Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Lawful Money Trust

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Lawful Money Trust  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Jan 26th, 2017 10:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
41st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I do not produce surplus wealth to an extent that I need to find ways to protect excess surplus wealth from false government thieves.

Once upon a time I did, and the power of knowledge you offer now would have been useful knowledge for me then.

The fact remains that the so called constitution (1787/89) was a battle in the war that was won by the evil, slave trading, fraudulent banking, aggressive war profiteers, and drug pushers.

So a claim now that the war is over, while at the same time claiming that the constitution (so called) was suspended, is a contradictory claim if the battle is truth versus lies, morality versus immorality, good versus evil, and happy productive life versus miserably destructive extinction.

Trading with the enemy works two ways.

1. Those on the side of evil trade with those on the side of evil, so as to cooperate in dividing and conquering (enslaving, consuming, and destroying) moral good people, turning moral good people into evil people in the process.

2. Those defending themselves against evil who, for whatever reason imaginable, decide, with clear minds, and willful actions, to empower evil people, enable evil people, arm evil people, aid evil people, abet evil people, encourage evil people, embolden evil people, by trading with evil people.

I am assuming that you are not evil.

Is there another category of trading with the enemy that I fail to see?

The war is over because the evil people won as the deceptions of 1787, so as to subsidize (a euphemism) slave trading (now called human trafficking), subsidize aggressive war for profit, subsidize central banking fraud, and subsidize drug pushing, is re-established as the (false) law of the land?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jan 27th, 2017 04:47 am
  PM Quote Reply
42nd Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe Kelley wrote:
I do not produce surplus wealth to an extent that I need to find ways to protect excess surplus wealth from false government thieves.

Once upon a time I did, and the power of knowledge you offer now would have been useful knowledge for me then.

The fact remains that the so called constitution (1787/89) was a battle in the war that was won by the evil, slave trading, fraudulent banking, aggressive war profiteers, and drug pushers.

So a claim now that the war is over, while at the same time claiming that the constitution (so called) was suspended, is a contradictory claim if the battle is truth versus lies, morality versus immorality, good versus evil, and happy productive life versus miserably destructive extinction.

Trading with the enemy works two ways.

1. Those on the side of evil trade with those on the side of evil, so as to cooperate in dividing and conquering (enslaving, consuming, and destroying) moral good people, turning moral good people into evil people in the process.

2. Those defending themselves against evil who, for whatever reason imaginable, decide, with clear minds, and willful actions, to empower evil people, enable evil people, arm evil people, aid evil people, abet evil people, encourage evil people, embolden evil people, by trading with evil people.

I am assuming that you are not evil.

Is there another category of trading with the enemy that I fail to see?

The war is over because the evil people won as the deceptions of 1787, so as to subsidize (a euphemism) slave trading (now called human trafficking), subsidize aggressive war for profit, subsidize central banking fraud, and subsidize drug pushing, is re-established as the (false) law of the land?


I have made some presumptions that you are fluent about the history.



I am privileged to have the Golden Rectangle as a resource.






In the opposite corner from the Lincoln Room is the Mason Library and Museum.

On April 15, 1861 LINCOLN declared war. That war ended and when it came time to end the 'extraordinary occasion' and reconvene a de jure Congress LINCOLN was shot. So the War continued. Around that time Canada began the shock testing for the Federal Reserve note in 1913. Look at the footnotes in the Attachment.

In 1913 the Fed Act began a twenty-year charter. In 1933 that charter expired. There was a run on the Fed and to prevent that FDR declared War on the Great Depression in his inauguration speech. He implemented the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act by changing the German national into US citizen and declaring the belligerent enemy anybody who "hoarded" gold.

The Trading with the Enemy Act was "Omitted" from the Bankers' Code late last year. The War is over.

Attachment: gold-requirements.pdf (Downloaded 1 time)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Jan 28th, 2017 11:50 am
  PM Quote Reply
43rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
David,

The image files loaded in the last few replies are not showing up on my end.

The history I am familiar with is not the history of the group known as the Masons. I knew 2 people who were said to have been Masons, both are now dead. There is a Mason building in town.

If the Masons are a secret society, then my interest in the history of that secret society is like my interest in the Jesuits, the so called Illuminati, the Neocons, or how about UCADIA?

Discussions by anyone, including members, weakens the power of deception: hidden secrets. Lies told about secret societies can be expected so as to maintain the secrets?

http://www.resist.com/Onlinebooks/Pike-MoralsAndDogma.pdf

Is that an authorized Mason publication publicized for a specific purpose?

I'm curious.

As to the war between secret society A and secret society B, my guess is that actual human beings were thinking and acting in positions of power over other people in those societies in that (or those) wars.

So far the war in question here in this informal inquest is specified as a war that is over now according to you.

That war is a secret kept from me so far, and what does that war have to do with voluntary mutual defense of all people in time and place, such as the process that is recorded on the public record as the common law?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jan 28th, 2017 03:20 pm
  PM Quote Reply
44th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
It can be very confusing. Funding came out of the Crown, for both sides. PIKE was a southern general but he coordinated the banking. King James of 1611 was formerly King James VI of Scotland and imported to Britain Scottish Rite as the formal religion. The KJV is encoded.

If you have a Strong's in paper, find BRANCH all upper case. That was the coronation name for King David. But Jesus CHRIST of Nazareth... NETZAR is BRANCH. But you might choose the encryption; that Joseph would pack a late-term pregnant woman on a donkey 100 miles just to get to a Holiday festival...

What slows down most people is believing that evil has a face at all; or that it even exists. Stop judging and more keys will unlock more mysteries...


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbTlZVjBCM081dFE/view?usp=sharing

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Jan 28th, 2017 05:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
45th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I read through some of the messages (coded or otherwise) in Albert Pikes Morals and Dogma.

Much is agreeable as far as my understanding (power of judgment concerning true facts and fabricated falsehoods) is concerned. Trial by jury is mentioned (common law according to Lysander Spooner's work on the subject), and the concept of justice is the version I understand (my ability to judge again), not the counterfeit just-us version.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jan 28th, 2017 09:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
46th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I found a copy long ago at a garage sale.

Thales and Pythagoras learned in the Sanctuaries of
Egypt that the Earth revolved around the Sun; but they
did not attempt to make this generally known, because
to do so it would have been necessary to reveal one of
the great Secrets of the Temple, that double law of
attraction and radiation or of sympathy and antipathy,
of fixedness and movement, which is the principle of
Creation, and the perpetual cause of life. This Truth
was ridiculed by the Christian Lactantius, as it was
long after sought to be proven a falsehood by
persecution, by Papal Rome.

So the philosophers reasoned, while the Priests,
without replying to them or even smiling at their
errors, wrote, in those Hieroglyphics that created all
dogmas and all poetry, the Secrets of the Truth.
When Truth comes into the world, the Star of Knowledge
advises the Magi of it, and they hasten to adore the
Infant who creates the Future. It is by means of the
Intelligence of the Hierarchy and the practice of
obedience, that one obtains Initiation. If the Rulers
have the Divine Right to govern, the true Initiate will
cheerfully obey.


This was presented to me originally by a 32nd Degree Freemason and investment broker who co-authored Are You Lost at C?

Don't worry, he died of cancer years ago.

Attachment: Morals and Dogma Magi and Qabbalah.pdf (Downloaded 1 time)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 31st, 2017 07:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
47th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://freedom-school.com/reading-room/lost-at-sea.pdf

The false courts were created so as to enslave everyone, including the creators of the false courts. Playing by their rules is a serious business called extortion and fraud under the color of law, therefore treason.

Why accept fraud as law? Is it part of natural law, those who accept fraud are agreeing to (principle of agreement) enslavement as a matter of demonstrable fact?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 31st, 2017 08:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
48th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
That is a good pdf rendition.




This chart may be unique. I think Jim and I worked this out.



The Libel of Review has evolved quite a bit. I filed mine the eve of the first 31-Day Government Shutdown.

The success stories really flowed when I implemented the demand for lawful money.

I think you are stuck in conflict. The purpose is to create a record. That is all.

Attachment: Libel in Review.pdf (Downloaded 2 times)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Feb 1st, 2017 02:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
49th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The image files are not loading properly on my end.

