Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Monday Conference  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2014 03:17 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
07-07-2014

Speaking about critics, dishonorable, people.

7:00 pm

NLA is grass roots?

8:11 pm

Hawaii contending with state versus county "constituting."

"You can constitute all counties in one place..." 8:13 pm

"One county can form the state..." Q

"I think so..." A = 8:14 pm

I hear: "Hurry up when I say so, while don't hurry up when I say don't."

Hawaii says: agree with the gentleman (probably KR Hunt) 8:17 pm

8:34:

The lost at sea stuff:
http://blog.ucadia.com/2014/06/admiralty-law-proving-once-again-there.html

Why gamble?

Why not know better?

8:48:
Red Button Story (to big to fail etc.)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2014 07:00 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Online
Mana: 
Direct Link:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/mondayrecording/14-07-07.mp3
Download of that file was suggested. I have a copy.
During the live call the Program ended on my computer at the 3 hour mark. The connection ended.
Listening in today, 07-08-2014, from the MP3 audio file, I find:
Time: 3:00
John Darash:
"Well, again, ahh, you know, he should come in and converse and bring these thoughts and ideas up. Look't, people should never be afraid to come up and give opposite views, and, and, and, because maybe there missing..., maybe were missing somethin...maybe we do have something wrong, so, so that opportunity is there, and I think conversation helps to reveal where the error is (the blind...)... if we're honest, you know, so..."
I can go back to the record and find all the places I tried (desperately) to point out the error of claiming that the Con Con of 1787 was anything other than a criminal take over of America by specific people calling themselves (falsely) the Federalist Party.
I've been indirectly called a liar from hell.
As to fear.
I do not fear the confrontation between the accurate account of precisely what did happen in 1787 as that accurate account stands toe to toe, and face to face, and word for word, with the lies, so any claims of anyone fearing to speak the truth against the falsehoods is another falsehood, which may be born from the original falsehood, which is typical of compounding lies.
The first lie (The Con Con of 1787 was in any way legitimate, lawful, right, moral, or anything other than a crime still in progress) requires two more lies to cover that first lie up, and then there are 2 more lies for each additional lie, which is compounding, which is exponential growth rates, and this is the stuff that should have been taught to the children, so that the children are not inspired to lie, whereby the next generation builds a house of cards built from those first lies.
The first lie leads to this:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/us-marshal
That is found under Essays/Lectures on this web page.
Then here:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/marshal/1%20US%20Marshals%2...
Quote____________________________
As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases.
But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law.
___________________________________
So, fear, does not keep me from challenging the obvious, measurable, accurately measurable, true, factual, real, as in reality, fact of the matter, beyond a reasonable doubt for anyone who still has command of their willpower, their moral conscience, whereby slavery is a crime, slavery is not defense of liberty, slavery is slavery, and therefore slavery cannot be law, not unless someone is lying to get away with slavery, or their words are lies because they fail to see the original lie.
A member of National Liberty Alliance from Kern county helped me see the error of my ways, as it was counter productive to our common defense, at this time, to persist in interrupting John Darash, and those who follow his directives, as people move step by step along this path laid out by John Darash and the Unified Common Law Grand Jury of New York.
There may be a better time to point out this very serious error that is not seen by John Darash, and not seen by Gerard, or who knows who else does not see this fatal error, which is not that hard to see.
Slavery is not lawful.
The criminals took over in 1787 when the criminals made slavery legal.
Why is that not easy to see?
In 1787 it was easy to see, and those who saw it were not afraid to tell it like it was then, but as it was then, as it is now, who cares enough to listen?
Who cares enough to listen to someone pointing out that slavery is not legal?
I listen to people who call me to point out to me where John Darash goes wrong, and my conversations with them ends up, in almost every case, whereby I accurately identify where they, those who are opposite John Darash, are on the same side with John Darash, concerning their alliance, on the same side, with the criminals who made slavery legal in 1787, in Philadelphia, at the first Con Con.
The common denominator between those who oppose John Darash, and those who John Darash opposes, is that they are joined by the same false belief in the Constitution, as if slavery could ever be legal. So in that common denominator, they are on the same side, despite their animosity between them.
