| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Lawful Money Trust | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14th, 2017 10:44 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/The Judiciary Act of 1789 has a description of admiralty process on Page 77 including, “…saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it,”
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 14th, 2017 09:45 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
"My opinion (your opinion expressed to me) is that existing evidence proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was a criminal act: a counterfeit version of law." This stirs my curiosity. Before I make any assumptions... What are you saying?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jan 16th, 2017 10:55 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I am taking information that works like puzzle pieces into consideration so as to build a crime scene knowable as Usurpation. To be more specific the crime scene was the 1787 through 1789 usurpation of the American common law, which was an American version of the English common law, both were known as the law of the land. Here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ This: 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.” End of Quote Before that are pieces of the puzzle that are offered by Lysander Spooner in his Essay titled Trial by Jury and then references to Trial by Jury by Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia, but for now the above establishes the law of the land at the time the organic (grass roots) formation of American (expressly not British) government was formed. In the same reference linked above is the following (Elliot's Debates: Congressional Records): This: 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, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn: End of Quote I am skipping past the important facts concerning Slavery and the treatment of pacifists such as Quakers: which can be referenced later, along with Lysander Spooner and Thomas Jefferson. Before the American Revolution (return to rule of law, not usurpation of law) a system known as summary justice was in force so as to fraudulently extort wealth from Americans (and all Colonies of the criminal British) and in so doing enslave Americans. Those Courts claims (usurpation) absolute authority over any fact, including moral questions asking for facts. 2 Examples, proof beyond reasonable doubt, if there ever was a true application of the common law due process (the law of the land) which was trial by the country, is the following: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/ Note the date: Respublica v. Abraham Carlisle Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia September Sessions, 1778 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/ Note the very important distinction between Grand Jury jurisdiction (responsibility) and Petty Jury jurisdiction (responsibility), and keep in mind, please, that trial by jury according to the common law was the working method of removing individual power of deciding what is or is not a fact in a lawful matter (this is known as dictatorship when taking to the logical extreme: individual decision power over law) and instead of dictatorship of an individual the whole country (as in trial by the country) is represented by the petty jurors and their decisions must be unanimous and without unanimity (of the whole country) the presumed to be innocent accused is acquitted by whoever is present in the jury to represent the whole country on the side of acquittal in that case. 1 U.S. 236 (Dall.) Respublica v. Shaffer Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia February Sessions, 1788: Here: Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. 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 arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. End of Quote The first major usurpation that occurred in America was the usurpation that occurred in Massachusetts whereby that usurpation was claimed (by the victors of the usurpation) to be Shays's Rebellion. Explained in fewest words possible (in my opinion) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY From this work in book form: https://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701 In other words (fewer words yet, but not as much detail used to help convince someone unaware, or ignorant, but smart enough, or willing enough, to see the facts as they exist in the matter) the people in Massachusetts allowed the usurpation in Massachusetts to happen in their countries courts, and when the criminals took over they took over by taking over the courts, by removing, nullifying, or ignoring common law jurisdiction, and placing above common law jurisdiction the criminals place their summary justice courts. Example: http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539282.pdf I won't quote from that, not now, but there is a very important history lesson offered by the accused in the Appendix. An explanation offered by the 6th President of the United States of American in Congress Assembled Richard Henry Lee is found here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp41-43B This: The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. 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. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . . End of Quote Now please understand the situation in Massachusetts at the time of the events that are now falsely known as Shays's Rebellion in our false government run school systems, even if said events were mentioned at all to posterity. The people in Massachusetts failed to take the steps that were failed to be taken before the Revolutionary War and these same steps are our failures now. Those having too much propensity to resort to violence do so, and they inspire others to do so, too quickly. In Massachusetts (and later in Pennsylvania after the usurpation of 1789) the people failed to maintain their own people's courts, as exemplified in the Respublica cases referenced above, and instead of employing common law due process, in any case (including false debt cases), and instead of maintaining the law of the land, the Solution agreed upon by the people (representing the rebels is the American Revolution, the Massachusetts rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion) was to ask the usurpers to judge their own actions according to the authority stolen by the usurpers, to go through the common law process of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. What do the criminals who take over government always do when asked of they (the criminals) will stop being criminals? The criminals, with almost no exceptions, attack the messengers, censor, and crush those who question the criminal authority. What was missing in the Revolution that started in 1775, in Massachusetts in 1787, in Pennsylvania in 1794, and now, is understandable from the following context: From here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp QUOTE: 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. End of Quote At the time of the effort to return to rule of law (Rebellion so called) in Massachusetts in 1787 the Federation was a Federation as explained in the First Congress by the representatives forming the First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, which was an authority UNDER rule of law: common law adapted by Americans. Also in the First Congress is this: QUOTE: Congress proceeded, the same day, to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported, and laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. 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. The debates, having taken up the greater parts of the 2d, 3d, and 4th days of July, were, on the evening of the last, closed; the Declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson. End of Quote Also from Thomas Jefferson is this: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Coriginal-rough-draught%E2%80%9D-declaration-independence-0 QUOTE: 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:[11] 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. End Quote Much more is understandable with the information concerning the Rebel (so called) forces in the South in battle with the aggressors (British) concerning the Slave population. The inculpatory evidence proving (beyond reasonable doubt) the criminal elements (individual criminals perpetrating a crime known as conspiracy treason) infiltrating the process of reforming rule of law, due process, trial by the country, known as the common law, is right there in the Congressional record confessed by Thomas Jefferson himself. During the usurpation are the following notes offered in the actual historical record: http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up Here: One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. End of Quote Explained here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp03 QUOTE: There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. End of Quote Soon after the Massachusetts effort to return to rule of law (failed in part for failing to maintain common law court jurisdiction) the self (false) labelled "Federalist Party" seized the crisis as another opportunity to criminally usurp common law, so as to place summary justice above the common law, so as then to subsidize slave labor by taxing the slaves, which was everyone, including the criminals themselves, because Rule by Criminal Means (deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence) enslaves everyone, which is a lesson offered by Christians following their religion. http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1102&forum_id=24 QUOTE: "8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors." End of Quote That is enough for now, to answer the question with information offered and sourced above: The question again: "My opinion is that existing evidence proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was a criminal act: a counterfeit version of law." [me quoted by David Merrill] QUOTE: This stirs my curiosity. Before I make any assumptions... What are you saying? End of Quote It is not a coincidence (in my opinion) that the Judiciary ACT of 1789 was entered into the process of usurpation (a criminal ACT) before Amending the criminal (usurpation) Constitution of 1789 with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was, is, a record to set the record straight, to return to rule of law, and to turn away from Rule by Criminal Means. Independent Corroboration: A. http://unionstatesassembly.info/index.html B. http://freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Constitution%20-%20George%20Washington%20Jailer%20And%20Tax%20Collector..htm C. https://www.amazon.com/Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Epilogue-Revolution/dp/0195051912/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TMN41NCBVN7D2ANPYXWD D. https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037 E. http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033 F. http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm G. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Thomas-Jefferson-Notes-On-The-State-Of-Virginia.pdf H. http://www.robgagnon.net/JeffersonOnJudicialTyranny.htm I. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp QUOTE: 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. End of Quote Summary Answer Attempt: The worst criminals are the worst because they do the most damage. Had rule of law worked as intended, a magistrate in a county would have all lawful power required to set in motion an accusation against a George Washington type criminal, or a Alexander Hamilton type criminal, or a George Bush type criminal, or a Hilary Clinton type criminal, meaning one of the worst criminals because failure to hold them to an accurate accounting (trial by the country) enables them to continue their evil work, no different then failing to hold a local con man to an accurate accounting, the range of destruction from local con man to treasonous conspirator is obvious with the body count of tortured dead people, and the number of slaves enslaved by the criminal in any case.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jan 16th, 2017 01:14 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:I am taking information that works like puzzle pieces into consideration so as to build a crime scene knowable as Usurpation. To be more specific the crime scene was the 1787 through 1789 usurpation of the American common law, which was an American version of the English common law, both were known as the law of the land.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jan 16th, 2017 01:16 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
