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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Challenging  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2014 05:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am no king. If you assume otherwise then that is an error on your part not mine.

Assumptions do not work well in discussions, at least that has been my experience when I assume and when other people assume.

Example:
We the people had two checks of power for misuse.
1: We the Grand Jury could deny them
2: We the jurors could deny them

If you assume that I am ignorant and you assume that I am in dire need of your help in learning things I ought to know, then those words above make sense to me. I can assume that you think I am ignorant. I can ask instead of assuming. Do you think I am ignorant and in dire need of your help in knowing things I ought to know?

As to the actual discussion I started concerning the time and place where, when, and how the criminals took over a working federation, that subject matter appears not to be your concern, but I can ask, rather than assume. Is it not your concern to know when, where, and how the criminals took over a working federation?

As to your offer of words:
We the people had two checks of power for misuse.
1: We the Grand Jury could deny them
2: We the jurors could deny them

I prefer more options that the options you see. The working federation included the Declaration of Independence as an obvious addition to the choices you list so here is more:

1: We the Grand Jury could deny them
2: We the jurors could deny them
3: We the people abolish criminal governments outright, and in a working Federation the people in each Republic can decide to stop paying into a Federal Union FUND, and that choice was called secession. Just as 13 Republic seceded from the criminal British Cabal, so can Republics secede from a criminal run, false, federal government if the criminals do happen to take over the federal government sometime, some place, some how.
4. Added to the jury box, and added to the ballot box, is the cartridge box.

Example:
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/bsbhm2.html

One more to add to the list is currency competition, which is at the root of the problem, so currency works best, and it is precisely that currency that is missing in here or outside of here. Currency can take many forms such as art and money.

So the list grows:

1. Grand Jury presentments which start trials by jury.
2. People in Republics hold the purse strings ultimately, each Republic can secede at will.
3. People in seceded Republics have not unleashed the dogs of war, they merely opt out, so the aggressors in cases of secession are those who choose to unleash the dogs of war, and if the people in the places where the aggressors attack, criminally, do not defend themselves effectively, then the aggressors will riot in the blood of the innocent.
4. The cartridge box is unfortunately a choice that can be made by people who go against the lessons in Scripture and they do not just turn the other cheek when criminals are rioting in the blood of the innocent.
5. All forms of currency open to free market forces.

The lesson of the time period between 1776 and 1787 again becomes very instructive as that time period was the time period whereby the true federation of republics of attacked people were formed in what can be called an organic, or grass roots, manner.

The Dirty Compromise of 1787 where the slave traders took over government, creating a counterfeit federation in place of a true one, is also a good area of study for those who care to know how, when, and where the criminals took over a working federation of republics complete with common law trial by jury in each republic if such examples can be found by those who care to find them.

Your list:
We the people had two checks of power for misuse.
1: We the Grand Jury could deny them
2: We the jurors could deny them

I can ask if you offer your list because you think I am ignorant, so I did ask.

I can offer a competitive list. I did so.

"The founders knew the risk, and I am well aware of those who were against it. Had we existed in that time I probably would've sided against the forming of the USofA as well as the Constitution. "

The U.S. of A was formed organically, or spontaneously, or from grass roots so called, and if you did not join then you were a Tory, and a Traitor, and you could be caught teetering on your imaginary fence, either aiding and abetting the Tories one minute, or aiding and abetting the Patriots the next minute, since there was open war as the criminals were currently rioting in the blood of the innocent to the tune of at least 8,000 burned out souls in death camps the British cartoonists called "Hospital Ships," and I suppose that false name caused quite a chuckle among the cartoon versions of Kings running the British Cabal. "Let them eat cake, or better yet, treat them to a cure in one of our Hospital Ships!" Laughing all the way to their criminal bank they so desperately need to secure.

Your words again:
"The founders knew the risk, and I am well aware of those who were against it. Had we existed in that time I probably would've sided against the forming of the USofA as well as the Constitution. "

I can ask again: do you assume that I am ignorant?

The day when the imaginary fence is no longer existing is upon us, because the lies that were started in 1787 are now powerless. If you can't see it, then you empower the lies yourself, but that does not mean, by your power of assumption, that I don't see that the imaginary fence is gone. If you would have been siding with the Tories in that time period between 1776 and 1787 when the working federation of republics was formed organically, then it could be assumed by someone now that you now side with the same criminal cabal for the same reasons. I can ask. Which side are you on as there is no fence to sit on?

