Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Power Independence > Study Group > Study Group > Confederation Party

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Confederation Party  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 01:26 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6409
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=nqWeqLqR2TM

I am immediately aware of a problem concerning the following statement:

"The Confederation Party was formed for one purpose...to fulfill the failed mandate for the political convention of 1787."

The problem with that statement is the assumption that there was ONE, and only 1, polticial "mandate," or reason, cause, purpose, for assembling reprentatives from all the United States, except Rhode Island, into a "political convention," whereupon the doors were locked, dirty deals were made, threats were perpetrated to extort compliance, and gag orders were enforced upon the attendees.


The problem shows up again with the following statement:

"As short sighted and unrealistic as their thinking was at the time..."

Who is "they," and what evidence is being referenced to arrive at that judgment, conclusion, statement, concerning someone's lack of foresight?

Those against the Constitution of 1787/89 wrote extensively on precisely why the Constitution of 1787/89 was criminal in nature, bound to cause Civil War, division, disunion, conflict, and the destruction of our common, moral, due process of law.

The next problem arises in the assertion that the people known what is or is not a National Government, and then there is a basely assertion that the people want a National Government; which is baseless when the people don't even know (today) what is, or is not, a National Government.

People in the past knew.

George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788

"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

Next is a redefining (counterfeiting) of the term republic. A republic is very simple. The word republic is traced back to Latin, and the intended meaning of the original word (before counterfeiting) was The Public Thing: res (thing) publica (public). If "it" (the public thing) is for one section (division) of the population at the expense of (slaves) another division of the population, then it - by definition - is not a republic. The 1787/89 Constitution Crime Scene is where the Northern Criminal Industrialists (central banking frauds, slave carriers, merchants, war mongers) made a deal with the Southern Criminal Corporate Agriculture Industrialists whose "farms" were crime scenes where innocent African Slaves were consumed for love of power and profits, and who knows what else was done to those innocent victims of African Slavery. So, put on your thinking caps, how is the systematic extortion of productive wealth taken from "tax payers" to fund (subsidize) the enforcement of the African Slave Trade a republic? How is the taking of productive wealth from all Americans except the political class of criminals, so as to enforce the taking of lives from African Slaves a PUBLIC THING? It is precisely the opposite of a PUBLIC THING. It is a private enterprise that is assembled and maintained for criminal purposes, and it operates under the color of law: the exact, precise, opposite of The Public Thing.


The report from the Confederation Party goes stumbling on to define the meaning of a republic and the following statement is offered (as if the definition is in some way useful, official, true, accurate, meaningful, etc.):

"a form of government in which the sovereign power is widely vested in the people directly or trough elected representatives"

The problem there is a complete lack of understanding the nature of the power that is hereby claimed to be "sovereign power," as if everyone (each individual who constituted one part of the Public Thing) knows the intended meaning of the term "sovereign power."

To understand this problem better it may help to realize, to acknowledge, to know, the real purpose of due process of law, known as the law of the land, which is also known as the common law, and a significant part of that process that is due everyone, without exception, (actually THE PUBLIC THING not counterfeit), is Trial by Jury.

Trial by jury is where each individual who stands on earth as part of the Public Thing has the sovereign power to acquit another sovereign individual. The whole country (the public thing) is represented in each juror (1/12th part of the whole country) and any judgment of guilt, of anything worthy of the use (or abuse) of political power (such as asking someone to pay a fine, or hanging someone by the neck from a tree and a rope), requires unanimous agreement: not one group (a majority, or a minority) taking the power to injure someone in another group.

Then the report from the Confederate Party offers more words intending to define the meaning of a republic with the following statement: "This remains the primary definition of republic in most contexts." What does that mean? If the majority of fools operates with the counterfeited meaning of republic, then that is good enough for criminals running fake government? How many people are fooled by the word magic? How many people share a false meaning for the word citizen? How comforting is it to know that those innocent people are only suffering enhanced interrogation techniques, and therefore there is no cause to worry about someone you love being next in line?