[user=1] Summary Answer Attempt: The worst criminals are the worst because they do the most damage. Had rule of law worked as intended, a magistrate in a county would have all lawful power required to set in motion an accusation against a George Washington type criminal, or a Alexander Hamilton type criminal, or a George Bush type criminal, or a Hilary Clinton type criminal, meaning one of the worst criminals because failure to hold them to an accurate accounting (trial by the country) enables them to continue their evil work, no different then failing to hold a local con man to an accurate accounting, the range of destruction from local con man to treasonous conspirator is obvious with the body count of tortured dead people, and the number of slaves enslaved by the criminal in any case. Thank you. It is rare to cross paths with somebody who can articulate all that coherently. I found this symbol of Levi, being custodianship of the record, within Freemasonry, at the Mason Museum.  The Pope's (Bishop of Rome) has been there since 1213 - The Treaty of 1213. But you will already know that canon law has usurped divine law since the canon of (around) 326 AD. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/medieval.asp Curiously the Treaty of 1213 is no longer available on the Avalon Project? This always makes me so glad I grabbed it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYkU2eW1fNTVPSWs/view?usp=sharing I am not telling you to believe that the Pope owns everything. If you believe that my apparent assertions are nothing but an imagination disorder, then also believe that I hope you will sit back and read, and enjoy this as entertainment you will find nowhere else indeed! Looking around here, since 2006 there are only a couple hands full of registered users. Apparently there is a low adoption rate? There are readers though, and this is explosive in mental mind bomb form, through proper detonation. Melchizedek replaces Levi as the EMF (torroid) becomes unified. That is to say, as the Israelite and Gentile become blury, the law boundary gets fuzzy and the immediate problem is that usury (interest) becomes illegal by divine law - the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. So watch this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImSG9yTExab2JnU1E/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImalBQWHNUa1hsNk0/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImdUdjemZtckxwZm8/view?usp=sharing And try wrapping your mind around this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImb0lfRF9CdldvOTA/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImN00wbG14S1pzUHM/view?usp=sharing That is just some reading that I feel may prepare you for comprehending the construction of 1789. What I want you to ponder though, is the definition of common law. It is case law - stare decisis. The wisdom of the cases - their orders, judgments decrees and opinions were adopted from England. One could form and appeal and cite "authority" and appellate courts are forbidden to practice law. You allude to a petite jury and grand jury convolution in percieved authority. The county court can practice law but that trained attorney does not like his practice of law to be overturned and retried upon review (appeal). So he contemplates his utterances from this lower court, where he is allowed to practice law (oxymoron?) being appealed and compared by trained shepardizers of opinions before circuit justices - whose hands are bound. So who is higher? The clerk, keeper of the record is the "highest". A court of record has authority. A court not of record is a voluntary equity forum. This website and Thread is on my Favorites so I will be back here to develop this. Meanwhile consider that the Masons are Levi - the custodians and they were quite excited that I, Melchizedek had finally arrived to hear the truth about history, fact and law. Attachment: Treaty of 1213 clause.jpg (Downloaded 39 times)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jan 16th, 2017 02:28 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I think that more than a few people, and more than a few groups of people, have endeavored to uncover some of the false, forgotten, and true history, including the employment of original documents (which is not easy to determine factually) and useful offers of subjective (but educated) opinions concerning those documents. Before I begin to follow the links offered in the previous post, I think it might be a good idea for me to offer up a possible piece of the puzzle that I found when I was contacting, and studying the work offered by, Frank O'Collins. Puzzle Piece: The SOURCE link is now broken, as Frank O'Collins and his work is now restricted access information. QUOTE: The deliberate modification of English to being not only a commercial language but the primary language of occult knowledge and usage was confirmed by the massive undertaking in the creation of the “Authorized Version” of the Bible also known as the King James Version and the KJB or KJV. A further one thousand (1,000) words were introduced into the English language out of approximately eight thousand (8,000) word forms used in the text. Most significantly, the use of the Persian word God / Gad as the public name for Sabaoth, also known as Satan was introduced to replace Yehovah (YHVH) of the Catholic Church since the 8th Century as the primary deity worshipped, making the Church of England the reformed Aryan (Persian) religion of Menes, later known as Judaism. End Quote The willful employment of deception is not news, but the scope or scale of deception from least destructive to most destructive deception is a matter of concern, and the above is entered into the public record as a puzzle piece to help when the goal is to accurately identify those examples of deception that move closer to the most destructive productions of deception produced by living, breathing - evil - people. If targeted victim's minds, targeted by evil people, can be controlled, so as to make otherwise independent, free, liberated, moral people think otherwise, to think in terms of blind obedience to falsehood without question, then said control, by whatever means, is an obvious motivator: thought set into action. Control (Rule) by Criminal Means fall into 3 categories: 1. Deception (targeting victims to gain power from victims, whereby power flows to criminals in tangible, accurately measureable ways) 2. Threat of aggressive violence 3. Aggressive violence (all measurable as transfers of power flowing in measurable ways from victim to criminal) There is also an intimate link between 1, 2, and 3 above, as understood, and vocalized, by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn SOURCE: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenitsyn-lecture.html QUOTE: We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. End of Quote The example worthy of note in the context of American Law (common law must also be defined accurately and I want to offer a competitive version of the original, organic, definition) of obvious, measurable, employment of deception, so as to accomplish criminal goals, is the change of meaning from Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense for Federation, turning that word up-side-down, to now mean the opposite meaning, whereby the new meaning of the word is blind obedience to falsehood without question for the victims, and absolute dictatorial power for the criminals. Moving to common law (and I do want to dive into the information offered, to then comment on that information), the source I find useful is Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner. SOURCE: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial02.html QUOTE: All writers agree that this means the common law.Thus, Sir Matthew Hale says: "The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terrae,as in the statute of Magna Carta,chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terrae;as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III., chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae,as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, "Nolurnus leqes Angliae mutari,"&c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni(the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. -, and de quo warranto,and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas,cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes." - 1 Hale's History of the Common Law, 128. Meaning: Everyone, without exception, where the exception to the rule are those who voluntarily except themselves (become outlaws by willful - with malice aforethought - independent choice) must agree unanimously to harm anyone else for any claimed wrongdoing by due process of law, in trials in courts of conscience, where representatives of the whole country must agree unanimously, so as to render the power of special interest groups, render the power of the majority, render the power of the minority, and render the power of the individual criminal, dictator, powerless at law, where said unanimity of the whole moral conscience (whatever that may be in any age of time) of the whole body of people are afforded that lawful power to set in motion redemption, remedy, or punishment = legem terrae = law of the land = trial by jury according to the common law = the common law = not a government separate from, divided from, the whole group of people in any jurisdiction anywhere. When did the common law knowable in those terms offered above (and offered extensively in the Essay by Lysander Spooner) turn up-side-down? The battle (I can re-find source material) to counterfeit the term Common Law, to turn the meaning up-side-down, has been a battle documented well enough. The first skirmishes in England were battles between the people's own common law on one side, and on the other side was a competitor known as Exchequer, Equity, Admiralty, Nisi Prius, Maritime, and other variations on the same Summary Justice theme. If the only working definition for Common Law is the up-side-down Summary Justice definition, perpetrated by criminal usurpers wearing Black Robes that potentially are traditional attire traceable to devil worshiping pedophile cannibals, then a new word for due process, trial by the country, in courts of conscience is demanded: for that process is not new, it is an ancient process handed down for many generations, and it is an adaptable process, meaning that it is competitive in the true sense of the word, not the false, aggressively violent, sense of the word: competition. Competition: better is found and employed until something better is found, and worse is acknowledged as such, and not employed until conditions may change and what was worse is now better. While on that subject of words having genuine, useful, organic, moral, accurate, agreed upon, meanings, on one hand, and on the other hand are the same original words employed so as to fool people into false belief in opposite meanings: good turned into evil - while on that subject - the word democracy ought to be added sooner, rather than allowing these words to confuse the transfer of information any further. So the list so far: Common Law a. Voluntary agreement of the whole number of people in cases of dispute concerning questions of law. b. Blind obedience to falsehood without question: dictatorship hidden under a fancy black robe. Federation a. Voluntary association of units of government, or states, for the mutual defense of independent people UNDER Rule of Law (common law or any other word meaning the same thing) b. Blind obedience to falsehood without question: Dictatorship Democracy For the record: SOURCE: http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html QUOTE: The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy. Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats. That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority. End of Quote The original meaning of the word democracy appears to have undergone similar treatment at the hands of people who willfully (and with malice aforethought) intend to subjugate victims under criminal rule by criminal means. Where once democracy meant rule by the whole number of people (a goal if not an actual accomplishment) has turned into so called Majority Rule. Knowing how that is done (turning rule by the whole number of people into rule by special interest criminals) is a step toward knowing how that is defended against expediently. I have work to do, so I'll need time (power is time and energy) to get that work done: before returning here again.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jan 16th, 2017 03:08 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Thank you Joe.Common Law More simply - case law. The process calls the citation of cases "authority" and the justices of the appeals process are bound to "authority". The 'saving to suitors' clause' says - ...saving to suitors in all cases the right to a common law judgment, where the common law is competent to give it, Competence depends on bonding. One needs to be party to the contract, or Constitution. That is to say, to be a statesman. I am bonded - my Life, Estate and Sacred Honor. Attachment: approbation clause.jpg (Downloaded 38 times)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 03:39 am |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
My subjective opinion on authority of law is that truth (accurate perception, awareness, cognizance, understanding, recognition, knowledge, and employment of facts) is the authority if living organisms can find it, and then use it for defense, or making life worth living, and thereby ensuring survival of life. The obvious opposite of authority of law is falsehood, or the willful (with malice aforethought) employment of truth (accurate perception and employment of facts) to destroy life, to make life not worth living, and thereby ensure the end of life. If someone, Jesus for example, figures out a better way to reach closer toward the ideal of perfect knowledge, or absolute truth, or highest possible authority of law, then that example of life is worth something. Such as: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." I call that the law of agreement. Is it true, or is it false, that agreement is required in order to know a fact and therefore separate the fact from fiction whereby fiction hides the fact? If, as I've tried to explain, that the common law was, is, and always will be a method by which everyone agrees to acknowledge a fact, which means that no one disagrees with that acknowledgement of a fact, then so long will people have within their power a method of reaching the goal of acknowledging facts, at least to the extent that people are able to do so. Everyone agrees, and no on disagrees, and until someone disagrees, the fact is acknowledged as a fact within the power of awareness of people as a whole. Try that out with Matthew 7:12 please. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." I acknowledge a fact in those words, but I also acknowledge that those words can be misunderstood, by me, or by anyone, since I am unable to contact, question, and confirm my acknowledgement of what those words mean according to whoever acknowledges those words as factual words. I can try. I cannot ask Jesus; certainly not in person. Latin is useful at this point: When I say "in person" I mean that I am an individual perceptive being living in time and space, and I am not suggesting any other form of entity, such as a legal fiction, or separate entity standing in place of me, myself, and I. Not 3, just 1, just me, a living, individual, and therefore responsible, and therefore accountable, being of one. Speaking of Bonding (before returning to my need to find agreement with the words known as Matthew 7:12): SOURCE: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm QUOTE:_____________________________________ 9.2 - Escalation Further: A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment). When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists. "I found this insight on the UBC to be very perspicuous and most useful to the Patriot movement, but like all laws, it is useful only to the one(s) who use it and enforce it." Remember the etymon at the tine of law's creation and The Federalist Papers. (Read and discern until it's perspicuous.) "Prior law governs always." "Prior etymons govern always." "To act in pro se fashion in a court of law or equity is to profess in law, thus, casting yourself to drift away from logic and into the arms of a fool." _______________________________ End of Quote The term used in Latin for someone representing themselves as a free, independent, living being, in liberty, as far as I can understand, known, agree to use as fact, is propria persona. So returning to a less than perfect meeting with Jesus, is a meeting with someone other than Jesus, someone other than me (propria persona me) to seek agreement as to the meaning of the words offered in Matthew 7:12. To me it is the law as I understand the law of connections between living beings known as humans. The way we are constructed as cooperative beings, as beings constructed in such a way as to be very powerful beings when we cooperate, by finding agreement, by avoiding wasting power on disagreement, is a way in which there is a right way that aught to be our agreed upon way to treat each other, and there is a demonstrably wrong way that we ought to agree to deal with each other. A. Right way, where we all agree, and there is no disagreement. B. Some of us agree, such as wolves agreeing to eat the sheep, where we are not wolves or sheep, we are all human beings, but the twisting of words tends to water down, or disguise, or hide, or falsify, the actual willful intent, with malice aforethought, for some of us to conspire to destroy, or consume the others of us. In A there is the principle of agreement at work, for all of us, all the time, where we employ A. In B there is the principle of agreement only at work with group B, where group B is historically known as criminals, or outlaws, and why use 2 words when 1 word keeps things simple? So the how to of how to actually connect more than 1 individual to another individual, and maintain law power, is a process that is worth labelling with an agreeable label. If Common Law (still on the books in the Bill of Rights in America) is not agreeable, then what is? Interesting things worth connecting to find any truth (agreement) in the five seemingly unrelated processes (not static things, rather dynamic processes) listed: SOURCE: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html Process 1 (1 thing to connect by agreement to other things, potentially): QUOTE: It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, 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. End of Quote Process 2 Same Source Quote: Even when laws were made at the time of a parliament, they were made in the name of the king alone. Sometimes it was inserted in the laws, that they were made with the consent or advice of the bishops, barons, and others assembled; but often this was omitted. Their consent or advice was evidently a matter of no legal importance to the enactment or validity of the laws, but only inserted, when inserted at all, with a view of obtaining a more willing submission to them on the part of the people. The style of enactment generally was, either "The King wills and commands," or some other form significant of the sole legislative authority of the king. The king could pass laws at any time when it pleased him. The presence of a parliament was wholly unnecessary. Hume says, "It is asserted by Sir Harry Spelman, as an undoubted fact, that, during the reigns of the Norman princes, every order of the king, issued with the consent of his privy council, had the full force of law."[7] And other authorities abundantly corroborate this assertion.[8] The king was, therefore, constitutionally the government; and the only legal limitation upon his power seems to have been simply the Common Law, usually called "the law of the land," which he was bound by oath to maintain; (which oath had about the same practical value as similar oaths have always had.) This "law of the land" seems not to have been regarded at all by many of the kings, except so far as they found it convenient to do so, or were constrained to observe it by the fear of arousing resistance. But as all people are slow in making resistance, oppression and usurpation often reached a great height; and, in the case of John, they had become so intolerable as to enlist the nation almost universally against him; and he was reduced to the necessity of complying with any terms the barons saw fit to dictate to him. End of Quote Process 3 Same Source Quote: Under the Saxon laws, fines, payable to the injured party, seem to have been the common punishments for all offences. Even murder was punishable by a fine payable to the relatives of the deceased. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. When a criminal was unable to pay his One, his relatives often paid it for him. But if it were not paid, he was put out of the protection of the law, and the injured parties, (or, in the case of murder, the kindred of the deceased,)were allowed to inflict such punishment as they pleased. And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. Afterwards the custom grew up of exacting fines also to the king as a punishment for offences. [26] And this latter was, doubtless, the usual punishment at the time of Magna Carta, as is evidenced by the fact that for many years immediately following Magna Carta, nearly or quite all statutes that prescribed any punishment at all, prescribed that the offender should "be grievously amerced," or "pay a great fine to the king," or a "grievous ransom," - - with the alternative in some cases (perhaps understood in all) of imprisonment, banishment, or outlawry, in case of non-payment. End of Quote Process 4 SOURCE: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm QUOTE: A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on the question of whether an organization could be set up to legally announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital cash. I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have no information that could help the authorities find the person responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death. It was not my intention to provide such a "tough nut to crack" by arguing the general case, claiming that a person who hires a hit man is not guilty of murder under libertarian principles. Obviously, the problem with the general case is that the victim may be totally innocent under libertarian principles, which would make the killing a crime, leading to the question of whether the person offering the money was himself guilty. On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under libertarian principles. The organization set up to manage such a system could, presumably, make up a list of people who had seriously violated the NAP, but who would not see justice in our courts due to the fact that their actions were done at the behest of the government. Associated with each name would be a dollar figure, the total amount of money the organization has received as a contribution, which is the amount they would give for correctly "predicting" the person's death, presumably naming the exact date. "Guessers" would formulate their "guess" into a file, encrypt it with the organization's public key, then transmit it to the organization, possibly using methods as untraceable as putting a floppy disk in an envelope and tossing it into a mailbox, but more likely either a cascade of encrypted anonymous remailers, or possibly public-access Internet locations, such as terminals at a local library, etc. End of Quote Process 5 SOURCE https://www.rt.com/news/bitcoin-assassination-market-anarchist-983/ QUOTE: ‘Assassination market’: Bernanke tops ‘kill-list’ in crowd-sourced bitcoin fundraiser for wannabe hitmen End of Quote Comments: The law is such that the law remains the law even when people fail to agree with it. If all the people agree to blindly believe in falsehood without question, living lives of desperation under Rule by Criminal Means, then trial by jury, or trial in courts of no-conscience, or trial by the country, is immoral, and everyone agrees to seek, and obtain, revenge, or other goals other than redemption, restitution, and offers of sanctuary, protection, defense, against Rule by Criminal Means, and blind obedience to falsehood without question. If everyone but one (King John for example) agrees to abide by law, and this one King John inspires one other, now there are two outlaws, to murder King John, then was it agreed upon, in common law due process, that the murderer could return to sanctuary by paying the fine, because King John was unredeemable, an out-law by choice, an out-law by nature, as a Mad Dog would be unable to agree to abide by law, as would a hurricane, as would be any natural disaster including sociopaths, psychopaths, or other living things that have no capacity to choose to agree to remain inside the law, within their power to do so, as they have no power to do so? What happens in case law when the jury (the country as a whole) agrees to murder each other for fun and profit? So much for case law?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 03:34 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
A portion of history to understand about the 'saving to suitors' clause' is found in the Footnotes about consular authority. So upon my signing the Declaration (above) for the Bond - Life, Estate and Sacred Honor - I move in statecraft as the statesman.  Look how the chief "judge" (no oath) published it from chambers without saying anything. You do not need to follow in my footsteps though. I simply hope you will believe that FDR's War on the Great Depression was always illusion. Now the Government is no longer deluding you into thinking there is war. TRUMP is a businessman, not a politician. Attachment: saving to suitors state embassy.JPG (Downloaded 36 times)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 04:00 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
When I had, and still have, agreed with the information you offer, it is done so with an expressible understanding that when I find disagreement, I can offer that disagreement with a willful effort to convey accurate meaning concerning why I disagree. If, for example, there was written into some document (an offer from someone, or some group, to someone else, or some other group), such as The Judiciary Act of 1789, where the offer, in writing, gives, affords, allows, accepts, agrees to POWER retained by the others, such as a POWER to hold anyone, anytime, to account for charges against them, as if everyone were under this POWER, and everyone commanded this POWER equally, then said offer, in writing, ought to be understood clearly by more than one individual. The problem I have with the Judiciary Act of 1789 is that it was fraudulently acted upon by the creators of it, and then the deception in it enabled crimes to be perpetrated under the color of law, despite the half truth of the document containing a clause, or two, that could be interpreted as a POWER commanded by everyone equally: the common law, all are under it, and all command it, with equal power. I don't know if we are on the same page at this point. EDIT: I see that I "spoke too soon," and you have added to the most recent response. I have an opportunity at this time to cook my Cajun Seafood Gumbo today, and I'm on it: and looking forward to more of this process.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 04:44 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I can smell it from here!! I will simply attach the pdf so you can expound. My presumption by illegal is the formation of the districts and in 1790 that formation was designated for paying the debts and obligations of the United States. Something like that. Otherwise we are not on the same page yet. We probably need to hash out some law boundaries and I mean between local and global municipal jurisdictions.  Attachment: Judiciary Act of 1789.pdf (Downloaded 1 time)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 07:29 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 07:29 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 07:29 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 07:30 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 07:30 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America. I have certainly encountered intentional lack of bonding, which makes for everything to be the path of must and necessity. I suppose that with the image above from 1790 you simply have to pick apart the finding of fact back to 1666 and 1213 to grasp why if we won the Revolutionary War, were we required to start paying reparations? This might be at the heart of what seems to be complicating common law. Before the American Revolution (return to rule of law, not usurpation of law) a system known as summary justice was in force so as to fraudulently extort wealth from Americans (and all Colonies of the criminal British) and in so doing enslave Americans. That is the nature of a colony. We are still under the Crown. The Crown is under the Pope - Treaty of 1213. This is why we find the Pope kissing the ground on the tarmac when he got off his plane in Britain. This is fascinating but to summarize, we were set to fealty on a plantation after the Revolutionary War. Paying rent instead of excise. This is the nature of 501(C)(3) government homage and tribute. You do not have to be Roman Catholic to conjoin in the separation by commercial priestcraft. To reconcile you must be the church. Attachment: Doc 31 - Notice of Void Judgments published EPCO & Custer.pdf (Downloaded 0 times)
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 07:54 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I am going to run the story by from my gdrive rather than one attachment per post. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImSG9yTExab2JnU1E/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImalBQWHNUa1hsNk0/view?usp=sharing Proof of Service on the Triumvirate. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImdUdjemZtckxwZm8/view?usp=sharing The church owns it all. The Pope - BISHOP of ROME - is in a breach of trust, causing the resulting trust and I am First Trustee. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImb0lfRF9CdldvOTA/view?usp=sharing Proof of Service on Israel and China. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImN00wbG14S1pzUHM/view?usp=sharing Attachment: Doc 1 Page 1.jpg (Downloaded 35 times)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 17th, 2017 10:49 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I got to this: "I suppose that with the image above from 1790 you simply have to pick apart the finding of fact back to 1666 and 1213 to grasp why if we won the Revolutionary War, were we required to start paying reparations?" Common Law, like Federation, like every other term used for voluntary mutual defense, has be usurped, falsified, and turned up-side-down since at least Magna Carta. The Cycles from Rule of Law to Rule by Criminal Means, if information from Frank O'Collins is to be employed as fact, have been going on for some time, more than anyone living today (other than Frank O'Collins perhaps) is willing to acknowledge. I was sent, by mail, a package, independent from Frank O'Collins (it was many years later than I found Frank O'Collins) whereby the study done by this man put the cycle at 208 years, going back to Babylonian times (or before: my memory is not well, and I do not have the copy of the work at hand right now: but I can get it.) During the bottom of the Rule by Criminal Means part of the cycle the world is consumed by human beings at each other's throats like rats on a sinking ship. During the up side of Rule of Law people get off this planet and move (so as to survive, and so as to survive well) to other planets, hedging the inevitability of an Earth that no longer supports life. Who is we in the following? "I suppose that with the image above from 1790 you simply have to pick apart the finding of fact back to 1666 and 1213 to grasp why if we won the Revolutionary War, were we required to start paying reparations?" I know me. I can be someone who is not going to accept involuntary association AS A RULE that I abide by strictly. I don't know you well enough to say the same thing. Who is we? http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 18th, 2017 11:23 am |
|
19th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I don't think that I am missing anything but I will read through your posts again. It seems we differ defining "common law" from the opening post definition you imported from http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com.  Abraham LINCOLN was very tall, and did not like walking sticks. This gift was a temporary scepter for display during his inauguration. Then it was returned to the Masons. I inadvertently caught the reflection of a religious leader's face. 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 18th, 2017 01:42 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I think the term, or word, is a tool to be employed in the work required to achieve a goal. If we have different tools, perhaps we have different goals. The tool (word: common law) is, in my case, a tool to be employed in the work of conveying accurate meaning concerning a process called defense of life in time and place. Tool: a term, and the term is "common law," unless another term is agreeable, I will use this term. Meaning of the tool (the term common law, or some other term other than common law) is the goal, and the goal is to convey a process from me to you, so as to "get on the same page," and the page is the meaning conveyed with the tool. The meaning of the tool (common law) is a process by which people defend each other expediently (pragmatically?), in time and place, whereby people are thereby defended. The same page thereby is the accurate identification of a process by which people defend people in time and place, and if said "same page" is agreed upon first, then perhaps it is possible to then agree upon an agreeable name for that process. SOURCE: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html QUOTE: It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, 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. End of Quote Above are words that describe to the reader a process, and the process being described was called the common law, and so that is why I call the process the common law now. Is there disagreement concerning what is the process in view? Is there disagreement concerning what the process in view (if we agree on it) is called? I am not, and I will not, give power to the false process that is in place to counterfeit the true process. The true process is described well enough in the quote above, as far as I am concerned, when my concern is to point at, to offer up, to accurately identify, to placed on the table for discussion, and for employment in defense of all, a process. Is the process that I place on the table clearly in view, and if not, then why not?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:55 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Lawful Money Trust | Top |
