|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||
|Common law or|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Mon Dec 2nd, 2013 05:36 pm||
|Much controversy can be boiled down to a very specific conflict of interest between those who agree to be peaceful (voluntary) and those who enforce slavery (involuntary) and it is easy, not at all difficult, to find out which side someone is on.
Note Side A:
Moreover, the statue was merely declaratory of, although somewhat in mitigation of, the common law. Such libels were punishable under the common law and therefore, by reason of Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, were punishable under the judicial power of the United States, which included the power to declare common law.
Compare side A to side B:
In arguing against the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, Madison first attacked the basis for Otis’s justification of the statute in the Fifth Congress: that it was supplementary to the common-law power of crimes, which the federal government possessed under Articles III of the Constitution. Madison’s contention was that since the colonies had all modified the substantive rules of English common law to suit their own circumstances, there was no uniform substantive common-law rules from which the federal courts could, without exercising a discretionary, quasi-legislative power, effectively posit a federal common law.
The False Federal Take over of voluntary law (common law) by the false Federalists (including Washington, Hamilton, and Adams) whereby voluntary law (common law) was turned into involuntary law (legal slavery) is expressed with those specific words offered in that link.
Side A (false federalists) dictates what is or is not crime, punishes who is dictated as being punishable, and the victims punished in this manner have no power of defense whatsoever, the victims of this type of LEGALIZED CRIME are not even allowed to speak out against this type of LEGALIZED CRIME.
The supporters of constitutionality of those acts claimed that the common law had been introduced and become a part of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore the powers usually exercisable under the common law could be exercised by the Congress of the United States in the respects involved in those acts. Mr. Madison’s letter discussing this contention was answered so far as it asserted the right of a State to nullify an act Congress, but was never answered so far as it denied the existence of the common law as a part of the Constitution of the United States. His objections to that contention, succinctly stated, were that if the common law was part of the Constitution, then there were no constitutional limitations.
So common law was the law of the land made the law of the land by the people, for the people, of the people, as government existing in a form that is by their consent, they are, in effect, their own government, and the words used to identify the people being their own government is common law which included trial by jury.
The problem has been, is, and always will be a problem of finding people to recognize the fact that common people govern themselves well enough without the help of authorities who claim to be above common law.
Trial by Jury
It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
King John was reluctant to officially recognize common law as being the law of the land, but that is the same story told by every dictator.
|Posted: Tue Dec 3rd, 2013 03:42 pm||
|When did the criminals take over, and how did they do it?
THE GRAND JURY UNDER ATTACK?
I think there is a much deeper cause and effect going on in the minds of free people these days. Many of the people who constitute our government by the people have had their minds directed into serving the few criminals among us, at the expense of everyone.
Note in the link offered (Brian posted the link on another page) there is a reference to the same battle between The Federalists (Hamilton) and the so called Anti-Federalists (Jefferson) over the issue of Involuntary Government Dictates.
Here is the Quote:
Early in 1793 Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton had instructed customs officials to report to him all infractions of the neutrality laws. Thomas Jefferson protested vigorously against this unwarranted invasion of the province of grand juries.
Of course the criminals who take over government must destroy all competition in the market of government which includes the very competitive common law grand jury government offer also known as government for the people (without exception) by the people (without exception) and of the people (without exception) because that type of offer (voluntary government) does not create an institution that makes some criminals the boss (false authority) of everyone else.
Part III (part I and II are in the first link)
|Posted: Fri Dec 27th, 2013 08:05 pm||
|I have very little feedback, and therefore no idea as to who reads anything well enough to gain anything, and certainly not offering much of anything in return.
It can be credit worthy to report that the next series of words offered are inspired by a phone conversation I had with Carla (if I remember correctly) where the subject of Iceland was tabled.
Icelandic Free Market Government Example
That type of information should be understood as an obvious Free Market Competition whereby there are people demanding things and there are people supplying things to meet the demand for things.
What happens when people demand something while the supply is a counterfeit version of that which is being demanded?
Trust that future events will be beneficial instead of future events being costly can be an obvious demand.
Please think about that and if you can please think about responding on this forum in such a way as to fill my demand for a future that includes someone proving to me that I am wrong about this, so that I am no longer deluded, so that my future is supplied with that expectation of that specific benefit.
I trust that the future will be determined by the winners in the power struggle between those who willfully supply Involuntary Association as a counterfeit version of the actual demand that is being demanded by almost all moral human beings.
Most moral human beings demand a future that is not their own enslavement at the hands of very evil people.
Some human beings may want to be lied to, robbed, beaten, tortured, and slowly murdered.
Some human beings may want to work harder each day, longer hours, suffer worsening work conditions, so as to allow the people whipping them at work the ability to afford a higher quality whip, easier work conditions for the Masters who cause slavery, luxury for the Masters, and any other pleasure the Masters may dream up.
Those who want to be slaves may trust in their ability to reach that goal.
Those who want to be slaves may demand to be slaves.
Those who want to be masters may trust in their ability to reach that goal.
Those who want to be masters may demand to be masters.
Those numbers of people who demand slavery as slaves and as masters, obviously, get their demands supplied to them. That is not subject to argument.
That can be easily tested, proven, as fact. If someone demands, wants, desires, seeks, solicits, asks for, pays for, more pain, they WILL find someone to inflict that pain upon them. If someone demands, wants, desires, seeks, asks for, pays for, someone to receive pain from them, WILL find someone to inflict pain upon.
The supply will be supplied to meet those demands for slavery.
When all demands for slavery are honest, open, accurate, well communicated factually, the supply meets the demand in time and place according to those who willfully agree to be slaves within Master Slave Voluntary Associations.
The Master cannot be supplied with slaves without a ready supply of willing slaves, so the Master is a slave to that required limit to that ready supply: no supply of slaves, no Masters of slaves in Voluntary Association.
What, on the other hand, forms the trust that moral people demand in their every day lives whereby they prefer not to be masters or slaves?
What can possibly fill the demand for future expectations of life without increasing pain and suffering caused by people who will cause pain and suffering upon innocent victims?
I may be assuming too much. Stepping back: if some of the people are not demanding, and then receiving, pain and suffering inflicted upon people by people, and some people are seeking, demanding, wanting, work for, and paying for future life without pain and suffering inflicted upon people by people, then what is supplied so as to meet that specific demand?
What is supplied, and by who, so as to meet the demand for future conditions of life that reduce the incidence of pain and suffering being inflicted upon innocent victims?
Assuming that some people prefer that innocent victims are not being destroyed by criminals, which may be a wrong assumption on my part, what is being supplied to meet that demand?
If that supply can be known, and accurately measured, whereby the supply is being supplied to meet the demand for life where innocent life is not being snuffed out by criminals, then that accurate measure of that supply can be seen as being worthy of trust, as the supply does meet the demand for it, or that supply can be seen, accurately, judged accurately, as failing to meet the demand for it.
That is a long way to get to this point:
Abject Belief in Blind Obedience to Falsehood without question.
Trust in your fellow moral human beings.
If the reader reading these words (how would I know if there was one?) goes to the link where a report is offered on the history of Iceland, then the reader may then see a competition of ideas.
Involuntary Association (Legal crime/Monopoly/Master-Slave/Despotism/Monarchy/Fascism/Communism/etc.)
Voluntary Association (Effective Free Market Defense against Crime/Competition/No unknowing or unwilling slaves or masters/Liberty/Free Market Federalism/Free Market Capitalism/Free Market Socialism/etc.)
Note these words:
“Those people committed to the rule of law will have to find in medieval Iceland an interesting limiting case. The often unquestioned assumptions that law depends on the state either for its existence or for its efficacy might have to be justified more fully. In any event, theoretical musings on the origins of the law and the state of nature might benefit from knowledge of this remarkable instance of social and legal form in the absence of a coercive state.”
Liberty is specifically NOT a coercive state.
Those who falsely supply a coercive state so as to fill the demand for Liberty confess their fraud.
On its face, in plain view, for all who care to see, for all who care to know, for all who demand to know the accurate facts, the claim that a coercive state MUST exist, is, the claim is, demonstrably false.
Therefore those who make such a claim can be categorized, accurately, into the following two possible groups of people.