I'm going to stop at: "A true republic form of government is never in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." I'm going to eat dinner before continuing with this report on information from The Confederation Party. Leaving first with a note on RIGHTS. Those against the Slave Trading Constitution of 1787/89 worked to get that Slave Trading Constitution amended with The Bill of Rights. The Slave Traders delayed the Amending of The Bill of Rights until after The Judiciary Act of 1789 was in place. People, not forms of associations of people (governments, corporations, church groups, farms, parties, families), either acknowledge "human rights" or they are criminals in fact. Blame the thing (government) and the criminals go on and on with what they do best: under the color of law.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 08:55 am
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6409
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Next up in the Confederate Party report is a statement in support of oligarchy (rule of a division of the whole by another - typically smaller - division of the whole people = NOT respublica: not the public thing, not the whole people as equals, sovereign kings each one, independent of each other one) here:

Article 21 Section 3 of the Universial Declaration of Human Rights

(3) "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

On the factual side of things is the following message offered in the historical record (knowable as the common law court of record):



________________________________________quote:
In the Athenian state, as in any other, we can distinguish legislative, judicial, and executive functions. The Athenian legislative branch consisted of two bodies, a Council of 500 and an Assembly of 6000. At first glance, this system resembles the American bicameral legislature, with a small, select upper house and a larger, more popular lower house. But this appearance is deceptive.

To begin with, neither the Council nor the Assembly consisted of elected representatives. The members of the Council were selected not by election but by sortition — i.e., by lot. In other words, the 500 Councillors were selected randomly from the (male) citizen population. (And no Councillor could serve more than two terms.)

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.
____________________________________________

http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 09:09 am
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6409
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Next up is a statement that appears to suggest that "home rule" is a good thing, so long as "home rule" means a nebulous power to "vote" for a representative who is then afforded absolute power to RULE, and there is no mention whatsoever as to what all the people have as their power to keep the RULERS checked, accounted for, and bound within moral boundaries.

That power was, and is, the common law trial by jury, law of the land, due process, whereby the people as a whole (public thing) are represented in every lawful jury by randomly selecting 12 members of the whole who must unanimously decide if any law can be authorized to set in motion the dogs of war upon any one, any time, any place, and without this unanimous consent of the whole people, in each county, in each case, in each accusation, in each following of the rules governing due process, whenever someone, or some group, claiming to be "the government," or not making such claims, desires punishment inflicted upon anyone.

The people, in each county, in each jury, can say no, and that representative unanimity of the whole body of people is the final say so, when the law of the land is the true, and not the counterfeit version of the law of the land.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 09:18 am
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6409
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Next the Confederate Party claims that the states have governed themselves into an odious debt.

That is demonstrably false. In the first place a State cannot do anything, as it is a demonstrable fact that people do things, such as borrow something from someone else.

If the Confederate Party is unaware of the work done to expose Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, work done by individuals like Walter Burien, then the people at the Confederate Party are in the dark, and they are making decisions based upon falsified accounting records: fraudulent public financial accounts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkwjtbTjTsE


If the criminals had not taken over in 1789, putting in place a Kangaroo Court System of Legalized Plunder, then the following would be an example of the law of the land rendering an accurate verdict concerning the financial crimes that were also created in America in 1789, with the Slave Trading Constitution that set the stage for The First Bank of The United States FRAUD, and all the criminal powers required to enforce it.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT

First National Bank of Montogmery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.

12/18/2003

________________________________________
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
_____________________________________________


Next from the Confederate Party is a reference to something called Charter of the American Continent. I see no link to that document, and I found no link to that document when I tried a Google Search for it. I can say this much about the words that I can read in the YouTube presentation of the Confederate Party: they are not claiming that Slavery is Legal, which is what the so called Constitution of 1787/89 did, so in that way the Charter of the American Continent is qualitatively better than the Slave Trading Constitution of 1787/89 when The Bill of Rights fails to Amend it, in a functional, powerful, way: in reality.

Next is a to do list:

Quote:_____________
The basic recovery plan is simple.

1. The people form a compact within the county and declare "Home Rule".

2. The county government assembly is proclaimed into existence by publication as existing within The United States of America. Each county should have its own home rule assembly.

3. Then the State can sign onto the charter of the American Continent.

4. The State is independent, within the original Union with The United States of America as host.

5. No more debt, no more interest, no more wars, no more conflicts.

6. The States even have the option of operating under the U.S. Constitution. The signing of the charter of the American Continent does not nullify and void the States' obligations under the U.S. constitution if the State chooses to remain under that obligation.
_________________________________

That is not simple. In the first place the plan is a recreation of a different oligarchy whereby the only power retained by the whole body of people is this power to vote for whichever oppressor manages to buy a ticket on the ballot. There is no mention of the law of the land, the common law, which empowers a check upon any claim of lawful authority whatsoever, in each individual, in each county, in each State, in which the States are formed into a Federation of States: a voluntary mutual defense association.

So, why bother with this type of out with the old bosses and in with the new bosses when it remains an INVOLUNTARY ASSSOCIATION FOR THE CRIMINALS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE VICTIMS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW? Why is it a given that criminal rule must be covered up with false claims of lawful authority? The answer is found in the routine practice of torture. The criminals find a need to torture people into submission, to torture people into making false confessions, because the criminals would simply be getting off on torturing innocent victims, having no other reason than it pleases them to see innocent victims in pain, if not for the requirement of COLOR of law. The criminals must FORCE FAKE "voluntary" compliance out of their victims, so as to maintain the cover of counterfeit lawful authority. Confess, they say, confess so that our lawful authority remains in force. Without the counterfeit confessions, all the authority is merely criminal power exerted by criminals in fact.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 10:05 am
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6409
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
As to the county assemblies mentioned in this report by people claiming to be a Confederation Party.

In the resent events that resulted in the criminal imprisonment of Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr. and Steven Dwight Hammond, there was a grass-roots, organic, formation of a common law safety committee.

That was lawful.

What did the people in that common law safety committee do as volunteers who volunteer to defend each other in that county?

I don't know, but I know what they did not do, because if they did what they should have done, then the Hammonds would not be falsely tried, falsely convicted, and criminally persecuted.

Here is some useful information that may help people who find themselves in similar situations:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/cary-sparks-heyoka/how-to-fight-corruption-lawfully/10154192342141409/

The concept, the idea, the process, of law enforcement in fact, is individual moral conscience leading to effective, efficient, expedient, defense of the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, especially when the criminals perpetrate crimes under the color of law, and what must be done is to hold the enforcers of law to an accurate accounting of the facts. That is why the "How To Fight Corruption Lawfully" information above is useful, not because that report is full of spelling errors.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 10:20 am
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6409
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Next in the report by the people claiming to be the Confederate Party is the following:

"The jurisdiction of its courts is common law and equity."

What is the history behind either one of those claims of authority? The common law history coincides with the public thing history, in Latin the common law was written as legem terrae, a literal translation is "the law of the land", which coincides with the Latin term for the public thing: res-publica. Legem terrae was due process of law whereby the people themselves, as a whole, enforce law with unanimous agreement, processed through trial by jury: the public thing.

What about so called "equity"? Equity is another name for summary justice, or what I call summary JUST-US. It is not in agreement with the public thing, as all power is exerted by a very few people who manage to become "judges" presiding over "equity court trials," and it is very instructive to trace back the reason for these "judges" to wear black robes. Equity, like Exchequer, Admiralty, Maritime, Nisi Prius, and other names meaning basically the same thing - in principle - is the anti-thesis of the public thing: it is RULE by a very small segment of the whole number of people, and as often as not these "judges" are devil worshiping baby eaters. These devil worshiping baby eaters historically know better than to declare that baby eating is lawful, so far, or at least not in recent history. These "judges" have declared, as recently as 1789, that Slavery is Legal, and if a Slave "owner" (of people) wants to eat his "livestock" (people), recently born, or matured, who is to say what an owner of livestock can do with their property? Do you get it? Is this understandable to modern fools who have been fooled by devil worshiping, black rope wearing, criminals who perpetrate crimes, routinely, under the color of law, such as subsidized slavery on your dime?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2020 03:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
blogneews
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Next up is a statement that appears to suggest that "home rule" is a good thing, so long as "home rule" means a nebulous power to "vote" for a representative who is then afforded absolute power to RULE, and there is no mention whatsoever as to what all the people have as their power to keep the RULERS checked, accounted for, and bound within moral boundaries.

That power was, and is, the common law trial by jury, law of the land, due process, whereby the people as a whole (public thing) are represented in every lawful jury by randomly selecting 12 members of the whole who must unanimously decide if any law can be authorized to set in motion the dogs of war upon any one, any time, any place, and without this unanimous consent of the whole people, in each county, in each case, in each accusation, in each following of the rules governing due process, whenever someone, or some group, claiming to be "the government," or not making such claims, desires punishment inflicted upon anyone.

The people, in each
county, in each jury, can say no, and that representative unanimity of the whole body of people is the final say so, when the law of the land is the true, and not the counterfeit version of the law of the land.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2020 03:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6409
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Why are you cutting and pasting?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 11:29 am  
Power Independence > Study Group > Study Group > Confederation Party Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems