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   
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Lawful Money Trust  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Feb 5th, 2017 04:06 pm
  PM Quote Reply
61st Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The common law (case law) of England was adopted. Even in 1861 as Colorado became BUCHANNAN's War Chest we find that my assertion is correct.






Maybe because it has always been this way, it is easy to misinterpret the reflections off your projections?

Attachment: Thirteenth Amendment.pdf (Downloaded 0 times)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Feb 5th, 2017 09:13 pm
  PM Quote Reply
62nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Regardless of the differences between our 2 viewpoints, the fact remains that people volunteer to defend themselves.

What do you think is an effective way to accomplish the goal of voluntary mutual defense?

I think that trial by jury according to the common law researched by Lysander Spooner is the reasonable method of reaching the goal of voluntary mutual defense.

You can steal, counterfeit, cover-up, hide, abuse, destroy, fake, and fraud voluntary mutual defense known as the common law with trial by jury all you want, within your power to do so, meanwhile I will continue my efforts to set the record straighter.

Example:

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.


That is not (as far as I can decode your messages) what you consider to be the common law.

I think that many people share (agree with) what I think is your working version of the common law (the counterfeit version) including many people who agree with the counterfeit interpretation of what is written in The Bill of Rights as those Amendments attempted to amend the fraudulent Constitution of 1787.

There is no cause for me, at this point, to ask again for simple answers to simple questions, as the routine of evasion on your part is clearly established.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2017 12:08 am
  PM Quote Reply
63rd Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I have heard some of those theories about fraudulent Constitution. I account it to more projection, like your feeling you have established I am evasive. I would call you paranoid but that is just plain nonproductive.

I think the best defense is to recuse the judge. Look at his oath. Even if his oath is in order ask him to describe the appeals process; he will anyway. All the federal judges have altered their oaths too. So there is no way for you to understand the nature and cause of the accusation if the judge is lying about your remedy.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2017 05:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
64th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"I have heard some of those theories about fraudulent Constitution."

Theory?

The criminals claimed that slavery was legal, so your version of the facts is now such that slavery is a theoretical crime and not a prima facie (inculpatory) cause to hold said criminals to an accurate accounting of the fact that their enslavement of innocent people constitutes a self-evident perpetration of a crime against nature itself.

As to the particulars (less inculpatory than the principles such as so called "legal" enslavement):
LINK:
http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/Identity%20Theft%20of%20the%20perpetual%20Union.pdf

Sept. 27, 1787
Congress reviews the convention results and first votes to approve of the new law form. Congress then realizes they do not have the authority to approve of a new law form and the vote to approve is stricken out in the records (but not deleted). (See The Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 33. pages 540-542)
Congress acknowledges they can make no changes to the new law form because it has nothing to do with the existing law form, to which their powers lie.
At first, treason but then lawful.
Congress then acknowledges the people at the Convention created a new law form (that has absolutely nothing to do with the existing law form, i.e., the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union) but does not admonish them for breaking the law. Then Congress, instead of dismissing the results as unlawful, passes the results onto the States for their approval but implying the Congress does approve of the new law form. The States, under the assumption of Congress's approval, begin the ratification process. (See The Journals of the Continental Congress , Vol. 33. pages 543-544)


So... you claim that there are "theories" somewhere in time and place that you are aware of with measured ambiguity. That measured ambiguity faces clear demonstrations of criminal acts in time and place, such as the enforcement of slavery under the color of law, and the organic, grass-roots, voluntary mutual defense association rule book broken in time and place proven by the actual records kept by the perpetrators of the crime while they perpetrated the crime.

Now there is a claim of feelings; as if that has anything to do with the facts concerning what is, or is not, law.

I account it to more projection, like your feeling you have established I am evasive. I would call you paranoid but that is just plain nonproductive.

I can restart with the first question you dodged:

"Why accept fraud as law?"

That question works in either case, where your claims concerning what is law are defendable, or not, and my claims of what is law, or not, is tested in like manner.

So far as I can tell (code) you have a claim concerning the legitimacy of Admiralty Law recorded here and there, while my opposition to such a claim includes these same demonstrations of fact in time and space concerning enforced slavery by people claiming to be law enforcers.

So far as I can tell the reason why you dodge the question is due to the unreasonable act of enforcing slavery upon innocent people. Your claims are morally indefensible, therefore you dodge that which you cannot do.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 6th, 2017 05:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
65th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I feel like the last guy in the world to accept fraud as law.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbmV1RVFTUlVNM2c/view?usp=sharing


That is twice you have hit the "Edit" key, instead of the "Reply" key. That makes it look as though I am speaking your comment - very confusing!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Feb 8th, 2017 01:52 am
  PM Quote Reply
66th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

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

That is twice you have hit the "Edit" key, instead of the "Reply" key. That makes it look as though I am speaking your comment - very confusing!


That is very confusing. Who hit the "Edit" key, instead of the "Reply key", twice?

What does "I am speaking your comment..." mean?

I responded with a response earlier, and that response is gone, which is fine, and cause for me to be more careful when responding. I can back-up my responses when I do not want my responses lost.

My response that was lost had to do with the accurate accounting of those responsible for willfully choosing to injure innocent people.

There are ways to reach that goal.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Feb 8th, 2017 07:57 am
  PM Quote Reply
67th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Your response was in a post that said, "David Merrill". So I edited it. I saved it in the buffer but overwrote it by accident, sorry.

Your inability to communicate is becoming nonproductive for us.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Feb 10th, 2017 08:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
68th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I wrote a LinkedIn Article this morning.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/presidential-directive-served-january-30-last-order-david-merrill?trk=pulse_spock-articles

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 03:45 pm
  PM Quote Reply
69th Post
David Merrill
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The saga of shaky publication of Executive Orders continues.

http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1232&forum_id=4

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 10:18 pm Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4     
Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Lawful Money Trust Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems