 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
"Another segment of the series will focus on Jeanette Finicum’s wrongful-death lawsuit."
The most basic principle of law is well stated in Mathew 7:12. When party A murders someone in cold blood so as to silence the truth told by the murder victim, then that murderous party is outside the most basic principle of law. If they were not then they would be fine with being murdered themselves, all is fair in criminal minds, except if they are unable to avoid being the victim. Do unto others before they can tell the truth about you.
Why do people agree to return to the outlaws who murder in cold blood and their co-conspirators, to then ask cold-blood murder co-conspirators for a lawful judgment in a lawsuit? I don’t get it, and no one is confessing.
I think the answer is willful ignorance concerning a very simple lie, and people refuse to admit that they too become liars when they believe the lie, retell the lie, and worse, they refuse to admit that the lie is a lie; a shared state of willful ignorance.
“And be sure to support his work in composing/creating what will likely be the finest documentary about rural America’s struggle to put the Federal government back into the tight little corral of limited and enumerated powers which the Founders authorized for it when drafting the Constitution.”
That is the lie. The framers who framed a federal constitution had to deal with some criminals posing as authorities of law, and that is well documented. All the people involved were not framing a constitution, some were framing a counterfeit constitution. Some “framers” were criminals by act if not by false word. The criminal “framers” were ensuring their ready access to victims, access hidden under color of law.
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"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 framers who framed a federal constitution made it a law governing the federation that the federation would not be discarded for something other than a federation, not without unanimous agreement among all the parties who were formed into a federation.
That federal constitution is known as Articles of Confederation. That was the one and only federal government in America.
It was against the law to get rid of those Articles without consent by all parties. It was also understood that a federation affords all parties the option to opt out at will. It was not an arbitrary government, it cannot be an arbitrary government when the parties who are a party to it can opt out of it according to the written constitution, or according to the unwritten laws of free people in liberty. The parties to it were also subject to the law of the land, written into the document, and unwritten into the good souls who were a party to an actual, not counterfeit, federal government.
The law of the land was (and still is) the common law.
The Articles of Confederation were discarded by evil people at a crime scene in 1787, and that is also well documented, complete with confessions.
George Mason was against it during the false convention that was, in fact, a crime scene. George Mason did not sign the confession that inculpated all the criminals who did sign the criminal document.
George Mason voted no when the criminal document was forced by fraud and threats upon a war-weary populace. All that evidence against it, and more, and yet people today still parrot the lie.
A federation is a voluntary association, and that truth was told in the first congress of the newly framing federation called The United States of America.
June 8, 1776
“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:”
June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.”
I guess that the rat smell is now so pervasive that very few people are willing to admit to it.
Posted, but not (yet?) published.
https://thementalmilitia.net/2018/10/17/triumph-individual-freedom-montana/#comment-10183