 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The point pointed out is the opposing connections among people. One connection among people is called a Federal (voluntary) connection. The opposite connection among people is an involuntary connection. Clearly, slaves are not connected voluntarily. Masters are not federated to their slaves. Slaves are not federated to their so-called Masters.
A federated connection among people is explained by the first congress during the decision to publish, or not publish, a Declaration of Independence. People exerted their right to secede from the federal union with the British Slave Trading, Warmongering, Central Banking Frauds, pretending to be Christians.
"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it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
That is reinforced in the following 2 quotes:
The Uniform Bonding Code – (UBC)
9.2 - Escalation
"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."
THE COMMERCIAL LIEN RIGHT AND THE MILITARY LIEN RIGHT
"In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right."
The people working under The Articles of Confederation at the Federal level did not enforce a National Tax, so as to create the demand for a National Debt-based Money, run by Central Banking Frauds. It was a federal connection: voluntary.
In some States people were connected federally, at least in the sense that they could go to another, less costly, State, when a State became despotic, as was the case in Massachusetts. Some states subsidized profits flowing from Slaves to so-called Masters. Some States worked to free those slaves.
Under the Articles of Confederation (a federal union in fact) States reserved the right to secede from the Union, for obvious, demonstrable reasons. America, as a federation of independent states, was in the process of seceding from a federal union with a despotic British Empire, a criminal organization operating under the color of law. People in each State were familiar with the consequences of assuming that the association is mutual, beneficial for all, and therefore voluntary, and then when the blood starts flowing the opposite is demonstrated as a fact.
I wish to be absolutely clear that many individual people within the set of people called the British are always individuals, and at no time is there a creation of a separate being, a corporate being, an all-powerful single entity that takes on responsibility itself, and is accountable IT-self. Each individual is responsible and accountable. This applies to people who constitute the false Federalist Party, or people who constitute the Nazi Party, each individual is responsible: the things, like the Nazi Party, or the Federalist Party, is not responsible, nor is it accountable for itself.
If I say the Federalist Party did this or did that, such as perpetrating fraud, or treason, or warmongering, or extortion under the color of law, the words are intended to convey a need to apply due process of law, on each individual accused, so as then to try the case before the country, so that the country, in trial by the country, can decide the fact at issue concerning any individual, so as to facilitate effective remedy, defense, restitution, or other lawful cures.
That is what the British could have done when facing a Declaration of Independence, or an angry Mob throwing tea off a dock. But the British Aristocrats had their Slave Trade profits to protect, their Central Banking Fraud profits to protect, and their Aggressive Wars for Profit to maintain.
The British criminals did not agree that the American connection to the British was Federal. Is that clear? Can that point be prioritized over any further attempts to assassinate my character by creating a fictional version of me?
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,…”
That amounts to a confession of criminality of the highest order, leaving no need to try the case, it is a confession in fact. Whoever wrote that, or signed that, is accountable, and responsible, for that confession in fact. Millions of innocent people were thereby sent to hell on earth. As to what the country might decide about that crime, there is only conjecture, since there was never a case (as far as I know) following that crime up through the due process of law.
There was never a case (as far as I know) whereby an innocent individual slave went to the county grand jury, to then seek equal protection under the common laws of free people in liberty, whereby the impartial, honest, and discrete members of the grand jury investigated and found cause to present the accused slave “owner” with a court date. Instead the people, as a whole, ignored the law in those cases whereby criminals made slaves out of innocent people. That is law turned on its head, and is that clear or not? Can that be acknowledged before any further diversion from the topic to my personal - and my fictional - character?
Many did not look the other way, but none of the people, as far as I know, afforded those innocent people their equal access to the law, which perverts the law on fundamental grounds. It is fundamentally right to defend yourself when there is no law afforded to you, or where the law is perverted and turned into a criminal organization that subsidizes crime against you. For that same fundamental reason it is fundamentally right in the case with the British invasion of America, those defending had the right to do so; it works by the same fundamental principle. The same fundamental principle works on the individual level, in any case, anywhere, anytime, or there is no law in that case. When the criminals win, there is no law, proven by the injuries that continue to be inflicted upon the innocent. When the defenders win, winning their freedom, there is law, proven by the fact that the criminals are no longer injuring the innocent. Is that unclear?
"So, you purport on previous posts the Article of Confederation were superior to the Constitution…but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert to Holier-Than-Thou Anarchic principles. So innocent."
The Articles of Confederation were not superior according to those who broke the rules written in the Articles of Confederation, as those people created a Nation State in place of the former Federation of Independent States. So, for those people, obviously, those Articles were inferior, not superior, to the crimes they launched in place of that voluntary association. Lacking the power to subsidize the African Slave Trade in every State, is not as superior as having the power to enforce African Slavery in every state, depending upon who has the power to decide what is or is not superior. The so-called Constitution, in writing no less, subsidizes a known crime, the crime of African Slavery. Who decides what is superior or not superior, and what process is used to make that decision?
More fiction:
"but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert..."
The problems with the Articles of Confederation included the problem of paying off debts to whoever was owed debt in fact. I offered an answer to that specific problem. An example of how that problem was working out, within the federal association, was the events that became known as Shays’s Rebellion.
Shays's Rebellion, so-called, was explained very well in that lecture (fact-based instead of fiction based, not “holier than thou”) whereby an obvious abuse of the law power in Massachusetts occurred, concerning the collection of dubious debt, and efforts to access due process of law failed. The people against the criminals in government lost the battle and they ran like runaway slaves to a free state, a less criminal state, a state where runaway slaves can find a semblance of due process of law.
In that federal case, the federal government ought to have stepped in, and the law ought to have been reinstated, affording each individual due process of law, trial by the country. Rather than help the criminals in the Massachusetts government return to law, provide just remedy, etc., the federal government employees did nothing. Does that make the Articles of Confederation inferior to something better, or is that a failure attributable, accountable, to individual people; people in positions of power?
Did the federal government have the power to help restore law in Massachusetts under the Articles of Confederation? The Federal government afforded the people a means by which the British, the largest criminal army on the planet, were driven from their goal of enslaving Americans. The Federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, was somehow incapable of returning Massachusetts to rule of law? Blame the piece of paper, not actual people with names? Blame a Man-of-Straw?
Did the people in the federal government have the power to intervene in Massachusetts, to return to the people their power to try any case, of dubious debt, or corruption, or any other fact that matters? Do the people in government, anywhere, anytime, have the power to return law power to the people themselves, give us back our due process, as eluded to in the Bill of Rights, or exemplified in that Declaration of Independence?
So the defects of any federal agreement are thereby comparable to any other type of connection between any number of people. In the federal agreement, if you don't want to pay a dubious debt, you don't, and if there is law, then the country, through trial by jury, which is trial by the country, is afforded jurisdiction to settle the matter definitively; not a dictator doing whatever he may please to do to satisfy what he alone wants anywhere and anytime.