So, John Darash, again:
"Well, again, ahh, you know, he should come in and converse and bring these thoughts and ideas up. Look't, people should never be afraid to come up and give opposite views, and, and, and, because maybe there missing..., maybe were missing somethin...maybe we do have something wrong, so, so that opportunity is there, and I think conversation helps to reveal where the error is (the blind...)... if we're honest, you know, so..."
"...give opposite views..."
Forget about me.
How about people living in a working Federation (before the criminals took over), whereby these people were opposing the making of slavery legal?
That information is also available on this web page from Essays/Lectures and the false label of Anti-Federalist Papers (these were the true federalists OPPOSING the false federalists):
Quote___________________________
Antifederalist 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-America 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.
___________________________________
There it is in black and white.
Is that not ironic?
If someone dares to claim that I am working against our effective defense of the innocent victims from the guilty criminals they have a leg to stand on, and it is either a lie, or it is something I have yet to see, and so where is this leg they stand on?
Is slavery repugnant to Magna Carta?
The answer is no.
Magna Carta, if you read it, is another crime in progress, but the ink on the paper is a confession, so it serves the defenders as such, and also, in that confession, are words, ink on paper, that document the existence of our due process.
Our due process = Liberty = trial by jury = no one, meaning no one, meaning not anyone, is above the law = everyone is afforded due process = the criminals are the ones who oppose our due process = the criminals make our due process too expensive, unfordable, and against their opposing law.
Like this:
Our due process-------------------------------------------Criminal confessions
trial by jury ---------------------------------------------------------Magna Carta
Declaration of Independence/Aggressive War for Profit (attacking the "rebels")
Constitutions of Republics (13 or so)------Admiralty Law enforced by Criminals
Articles of Confederation forming a Federation---------Central Bank of England
Final Battle in Massachusetts (Shays's Rebellion)--Tyranny visits Massachusetts
Federation solves the problem-----------------------------Criminals call a Con Con
Bill of Rights-----------------------------------------The (one and only) Constitution
Liberty (no one above the law)---------------------Tyranny (criminals enforce lies)
Each document serves anyone daring to help anyone, anywhere, in our common defense, as each document clearly proves either Liberty or Tyranny on the face, or prima-facie, facts written in ink on paper.
All the people who dare to offer a competitive viewpoint, an accurate viewpoint, against palpable fear, against palpable terror, against the worst evil to ever visit our kind, are on the same side, so...
I do not fear any discussion with anyone on our side, why would I?
I happen to know that any fear on our side is fear generated on the evil side, and I happen to know that those on the evil side have a much better understanding of precisely what is to be feared, as those on their side are those who are closest to that evil.
On their side they pour gasoline on those closest to them and they burn them alive when they do not obey without question.
So who can face the facts?
If everyone won't face the facts, then our fate is sealed.
If some of us dare to face the facts, including this fact that the criminals took over in 1787, then we can discuss, share, help, defend, and record the accurate account, at least, and in that process, due everyone without exception, some of us will be raising the cost of admission, and it may be a good idea to stop that process sooner rather than too late.
I am often blamed for writing poorly, writing too much, on and on.
I do not raise the cost of participating. No one has to read, or listen, to any more words offered by me than whichever words they encounter. The door is open. The floor is open. The table is open. The only price placed on discussion is the cost of a phone call, the cost of a connection to a computer and the World Wide Web, and your inclination to participate in discussion.
My cost to participate is raised above what I can afford.
John Darash:
"Well, again, ahh, you know, he should come in and converse and bring these thoughts and ideas up. Look't, people should never be afraid to come up and give opposite views, and, and, and, because maybe there missing..., maybe were missing somethin...maybe we do have something wrong, so, so that opportunity is there, and I think conversation helps to reveal where the error is (the blind...)... if we're honest, you know, so..."
I've done that, more than once, and I've been covertly called a liar from hell. That is a high price from my viewpoint. If the golden rule means anything, then it means that someone falsely, covertly, condemning me publicly as a liar from hell, is someone who wants that type of behavior, someone who will find that type of behavior blowing back on them.
It take two to tango. I do not have to play along.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A39&version=KJV
Matthew 5:39King James Version (KJV)
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2025&version=KJV
18 A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.
19 Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint.
20 As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.
21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.
So...with that in mind.
John Darash and The Unified Common Law Grand Jury of New York may very well be the best competitor working effectively for our common defense to date.
That is credit earned. I can acknowledge that earned credit.
Is there anything, anything at all, that my accuser, the one who condemns me, is thirsty for?
John Darash:
"Well, again, ahh, you know, he should come in and converse and bring these thoughts and ideas up. Look't, people should never be afraid to come up and give opposite views, and, and, and, because maybe there missing..., maybe were missing somethin...maybe we do have something wrong, so, so that opportunity is there, and I think conversation helps to reveal where the error is (the blind...)... if we're honest, you know, so..."
What happens when I offer the bare facts concerning precisely what was done in 1787?
I get this:
18 A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.
What can I do, if I do not want to play that game?
I can do this:
21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.
What does that mean?
That, to me, means that the information, the accurate account, will eventually "heap coals of fire upon his head," and as far as I am concerned my reward will be more of the same "no good deed goes unpunished," whereby I am told that I am the enemy.
I am told that I am poisoned.
I am told that I am a liar from hell.
I am told that I am the road block impeding the righteous on their path to save The Republic, or The Nation, or The Constitution.
Those accusations are false. Those accusations cannot "heap coals of fire upon," my head.
You want to save slavery made legal, then you, any of you, are welcome to that road, and I cannot stop you, nor would I stop you. My goal is to defend the innocent.
When accusations against those who employ accurate accounting in defense of the inocent appear in spoken words, recorded words, or written words, they are confessions, not "coals of fire," because they are false.
Claiming that I am poisoned, unless shown to me, is an empty accusation; the evidence exists proving otherwise.
The criminals divide and conquer.
Rather than facing many individual defenders who had command of a competitive version of trial by jury adopted from ancient history, and adapted to current realities, in 13 former slave states (called colonies), rather than facing those defenders armed with methods of affording everyone an accurate accounting through trial by jury, rather than facing those people who also constituted 13 working Republics, which were 13 Republics working as voluntary militia organized defensively, rather than facing each separate, autonomous, defensive powers formed as those 13 Republics, rather than facing those 13 Republics formed into a voluntary, unified, defensive force, known as a Federation, under The Articles of Confederation, and under those separate, sovereign, voluntary Constitutions, in almost all of those Republics (except 1 where a constitution was not needed or wanted generally), rather than facing all of that defensive power, the criminals preferred a divided people, where the people were all at each others throats, so the criminals created a lie.
The victims, generally, bought into the lie.
Not all of the victims, but generally, the victims bought into the lie.
The lie persists.
The lie still divides all the defensive people and the lie still inspires the defenders to be attacking each other.
How do I know?
One of the people attacking John Darash called me, and I offered that caller a fact.
The fact I offered was that the caller was on the same side as John Darash.
Both the caller who was attacking John Darash, and John Darash who attacks this caller, both are on the side of the criminal take over of 1787, both are on the side of defending legalized slavery.
When John Darash was offered the same facts, by me, I was asked to show him, precisely, where the Constitution offers that information. I can look back to quote my words, if needed, but my response was very difficult to offer when my effort is consistently interrupted.
Forget about me, the information is right there, in the document. Who cannot see it?
What was the 3/5ths clause? What are letters of Marque and Reprisals? What is Admiralty Law?
Before the Con Con of 1787 the people in Rhode Island already recorded, in all of the history of people, the fact that slavery is an abomination, and therefore against the law.
What did the criminals at the Con Con of 1787 do?
I did not pick out, and then publish, the following:
Quote____________________________
As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases.
But the Marshals, regardless of their personal fee
lings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law.
___________________________________
I have done more homework since my last failed attempt to offer "coals of fire" to be working on John Darash's head, in the hope that he is no longer compounding that original lie, adding to the lies that divide us.
Here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3440587
1787 was the year the criminals took over, so the claim that 1913 was the time of death (of Liberty in America) is off by 126 years.
A quick run down of what happened in those 126 years:
1. 1787
The British return with a covert operation known as a Con Con in Philadelphia intending to re-Monopolize the 13 colonies into one central banking fraud and extortion wing, or satellite, of the Bank of England.
2. 1789
Judiciary Act, to nullify trial by jury, of the people, for the people, and by the people, replacing trial by jury with Admiralty (English) Courts under false names of supreme dictatorship.
3. 1790
Rhode Island RAT-ifies the criminal take over as the last independent republic to fall victim to the false advertizement campaign run by the criminals who called themselves The Federalist PARTY.
4. 1790
Naturalization Act, a cover up name for marking the names and whereabouts of the victims, a head count.
5. 1791
The First Fraudulent Central Bank Scheme of the United States, directly linking the satellite bank with the supposed "enemies" The British and the Bank of England
6. 1794
The new King Proclaims the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, a false name for conscripting an army of slaves to invade the former independent Republic of Pennsylvania to crush the spirit of Liberty, enforce a criminal tax, and end a money competition then gaining currency as whiskey.
7. 1798
Alien and Sedition Acts, the British influence (supposed Enemies) the second American King, another False Federalist named John Adams, to punish anyone daring to side with the French (those who aided the defeat of the English in the so called Revolutionary War), and anyone daring to criticize the False Federalist, criminal, take over, for the British Bank of England, by those False Federalists. This by the way is done despite the Bill of Rights and the 1st, 5th, and 7th Amendments.
8. 1798-1799
The Rebels (against the criminal British and their minions running the American take-over) gain the services of a former Federalist named Madison, and both Madison and Jefferson pen resolutions intending to re-establish a working Federal design to push back against the Monopoly, or Monarchy, established by the traitors with their Con Con and other crimes.
9. 1800
Jefferson, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, proponent of Federal government (labeled as an anti-federalist) is voted into the position of Monarch of America, foiling the plans of the False Federalists.
10. 1811
Jefferson and the true Federalists end the First Criminal Fraud Bank, Central Bank, of the United (British) States (colonies).
11. 1812
Madison, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, former False Federalist, turning his coat from Red, back to Blue, is voted in as the second "anti-federalist" Monarch.
11. 1812
Another criminal aggressive war. The British attack. The true Federalists defend. Perhaps Madison opens the door, lets in the criminals?
12. 1816
The Second Criminal Central Banking Fraud, Satellite of The Bank of England is established in the British Colonies where the people still think they have a true Federation. Madison turns his coat once again.
13. 1833
Jackson, Democrat, no longer a Democrat - Republican, of course not, the enemies change color so often, KILLS the bank by fiat, so executive fiat, a benevolent dictator, ends the "private" fiat of Central Banking, severing again the connection to the Bank of England.
14. 1833 to 1861
Known as Wild Cat Banking there is in America a time in which free market banking contends with Central Banking, seeking dominance, seeking investors, as free market banking goes head to head with the criminal versions.
15. 1861
Civil War, as if there will ever be in the records of people a more deceptive term, the criminals finance all sides in the effort to destroy all liberty, and all life sustaining capacity throughout America, in one giant pogrom. Where was the former Union (North and South) Gold kept at the start of the war?
16. 1863 - 1864
National Bank Act NORTH (where the gold was kept)
17. 1866
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
That is diametrically opposite The Declaration of Independence.
If the events of 1913 are knowable as a very significant power grab, as claimed, as acknowledge, then relatively speaking there are lists of events that can be compared to those events in 1913.
1787 The end of the Revolution and the British (Bank of England) wins.
1866 The end of any further notions of a Federation, no more questions on that point.
1913 The end of any further notions of prosperity; we are all slaves now according to those who claim to be our masters, not overtly, but covertly.
If they say they are our masters, overtly, then we might wise up.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 02:52 pm  
Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > Monday Conference Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems