|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||
|Painting into Corners|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Tue Oct 22nd, 2013 04:41 pm||
|To mark my spot where I intend to offer a concern of a possible serious misstep, the following link is bookmarked here (for later use).
The problem is routine recurrences of people who resort to involuntary associations.
Two or more people connect to each other in time and place.
What is the nature of the connection?
It may help to offer a realization that there are times and places where people exist without involuntary association and from that time and place called Liberty there is then a willful thought and a willful action by someone, or by some group, whereby an involuntary association occurs.
So the idea, offered now, is to contemplate the time and place where Liberty exists, and to know that such a time and place is strictly voluntary, as it stand to reason that the introduction of involuntary association ends the quality of Liberty.
So there it is, in spirit, in mind, if not in fact, a condition of life known as Liberty, whereby those in Liberty are volunteers, volunteering to co-exist, without resort to the unwelcome creation of any involuntary association.
Having that place and time in mind, it can be understood by those having that place and time in mind, and in spirit, that people in Liberty do not resort to specific actions that can be accurately measured as actions that destroy Liberty.
Those actions that destroy Liberty can be accurately measured and entered into a Record of accurately measured actions that destroy Liberty.
Now, having a concept of what is Liberty, and then having a concept of what is not Liberty, the stark contrast of comparison of Liberty can be seen, starkly, as Liberty is compared, in a relative, competitive, accurate, measure, to the opposite of Liberty.
Here is Liberty, people do these things here, and this, here, is NOT Liberty.
Here is the first instance, Recorded on the Record, of a case where someone, in time, and in place, destroys Liberty, here is what happened, and it can be easily understood, easily measured, accurately measured, in FACT, that this is what happened when Liberty was destroyed in this way, right here, at this time.
Call that accurately measured instance of the destruction of Liberty recorded into a record a Legal Precedent, if that is what word works best to convey that message, and call the place whereby the Recording is done a Court of Record, if that is what works best to convey that place where that process of Recording a Record of what happened when Liberty was Destroyed in Time and Place.
Here is Liberty.
Here is the time and place where Liberty was destroyed.
Here is the place where the Record of where and when Liberty was Destroyed was recorded, is now being recorded, and will be recorded, and the name of the place where the process proceeded to Record where and when Liberty was Destroyed is, for now, until some better name comes along, the name of this place, right here, or right there, is a Court of Record.
Who goes to the Court of Record to Record where, and when, Liberty was Destroyed, whereby the State of Liberty, a strictly voluntary association, suddenly became an involuntary association, and no longer was Liberty in FORCE, at that time, in that place, when Liberty was Destroyed, who, who, who, goes to a Court of Record so as to accurately Record, for the Record, when, and where Liberty was Destroyed?
Who finds it necessary, or who finds cause, or who finds reason, or who finds it to be a good idea, or who finds it to be a competitive idea, to stop earning their way through life, to stop earning their way through life, in Liberty, to stop being productive, to stop living the dream, to stop their pursuit of happiness, or to stop their pursuit of property (gained at the expense of no one involuntarily), who stops what they are currently doing to then travel to a Court of Record so as to Record the END OF LIBERTY in that time and place where Liberty was Destroyed, where strictly voluntary association became involuntary association?
Who goes to the Court of Record to accomplish the job of accurately recording the events that occurred in time and place whereby Liberty was Destroyed?
If the victim is dead, then the victim can't go anywhere in the victims former human form. Dead men tell no tales.
If the victim is alive, but so broken, so injured, as to be unable to afford to go anywhere, let alone go to work, then the victim is as good as dead in reference to the work required to accurately Record the events whereby Liberty was Destroyed. The victim was rendered powerless by the criminal, and the victim cannot afford to go to the Court of Record to Record how, when, and where Liberty was Destroyed.
For the Record.
Here is Liberty.
Here is where it was Destroyed.
Who goes to the Court of Record?
The person who willfully decided to Destroy Liberty, to turn all voluntary associations into an involuntary association, in that specific time, in that specific place, defining the meaning of crime, may, or may not, desire, want, have an interest in, going to The Court of Record to Accurately Record the Destruction of Liberty.
Why would the criminal want, or not want, to make sure that the Accurate Record was Accurate, and therefore attend the Court of Record whereby the process of Recording the Destruction of Liberty is Accurately Recorded?
I use too much capitalization?
If those people running the so called Court of Record are Criminals themselves, for example, the lesser criminal (lesser evil) would have no interest in fighting the greater criminal (greater of two evils) since the obvious result of a Criminal version of a Court of Record would be a False Accounting (counterfeit) whereby the more powerful criminal falsifies the Record in the Court of Record, so as to favor the greater evil over the lesser evil.
If those people running the so called Court of Record have a monetary interest in profiting from the crimes perpetrated by the lesser criminals, then the greater criminals will falsify the Record so as to increase their profits at the expense of the victims.
How does anyone know if the operators of the Court of Record are there to make sure that the record is accurate, not false, and in that way there is an incentive for everyone OTHER THAN criminals to attend to their duty, which is to ensure that Liberty remains in FORCE?
The victims may not want to go to the Court of Record for fear, and the victims may not be able to go to The Court of Record for economic reasons (not able to afford the additional expense that is over and above the expense of being victimized), and the victims may actually be murder victims.
The criminals may want to go the the Court of Record for fear, and the criminals may be inspired to go to the Court of Record to ensure that the Court of Record is not falsified by anyone, and here is where there must be TRUST in the POWER of accurate accounting. If a criminal realizes their error, seeking a means by which Liberty can be reinstated, so as to get past the point where Liberty was Destroyed, then where would a criminal go to make sure that the Record shows that the criminal is no longer a criminal?
The criminal goes into hiding?
The criminal has stepped through a time and place whereby the criminal can never return to Liberty?
Liberty, once it is Destroyed, is forever gone for the criminal once the criminal willfully Destroys Liberty?
If a Court of Record is Accurate, nothing more, merely Accurate, then Mutual Interest is at play whereby the victim, the criminal, and any other disconnected, disinterested, objective, witnesses, all, everyone, except those who remain convinced in the need to willfully Destroy Liberty, want, need, desire, and can profit from, an Accurate Record.
Liberty is here.
Liberty was destroyed at this time and this place.
Those who desire Liberty meet and Accurately Record the events whereby Liberty was Destroyed.
Discover the evidence that can be entered into the Court of Record.
Go to the victim, the witnesses, and if possible go to the accused (presumed to be innocent of willful intent, and presumed to be innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever) and CONNECT by connection, a voluntary association between the person claiming to be a victim, the person claimed to be the criminal, and the people working (their specialized job) to maintain an Accurate Record in a Court of Record.
If the Victim (claimed to be a Victim or Victim in Fact) does not TRUST that the people hired to maintain an Accurate Record, then the effort to create a voluntary connection between the Victim and the people hired to maintain an Accurate Record will be impossible unless TRUST can be restored. In other words the Victim will either resist or not resist based upon reasons that can be Accurate Recorded and Maintained, or there may be a Interest in creating an Involuntary Association based upon falsehood.
How about an example?
Person A is an employee hired by people in Liberty to specialize in the keeping of Records in The Court of Record whereby cases where Liberty has been Destroyed are Recorded for the Record, in case anyone has an interest in knowing, accurately, what happens in time and place, whereby criminals create victims?
Person A realizes the need to contact the Victim and gain accurate information from the Victim, if possible, so Person A invents a method by which the Victim is contacted by Person A.
Is the method by which Person A contacts the Victim an Involuntary Association or is there a request made by Person A, for the Victim to attend a session of fact finding, discovery, if it pleases the Victim?
That is a long STORY I am telling to get to the point.
The point, right here, is to point out a possible need to avoid losing TRUST as potential employees who specialize in maintaining an Accurate Record speak to potential employers.
Person A asks the Victim if Person A can be of service to the Victim.
I am here to help, Person A says, in the capacity of someone specializing in maintaining an Accurate Record in a Court of Record, so as to preserve for future employment a Record of exactly what happens when Liberty is Destroyed by Criminals as Criminals create Victims.
If Person A goes to the Library and Person A claims to be the Master of said Library, and the person hired to keep the Library operating as a Library is said to be the Servant of the Master, then, if that happens, in my view there is a possible reduction in TRUST due to the choice of words used in the effort to make a connection that is strictly Voluntary, a connection that does not intend to Destroy Liberty.
I suppose that my word choices (and the number of words) could be improved so as to convey the intended message more effectively.
I cannot improve without feedback.
|Posted: Tue Oct 22nd, 2013 07:34 pm||
|Returning to the link:
Criminals define the meaning of crime as criminals act in ways that Destroy Liberty, whereby voluntary association (a natural occurrence) is replaced with involuntary association (a criminal man-made occurrence).
An accurate measure of the time and place where voluntary association (Liberty) is turned into involuntary association (Crime) is the point at which, and the place in which, the targeted victim no longer has a choice to choose to be separated from the criminal.
The criminal dictates the connection to the victim, taking away the choice to not be connected to the criminal, a choice that existed before the criminal created the involuntary association.
What happens when victims have had enough of being victims, and victims choose to resist the involuntary association dictated into being by the criminals?
"In the autumn of 1690 an expedition, sent by Massachusetts to capture Quebec, returned without success. To defray its cost, which amounted to forty thousand pounds, and to satisfy complaints of "the want of an adequate measure of commerce," the general court, in December, 1690, ordered the issue of "seven thousand pounds of printed bills of equal value with money;" and of the remainder in May, 1691. In July, 1692, within nineteen months of the earliest emission, the first legislature under the new charter which transformed the self-governing colony of Massachusetts Bay into a direct dependency of Great Britain, made "all" these "bills of public credit current within this province in all payments equivalent to money, excepting specialties and contracts made before the publication" of this new law. Their credit was supported by receiving them in all public payments at a premium of five percent."
It must be understood, if the idea is to gain TRUST, to maintain an Accurate Record, in a Court of Record, where, when, and how Liberty was Destroyed, so as to have the accurate information required to regain Liberty, and avoid further Destruction of Liberty.
Why, for example, do people employ words such as Public and Private?
Why do people employ words such as Master and Servant?
As soon as the concept of one man (or woman) raising themselves above the authority of another man (or woman) is realized in time and place, as soon as the connection between one man (or woman) and another man (or woman) is established and realized as a Master/Slave, or Criminal/Victim, or God/Ungodly, or Employee/Employer, or Private/Public, or Better/Worse, or More Valuable/Less Valuable, the Victim knows the score.
TRUST in Liberty becomes TRUST in Crime.
As soon as the Victim is given notice by the Criminal that the Criminal is above The Golden Rule, Above The Law, Above the concept of Liberty, Above Voluntary Association, as soon as the Victim is clued on in the Nature of the Association having been turned into an Involuntary Association by the Criminal, at that moment, in that place, the Victim realizes Victimization.
Liberty is thrown out, Despotism is thrown in, by the Criminal, as the Criminal defines the meaning of Crime.
What can one Victim do when Involuntary Association is Dictated into being, and Liberty is Destroyed?
Find another Victim and start a Victims Anonymous self help group?
"In the autumn of 1690 an expedition, sent by Massachusetts to capture Quebec, returned without success."
Who, exactly, sent an expedition in 1690 to capture Quebec?
The reason for my writing here, in this way, is reasonable because there is a very destructive confusion going on, in many minds, whereby a natural human being is led to believe that there is a THING that can be responsible, and therefore held accountable, for the actions of specific people who willfully decide to DESTROY LIBERTY, in specific places, at specific times.
I am leading up to a point at which some people, who have names, who have their own power of will, decide, these people decide, to gather together voluntarily, and these people decide to go to the Massachusetts Armory and these people seek to regain control of the means of DEFENSE against criminals who have taken over the power of VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENT: i.e. Government by Consent.
Who claims to have been given consent to "capture Quebec" expending, consuming, all those costs, and then failing to enslave the targeted victims, those criminals seek to finance additional criminal adventures?
Then, as a means of regaining the financial POWER to continue criminal operations, said "government" (a list of criminals volunteering to be acting as governors) orders the involuntary payment of so called TAXES (involuntary payments = extortion payments); taxes "collected" from the jurists, from the peers, from those who exist within the boarders of a legal fiction known as Massachusetts, extortion payments are taken from anyone within reach who have anything worth stealing, if they do not resist the order to pay the extortion payments.
Back to here
In the autumn of 1690 an expedition, sent by Massachusetts to capture Quebec, returned without success. To defray its cost, which amounted to forty thousand pounds, and to satisfy complaints of "the want of an adequate measure of commerce," the general court, in December, 1690, ordered the issue of "seven thousand pounds of printed bills of equal value with money;" and of the remainder in May, 1691. In July, 1692, within nineteen months of the earliest emission, the first legislature under the new charter which transformed the self-governing colony of Massachusetts Bay into a direct dependency of Great Britain, made "all" these "bills of public credit current within this province in all payments equivalent to money, excepting specialties and contracts made before the publication" of this new law. Their credit was supported by receiving them in all public payments at a premium of five percent.
Moving ahead in time:
Victims defend against subjugation
Specific to the concept of consent of the governed:
[Side-bar. Article XI of the Articles of Confederation is curious and interesting. It reads: “Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in themeasures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.”]
The forces knowable as England (in particular The Bank of England) orders Massachusetts government "employees" to invade and capture Canada, and finance those expeditions with fraudulent paper money designed to extort the savings (surplus wealth) of the productive people in Massachusetts.
The victims find out about it. The victims focus efforts to defend against the Largest Army of Aggression for Profit (financed by The Bank of England) invading each Constitutionally Limited Republic, such as New York and Massachusetts, according to the concept of government by the consent of the governed, well reported in a Court of Record, whereby The Declaration of Independence records the record of the victims having reached the point at which resistance against criminal invasion, occupation, and enslavement, was bound as a duty of free people in Liberty.
Under The Articles of Confederation the volunteers in voluntary government, in each Constitutionally Limited Republic, managed to get rid of the Criminals from England; which is no small feat, not an insignificant fact.
Back to a source of information (I smell a rat):
Stinky Rat smell
Experience with mustering and employing militia forces during Shays’ Rebellion, 1786-1787 and the very specter of ‘insurrection’ as depicted by that rebellion were significant influences during the Constitutional Convention. For example, Washington writing to James Madison, 22 November 1786, said: “What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man for life, liberty, or property?...Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head will soon bring ruin on the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore to us that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim and the brightest prospect of attaining” (Coakley, p. 7).
Here is where PAINTING INTO CORNERS becomes obvious to me. The concept of a National Monopoly of FORCE, or Consolidated Energetic Government, is STARKLY comparable to the opposite, which is a Confederation of Constitutionally Limited Republics all of which are free to join, and free to leave, said Confederation.
All of which are free to consent to pay for, and free to consent to not pay for, a MONOPOLY CABAL of MONEY LENDERS, MONEY CHANGERS.
The duty of free people is to resist criminal governments.
The duty of free people is to obey when ordered to pay, and to obey when ordered not to question the payments.
If you do not read the next 6 books, then you will not have the information that I have discovered during my Jury Trial that I have volunteered to conduct on my own.
I have no PEERS in this, none, not yet.
The closest I have found to having any PEERS in this Fight for Liberty (A. not B. above) is my fiend bear, Frank O'Collins, and the people organizing The National Liberty Alliance, and yet, on that short list, none appear to understand the gravity of the situation whereby false steps are being made instead of solid steps onto sound foundations here, right here, in America (Frank is in Australia so he is excepted in at least that way).
Pay the extortion fee and what do you expect will happen?
The Articles of Confederation were thrown out because of (so called) Shays's Rebellion. The Central Banking Frauds, who already controlled England, realized how POWERFUL The Articles of Confederation were for the Targeted Victim's effectual defense established IN FACT. The Victims had, with The Articles of Confederation, the means by which Defense against Criminal Governments was EFFECTUAL in FACT. So the Central Bankers knew that The Articles of Confederation, a Voluntary Association among Constitutionally Limited (imperfect) Republics had to go, and instead of a Free Market Government design, an Involuntary Government had to be Enforced by that Central Banking Cabal. I can provide quotes to back up the facts discovered in this case.
Go back in time before the War of Independence (falsely labeled a "rebellion" or an "insurrection" and falsely labeled by criminals seeking to enforce an involuntary association) to number 3 on the reading list:
Rebellion, Insurrection, or duty bound people resisting victimization by criminals who wear false badges of false authority as if the criminals somehow become Gods in their own twisted minds?
Which side are you on? Are you painting yourself into a corner? Do you side with the Central Bankers in this specific case? Do you see the need to regain control of the Armory when the Armory has been taken over by the Central Banking Cabal? When the Central Banking Cabal orders fraudulent (but legal) paper money used to finance invasions of sovereign countries, to occupy, enslave, and CONSOLIDATE those targeted lands, resources, and those targeted people, is that RIGHT? Is it RIGHT to keep paying the payments to such Criminal Governments through direct (involuntary) Taxes and indirect (involuntary) Taxes hidden covertly as "Inflation" and "Quantitative Easing"? Pay up and don't question the payments?
So Generalissimo Washington is pulled out of retirement to become the new King of a new Consolidated Nation State that will then have the power to enforce a Money Monopoly and whereby any competitor can be CRUSHED or Incorporated into the fold?
Why can't anyone else see this?
The Whiskey Rebellion?
Why are such events as those events claimed to be a Rebellion? When the Victims Declare their Independence it is no longer CONSENT of the Governed and therefore the ACT perpetrated by those who seek to enslave the "governed" are the aggressors, the criminals, the Despots, the MASTERS, and the FALSE GODS who claim to be above the rule of law. In the words of the Criminal, there is a confession. The King enslaves (conscripts = no longer voluntary = no longer consent of the governed) an Army of invaders to invade a Constitutionally Limited Republic so as to crush or incorporate a number of money competitors, and it is called a "Rebellion"?
If the War for Independence is to be called a Rebellion, then who is doing the name calling? Which side are you painting yourself onto?
The Founders on the side of LIBERTY
Do you really think that all those loyal to the Central Banking Cabal running England were driven out of all the Constitutionally Limited Republics under The Articles of Confederation upon the conclusion of the Rebellion that could be called a War for Independence FROM the Central Banking Cabal running England?
Madison's Coat Turns Blue
Why did the author of The Constitution suddenly realize how damaging his work was to the concept of government by consent (Liberty or Voluntary Government or Free Market Government) and therefore why did Madison TURN his coat from RED to BLUE and begin to take Revolutionary Steps in Rebellion against the Central Banking Cabal running England, and now running a Subsidiary arm of that Corporation known now as Washington D.C. or United States Inc. (LLC)?
The battle can be clearly understood when consent is no longer a factor.
When common law (law of the land, law of custom, law of nature, law of God, law of no one being above the law) becomes Common Law (Maritime Law/Admiralty Law/Corporate Law/Statutory Law/Edict/Despotism), the obvious becomes obvious when those resisting enslavement are being called rebels and insurgents on ONE SIDE and the other side are denying the validity of the claim.
You don't own me, sir, so my resistance to your claims of ownership are not acts of rebellion or insurgency, just leave me alone, please.
What is to be done when the other side, the side you appear to be painting yourself onto, refuses to leave the free, liberated, people, the innocent productive targets, alone?
The POLITICAL PARTY SIDE during those days when Liberty was Crushed by Frauds and Extortionists working for the Central Banking Cabal run out of England included George Washington (Invading Pennsylvania with a slave army to crush money competition), Alexander Hamilton (Central Banking National Debt Fraud Founder), and John Adams (Famous for what? His words? Or his deeds, acts, such as The Alien and Sedition Acts), whereby for some odd reason these so called "Founders" sided with Despotism, Involuntary Association, Monarchy, Central Banking Fraud, Monopoly, Consolidation, and England (Bank of England).
Why did Madison (Federalist at the start) change his colors and join (reservedly) with Jefferson in the works that became known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions?
Why were the opponents of The Constitution, such as Luther Martin, Robert Yates, George Mason, and Patrick Henry against ratification of The Constitution, and why did they end up demanding The Bill of Rights attached to that USURPATION of LIBERTY?
|Posted: Wed Oct 23rd, 2013 06:58 pm||
|I may not be measuring up as being helpful in the effort to DEFEND LIBERTY trough a Nationalized effort.
I can still offer information, to be read, or not read, understood, or not understood, accepted, or rejected.
A case in point concerns the meanings of two words:
Side-bar: There is another part of the Constitution that is important to recall when considering the role of posse comitatus in the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law and subsequently in the post-Civil War Reconstruction, which represent two conflicting applications of the concept of posse comitatus. The relevant part of the Constitution is Article IV, Section 2, reading in part: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due...”
Note: Debt Slavery in modern terms, our present reality, includes such things as Students failing to pay back Student loans and the employment of the so called LAW to connect to those Students and act upon those Students on behalf of those claiming to be victims?
Who stands with any true authority concerning any claim by any presumed to be innocent human being (people, person, peer, innocent one) who claims to be a victim relative to any presumed to be innocent accused human being (people, person, peer, innocent one) in any case whatsoever whereby a Record will be Recorded so as to work toward gaining an accurate Record of who is, or who is not, guilty of any injury to any innocent person, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Note: There is no references made by me as to any resort to punishment at all, up to this point in time.
Who stands with any true authority concerning any use of violence upon anyone in any official, authoritative, manner?
Defensive actions that may be forced into violence by the aggressor
Aggressive violence authorized as aggressive such as the often repeated propaganda in MOVIES exemplified with the phrase "License to kill"
Now you have all you really need to know about posse comitatus. I have lots more time, so there is more that I am going to say—when have I ever forgone the chance to talk! By the way, the emphasis on the slide is added by me.
Also, note that the Navy, including the Marines, are not cited in the law. However, I believe that Naval authorities have agreed that the law does pertain to the naval service as well. I am not aware of any time in US history where naval units were called upon to form up as members of a posse comitatus. Marine elements have been called upon by federal marshals. For example: April,1867, four companies of Marines (Brooklyn Navy Yard, NY) assisted revenue officers in raids on illegal distilleries in Brooklyn; March, 1868, Marines again seized and destroyed a number of illicit distilleries near the Navy Yard in Brooklyn. And Marines were called out to deal with domestic problems even after the enactment of the Posse ComitatusAct.
The use of the term federal marshals is interesting considering the facts recording in history concerning the meanings of the words Federal and Anti-Federal, whereby the so called Federalists were pushing for, and eventually gaining, a Consolidated Government Monopoly Power, complete with a National Debt produced from the production of Fraudulent Paper Money.
Why is the term "federal" being used when the actual fact of the matter is that the actual POWER is not a competitive, voluntary, federated UNION, the POWER is instead a non-competitive, involuntary, NATIONAL UNION POWER.
What is the difference between "federal marshal" and a mere Sheriff?
What happens when a Sheriff moves to regain control of a "Public" Armory while a "federal marshal" is blocking access to that "Private" Armory?
Who paid for the devices stored in that Armory which is either/or a "Public" or a "Private" Armory?
In the case of Shays's Rebellion (so called) the duty bound (bound by the duties of free people as declared or recorded in a court of record known as The Declaration of Independence) to defend Liberty against criminals who took over the POWER of government, turning a voluntary defensive government into an involuntary offensive criminal government, there were no "federal marshals," impeding access to the Massachusetts Armory by the Revolutionary War Veterans such as Daniel Shays who may have been acting as a voluntary Jurist/Sheriff impromptu?
I don't know, I was not there, but people where there, and the left bread crumbs of information in the Record that did not become the "official" Record recorded by the Victorious Aggressors who CRUSHED the effort to regain Liberty in Massachusetts.
The American Revolution's Final Battle
"During the bitter winter of 1786-87, Daniel Shays, a modest farmer and Revolutionary War veteran, and his compatriot Luke Day led an unsuccessful armed rebellion against the state of Massachusetts. Their desperate struggle was fueled by the injustice of a regressive tax system and a conservative state government that seemed no better than British colonial rule. But despite the immediate failure of this local call-to-arms in the Massachusetts countryside, the event fundamentally altered the course of American history. Shays and his army of four thousand rebels so shocked the young nation's governing elite—even drawing the retired General George Washington back into the service of his country—that ultimately the Articles of Confederation were discarded in favor of a new constitution, the very document that has guided the nation for more than two hundred years, and brought closure to the American Revolution."
"Washington, Knox, and Bowdoin may not have taken these words seriously. But others did. To them,the people's obligation to "throw off" destructive and tyrannical governments not only was clear, but it had been further sanctified by the thousands who fought and died for the Revolution. It had become a sacred trust, a moral imperative, an "indispensable duty" as Judge William Whiting put it."
Note: These words, in that source, were the words recorded in The Declaration of Independence.
So, there are no Federal Marshals assembling volunteers (or conscripts) to defend the Armory from volunteers (no such thing as conscripts) who seek to regain control of the THINGS that they (the volunteers) paid for and held in TRUST in the Armory.
Now back to here:
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press,1971, defines Posse Comitatus in the following manner: “L. force of the county. The body of men above the age of fifteen in a county (exclusive of peers, clergymen, and infirm persons), whom the sheriff may summon or ‘raise’ to repress a riot or for other purposes; also a body of men actually so raised and commanded by the sheriff.” The first quotation of use is dated 1285. An extensive history—over 700 years and only misunderstood for about the last 50 years!
Even the western films have done a good job of representing the common law practice: when the town bank is robbed and the sheriff dashes into the bar and announces he is forming a posse, everyone who can ride and tote a gun is expected to join up—and the posse races out of town chasing the villains! That is posse comitatus, US style.
The use of the word posse to mean a gang or group, such as used by city gangs or drug lords does not follow from the history of the phrase; it is an unauthorized and incorrect application. But such is the use of language: it does not follow logic or law.
US style? Meaning the corporate entity known as United States or is the intended (informed, intelligent, thoughtful, willful) meaning such that there are many Constitutionally Limited Republics joined into a voluntary union or Federation of Sovereign States whereby common law, trial by jury, and government of the consent as declared in The Declaration of Independence is the meaning intended?
From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Whose arms are stored in the Armory?
Who paid for them?
Who is accountable for those arms in the Armory, how are those arms in the Armory kept from falling into the hands of enemies (foreign and domestic) of voluntary associations, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, peace, and moral use of useful things such as defensive arms?
Maj. George S. Patton, Jr. wrote paper, November 1932, after dispersal of Bonus Marchers, that
represented the older attitudes. Entitled “Federal Troops in Domestic Disturbances,” similar in tone
and substance to Dowell’s manuals of the 1920s; reminiscent of late 19th century military works on
civil disturbance. Paper argued that, if gas was ineffective against a mob, the troops should open fire;
from nearby buildings sharpshooters should pick off mob leaders. Quotes: ‘Always fire for effect...If
you must fire do a good job—a few casualties become martyrs, a large number an object lesson.’
Patton also believed that breaking up the mob was the main Army objective: ‘When a mob starts to
move keep it on the run, but always leave it a line of retreat—a cornered rat will fight desperately.’ If
any rioters resist, ‘they must be killed.’ Troops guarding buildings were urged to establish a deadline
beyond which rioters would be shot. ‘Be sure to kill the first one who tries and leave him there to
discourage the others.’ Concerning legalities, Patton believed that ‘an armed mob resisting federal
troops is an armed enemy. To aid it is treason. This may not be law, but it is fact. When blood starts
running law stops, because, by the fact of bloodshed, it has demonstrated its futility.’
|Current time is 01:55 pm|
|Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > Painting into Corners||Top|