| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Summons | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18th, 2006 06:29 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm Apparently, according to my wife, a document arrived in the mail declaring authority over my person and property. As far as I can tell the author of the document intends to punish me for offenses that the author has determined to be a possible future crime. I am not as concerned about the crime that I am being accused of possibly committing as much as my curiosity is focused on why I am being accused beforehand. In essence my future crime is uncertain, therefore, no such crime can be known. Are my fellow citizens, the people, insane? From my perspective: This news, delivered by my wife verbally, amounts to a robber sending me advance notice of his or her intent to rob me. Here is the insane part: Robbers, murderers, rapists, torturers, slanderer, libelers, con men, and the like, criminals, are much more effective if they hide their intentions rather than announce them in advance. I now have the vital means necessary to build an effective defense. I know now what the criminals intend to do to me if they convict me of this future crime, according to their stated intent, as far as I can tell. The insanity goes much deeper: The criminals may offer to provide me with financial and intellectual resources necessary to defend against their intended crime upon me! I have been ordered to participate in a trial on a specific date i.e. April 20, 2006. As far as I can tell, again according to my wife, a failure to appear will result in harm to me, my person, or, if I submit to the robbery, my property will be taken from me in the form of a fine. The details of just how I will be swindled or brutally robbed are not known by me at this time. That bit of ignorance on my part may or may not be a detail that aids in my defence. An old saying, hearsay perhaps, concerns me: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I wonder if I should participate in this crime or not. I am after all; ignorant. If I do volunteer to abide by the summons, as vague as it is at this time, it seems appropriate, to me, the ignorant one, to seek the legal council available at the scene of the future crime. I’m printing a copy of the document linked above in preparation for this future crime. I plan on gathering evidence while the event takes place. If anyone reading this is of the mind that my future crime is a fantasy constructed by me and in their best judgment - I, the person writing this stuff, is delusional or at best; impractical, then, I am all for defending your opinion as any effort on my part to defend your opinion is likely to aid in my own defense. If the reader is inclined to keep an open mind on the question of this topic titled Summons, then, I think that it is important to link a web page to illustrate my concern concerning any dealings with the ‘authorities’. Before looking at the link it may help to offer my take on the link. First: People are responsible for they do regardless of opinion. Responsibility is individual; it is a simple matter of cause and effect. I do something and something happens. Second: My earnings from work included payments that can be traced, in part, to the purchase of the tools, and the wages or salaries of the people using those tools, at the event recorded on the web site linked below. Third: I have since realized just how responsible I am concerning that event. Fourth: That event can be viewed in a number of ways depending upon the individual judgment possessed by the individual doing the judging. Fifth: There is no escaping individual judgment; unless the individual is suffering from insanity. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Here is the link: http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/81/81_aut.html Here is an example of evidence:  You are the judge. Please.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 19th, 2006 11:35 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
My critics, those who do actually communicate their criticism to me, are often disposed to suggest two things:
Somewhere there is a document that orders me to appear before the court. I am to appear on a specific date at a specific time and from that place at that time I know, with near certainty, that I will receive further orders. I know this because I’ve already traveled down this road. The judge, his honor, tells his subjects, the jury, to obey his honor’s instructions. That is a crime. That is a crime in so many ways that I fail to see any reason to honor his honor with anything more than either empathy for his state of duplicity or contempt. Note: Contempt of court is another crime. I’m not sure what the punishment is for telling the judge to fuck off and I really don’t want to find out. My ability to empathize is acute I know what it is like to be all twisted up inside; not knowing right from wrong. Here is an example of duplicity in action: http://www.topia.net/kevinbenderman.html One thing that was, and is, known to be right is the decision made at the Nuremburg trials where Nazi war criminals were tried and convicted. The ‘just following orders’ defense, then and now, is not right. It is a crime to follow an order that is morally wrong; like killing another human being ‘just’ because. Apparently, then, and now, an individual can be held accountable for their own actions. That brings me back to the future crime spree I am about to embark upon. I have no choice in the matter; I will commit a crime as my efforts to do the right thing are now impossible. I can keep looking for a way out but so far the evidence suggests: Mission Impossible. The odd thing is: I plan on exercising civil responsibility and participate in applying the principle of law. In other words I intend to ‘go to jury duty’. Note the difference: Civil responsibility Jury duty The difference is: one can be the other depending on how an individual perceives, or judges, the concepts being communicated. One can be diametrically opposed to the other too. My last attempt to apply the principle of law, jury duty, occurred awhile ago when my brain was all froze up with irreconcilable contradiction. I was then even more stupid than I am now. The judge ordered me to do two things that were not possible to do at once. I had to pick one or the other thing to do; as it turned out. Two things: Follow orders Make a decision I really tried to follow orders. That worked for awhile. Then it became quite clear that the other 11 people were making decisions; all on their own. The matter at hand was relatively trivial; certainly nothing that required such grand expense. My resolve to follow orders was tested some. The test, again, was relatively trivial. I failed to follow orders. I made a decision all on my own. The order that I failed to follow went something like this: Do not judge the law, instead, judge only the crime. The judge, apparently, wanted to make sure that he remained the judge and that I remained not the judge; of the law. The judge did allow me to judge the case. I broke that law. I judged the law and the case. I really tried to follow the order. The problem, the contradiction, concerns my inability to understand any law that is not known. If I do not know the specific written law, and that specific law was not explained fully, then, how could I possibly follow that which I do not know? Back to my critics: A. Write something that someone can actually understand B. You are wrong This is the message that I now understand to be true: I am right and you are wrong Repeat that over and over and over and over and over and over and over… I could make a rubber stamp and do as much.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:47 am | |
| Power Independence > Power Independence > Discovery > Summons | Top |