Those who know it is a lie.
Those who are victims to their own lies.
Any number of other possible conditions of life may exist in any number of people, but the majority of people making the claim that a coercive state MUST exist will fall into those categories.
Those who know it is a lie are those who willfully perpetrate those specific crimes that they claim are necessary as they invent, create, and maintain their "coercive state."
Those who are fooled by their own lies are those who actually believe that their crimes are necessary as they invent, create, and maintain their "coercive state."
Trust in a future human existence whereby everyone must work harder and harder for less and less drives this blind belief in obedience to falsehood without question, and either the individual person desires, demands, such a future of misery, or the individual is a victim to such a miserable outlook of future life.
How does such a mind work in either case?
Those who are infected will not confess; there are few exceptions.
Those who are infected demand a coercive state, they demand abject slavery to their trust in their future of misery. They work tirelessly to fill their demand with a ready supply of human misery.
More notes from the Iceland report:
"Nozick postulates that in the state-of-nature entrepreneurs, observing violations of individual rights, offer to provide protection to vitims and bystanders and, establish Protective Associations (PA’s). The PA’s need not limit their services to offering only protection, but may offer comprehensive legal and judicial services. "
Here is where modern education is an infection of duplicity.
Those who are against government are at the same time those who are for government. That becomes a division inside the individual human brain, or human conscience, or soul.
Government, or the state, can be, because it has been, is, and can be, strictly voluntary for all those moral people who make it strictly voluntary, and for all those who seek to invent, produce, and maintain INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION (also known as crime) there can be effective, FREE MARKET, methods of accurately identifying them, for what they do, for the lies they tell, and those forms of government, and those forms of a state that are strictly voluntary WILL improve in quality and they WILL reduce in cost over time because the FREE MARKET force of competition works by natural human nature as people choose better for worse among the choices offered to supply to fit the demand.
Iceland is one example of strictly voluntary association. Not PERFECTLY voluntary, because some people inevitably choose to be criminals, but the concept is to demand voluntary association, in a strict sense, which means that "good enough for government work" is not good enough IF someone makes a claim that torture is legal, or fraud is legal, or murder is legal, or slavery is legal, or any other false claim that INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION is in any way legal.
The lies that support "a coercive state" or INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION includes the lie that criminals obey the laws that the criminals enforce upon all their victims who are foolish enough to be suckered into INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.
Those who know the plain truth know that criminals do not obey any laws, not their own, and certainly not laws which invent, produce, and maintain strictly voluntary associations.
Note from another source:
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
A more perfect union according to a criminal might be a UNION that raises the criminals in office above their own laws.
A less perfect union may yet be an effort to supply to those who demand strictly voluntary associations that which they demand and those who offer counterfeit versions can be compared, competitively, in a Free Market, along side those who offer the genuine high quality and low cost alternatives.
Note back to the Iceland link:
"“The later institution seems to have been introduced because the previous system occasionally failed to resolve cases brought before them. Since super-majorities of jurors were required for decisions at lower level courts, a change to a simple majority requirement seems to have been needed to overcome unresolved cases.”
The time frame is the first century CE (or AD).
Trial by Jury is not a new, competitive, human adaptation.
|Posted: Fri Dec 27th, 2013 10:08 pm||
I am going to look into this and I already see the connection to Saving to Suitors.
David Merrill is behind Saving to Suitors and he offers much in the way of defeating the criminal frauds who took over the government of this country because the focus of his competitive defense is on redeeming lawful money.
This may prove to be a very interesting connection.
|Posted: Sun Aug 24th, 2014 02:19 pm||
|What is Shepard's Citations?
A set of volumes published primarily for use by judges when they are in the process of writing judicial decisions and by lawyers when they are preparing briefs, or memoranda of law, that contain a record of the status of cases or statutes. Shepard's Citations provide a judicial history of cases and statutes, make note of new cases, and indicate whether the law in a particular case has been followed, modified, or overruled in subsequent cases. They are organized into columns of citations, and various abbreviations indicate whether a case has been overruled, superseded, or cited in the dissenting opinion of a later case.
|Current time is 02:13 pm|
|Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > Common law or||Top|