As to the condition of being stuck in conflict I can use information that identifies (accurately measures) that condition.

Having accurate measures of the condition of being stuck in conflict afford me the means by which I too can know, understand, realize, acknowledge, and defend against the condition of being stuck in conflict.

As far aback as I can remember I looked at my paycheck (for examples of documented evidence showing what is, or is not, someone stuck in conflict) and I ignored the messages that did not let me know what my employer paid me in Purchasing Power for my ability to create wealth (value) according to my employer.

The numbers claiming to have "taxed" me were (and are) to me numbers that document the conflict between honesty free people in liberty (who tend to create wealth and trade wealth equitably) and those who employ the system of extortion and fraud that happens to be called the law (under the color of law).

As soon as I was able to stop collecting a pay check, whereby the criminals were then no longer making these claims about how much wealth I created for them to steal, I did so with good conscience.

So...I am unfortunately still (alive) in conflict with the people who employ falsehood to cover up their crimes where these criminals claim to be the government and these criminals conflict with the free and equitable trade among free people in liberty, but I am finding ways to minimize the purchasing power that is claimed to be taken from me.

I no longer work independently as a free trader in liberty, I got sick.

I am no longer useful as a slave in that capacity.

I am probably on the list of people who are in conflict with the established death cults for my turn burning at the stake, which can be modernized as cancer treatment.

I don't have cancer, but I would like to know why the sky is so often full of artificial clouds.

Is that the conflict I am stuck in?

Did I miss something?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Feb 1st, 2017 04:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
50th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
In Libel in Review I found this (so far):

"A right of action cannot arise out of fraud."

The United States of America began as a legitimate (lawful = not fraudulent) association of voluntary defenders whose common enemy at the time was British criminals perpetrating fraudulent forms of (thereby false) government.

The United States of America was then turned from a legitimate government into a criminal government the moment the fraud known as The Constitution of 1787 was (fraudulently) acted upon, as if The Constitution of 1787 was not a fraud.


1. Expose the fraud perpetrated in 1787 under the (false) name The Constitution of 1787/89, in an official, legal, manner.

2. Do not act in defense against the most damaging fraud in American history for whatever reason is imagined by those who do not, or even refuse to, act in defense against the most damaging fraud in American history.

I read in the works attributed to Pike that failure to act is as much a crime as any other crime involving willful actions that result in injury to innocent people.

What makes anyone (confessions?) think that Admiralty "court" is legitimate, legal, lawful, moral, or in any way useful to free people in liberty whose common need is voluntary mutual defense against all who willfully destroy innocent people: including fraudulent authorities of science, religion, industry, and law?

I'm curious.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Feb 1st, 2017 10:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
51st Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
It would probably help if you could see the images.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Feb 2nd, 2017 03:49 pm
  PM Quote Reply
52nd Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe Kelley wrote:
The image files are not loading properly on my end.

I am no longer useful as a slave in that capacity.

I am probably on the list of people who are in conflict with the established death cults for my turn burning at the stake, which can be modernized as cancer treatment.

I don't have cancer, but I would like to know why the sky is so often full of artificial clouds.

Is that the conflict I am stuck in?

Did I miss something?


If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis.

http://bishopcastle.us/forum/main-forum/pragmatism?filter_sort=title&filter_order=asc

The other night a couple visited who had moved to California to be close to Ken WAPNICK in his final days (2013). He too was dying of cancer. I wanted to tell him the truth about the source of Helen's displacement hysteria.

Maybe I should have.

I ran across a lady in the reading group outside class. She asked why I missed last week. "I have been through the entire book, so now it is 'voluntary'." She replied, "Me too; and I still don't get it!"

I wanted to tell her that I got it the first week in. By discovering the truth about why Helen was "haunted" by a Voice calling itself Jesus...

Maybe I should have.

I have discussed this with Dr. Rick STRASSMAN so that he has encouraged to share my findings with everybody...

Maybe I should have.

Attachment: Subprojects connected by LSD.pdf (Downloaded 2 times)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Feb 2nd, 2017 06:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
53rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I posted the Pragmatism Forum Link here:
http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1226&forum_id=2

I don't know why communication is so difficult, as if we must communicate to each other in code.

If you think my viewpoint is evidence of mental illness, then I'd like to know (without having to get out a decoder) why you think my viewpoint is evidence of mental illness.

My viewpoint is plainly offered to you.

If you do not acknowledge the fact that the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787/89 is a criminal organization, and therefore not a lawful organization, then that failure to acknowledge that fact is, by your power of will, a crime accountable to you.

That is - in that way - evidence of either mental illness on your part, or criminal behavior is not a mental illness, rather than criminal behavior being a mental illness said criminal behavior is right as rain, natural, and good for life: moral.

So here are two people exchanging viewpoints and as far as I know my cards are all out on the table in plain view.

What inspires you to give the fraudulent United States of America (under the fraudulent Constitution of 1787/89) any credit of having any lawful authority, assuming that is what you are doing?

What inspires you to willfully choose not to acknowledge the fact that lawful authority for anyone claiming the Constitution of 1787/89 as their just, moral, source of authority is false, a fraud, and the opposite of lawful authority?

The slave traders guilty of crimes against nature itself (according to, at least, Thomas Jefferson in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence) made slavery legal when they perpetrated the fraud known as The Constitution of 1787/89, and the Latin (code) term for that is prima facie evidence: caught red handed.

Who in this world needs to be taught that enslaving innocent people (and all that must go with enslaving, including torture and murder) is a crime?

Only the criminals themselves need to know this fact that slavery is a crime? That brings to light the unnatural, immoral, genetic defects, whereby a living organism is incapable of understanding moral right from moral wrong, and is therefore not guilty of choosing to do wrong, but the point here is to point out that it is wrong to give such mutations power required to enslave mankind with such things as the example provided by the fraud known as The Constitution of 1787/89.

Trading with the enemy.

So now, with my cards again on the table, in other words, I am inspired to look further into the coded messages, to find, perhaps once again, more evidence proving that my viewpoint is sound.

As was the case when looking into the work of Albert Pike, whereby it was acknowledged that trial by jury was, in some way, useful to him.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Feb 2nd, 2017 10:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
54th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I would guess that since the War is over, the President is turning his attention through Title 50 on the War Against Terror.

Executive Orders 2/2/17

You have misconstrued the first sentence. I am not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Feb 3rd, 2017 12:15 am
  PM Quote Reply
55th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
In the effort to communicate I will attempt to explain a portion of the past communication in a way that may (or may not) work as effective communication.

I read:

"If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis."

I can read from that, and I can understand from that, that you are expressly not a trained psychologist.

I got that, and I get that, you are offering to me information that identifies you as someone who is not a trained psychologist.

Then I read this:

"You have misconstrued the first sentence. I am not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist."

I understood then, and I understand now, that I am not connected to, and I am not exchanging information with, a trained psychologist.

I get that.

I got that.

Why are you now claiming that I did not get that, as if I can't read plain English and comprehend plain English?

The viewpoint was expressed:

"If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis."

Why does the subject of "symptom" and "diagnosis" enter into the stream of information transferring between two individuals?

Was it this:

Me:
"I am no longer useful as a slave in that capacity."

Did that inspire you to write this:

"If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis."

I'd like to know, as I offered already, I am curious.

A war, as you inform me, and you inform anyone else who may want to know, is over, as far as you know.

I got that.

I get that.

A war, as far as you know, is over.

The fact that the United States of America was a voluntary association for mutual defense before criminals perpetrated an obvious fraud remains to be a fact.

The war that you understand to be over, according to you, started much later than the war that was started with the fraud in which a voluntary mutual defense association was turned into a criminal organization under the same name: United States of America.

This may help (or not):

http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp07

The title of that offer of information dated December 6, 1787 is:
Adoption Of The Constitution Will Lead To Civil War

The war that you say has ended is a war predicted (or at least coinciding in time and place with a different war other than the war you understand to be over) almost 100 years before the war (that may be the same war you say now has ended) that actually happened: predictably.

Why did the author of the information (simple reason based upon simple facts) offer a warning about a pending (inevitable?) war?

Quote:

The new constitution in its present form is calculated to produce despotism, thralldom and confusion, and if the United States do swallow it, they will find it a bolus, that will create convulsions to their utmost extremities. Were they mine enemies, the worst imprecation I could devise would be, may they adopt it. For tyranny, where it has been chained (as for a few years past) is always more cursed, and sticks its teeth in deeper than before.

Calculations are made so as to turn from something and to turn toward despotism.

Our enemies - uncontrolled as they are in their ambitious schemes, fretted with losses, and perplexed with disappointments – will exert their whole power and policy to increase and continue our confusion. And while we are destroying one another, they will be repairing their losses, and ruining our trade.

The calculation is specifically geared to divide so as to conquer.

Why are you and I seemingly divided, even now?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Feb 3rd, 2017 04:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
56th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The "conversation" so far consists of you trying to assert that the Constitution is a criminal action. The law, and corpus of that trust, is described in metaphor at Books of Samuel and Kings in the Bible. The Law is for individuals. The only escape from law is love and unity.

David;

Thank you. At the moment, I don't have the time to dive deep into that subject matter, but the jist of Pragmatism is pertinent to this particular moment for me. It serves to assist in a series of minor mental tweaks I am currently receiving. Your service is blessed.

Kindly forgive me if I don't always listen to all your council, but I would find my self overwhelmed if I allowed all who offer council to flood My mind with Theirs. None the less, I appreciate and love you.

Magnanimously,
Suitor on the brain trust.


http://bishopcastle.us/forum/main-forum/pragmatism?filter_sort=title&filter_order=asc

Here are some examples; the calm Master is unified and the attacker is an individual who has given up his free will, subjecting himself to law - the idea of the Master's will upon muscle motor function.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRaPfxVkag&t=74s


Stop judging.


P.S. About 1:00 into the video pause and study "Pony Tail". The Master projects an idea toward other attackers while Pony Tail is touching his ankle, causing chaotic muscle cramping.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Feb 4th, 2017 05:49 pm
  PM Quote Reply
57th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Somehow peaceable reentry is possible. The Alien Property Custodian has all the delusions of property seizure since 1933?

https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/131.html

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Feb 4th, 2017 06:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
58th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Again I am being judged by someone who then offers a commanding sentence (I've been sentenced):

Stop judging.

Is that hypocrisy?

I ask because I am curious about this present part of this ongoing exchange of information that is - to me - a voluntary mutual association for benefit.

How can I know if there is benefit, and therefore reason, cause, to continue?

How can I know if there is the opposite of benefit, and therefore reason, and cause, to discontinue?

I see a clear requirement for accurate judgment of accurately perceived measures of demonstrable fact; without which I will not know anything.

Am I to rely upon instinct alone?

Stop judging.


Perhaps your definition of the word judging is not the same as mine.

Your definition of the word law appears to be to be a similar definition for the term organized crime under the color of law, as far as I can tell.

My definition of law: Common law due process by which volunteers volunteer to hold each other to an accurate accounting and the process by which that is done includes trial by jury.

An example is the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trail, however that example was run - in part - according to rules that are not voluntary, therefore not lawful, and therefore the trial by jury case was - in that way - not lawful, not voluntary, not according to due process, not according to the common law. It was, for example, much too late, and it was, for another example, a crime scene when someone claiming to be a judge misinforms the jury as to what powers the jurors command as representatives of the whole (moral) people in the whole country in trial by the country, which is a court of conscience.

So my working definition of law is specific, not ambiguous, and not in code, so there is no need to decode, decipher, or confuse the definition offered through me, through Lysander Spooner, through many other sources already quoted, and through many other sources not quoted here, and your working definition of law, as far as I can tell, is the same definition that applies to organized crime under the color of law.

Example:

The "conversation" so far consists of you trying to assert that the Constitution is a criminal action. The law, and corpus of that trust, is described in metaphor at Books of Samuel and Kings in the Bible. The Law is for individuals. The only escape from law is love and unity.


Specifically this:


The only escape from law is love and unity

Love and unity is law, so why would anyone choose to escape (step out-side) law, and become, thereby, an outlaw?

Part of the confusion might be discoverable in this:

The Law is for individuals.

What is not for individuals? I'd like to know. I can offer this:

Link: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp03

Title:
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

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.

Apparently there is a lot of confusion going on when words and terms begin (grass roots, adaptation, invention, creation) as meaning one thing, and then an individual (and then more than one individual agreeing) changes the meaning from the original meaning whereby the new meaning is opposite the original meaning.

Case in point:

Federalism started as:

Link:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/

Title:
Elliot’s Debates: Volume 1
Gradual Approaches Towards Independence

Quote:
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:


And now Federation - as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents in Waco Texas, and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents conspiring to murder Martin Luther King Jr., and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents enforcing the Judiciary Act of 1789, and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents subsidizing the African slave trade since 1789 - means rule by criminal means: also known as organized crime under the color of law.

Is that what you mean when you work with, use, employ, communicate with, the term "Law"?

When you use the term "Law" do you mean rule by criminal means, and do you mean organized crime?

What exactly do you mean, when you refer to that which is law, as far as you are concerned, as far as you know?

Law, to me, is this:

...love and unity

Also expressed here:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Also expressed here:

Link:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/

Title:
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788 at Philadelphia
September Sessions, 1778

Quote:

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.

And:


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.

The definition of law is also offered in the following work:

Link:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

Title:
TRIAL BY JURY

Quote:
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.

It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government.

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.


Law, as explained, is a voluntary association among volunteers for their mutual defense, and the volunteers who agree to employ law agree to hold each other accountable for whatever each individual is responsible.

That is my working definition of law in so many words, and how can anyone confuse that voluntary association for mutual defense with anything other than a voluntary association for mutual defense, and what is the motive for creating such confusion if such confusion is created by an individual in time and place?

Above is my working definition of law in a nutshell, and it is not, apparently, the same definition of law that you are working here and now.

If you can, please, let me know, without code, what your definition of law is as far as you require when you employ the term law: please.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Feb 4th, 2017 07:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
59th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Agreed. Self determination is what I meant by "escape" from law. We seem back on point. This is common law:

Case law; also known as stare decisis.

In Colorado only county court judges can practice law (from the bench). But they do not want to do that a lot because their reputation may be smudged by a few cases being overturned on appeal.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Feb 5th, 2017 02:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
60th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Back on point or going around in circles?

Common law began, and continues to be, not as you say it is, and the facts are offered to you. Your insistence upon claiming that common law is only what you say it is confesses something about you that is worth knowing.

You dictate what is, or is not, real despite ample evidence that proves otherwise.

If all you want to do here is to dictate information as you alone see it, and ignore ample evidence that contradicts your dictated information, then the circle you create in that way will spin around and around until one of us decides (with clear judgment) to waste no more time going around in that circle.

The circle where you make a demonstrably false claim about common law (as if common law is only what you say it is and common law is nothing but what you say it is) and I offer more, and more, and more, evidence contradicting your false claim about common law, is a circle that expands as more, and more, and more, evidence contradicting your false claims is added to the merry go round.

The terms that you use to enclose common law into a box are these:

1.stare decisis

2.Case law

Within the meaning of the terms above are many trials by jury cases involving many errors that are entered into the record of cases along with many successful examples of voluntary mutual defense.

Who in your limited (dictatorial) version of common law (counterfeit version) has the power to decide what is, or is not, a just punishment, and what criteria is employed by the authority in any case?

Your answer, if your words can be deciphered, is going to be a judge, as if a judge has the power to punish on his say so alone, as the judge pulls whichever case he may want to pull out of his dictatorial box of failed cases that fail to voluntarily defend the innocent from the guilty.

Someone I met during my time at National Liberty Alliance (I was the California State Coordinator) had 500 or so pages of documentation proving beyond doubt (confessions or prima facie evidence) that all the judges in California are criminals according to the laws they claim to be the source of their authority as they broke those laws in order to get seated on those legal fiction benches. So, with your false claims concerning common law, those criminals in those positions of criminal power (under the color of law) are within the boundaries of common law, so long as they have no case law in the stare decisis process from which to convict themselves?

Isn't that the jist of your false claims about common law, as you insist upon supporting the counterfeit version of common law?



Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 10:17 pm Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Lawful Money Trust Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems