|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||
|Organic Law Versus|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Thu Feb 11th, 2016 09:24 pm||
|People failing to understand the choices are people powerless in their own defense.
With the help of Debra there is now an assembly of information made available to me from a group calling themselves Union States Assembly.
Their Web Page is Private. I was allowed to view it once, so far, and there is vital information assembled by them concerning the criminal take-over of America during the 1787 Con Con event involving criminals such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton perpetrating treason under the color of law. Any crime involving any number of victims is a crime involving any number of criminals. Concentrating on each individual criminal, in turn, is a lawful course, and one that was not followed, resulting in the Criminal Dictatorship currently existing, in fact, today, in America.
How did they do it?
Consider the following explanation:
"All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place."
That warning was offered by the 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled.
Richard Henry Lee
6th President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
November 30, 1784 to November 23, 1785
First is the time before 1776 when Americans formed a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, or Federation, whereby people in former Colonies (Subjects of British Criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of Law) created independent Mutual Defense Associations, or States, of a Republican (res-publica literally means the public thing) nature, which were also democratic in the sense that the people were the government, and the people formed independent republics, and the people formed a federation of independent republics, and the FEDERAL representatives of the people wrote their first Federal Statute, which was a Declaration of Independence.
Clarification at this point might help someone who is not yet up to speed on the basic principles of political economy (or LAW) concerning the often used term "we the people" as in what the people can do in their own, mutual, voluntary, defense. The people, as in "we the people," means "goof for humanity" in this sense. In other words the question "what can we the people do for our voluntary mutual defense?" is on one side of a power struggle and on the other side of a power struggle is the question "what can we the organized criminals, who are organized behind a false front, or color of law, do to remain in power so as to then enforce our special interests, doing what pleases we the criminals, as we perpetrate crimes upon the group we have targeted, who are the victims?"
When the entire group of people who are for humanity as a whole think along these lines, and act along these lines, of thinking and acting for all of humanity, then these are the people spoken about in "we the people," of (all) the people, by (all) the people, and for (all) the people.
There is more to it, unsaid in normal speech and normal writing on the subject of political economy (LAW), having to do with reasoned out moral awareness.
So take those words already clarified above and add the moral awareness to those words and there is then further clarification (increased awareness) as: Of all the moral people, by all the moral people, and for all the moral people, which constitutes moral humanity.
This is not idle talk, this is clarification of moral awareness if you think about it, because the concept of morality reaches out to all the criminals who have in their capacity to be human beings, an opportunity to be guided, nurtured, and offered, voluntarily, a salvation of their lives, a redemption of their lives, and a chance to decide, on their own volition, a course in their lives that is much better for themselves, and certainly much better for their intended victims that would be victimized without an offer from "we the people" to mend their ways. So..."we the people" are all the moral people who think and act in such a manner to help those who have perpetrated crimes (created innocent victims injured by the criminal), help those who are currently perpetrating crimes, and help those who may be inspired to turn to crime because, for some strange reason, innocent people are aware of the fact that crime pays well when the criminals take over governments.
So we the people have at least one undeniable common goal in the battle against crime done by guilty criminals upon innocent victims, and that is to work effectively to protect all humanity (including criminals) from further crimes done by guilty criminals upon innocent victims.
This is where it is vitally important to understand the difference between a guilty mind (mens rea) and a mind that may not be guilty, concerning a crime (actus reus) whereby there is a factual injury done by someone who factually caused the injury, and there is someone innocent (not the cause of the injury themselves) who is injured by someone. If it can be established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the guilty criminal has no conscience, no remorse, no understanding of morality whatsoever, then how is that example of life a member of the group that is knowable as all the moral people? Is it possible to reason with someone who has no moral capacity? If so, then that factors into the prescription for remedy, restitution, redemption, or punishment, for that individual in that case. If not, if the individual found to be a clear and present danger to all the moral people is incapable of moral reasoning, as if the individual who is the cause of the injury done to the innocent victim were a mad dog, foaming at the mouth, out of their mind, a criminally insane sociopathic psychopath, then remedy (offer a mad dog their opportunity to defend against the accusation of crime?), restitution (restore a mad dog into a working moral member of all the moral people?), redemption (redeem a mad dog?), is ludicrous in that case, it is beyond reason. Think in numbers along these lines. Suppose all the moral people discovered a pack of mad dogs occupying Washington D.C., and under closer inspection this pack of mad dogs are found (through due process) to be the cause of many innocent deaths, children torn apart and eaten, by this pack of mad dogs, and a trial by the country (a trial by all the moral people) results in you commanding your representative part in said trial by the country, where you determine fact, you determine law, and you determine the best course for helping these mad dogs return to the group known as we the moral people. Do you unleash these mad dogs on the hope that you can figure out a way, as your part representing the whole group acting in defense of humanity, to restore, redeem, and bring these mad dogs back to their senses, their morality, back onto our side, the moral side?
If that does not work, then how about the natural disaster scenario? A mad dog can be reasonably helped, by all the moral people, to become one of the group known as all the moral people as can a tornado. A tornado runs amok damaging so much life, and it is just as reasonable to accuse a tornado of willfully deciding to perpetrate the crime of murder, with malice aforethought, as it is to accuse a mad dog of the same (mens rea = guilty mind) crime. There is no way a mad dog, or a tornado, is part of the group known as we the moral people. There is no reasonable application of due process where the goal is to help a mad dog, or a tornado, to be given the choice to mend their ways, to return to we the moral people.
So...we the moral people always offer help to all the moral people all the time, as a goal, but we the moral people are not always aware of our own crimes against we the moral people, such as our failures to effectively defend we the moral people against special interest groups who use words like "special interest groups" to hide the fact that they are, in demonstrable fact, criminals, as they create victim after victim, because the pay is good. We the moral people might do a better job at effectively protecting the innocent people from the criminals if we use words more effectively, rather than being fooled when the criminals use words more effectively when criminals create victims through fraud, and other criminal means.
Back to the timeline:
Organic (or grassroots, grows naturally, and in this case out of necessity in defense against British crimes against American people) Federal Agents declare their state of nature (free people) as these Organic Federal Agents produce their first Federal Statute, which is an indictment against the Criminal British whose crimes include African and Irish Slavery. Only African Slavery is included in the indictment in the original Declaration of Independence. There were criminals already infiltrating the Organic Federal Government during the creation of the first Federal Statute, and those criminals struck out the indictment against African Slavery; while Irish Slavery Crimes were not so much as mentioned in the indictment against the British criminals (criminals acting under the color of law, which is worse than simple criminals, because the crime of treason is added to the other crimes, such as African, and Irish, Slavery).
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Who were the criminals infiltrating the Organic Federal Government during CRISIS (CRISIS was the British Aggressive War for Profit = same crimes perpetrated by Nazi's a few centuries later)?
The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.
Earlier in the formation of the Organic Federation the Federal Agents issued orders to stop African Slave Trading, that is what Jefferson is referring to concerning the people running those two Independent Republics, which were trusted with their part in the Federal Association, so why was there not indictments issued, according to the common law, concerning those treasonous actions of continuing those crimes against nature itself?
Note these words in the (as yet to be ratified) Federal Constitution known as The Articles of Confederation:
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
Here is the law of the land formed by the people in past generations and retained by the people forming their Voluntary Mutual Defense Association: Federation:
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
Here is a definition of Federal association offered during the decision to publish the first Federal Statute known as a Declaration of Independence.
That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That is vitally important in any case where one individual connects to another individual and the idea is to understand if the connection is made in Liberty (voluntary), or the connection is criminal: involuntary.
That firmly establishes the Organic Federal Government of America as an attempt to reject involuntary servitude, also known as slavery, also known as a "crime against nature itself," and in place of involuntary servitude (under the color of law, or treason) the Organic Federal Government of America creates a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association of people in independent States, all of which are both democratic (of, by, and for the people) and republican (res-publica literally means the public thing), and the law of the land is the common law, which is literally translated from Latin words: legem terrae.
“Per legem terrae.”
The Federal Constitution is agreed upon by the representatives representing the independent Republics, or States, which are democratic, and which are retaining the rights of the people to consent to any government punishment, whatsoever, with their own trial by jury, which is trial by the country, and each State is an independent country.
March 1, 1781 - Maryland delegates signed the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were finally ratified by all thirteen states.
Back to Richard Henry Lee, 6th President, and the date of publication for his explanation as to how the law is altered by those who alter the existing law. I call it counterfeiting. The method was explained by Richard Henry Lee's quotes above concerning the use of fiction. I call that fraud.
Previous to the 1787 Con Con, there was no Direct Taxation of people by a false Federal Government, there was no unlimited POWER to take wealth from every single individual in America, at will, and a POWER commanded by 1 or certainly a few, obvious criminals, whose crimes are, at minimum, spelled out in Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence, and then the confession of their failure to police their own Congress, let alone their failure to police their own constituents in their own Independent States.
So who, according to established laws, is in charge when the representatives of the people (as a whole, meaning the public thing is all the people, not a legal fiction) fail to police themselves?
What is missing, I propose now, is a body of people known at that time as justices of the peace.
The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal. If the criminal be a slave the trial by the county court is final. In every case however, except that of high treason, there resides in the governor a power of pardon. In high treason, the pardon can only flow from the general assembly.
Work that out with experiments in modern situations please. I'll start with an example in the next post.
|Posted: Thu Feb 11th, 2016 10:50 pm||
|My intention is to address the Oregon Hammond Family Injuries done to them by Criminals Perpetrating Crimes Under the Color of Law.
That case above can be thoughtfully resolved with the idea of employing common law remedies, and the idea is to round up, within that county, the aforementioned justices of the peace, or magistrates, described as "from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants."
Whose power will be to have jurisdiction both criminal and civil in Harney County.
I know how it can be argued that Oregon was not lawfully entered into the true Federal Union, but as you can see in the Timeline, these Organic Laws, knowable as common law, also knowable as due process of law, were, are, ours to command, even in Virginia well before the American Revolution.
Furthermore, here is examples of due process, found by Debra earlier, and offering a sense of reason, a sense of justification, and a sense of law and order, which pre-dates, in the first case, the Ratification of the Fraudulent Constitution of 1787, and then, in the second case, that case pre-dates the Enactment of the (criminal) Judiciary Acts of 1789, which Acts pre-date The Bill of Rights.
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE
1 U.S. 35 (1778)
That is instructive for two reasons.
1. The Articles of Confederation clearly show the admission by the Federal Congress, that they, as individuals, are subject to the law of the land, and the same Federal Congress admits to the jurisdiction of the common law as the law of the land. At that time the only thing a Federal Court could do was explained right there in the Federal Constition. Why would that power need to be expanded at all? The answer is again found in the warning offered by the 6th President of The United States of American in Congress Assembled: legal fiction (fraud).
2. Treason is spelled out in one sentence by the Grand Jury. That places the accused on his trial, giving the accused (affording the accused) restitution, redemption, remedy, and every opportunity to prove to the whole country (in trial by the country) his innocence, and then all it takes is one individual juror to acquit the accused of all charges. What a deal huh?
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER
1 U.S. 236 (1788)
Pennsylvania, where that case was tried, the people have already been bamboozled into Ratifying the Constitution of 1787, not without well published objections.
The importance of that case includes the reasonable explanation offered by the judge in that case.
It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never
1. Grand Jury does not try the case (avoid double jeopardy)
2. Grand Jurors validate accusations as those Grand Jurors (magistrates, justices of the peace) work (do their duty to all the moral people) to avoid unreasonable accusations which can overload the efficiency of due process, while at the same time the people have the ability to accuse those guilty of treason, meaning those whose crimes are extremely dangerous to the public liberty: think in terms of triage.
These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal.
Appling the above, adapting the above, which is not "the above," in a narrow sense, the idea is to apply a working knowledge of how people themselves constitute their power to consent to government in real time, in real places, such as Harney County Oregon.
People look around and find no avenue in which their accusations of wrongdoing actually constitute a lawful accusation. Who should they be looking for, exactly?
They must look in the mirror.
I look in the mirror and I do not see a self-appointed Justice of the Peace, but I know of many people who are "the most discreet and honest inhabitants" I know.
Elect Justices of the Peace in the example county, if not your own.
Along with the effort to elect into being a Committee of Safety, which was done in Harney County Oregon, said concerned people, who are themselves governors in a sense of their own government, because they are alive, and because they are born free, and beacause innocent people in their county are being harmed by specific people who are guilty of doing harm to innocent people, whereby due process is the process to be used to accurately account for those who are found guilty of said harm that is done to named victims, whereby said people in said Safety Committee reason out the absolute necessity of constituting their own County authorities who have the authority to validate accusations in the proper manner known to, at least, Thomas Jefferson, the Organic Congress in their own records, and precedent involving treason, and other crimes.
Just because Thomas Jefferson failed at using Rule of Law to bring those guilty of "crimes against human nature itself" to account for their crimes, and stop them dead in their tracks from perpetrating their crimes any longer, just because Thomas Jefferson failed, out of ignorance, or out of self interest, or for whatever convoluted reasoning, that does not mean that we the people alive today, including you, and including me, must fail.
|Posted: Thu May 26th, 2016 02:37 pm||
|While writing in the Unification Writing Project the idea of divided, cooperating, entities - as apposed to - divided, conflicting, entities was expressed in so many words. Here now is an effort to branch out some from that root.
Quakers, at the time of the forming of a voluntary mutual defense association, or federation of independent, free people, in liberated states, were non-violent, and therefore they could not, in good conscience, participate in the violence on the defensive (nor the offensive) side.
They did not side with the criminal British, and in that they were on the side of the defenders; even if they did not resort to defensive violence themselves.
Some of the infiltrators in the ranks of the defenders were keen on spreading the lies that make the claims often repeated to day such as "If you are not with us, you are the terrorist," and so the Quakers were, in some cases, violently attacked by those who pretended to be on the moral (defensive) side. There are records in the official record, where it is recorded that the Quakers were allowed, by true law, to object, by moral conscience, with the use of violence, even in defense.
I can try to remember to link those records at some point, but my effort right now is to expand some on the idea of why it is not only moral, but it is necessary to resort to defensive violence when presented with offensive violence.
In short there is a necessity to have, hold, maintain, and broadcast, in no uncertain terms, that defenders will defend, and will do so violently, so as to constitute a deterrence against aggressive violence: crime does not pay at all, let alone allowing crime to pay well.
Suppose said Quakers constituted the entire population, and suppose one Quaker was born a sociopath, and this one individual started to hack up other Quakers. One individual, without any restraint exerted upon this one individual, daily, weekly, monthly, wades through massive amounts of innocent blood, on a path of cruel and unusual mass murdering, even torturing, mayhem.
Now suppose that one Quaker has had enough of it, and this one Quaker also steps over the line, and this one Quaker attempts to restrain the mass murdering, torturing, criminal, but fellow former Quaker.
So now there are 3 groups of people.
Group 1 (by far the largest group)
The entire population of non-violent, passive, Quakers.
Group 2 (one individual aggressive criminal perpetrating war of aggression for profit: because he can, because he likes to torture and destroy at his exclusive pleasure)
Group 3 (one defender)
The offender meets the defender and the defender offers restraint as a means by which the offender can remedy the criminal path chosen, willfully, by the offender, with malice aforethought.
What happens if the defender decides not to accept the offer of remedy, and instead the defender claims he will take the offer, but instead (because the claim of taking the offer was a lie) the criminal murderer, turning into a criminal fraud, attacks and kills, after torture, the one lone defender?
What happens if the defender is able to accurately judge the lie, and the murderous intent of the criminal, and as a last resort the defender defends himself, and all the potential, future, innocent murder victims, who are potentially also torture, terrified, by this criminal, and the defender restrains the criminal against the will of the criminal?
Now there are still 3 groups.
How does the defender manage to divide his economic power (he has no political power because all the other people are either criminals, who are proven liars, or adamantly against any violence whatsoever, and they cannont be convinced otherwise) - how does he divide his limited economic power - with a sense of triage, or a sense of expedience, if another former Quaker, born a sociopath or not, perceives the opportunity to run amok, torturing, and mass murdering innocent Quakers?
|Posted: Thu May 26th, 2016 05:39 pm||
|Why is it a common interest among all moral people to be divided at the same time the same people share the common goal, and when is it necessary to volunteer to add as much power as possible, from each individual, to that shared goal?
Again the example works best in tearing down the obstacles in the way of reasonable inquisition into accurate, and therefore useful, actionable, answers.
Returning to the recent Hammond case in Harney County Oregon offers said example in replay of that event from the moment that the Public Record included a report concerning a witness willing to go on the record with an accusation which claimed that BLM personnel set fires so as to cause damage to the Hammond family lives, liberty, and property.
That is the point at which all the moral people in that county share the common need to defend the public liberty, which is the common, shared, agreeable, means to effect prosperity for each individual and for posterity, for without that public liberty there might as well be no air, no oxygen, no water, no land, no food, no shelter, none of the so called property given to mankind for their stewardship, their maintenance, their ability to improve it, to employ it, and to afford them the means to survive, and to prosper. Without the public liberty all good things eventually come to an end as the first act to destroy the public liberty is soon to inspire a second, then a fourth, than 16 more acts to destroy the public liberty, then exponentially more acts, until such time as everyone is against everyone else, and there is no longer any time and energy left to accomplish anything useful, each is defending a back stabbing while each is stabbing someone else in the back.
So that point at which the Public Record includes that specific actionable (cause for action) account of that criminal act (arson) perpetrated under the color of law would be, and in part actually was, the inspiration (cause) to act in defense, and one action was that formation of that Safetee Committee.
Why does that concern Union States Assembly?
The answer is clearly that any individuals who suddenly are inspired to act in defense against the public liberty by agents perpetrating crimes under the color of law are like an atom on a snow flake on the surface of a huge ship sinking iceberg, and they could certainly use some help in knowing how large this iceberg actually is, and they sure could use help in navigating to safe waters.
The answer is then more than simply forming one safety committee so as to effectively deal with one arson fire caused by one foreign owned corporate agency and said accused (but presumed to be innocent until proven guilty lawfully) agents. The answer is to understand the true meaning of the information that must be added to the public record during the trial of the suspect accused of arson under the color of law, which is not merely arson, which would involve a private individual willfully, and with malice aforethought, perpetrating a crime upon another private individual, because the crime involves the color of law (fraud) aspect, which then involves looking under the surface of that iceberg, which was already done in the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial.
So what happens in the minds of these people who finally are caused to act, with such things as a safety committee against attacks under the color of law upon innocent people in their county, in their independent state, when they confront the false federal government power?
Do they need help in knowing, measuring, seeing, uncovering, and reasoning out, all that is submerged under the surface of that iceberg? Who has the answers, who knows the accurate account, and who can provide, step by step how the crime took place when it first took place in America, and therefore who then is in a position to advise these people in these position to move clearly in the right direction to reform lawful (common law) county governments, with lawful (common law) county Sheriffs, and lawful (common law) county magistrates (justices of the peace), so as to then have the lawful gate opened whereby lawful accusations, such as the accusation of treasonous arson against the foreign owned, foreign run, corporate, private, BLM, move from mere accusation to a formation of a Grand Jury, from the pool from which a Grand Jury is formed, which is the 100 or more (depending upon the numbers of people in the county) magistrates, and those magistrates have civil and criminal jurisdiction, and if said Grand Jury finds cause to act in defense because the accusation is reasonable, then a presentment is made out of the accusation, and said presentment moves as an offer to the accused to afford the accused their opportunity to remedy, redeem, restore, and return to lawful society (forgive but not forget) with whatever the jury, with the help of magistrates, judges, history (stare decisis), or "information" that aids, abets, lends moral support, and lends material support to those representatives of the whole country, to afford them the TRUTH they need to do the right thing in that case.
In history, when lawful society works, the typical "punishment" is a fine, not prison (which is now cruel and unusual punishment, private corporate for profit criminal markets, debt slavery, and so called war on drugs, mixed with a whole lot of so called political prisoner dilemma), and again the Martin Luther King Jr., Conspiracy Murder trial offers an example.
Accurate accounting is the goal, to know better from worse, and becoming that which we (supposedly) abhor is not the goal.
So those people who finally step up, because organically they are forced into defense in time and place, and they do the right thing with such things as Safety Committees, are then in a position to be contacted, offered the true account of their situation in their county, and they are then better prepared to keep the work going in their county to reach for that ultimate goal, which is a reasonable goal, with step by step moves to make in order to arrive at the goal, and pass on the duty to others who keep lawful society in place as a deterrence.
What is the step to take once a county elects a "constitutional" sheriff, meaning a common law sheriff, who is not a member of a foreign owned, foreign controlled, corporate entity, or legal fiction?
To me a step before that is the election and affording jurisdiction of common law magistrates, or justices of the peace, and their duty is as a gate keeper for lawful accusations, and their steps taken include the formation of Grand Juries for each accusation placed in their care.
Once the county is running according to lawful due process how are those people in that county then inspired to take the next step to form a lawful state out of the existing corporate (foreign owned, and privately owned, and privately run) state, and how, if not an original federated state (13 in number?), how can those people be inspired to take the steps, once they have a lawful state, to enter the lawful federation that was started in 1775/76?
|Current time is 02:21 am|
|Power Independence > Study Group > Study Group > Organic Law Versus||Top|