1. The criminal cabal running the false federal government that was started in 1787.
2. Those who prefer to effectively defend the innocent from the guilty peacefully when possible and if peaceful means are not possible, then other means may be possible such as an overwhelming show of defensive power that deters any thoughts in any criminal mind of any profits to be had from the patriotic defenders of Liberty.

I know the side I am on. I was not, am not, and will not be willingly aiding and abetting, lending moral or material support to, the criminals who continue to run the false federal crime operation that started in 1787.

No thanks.

Your words:
The founders knew the risk, and I am well aware of those who were against it. Had we existed in that time I probably would've sided against the forming of the USofA as well as the Constitution.

No thanks. I know which side I would have been on.

From here:
http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html

I found this:
Abner Kelley
John Kelley (5)
Michael Kelley (2)
Oliver Kelley
Patrick Kelley
Samuel Kelley
William Kelley

My father was taught by his father to shoot. My father taught me to shoot. In fact there are good people doing good things despite the criminal take over in 1787 and there were good people offering rewards for good shooting from the false federal level as proven by my father and myself when I managed to earn through the DCM (Division of Civilian Marksmanship) a below (subsidized) market priced M1 Grand rifle. Had the criminals not taken over in 1787 the good done by good people would be much greater rather than much less great.

Your words again:
"The founders knew the risk, and I am well aware of those who were against it. Had we existed in that time I probably would've sided against the forming of the USofA as well as the Constitution. "

At the time of the organic formation of the federation of republics during open war with criminal aggressors who were rioting in the blood of innocent people there were people called Quakers who were on the side of God or their version of God, as devoted pacifists, and that side, in a pure sense, intentionally refused to aid and abet both violent aggressors and violent defenders. That side is the hardest side in my viewpoint because I know I would do something to aid and abet the defenders while I witnessed criminals as criminals rioted in the blood of the innocent. I know me enough to know I could not just sit and watch. I can at least write and offer words in defense of the innocent, which is an aid to the defenders, which does abet the defenders. The closer the criminals who riot in the blood of the innocent move to my doorstep the more obvious it is to me that I will be forced to make a very hard decision concerning my power to defend the innocent at the cartridge box.

Your words again:
"The founders knew the risk, and I am well aware of those who were against it. Had we existed in that time I probably would've sided against the forming of the USofA as well as the Constitution. "

I can ask again: do you assume that I am ignorant?

"However we have it, and to remove it at this point would be only empowering those in current government to exercise full control."

We do not have it. I am not a King. Your assumptions concerning me are false. I do not have a false federal government. The true federal government existed between 1776 and 1787 and the true founders managed to amend the false federal constitution with the Bill of Rights that were, as far as I know, 12 articles, and those 12 articles were (for a short time) published on the Official (false) Constitution Web Page about a month ago. If you "have" the false federal government then you have made your choice, you may reap whatever rewards you expect to get from your choice, but your choice does not in any way automatically become my choice. I am no King. I do not have a false federal government that you may or may not have.

Your words again:
"However we have it, and to remove it at this point would be only empowering those in current government to exercise full control."

Do you assume that I am ignorant? There is no need to remove the false federal government, it is removing itself rapidly. In place of the local false federal government there is already a very obvious off-shore false federal government that runs the show and keeps the looted FUNDS secure. That off-shore account is called The International Monetary FUND. It, meaning the false federal government, is imploding in upon itself, and that is happening according to plans planned out by the criminals who currently operate the false federal government. So...claiming that I want to abolish it, if that is your claim, is false. I know better. The criminals will implode it when it serves the criminals to implode it. The people in this true federation can recognize their true federal power at will, each individual in turn, and then armed with our collective defensive power we can replace the false federal government with the true one on our calender, not theirs.
http://www.dailypaul.com/321976/liberty-day-challenge-july-4th-2015

"As for your bashing, it is mostly John Darash, and while I disagree with him on a few points (no one is perfect), you have been speaking ill of his words or actions, which could easily be discussed in closed forum, and I have no doubt, if he was privy to new information would have no problem including it."

