave traders, and the fraudulent bankers, along with the warmongers in 1789, but while they were perpetrating that Crime of the Millennium good people fought back.

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

Stupidly, and servilely, like sheep led to slaughter, otherwise moral people turn a blind eye when brothers and sisters of humanity are bought and sold like animals: abused worse than animals. Those who are guilty of such crimes are those who claim to be the government. Those who are, or will become slaves, are those who accept lies as the truth.

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.
Thomas Jefferson, uncensored Declaration of Independence

Stupidly, and servilely, like sheep led to slaughter, otherwise moral people believed the criminals as the criminals stole voluntary mutual defense power. Voluntary mutual defense power was then turned against the people as a whole, causing grave concerns that threatened, back in 1789, our temporal salvation. That Crime of the Millennium was perpetrated in 1789. The damage to our temporal salvation continues to this very day. The criminals posing as the government are to this day consuming posterity, and their crimes are unspeakable.

Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors.
Proverbs 1:8-19

As rich and as powerful as the criminal - under the color of law - slave traders may become, as they feed like parasites off the lives of their slaves, they - the criminals themselves - destroy themselves too. This is not difficult to fathom. For every criminal act perpetrated by every criminal, causing injury to every single victim along the way, for each criminal act perpetrated, that criminal act can be compared to the actions that could have been chosen by the criminal instead of the criminal choice. Each injury caused by each criminal in time and place can be compared to what could have been done instead. In the end of the life of the criminal there is proof positive, beyond reasonable doubt, the damage done to self. The honest measure of precisely how much injury the criminal had brought upon himself, accountable to himself, is compared to what he could have done instead. Each lie began a flood of more lies. Each aggressive injury begot many more injuries. Rather than a smile spreading into many smiles, and rather than one kind act inspiring many more kind acts, the criminal must face the obvious damage the criminal has inflicted upon other's and self.

To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Feb. 27, 1787

The censored history is not a myopic history of only stupid people being led into abject servitude by crafty criminals who collectively constituted an American oligarchy. People fought back. The history of effective, voluntary, mutual defense under common law is blacked out - redacted - from the pages that were taught to each generation after the criminals took over America. The information that is censored, not surprisingly, is the information that concerns the good people who were making good decisions, and the good people who acted according to good, moral, principle. The censored history is the history that empowers the defenders; once censored the defenders are power-less.

14th of October, 1774
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.”

On the 20th day of October 1774
This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world.

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

The information that is censored, not surprisingly, is the information that concerns the good people who were making good decisions, and the good people who acted according to good, moral, principle.

No. 15 – Rhode Island Is Right!

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

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

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

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

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

The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all imp