"This, by this statements own logic, is an indictment of treason, based not on considering the information, but by not considering it open and publicly. One would then have to assume because you desire this to be done in public, that it has a desired outcome of defaming or shaming his person."

Thanks for using quotes. If you read Lysander Spooner's work No Treason then you might understand the difference between your viewpoint on Treason and my viewpoint on Treason. Unless you think that we here in America are at open war with the false Federal Government, which is what did happen in Waco, but that was a test case used by the criminals at the top (top of their criminal pyramid, bottom of righteous moral decency), then by your reasoning of us being in open war, then it is an obvious case of treason to aid and abet the criminals in any way.

I think otherwise. I think that there is much about the framework of the true federation in existence that serves the people in each Republic, if they choose to remain in the federation, as a framework to aid and abet, lend moral, and lend material support to the defenders instead of the offenders who have not yet unleashed all the dogs of war, rioting in the blood of the innocent, in any Republic, let alone all of them.

Your words again:
"This, by this statements own logic, is an indictment of treason, based not on considering the information, but by not considering it open and publicly. One would then have to assume because you desire this to be done in public, that it has a desired outcome of defaming or shaming his person."

You are speaking as if I am accusing John of treason. So now your accusation of me is the point of contention. You are now accusing me of making a false accusation of treason upon John Darash, and in my defense against your false accusation I can use words, there is no need to call the Sheriff to indict me, to serve me with a summons, I'm right here.

I will go to any court and defend myself voluntarily concerning your false accusation where you falsely accuse me of accusing John Darash of Treason. I know that John Darash is working very effectively at aiding and abetting the good side, not the bad side, with one (so far) minor, or major, depending upon how you look at it, problem concerning the time and place when the criminals took over.


Your words again:
"This, by this statements own logic, is an indictment of treason, based not on considering the information, but by not considering it open and publicly. One would then have to assume because you desire this to be done in public, that it has a desired outcome of defaming or shaming his person."

You appear to be suggesting something similar to this:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/39/

During open war while the criminals are rioting in the blood of the innocent the defenders are in a position to defend themselves against the aggressors. In my opinion the idea of capital punishment is a true test of people and what better way to test people than in a jury trial of 12 randomly selected people who represent the whole people as a whole, as if respublica, in English, meant something like the whole people as one people, the entire list of all the people without having to list all the names.

Your words again:
"This, by this statements own logic, is an indictment of treason, based not on considering the information, but by not considering it open and publicly. One would then have to assume because you desire this to be done in public, that it has a desired outcome of defaming or shaming his person."

John Darash is perfectly able to defend himself and as far as I know I am invited to Monday's call to try again to help John Darash see the error of his ways concerning his false version of history.

"2. Many of the others are examples like the one below. Please show me where his claims(unresolved differences) have any business being in public view rather than kept between himself and yourself until the matter is resolved, and all of us can then know the outcome. As he is working with what he knows best at the moment, a change in structure of which you propose is a big change considering a plan of action is in motion."

In the last Monday call John invited people to speak to him in closed sessions. When it was my turn to speak there were 2 minutes left on the clock. There was no time to discuss. John invited me to speak during the Monday Conference Call. If John steps all over me during the call, then I will be stepped on, and if he does not step all over me then I won't be stepped on. If John allows me to speak then I will ask questions and hopefully receive answers to resolve the obvious differences in his version of history and the actual history recorded by those who witnessed it as it happened. If John asks me to move the discussion into a private session, for any reason he chooses, then I see no problem doing so, I've discussed this subject matter, and other subject matter in semi-private sessions with John Darash already: no problem. If you see a problem then the problem you see is unknown to me at this time; your words do not report to me anything relevant to this case.

Your words:
"Please show me where his claims(unresolved differences) have any business being in public view rather than kept between himself and yourself until the matter is resolved,..."

If you want, if it is your wish, I can go back and find each of the Recorded Conference Calls where I've already tried to speak to John Darash about this subject matter, and he has not yet asked to have the discussion on this subject matter moved into a private, or secret, session. What has happened is John Darash steps all over me, gagging me, and I refuse to play that game of aggression as a means of solving problems.

"As there are multiple mentions of his name in the post I took this from, refuting his claims, I can again make no other assumption that this is no more than an attempt to defame or shame his person."

Again you are making a false accusation about me. Your false accusation about me is that you think I have made false accusation about John, or in your words "defame or shame his person."

John Darash readily admits to having made mistakes in the past, this is one mistake he has yet to see, and if it is difficult for him to see this mistake, then that is on him, not me. The evidence is precisely what it is and the evidence is separate from the viewers who may, or may not, view the evidence. There is no attempt on my part to defame or shame or attack or characterize an individual person, or "his person," in your words. John Darash is a competent member of the whole people, he can defend himself if he needs to defend himself, and if someone like me is seeking help in knowing the truth of what he says, then he can help me do so. In this case his version of history is demonstrably wrong, so the version of history, the evidence, not the person offering the false version of history, but the false version of history, is on trial, not the speaker on trial.

If you don't get that, then you don't, and it is not my problem if you don't get it. If you are going to accuse me of wrongdoing, then that is another case.

Here is a list of possible cases:
1. A version of history that is demonstrably false.
2. A claim made by you that I am intending to destroy someone's character (character assassination)
3. A counterclaim by me that I am not intending to destroy someone's character, on the contrary my intention is to publicly set the record straight as to when, where, and how the criminals took over a working federation, which is not the version of history offered in the repeated, and repeated, words of John Darash.

I have time before Monday to prepare my case better, since John Darash repeated his false version of history during the last Thursday Conference. I can transcribe those words and from that available evidence I can remove all assumptions concerning what I think those words mean and instead of assumptions I can ask John Darash what he meant when he spoke those specific words that I can have transcribed and published on this Forum, and then I can have my ducks in a row when I am put on the spot in the upcoming Monday Conference Call.

"If you have no intent of defaming his person, then I would request leaving him out of future posts and take issues you have with him personally. If you wish to post educational material I have no problem with that, we are all at different levels of education and all desire to grow."

I could take advice from someone who proves to me that their advice is worthy of my agreement. So far as I can tell you treat me as if I am ignorant, and you offer to me superficial information that can be shown as superficial without much effort. Here is a case of your superficial information. At any time John Darash can end this Forum. John Darash can erase everything written on this forum at will. I have a lot of experience in this so I know this to be true, and that is why I cut and paste my work onto other Forums and onto word files. I don't cut and paste all my work, but I cut and paste what I think is worth keeping secure. When I joined NLA as California Coordinator my view was, is now, and will be such that the leader of our defense is accurate information not men, so knowing this is knowing the need to keep the record straight so as to learn from the mistakes made by the people who seamlessly move in and out of leadership positions. Bread crumbs are eaten, exiled, sent down the memory hole.  

If you think John Darash can't handle critical information offered to John Darash in good faith, then that is your opinion, and you can, if you choose, understand that your  opinion does not automatically become my opinion of John Darash.

I, perhaps not you, think that John Darash is fully capable of defending his information that he believes to be true whenever there is a challenge, from anyone, concerning his version of information that he thinks is true.

As to your claim of me resorting to character assassination against John Darash, your claim is baseless, as your quotes of my words, so far, only prove that my direct focus of attention is upon the false information offered by the man, not the man himself.

We are being tested because the criminals are rioting in the blood of the innocent. The measure of each man, and each woman, is their power to control themselves. I am no one's keeper. I am no King.

"I also apologize for my lack of points, as well as my response times. I am at work 16 hours a day and I mostly respond from a phone, making seeking and pasting information more difficult, but not impossible."

There may be very little in the previous responses by me to you that you can gain knowledge of my appreciation for your work in responding, in defense of John, in defense of NLA, to what you think is an attack by me. I appreciate your work, and now I appreciate your work even more because your words report a greater cost spent by you on behalf of our common defense.

What you may fail to see is that my work is intending to effect our common defense too.

The battle of words can be kept at the level of the words. I can work harder, because your viewpoint suggests to me that I should work harder, to keep the battle of words at the level of words, and to work harder to avoid encroaching into the level of character traits, or flaws, that may exist within the people who are battling over the words.

Thanks, as my response may not be obviously expressing gratitude, this end of this offer of words is my intention to express true gratitude for your costs spent on my behalf.

I appreciate your viewpoint even if I cannot share all of it.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 12:00 am  
Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2015 > Updates > Challenging Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems