| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
1. 6-4-2019 "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 |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
2. 6-10-2019 "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, and then criminals claim exception to their own, criminal, rule. Do unto others before they can tell the truth about you, tell lies about them before they can hold you to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter: criminal rule. 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 aggressive actions, some by false words hiding the facts that matter in the case. 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 themselves, and future generations of federal agents, that the federation would not be discarded for something other than a federation, not without unanimous agreement among all the federated parties who were formed into a federation. The real framers defended the right of the people themselves to opt out according to common laws of free people: the law of the land. The real framers framed real democratic republics framed into a real federation. The criminal framers counterfeited democracy, republic government, and the criminal framers counterfeited a federation of democratic republics. The criminal framers counterfeited the law of the land, replacing the law of the land with a common legal fiction. The real federal constitution is known as The Articles of Confederation. That was the original constitution framing a federal government in America. It was against that written federal law to get rid of those Articles without consent by all federated parties. It was also understood that a federation affords all parties the option to opt out at will. It was also understood that each state was on an equal footing in the federation with each other state, all according to basic lawful principles. The real federation was not an arbitrary government, it cannot be an arbitrary government when the federated parties who are a party to it can opt out of it according to the written constitution which frames the federation. Real government works according to the unwritten laws of free people in liberty, naturally, organically, and is therefore not an arbitrary government. The parties to the real federation were subject to the law of the land, which was also written into the original federal framing document. No one was above the law, not then, not now, unless criminals take over as a matter of demonstrable fact. The law of the land is written in examples such as a Declaration of Independence, and a Bill of Rights. The law of the land is also unwritten in the good souls who remain a party to actual, not counterfeit, 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 that they willingly add to it. Taking screen shots before and after sending. Comment published 6-10-2019! |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Mental Militia Forum 6-12-2019 Elias Alias, Your viewpoint as far as I know it based upon what I've read up to now is similar to say Karl Hess's viewpoint. I mean that as a compliment, and to be more specific the viewpoint can only see the works of The Cult of Might Makes Right when that shared viewpoint accurately accounts for (or attempts to) that which is called government. Perhaps it is wrong to categorize individuals, such as making a claim that this one and this other one belong in the group called Anarchists, and then inside that group are those over there who are Free Market Anarchists. Josiah Warren is commonly claimed to be the First American Anarchist, but he rejected labels in print, and those printed statements that rejected such categorization were probably printed on his own printing press he invented and made himself when facing censorship. It is from the work of Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner that my individual viewpoint is founded, or based, on specific principles, but I add to that work a helpful principle known as The Golden Rule. I think I may have passed the hurdles to get access to an individual authorized Forum Topic of my own, on this forum of yours. Oh, and I have also borrowed from Game Theory, particularly The Prisoner's Dilemma, in the process of forming my individual viewpoint on specific topics such as The State. We will see if you or anyone else can agree with the viewpoint I intend to offer, and if so then you may then become familiar with what I call true government. You may also see the free market, adaptable, defensive, voluntary, value in it. You may even volunteer to be a member. If you do then you may be called a cult member by the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. You would be, if you choose to volunteer, a member of The Cult of Do No Harm, or The Cult Which Follows (Actually) The Golden Rule. My guess is that you already do everything (within reason) required to be a member of this fictitious cult, but you prefer to remain anonymous, or at a distance from any other member in any other cult anywhere, according to your power to command your own conscience. Actual government (not counterfeit) actually has been put in place to follow the golden rule, to do no harm, which in my opinion requires effective defense. Without effective defense, posterity, particularly the weakest among us such as children, are food left to spoil or be eaten by members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. In other words, without actual government, or without voluntary mutual defense, those who could prevent it are instead enablers who enable mankind to be led into man-made hell on earth, to be led down that path by those who are best able to do so. All things good, including government, are counterfeited by people who can get away with that type of operation, and the word counterfeit means opposite. It might be a good idea to at last look at the data that exemplifies good government. Counterfeit government is an up-side-down Free Market, whereby the worst of the worst gain the most power the quickest, it destroys everything as it moves to the goal. Bad government works like entropy. Actual government, or true government, works in the other direction, like ectropy. Talk about sensorship, the word ectropy (and the idea that there can be good government), does not appear in print. Good government affords equal footing access to all, so that all can add their special talent to the market of talent, and in so doing the highest quality and lowest cost cooperators who compete cooperatively produce the vital adaptability required for survival of any complex living species. The best at improving and adapting gain the most power the soonest, rather than the opposite direction, when good government is defended effectively by the volunteers. That works naturally, organically, and at grass roots, locally, in individuals, because people, as a rule, will choose better for worse when their choice to defend their power to choose is actually, truly, defended in fact. I'll leave this introductory Forum Topic with a relevant quote: "It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States. "If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself. "If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: "1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, "2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed. "The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust. "All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government. "The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it. "Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
6-12-2019 Forum Topic https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?board=44.0 The concept of voluntary mutual defense is by definition a shared viewpoint concerning attempts to accurately assess real threats to life and all that constitutes the power to live and let live, or to prosper, adapt, reproduce, sustain, improve, survive, and to continue surviving rather than abjectly allowing threats to cause extinction: suddenly or slowly. In other words, the concept of good government, if it is to be so, requires a willful act in which those concerned assess clear and present dangers, so as to know the probable causes of injuries done to innocent people, by guilty people, in advance, or while the damage is current, or after the fact, in order to defend against it, and better still, in order to prevent it from happening in the first place, or stop it, or prevent reoccurrence. What if it is you facing the willful decision to end your life for a trumped-up (false) crime such as speaking the truth? You are targeted, you are executed, and then you are dead. Example: "Audio of Haunting Oath Keepers Phone Call With LaVoy Finicum Two Days Before His Death" https://oathkeepers.org/2016/02/new-audio-files-of-the-last-conversation-had-between-lavoy-finicum-stewart-rhodes-todd-engle-and-jason-van-tatenhove/ That is good government. In effect, those who are adept at predicting future crimes based upon past crimes (perpetrated by counterfeit government agents: criminals under the color of law) offer a warning to those who are in the crosshairs. If it is you and you volunteer to go right ahead and jump head first into the trap, then in a way you get what you pay for in fact, in time, and in place. The difference between volunteering to be the next victim of criminals counterfeiting government, and someone wandering into an avoidable trap, is an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, which is the goal and the ends to the goal of good government. Surely the victim in one of the most public assassinations perhaps since Martin Luther King Jr, this fellow named Lavoy, was not intending to be assassinated, to offer his life, and effectively degrade his family members lives, as a Martyr. One step led to another, to yet another, and then suddenly it is a death trap, and you are the one trapped in it. Does that sound at all familiar? "The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise." That is from an Essay on The Trial by Jury. How about this: The People's Panel The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941 Richard D. Younger Page 3 "They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places. "But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states." The trap was sprung a long time ago, back in 1787 to be precise, and you have been warned. The warning may not have reached you, and the warning may not have rung true in your mind if you got the message delivered to you in time. June 6, 1788 George Mason: "Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?" Good government can be destroyed by those who choose to do so rapidly, even all at once if the power to do so is in their hands, or very slowly, incrementally, one step at a time, if the power to rapidly destroy it is not yet stolen. The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots Page 40 Private Prosecutors "For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action. Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury." Place a name, or label, on those who do manage to exemplify good government, doing the necessary work required to publicize, make known, accurate accounts of the facts that matter in any case, the vital work once performed by people labeled as grand jurors, and the fact remains that those individuals do the work with or without the name, with or without the credit they earn, and with or without a counterfeit badge or license to act responsibly when necessary to preserve life and the means to preserve and improve life. Those caught in the trap believe that the murderers in the case have, in fact, a legitimate license to kill at will. That is not so much a sad reality, it is a very dangerous precedent to set. What I mean is that it is a very dangerous precedent to set when people simply ignore that danger, to let it lie, to do so without questioning the claim of legitimacy. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Voluntary Mutual Defense 6-12-2019 From simple to complex the devil and the details are here and now offered to a candid world, for consideration actual, not for counterfeit forms of discussion. Simply put the law is either an agreement among defenders to hold to account offenders, or there is no law, and offenders gain ready access to victims. Counterfeit agreement is not the law. “Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.” Josiah Warren, 1863 Criminal: “I am here to protect you, give me everything of value in your current possession or I will break your legs, or worse, my gang will rape you, torture you, for the rest of your life.” Defender: “No, if I do so you will go to my neighbor and counterfeit the same agreement only this time you will have my help. My conscience does not allow me to do so. You do know that everyone with a working conscience knows that your so-called Emperor is naked, don’t you? So...why pretend that you are here to protect us?” Criminal (under the color of law): “We the People, says right here, consented to this charade. So pay up.” To be continued, please be civil actual, not counterfeit. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"none of those points disprove nationalism." How about some information concerning the actions done by people to other people according to those who agree with Nationalism, and then some information concerning the actions done by people to other people according to those who agree with Federalism? Example 1: Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy by William Watkins "Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. "Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely." So Federalism maintains a voluntary association where Nationalists do not. Nationalists offer the non-option to leave the Nation State. Federalism is shown to be Free Market Government Services, where Free Market Forces tend to force quality up and cost down. Nationalism is shown to be Subsidized Slavery of everyone, where dictatorial forces tend to force quality to nothing and costs skyrocket to a point at which the only people who can afford anything of value are the psychopaths, sociopaths, and their army of sycophants, because that is the type of people who get to the top of Nationalism, also known as Corporatism, National Socialism, Communism, Socialism, Oligarchy, Arbitrary Government, Despotism, Empire, and various other euphemisms. Example 2: Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the actual federation known as The United States of America: "But what do we mean by a federal republic and what by a consolidated government? To erect a federal republic, we must first make a number of states on republican principles; each state with a government organized for the internal management of its affairs: The states, as such, must unite under a federal head, and delegate to it powers to make and execute laws in certain enumerated cases, under certain restrictions; this head may be a single assembly, like the present congress, or the Amphictionic council; or it may consist of a legislature, with one or more branches; of an executive, and of a judiciary. To form a consolidated, or one entire government, there[163] must be no state, or local governments, but all things, persons and property, must be subject to the laws of one legislature alone; to one executive, and one judiciary. Each state government, as the government of New Jersey etc., is a consolidated, or one entire government, as it respects the counties, towns, citizens, and property within the limits of the state. The state governments are the basis, the pillar on which the federal head is placed, and the whole together, when formed on elective principles, constitutes a federal republic. A federal republic in itself supposes state or local governments to exist, as the body or props, on which the federal head rests, and that it cannot remain a moment after they cease. In erecting the federal government, and always in its councils, each state must be known as a sovereign body; but in erecting this government, I conceive, the legislature of the state, by the expressed or implied assent of the people, or the people of the state, under the direction of the government of it, may accede to the federal compact: Nor do I conceive it to be necessarily a part of a confederacy of states, that each have an equal voice in the general councils. A confederated republic being organized, each state must retain powers for managing its internal police, and all delegate to the union power to manage general concerns: The quantity of power the union must possess is one thing, the mode of exercising the powers given, is quite a different consideration; and it is the mode of exercising them, that makes one of the essential distinctions between one entire or consolidated government, and a federal republic; that is, however the government may be organized, if the laws of the union, in most important concerns, as in levying and collecting taxes, raising troops, etc. operate immediately upon the persons and property of individuals, and not on states, extend to organizing the militia, etc. the government, as to its administration, as to making and executing laws, is not federal, but consolidated." If people running one of many Nation States, such as New Jersey, in a Federation of many competitive Nation States, and the people running that single Despotic Nation State picks the pockets of individuals, taking whatever is worth stealing from everyone, except the criminals running it of course, and their investors who get “tax breaks,” then people could vote with their feet to a less despotic Federated State such as Rhode Island. When everything has been consolidated into one Profitably Monopoly by the criminals who take-over governments, and their investors, then those who are fine with having pockets picked can tell all those who don't like it to leave the one Profitable Monopoly run by the criminal cabal. You don’t like it, terrorist, get out, while I call Homeland Security and rat you out. This is not really news. Example 3: To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine November 15, 1802 "But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic. "But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners." The cabal loves investors, and in order to incentivize investors who are perfectly willing to invest in the cabal, there are emoluments and other goodies. These bargains are given out to those who tow the official line, those who don't tow the official line are often found guilty of thought crimes, and either tortured or murdered. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Don't question the cabal's arbitrary power, there are many investors, and you will be first asked to leave, and that is a subtle hint concerning what may come next. There are gang rapists housed on your dime and they would like your fresh meat. Example 4: New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism Published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788: “There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.” “Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.” So Federal governments afford places where slaves can run away from people running Slave States into places where the concept of liberty, equal footing, and individual sovereignty isn’t just a campaign slogan used to subsidize the slave trade within the profitable monopoly. Those investors in slavery in the slave states can tell the slaves if they don’t love it, then leave. There are many more examples involving a money monopoly power, aggressive force (criminal force) monopoly power, land monopoly power, just-us monopoly power, and the all too familiar extortion fee monopoly power claimed as a “tax” for your protection of course. The evidence is uncontroversial, clear, unambiguous, and straight to the point. December 7, 1787 Rhode Island Is Right! “The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.” Melancton Smith June 20, 1788 “He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.” |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The next source of information is actually a sound bite when compared to the demand for the power required to deter the criminal opposition, the opposition that works under the color of law. The next source of information is vital if the idea is to understand true government power commanded by individuals who are then constituting an aggregate or "collective" sum total of individual, voluntary, defensive, power. Since there are no responses yet, I think the following fills the void in a very special way. "It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States. "If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself. "If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: "1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, "2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed. "The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust. "All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government. "The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it. "Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Spooner may have riled the Austrian Economic Professors with his Paper Money Essay, I know Murray Rothbard printed derogatory words aimed at Spooner in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays. It turns out that at least Rothbard is willing to join the Cult of Might Makes Right; in my opinion. I think also that this was pointed out by Gary North here: "One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money. "Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?" The Gold-Plated Sting, March 3, 2007, Gary North For the purposes of this Topic the main point is well stated in the quote from Spooner repeated for effect: "It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States." Those words are not ambiguous, at least not in my opinion. Those who allow their actions to place them in The Cult of Might Makes Right, with or without pledges, oaths, licenses, contracts, and counterfeit authority of law, are those who subscribe to the idea that criminal means justify criminal ends, and that is the first step down that slippery slope that turns into a torturous hell on earth for everyone as the mass of mankind gains momentum, as the slippery slope turns inevitably into a vertical drop to extinction. The pretention of authority that is false, counterfeit, opposite of true lawful authority is expressed well in the forward to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli here: "Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual." The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction) Similar words explaining that basic fraud, or self-deception, that is both stupid and servile, are explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo Also here: "His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul. To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible. At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file. In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.” Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, 02/18/2008 To the point, individuals decide (often with malice aforethought) to injure innocent people so as to consume innocent people, to take the life out of innocent people, and that decision is followed by actions that are necessary for reaching the imagined benefit. There are 3 basic actions as such: 1. Deception aimed at innocent targets 2. Threats of aggressive violence aimed at innocent targets 3. Aggressive violence perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims There is a connection between violence and deception, and that is explained well enough by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, which will follow, so as to end this post in this Topic, after one more comment of my own. In order to begin down that slide into man-made hell on earth someone, somewhere, has to invent and then infect other people with this unnatural, suicidal, genocidal, destructive path, a path that can be described with the word entropy. The path is chosen by the first criminal, then the next, and along the way there is a founding, a framing, a forming of what I call The Cult of Might Makes Right, whereby all those members in that Cult share the same lie, and that lie is the price of admission into the cult, it is the unstated oath. If mankind were as self-destructive as the lie being told suggests, then why not hold the worst to account, if for no other reason than to keep score? Is it just a coincidence that those in (criminal) power always remove from general use the power to hold those in power to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter? "But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood." Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
6-17-2019 Voluntary Mutual Defense The simplest form of law is a power built into the species, that power is moral conscience, and for that simple example there is offered a relevant quote: All things whatsoever … - This command has been usually called the "Saviour's golden rule," a name given to it on account of its great value. All that you "expect" or "desire" of others in similar circumstances, do to them. Act not from selfishness or injustice, but put yourself in the place of the other, and ask what you would expect of him. This would make you impartial, candid, and just. It would destroy avarice, envy, treachery, unkindness, slander, theft, adultery, and murder. It has been well said that this law is what the balance-wheel is to machinery. It would prevent all irregularity of movement in the moral world, as that does in a steam-engine. It is easily applied, its justice is seen by all people, and all must acknowledge its force and value. This is the law and the prophets - That is, this is the sum or substance of the Old Testament. It is nowhere found in so many words, but if is a summary expression of all that the law required. The sentiment was in use among the Jews. Hillel, an ancient Rabbi, said to a man who wished to become a proselyte, and who asked him to teach him the whole law, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another." Something of the same sentiment was found among the ancient Greeks and Romans, and is found in the writings of Confucius. Barnes' Notes Simple laws that work naturally are turned into complication as the devils put into human contact those devilish details previously listed as: Deception, so as to consume the lives of innocent people. Threat of Aggressive Violence, aimed at targeted innocent people. Aggressive Violence, perpetrated by guilty people upon innocent people; with malice aforethought. The most basic, simple, deception is a well-worn claim made by powerful criminals whereby the targets are convinced that the criminals constitute the only hope for innocent people, the only form of protection available to innocent people. That is clearly exemplified in those events that became known as the founding of America. Previous to the deception described above the people in America started a voluntary mutual defense association that was based upon rights afforded to all people by all moral people. No one in their right mind then or now can argue the legitimacy of the lie used then, the same lie used now, in complex forms, or in simple forms, not without resort to further lies. The deception that starts out simple, “we the people,” give a band of criminals absolute power, because that band of criminals said so. Then the simple lie becomes a very tangled web of deceit in short order, doing so by natural laws. Power begins to shift from moral people who volunteer to create and maintain an effective defense of all people as the criminal gang begins to extort everything that is worth anything from those moral, productive, people who manage to maintain enough liberty to actually get productive work accomplished. I will end this sound bite with a common form of the lie as the lie begins to go down that path of the exponential increase in lies, a natural course governed by natural laws, as each lie will require more that one lie to cover up the first lie. The original lie where the criminal gang claims that they are the government is soon followed up with the lie that criminals will obey criminal made laws. That is an accurate description of the lie told by the criminals who counterfeit government. The lie is not a confession, so the words used by the criminals are not accurate words. The lie used by the criminals is not as it was just stated, the criminals do not say: “Criminals will obey the laws that we criminals force upon our victims.” Instead of that type of confession, the lie takes on a form that convinces the targeted population that somehow, this time, even though it is a required condition necessary for a criminal to be a criminal, that criminals, as a rule, do not obey man-made laws, this new (counterfeit) law, as the lie goes, this additional law added to the pile of laws already not obeyed by criminals, this new law will be obeyed by criminals, and that they say is why this new (counterfeit) law must be enforced by our exclusive group. Although it has never worked in the past, this time it will work. Although it is a condition required for a criminal to be a criminal, that the criminal does not obey man-made laws, this time they say it is necessary to add yet another (counterfeit) law. The simple form of the lie is objectively exposed as a lie in every actual criminal case where there is an innocent victim, there is in fact, a guilty criminal. The crime scene is not a crime scene without that fact working whereby the criminal, as a rule, does not obey the man-made laws that advise criminals about natural laws. If you kill some innocent victim, with malice aforethought, as a rule, you are a murderer in fact. When people claiming to be the government murder people, in fact, they are guilty of murder. Well, I rambled on when my intention was to be brief, but that last sentence could be exemplified with something resembling a common law trial by jury case: THE COURT: Let me ask you, do all of you agree with this verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). The Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, 1999 |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The natural order proceeds by natural laws as lifeforms interact. There are exceptions to the natural laws that proceed to throw the natural process off the tracks and here is a very specific example. Natural laws governing life, and governing life very well thank you, are replaced with counterfeit copies. Powerful counterfeiters employ deceptions that are well-documented facts that matter. People naturally cooperate for mutual benefit so as to survive and thrive. People live and let live according to natural laws that some people attribute to one all-powerful God. The law is to do unto others as if other's are one's self. As clearly as one might expect to react to actions done by other's to one's self, so can one expect other's to similarly react to those same actions done to them, such as forced labor under penalty of torture, death, or worse. Why would anyone start on such a path to hell on earth? Why would anyone attempt to excuse it? What forces are working to cause people to believe in these ongoing rationalizations that attempt to excuse forced labor under penalty of torture, death, or worse? It is as if a lie told often enough can turn a criminal into a saint. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." People are led to believe the lie that doing evil onto others before others can do the same is the law of the land. In America, that alteration of truth, turning truth into a lie, is well documented on the official record kept by the perpetrators who got away with that crime against nature itself. In your face, if you care to read it, is the evidence proving the fact. Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1745 "For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions. . . " Thomas Jefferson Declaration of Independence "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." 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." Among those now called The Founders were a group of criminals posing as so-called founders. To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine November 15, 1802 "But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic. "But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.” Those criminals were Nationalists at a time when Nationalism was understood as a form of subsidized slavery or an organized form of crime under the false pretense of religious or lawful authority. The actual founding of a revolutionary idea was based upon the idea that all are equal (equal footing) under the law, and at that time the law of the land was understood to be called the common law, with trial by jury. Trial by jury, not trial by the government is the law of the land. Trial by jury was also known to be trial by the country. Trial by the country, not trial by the government is the law of the land. The actual founding idea was such that the anointed “Leader of the Free World” was no such thing, in fact, the Royal claim to authority was a sham, and everyone is as naturally authorized to be the lawful power as everyone else: equal footing. No more sham “Divine Right of Kings,” now we the people are either going to defend our rights against infringement by scam authorities, or we will live and die as slaves. The criminal Nationalists had to get rid of those ideas, to wipe those ideas out of human consciousness. The criminal Nationalists had to replace human conscience with a destructive counterfeit. Out had to go accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, anywhere, anytime, involving any victims harmed by any criminals, most importantly criminals posing as the government, and in place of accurate accountability of the facts that matter in each case is the return to rule by criminals posing as the government: orders to be obeyed without question. The revolutionary example was set as it was documented on that Declaration of Independence. As that document was first written, it was the awful truth of the matter. Then the official record which recorded the revolutionary idea was censored. The truth was edited by the criminals infesting government during the founding process. The criminals infesting government got away with it then, the criminals in government get away with it today. Is that our future? Is that what is left to posterity? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?board=82.0 JUST-US in America has been what it still is since 1789. They (so-called government) judge what they do according to their lapses of conscience, and they are the only ones they afford that power: ever. They (again so-called government) judge what we (everyone other than so-called government) do according to the same lapses of their twisted consciences. They (same cult members in so-called government) punish whosoever dares to oppose their power with regular severity, including “execution” (murder) for the "crime" (duty) of telling the truth about them. If they (the cult members) can get away with murder, serial murder, conspiracy murder, mass murder, aggressive war for profit, torture, mass torture, slavery, central banking fraud, and worse crimes, regularly, routinely, for over 200 years, then who has this idea that now they are going to police themselves with something remotely resembling moral conscience? Natural laws apply to those cult members too. They (the cult members that constitute fake government) routinely stab each other in the back while smiling at each other, or they hire a backstabber or two, or a gang of them ready to pounce on the side of the road, or in the middle of the road after a blind turn. They will wipe each other out internally and externally someday, but not before consuming posterity. So what is the idea here in this effort to discuss or communicate the events involving the two-sided coin known by so many terms, such as Electoral Politics, or the Two-Party System? Will they hold each other to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case whatsoever? Will that process proceed according to the law of the land: the common law? Team A authorizes an individual (or a gang of cult members) to serve an individual in Team B with a friendly official notice of legal action. Then what? How about some specifics? One of the Team B members, Barry, or a Clinton, is officially notified of impending legal action. Perhaps Team A entrusts this Unitary Executive Barr dude as the point man. All is fair right? Team A informs Team B of the conflict of interest, a legal matter, a criminal legal matter to be precise, a matter of interest to the public at large in fact. At least one member of Team A informs at least one member of Team B that there will be an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in a very serious criminal case involving that accused member of Team B. If the accusation is false, then the term used is ignoramus. If the accusation is false, then in a word the accuser is risking that label accounted to the false accuser: ignoramous. Does the matter then involve at least one affidavit to put the accuser on the spot: no fingers crossed? Does the accuser seek a county grand jury to judge the validity of the accusation, grand jurors trusted to do so without team affiliation of any kind, other than the fact that their duty is to protect and serve everyone within the set of people known as the Public? Are those members of that county grand jury then afforded all necessary power (jurisdiction) civil and criminal, and thereby capable of issuing a presentment to be served to the accused with the court date? Let the trial of the Millennium begin! That is not how it is done in America. It is not done according to the actual law of the land. But there is hope, right? This one time it will proceed according to common laws of free people in a perishable state of liberty? Will the accused be deemed guilty first? Will there be a demand for the guilty to prove innocence, after the guilty is run down, assaulted, kidnapped, tortured, and extorted into a so-called “plea-bargain?” Will it be business as usual for cult members and their fodder alike? No, unless a Black Swan shows up, things will proceed according to the plans used by those cult members when cult members deal with fellow cult members. Things will not proceed according to the methods used by cult members upon non-cult members. Things will not proceed according to any semblance of lawful (moral) order. There won’t be an official act intending to uncover the facts that matter in the case regardless of Party affiliation. The Public will not be represented according to the common laws of free people. The process will not proceed according to lawful order as documented in such examples as a Declaration of Independence and a Bill of Rights. 7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"The only way to change this nation is the ballot box or the ammo box." Ignoring the truth-finding option offers predictable results. "It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. https://www.usdebtclock.org/ |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Back to Agitator, Voluntary Mutual Defense Association. The lie restated: “...all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity…” And: “...the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good…” And: “...the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual…” If all men are bad then none of them ought to be given arbitrary power. Those who tell this lie confess they're obvious deception when they tell their fellow criminals, and when they tell their targeted victims, that among all the men who are bad there is one exception, and that single exception is always the liar, or the liars sycophants. The sycophants, as in the Emperor’s New Clothes, put the imaginary clothes on the fraudulent exception to the rule. Once the lie has legs, and boots, it starts kicking ass at will with impunity. How does one place one’s self outside of the law that is meticulously enforced upon everyone else? One claims to be above the law that is the same law claimed to be the one’s source of authority. That is a self-made confession of lawbreaking. “Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE.” Falsehood only works on those who believe the lies that create falsehood. Digging deeper may help the skeptics who remain willing, even eager, members of the Cult of Might Makes Right. As far back as people have documented their lessons through life there has been evidence of counterfeiting the true law power. Returning to the words in the introduction to my copy of The Prince is the term Republic: “This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good.” In that reference, someone could be misled as to the meaning of the term republic. Is a republic a voluntary association for mutual defense, such as an insurance policy as explained by Lysander Spooner? Counter, opposite, in opposition to, and counterfeiting a voluntary mutual defense republic: is it instead an involuntary association falsely labeled a republic? Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense = Republic Or Involuntary Association to force the slaves to pay for their own enslavement = Republic Of course, it can be both, but which is it in any case involving a controversy, or conflict of interest? What is a republic in a case where there is a clear and present danger to any single innocent individual member of the amalgamated group of individuals known as the public? If it is a private conflict of interest then those involved in the conflict can remain inside the law, if they choose to do so. For those who are confused about the true meaning of law see The Golden Rule. The true law can be confused with rules, statutes, suggestions, offers, hints, and friendly advice, which are expressly not the law. The law can also be confused with counterfeits of law such as edicts, proclamations, and oaths of allegiance to falsehood without question: The Cult of Might Makes Right Oath. Those involved in private conflicts of interest can remain inside the law by doing onto each other that which they would want to be done to themselves. That is a choice to remain inside the law power. Those in conflict can agree to remain inside the law, and one or both, or however many are involved in the conflict can decide to step firmly outside the law by doing onto the others as they themselves would defend tooth and nail to prevent having that act done to themselves. Those inside the law choose to remain inside the law. Those who do not choose to remain inside the law choose to step firmly outside the law. Law is a voluntary association. Those who step outside the voluntary association (the law) choose to do so, and in order to step firmly outside the law, a victim must be willfully created by the guilty criminal who chooses to step outside the law power. Who keeps score, and where is that score kept these days? Before writing things down the scorekeepers who operated courts of conscience (individuals with memories volunteering) kept score and the amalgamated total sum of all those scorekeepers constituted a collective court of record in human memory. Many conflicts concerning which individual kept the more accurate score could be solved inside the law. Many conflicts concerning which individual kept a less accurate score, or intentionally false score, constituted a conflict of interest, and the score could be solved inside the law, or the conflict could be solved outside the law, according to individual choices ruled by nature. Trial by jury, a voluntary association for mutual defense, has been traced back, in various forms, to ancient times, and places, including places where people were not writing things down. In those places, there was also a process known as trial by ordeal. Trial by ordeal evolved into something called a Duel. If you wonder why the early American patriots and their opposition (who were known as loyalists) were so polite to each other consider what happened to Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr over alleged defamatory statements made by Alexander Hamilton against Aaron Burr. A court of record functions as a memory bank where all recorded conflicts of interest have been resolved, and recorded, within the confines of the law power. Those who agree to remain inside the law power do so, those who choose not to agree don’t agree, and they choose to move outside the law power. It is a clear distinction, a matter of fact, that criminals, as a rule, choose to step outside the law (Golden Rule) power. Those who believe in the lie that puts imaginary legs on counterfeit law will have other’s believe that law applies to criminals as if criminals will, by some magic, obey laws that apply to criminals. That is the same lie that places criminals who counterfeit government outside the law, as those same criminals claim that their authority to be above the law, immune to it, is the same authority that no one is above the law; an obvious lie. Criminals confess their crimes as they perpetrate their crimes, as a matter of demonstrable fact. Criminals do not obey laws. Criminals may choose to leave other people alone, let them live and let live, most of the time, but the fact remains that crimnals must step outside the law power in order to become criminals. Criminals must, as a rule, target, and then injure innocent victims, and they do so despite the fact that doing so is outside every form of law worthy of the name. So where is the evidence, in the collective memory of people, written and unwritten in this bank of memories called a court of record, accounting for the true meaning of the term republic? I’ll end this effort with a quote from Thomas Paine, and then something from a court of record. "As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others. It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case. The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative. What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object. Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively.” Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, page 176, 1791 “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.” RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Back to Voluntary Mutual Defense I was not inspired to watch the Marxist fake debate (so-called democratic debate), but I did watch the competitive Clown World alternative offered by the gang at Infowars. Biden was not molesting children at that time, and another Marxist criminal threw Biden under an imaginary Bus, the bus may have been figuratively used to segregate races, and Rosa Parks may have been on that bus in spirit. Those are not democrats, and I guess I know how people can give up on words so easily, as the counterfeiters construct opposite meanings for previously useful words. True democracy was explained, in time and place, by democrats (is the capital D an enforceable trademark for Marxists?): The Athenian Constitution: Government by Jury and Referendum by Roderick T. Long, 1996 "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." Did you know that the same counterfeiting job applied to the word Republic (voluntary association for mutual defense), which was also applied to the word Democracy (voluntary association for mutual defense), was the same counterfeiting job applied to the word Federation? Here in the Congressional Record before 1789: “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:” When the criminals who counterfeit government begin to extract power from their victims it is the duty of the victims to - at least - keep an accurate score of that fact that matters. When the criminals took over America by fraud, by threat, and by aggressive force, they left confessions on the official (court of) record. They had to get rid of the actual federation of independent states (a federation forms a voluntary dependency or division of labor), which was formed officially by Articles of Confederation. The criminals counterfeited the term Federalist, like a King who might don imaginary clothes, and all those who were dupes at the time put legs on the false name, redefining a voluntary mutual defense association, turning a former state of liberty into subsidized slavery of everyone, including the criminals themselves. Life is much less costly for those criminals who make their slaves work hard to allow the criminals to afford luxurious lives at first, but natural forces also destroy the criminals who create counterfeit governments. 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.” Patrick Henry sniffed out (called out) that Rat Smell as the criminals falsely claimed to be Federalists. FRIDAY, June 20, 1788 Melancton Smith “He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.” Melancton Smith also called out the Con as a Con. Those in favor of voluntary mutual defense for all, an invitation to live and let live, and the means to defend those rights born into people, were mislabeled, mischaracterized, misinterpreted, misjudged, and publicly smeared by the counterfeiters who were counterfeiting an existing federation (voluntary mutual defense association). Later, much too late, that fact that matters became an obvious fact to Thomas Paine. To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine November 15, 1802 "But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic. But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners. As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.” What power does Thomas Paine illuminate: the power to defend the innocent from the guilty, or the power to extract everything of value from the subjects of arbitrary government? The criminals confessed, they always do, but who keeps score? Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787. Philadelphia 14 May 1787. Convention. "Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode. A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation." They knew that what they were doing was outside the boundaries entrusted to them, and right there is the confession, so skeptics can look elsewhere for holes in the storyline. The criminal slave traders, along with central banking frauds, and warmongers whose propensity to fund all sides all the time in all wars is well documented - all these fellow cult members - stole liberty from those living then, and they stole liberty from posterity, up to these times in these places now. We have the means to reestablish that perishable liberty. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Voluntary Mutual Defense 7-1-2019 The means to reestablish that oh-so perishable liberty (in time and place: all “politics” is local) is rational, reasonable, logical, time-tested, agreeable (to moral people), relatively costless (compared to the inevitable alternatives), and supported with mountains of evidence including scripture. Example: Mathew 7:12: Golden Rule John 8:32: The freedom goal is achieved by way of the truth: establishing it, acknowledging it, recording it, passing it on to the next generation, and the next, or similar message in other words. Proverbs 1:8-19: "8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors." Call that a suggestion concerning involvement and consequence, or if you can’t do something good, don’t be the problem yourself, hidden costs blow back. There is a thread on this forum eluding to studies that suggest a physical part of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Those who gain arbitrary (absolute) power suffer from brain damage over time. You extort, and you suffer as a result, or you pay the extortion fee, and you get what you pay for. So… Stop being the problem, and that is a step toward affecting a solution to the problem. If you don’t want other people giving power to your enemies, consider what happens when you give power to their enemies, and that can be called Blowback: see for example Ron Paul’s critiques on (corporate) U.S. foreign policy. Where do the members of corporate U.S. get their power to execute what they call “Foreign Policy?” See: National (not federal) Debt Clock Real Time. Finally, there is a tried and true method by which the people as a whole can inspire voluntary membership in a group of moral people whose participation is a process that has at least one truthful goal: such as finding any fact that matters in any case involving any controversy anywhere anytime, so as to set us free, please? If it isn’t your duty to discover the truth that matters, then the least you can do is admit that your “contributions” to the Empire may blowback on you or posterity. Admit that to yourself, if to no one else, even if it an unwanted, ignored, fact that matters to you. If it is your duty to discover the truth that matters, including the facts concerning what is being done with your “contributions” to the Empire, then it might be a good idea to find a way to help other people reach that goal too. There is a process, and it is relatively costless. Englishman’s Right A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762) Barrister. My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair. Jurym. Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with. Barr. I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray? Jurym. I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour. Barr. It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service. Jurym. You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath been much to my loss. Barr. I commend your tenderness and modesty; yet must tell you, these are but general and weak excuses. As for your time and trouble, it is not much; and however, can it be better spent than in doing justice, and serving your country? to withdraw yourself in such cases, is a kind of Sacrilege, a robbing of the public of those duties which you justly owe it; the more peaceable man you have been, the more fit you are. For the office of a Juryman is, conscientiously to judge his neighbour; and needs no more law than is easily learnt to direct him therein. I look upon you therefore as a man well qualified with estate, discretion, & integrity; and if all such as you should use private means to avoid it, how would the king and country be honestly served? At that rate we should have none but fools or knaves entrusted in this grand concern, on which (as you well observe) the lives, liberties, and estates of all England depend. Your tenderness not to be accessary to any man's being wronged or ruined, is (as I said) much to be commended. But may you not incur it unawares, by seeking this to avoid it? Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
You are welcome Tahn L. I wish to be clear about something infecting people in such a way as to cause powerlessness in defense against crimes such as the coup d'état in 1789. Each individual moves by a combination of the individuals own will power and powers external to each individual. The powers external can be called peer pressure on one end of a scale and brainwashing on another end of a scale. Some people are very independent-minded while other people merely obey any official-sounding order; doing so without question. An example of this phenomenon is exemplified well in the whistleblowing effort by Murray Rothbard on the myth of George Washington: “His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.” Murray Rothbard, Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty One individual action is added to another, and another, and either by coincidence or by concerted, organized, combined, effort in a team of individuals, the sum total of the actions affect a coup. Out goes precious liberty, a value worth a defensive fight, as valuable as life itself, and in place of liberty is blind obedience to falsehood without question: the slide into man-made hell on earth. “And on top of this we are threatened by destruction in the fact that the physically compressed, strained world is not allowed to blend spiritually; the molecules of knowledge and sympathy are not allowed to jump over from one half to the other. This presents a rampant danger: THE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION between the parts of the planet. Contemporary science knows that suppression of information leads to entropy and total destruction. Suppression of information renders international signatures and agreements illusory; within a muffled zone it costs nothing to reinterpret any agreement, even simpler – to forget it, as though it had never really existed. (Orwell understood this supremely.) A muffled zone is, as it were, populated not by inhabitants of the Earth, but by an expeditionary corps from Mars; the people know nothing intelligent about the rest of the Earth and are prepared to go and trample it down in the holy conviction that they come as “liberators”.” Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture 1970 I want to be clear about who “they” are; as in: “I can understand why they waited until Jefferson was out of the country, before beginning the "coup" against the Articles of Confederation.” They include everyone on all sides. Every individual on the defensive truth-seeking side and everyone on the falsehood creation and maintenance side are constantly in a struggle to either move the collective sum total of human action toward liberty or toward the willful extinction of life on earth. Thomas Jefferson could have employed the common law to hold the Slave traders, the slave owners, the slave torturers, and the slave criminals in the federal government to account for their crimes against nature itself. He did not, and that is probably because he feared for his individual life, and any combination of other reasons or excuses. The fact that the whistleblowing by Thomas Jefferson in his published writings on the crimes of slavery exist is one of many facts that matter to all generations that constitute posterity. People even today scoff at the idea that slavery is a crime, hell they are slaves, so they would have to admit that fact that matters to themselves, but they do not, for some obvious, and some less obvious reasons. https://www.usdebtclock.org/ "But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program. "To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter." Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy by William Watkins “A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.” Patrick Henry, June 9, 1788 John C. Calhoun, November 3, 1837 "Of all the interests in the community, the banking is by far the most influential and formidable—the most active; and the most concentrating and pervading; and of all the points, within the immense circle of this interest, there is none, in relation to which the banks[484] are more sensitive and tenacious, than their union with the political power of the country. This is the source of a vast amount of their profits, and of a still larger portion of their respectability and influence." John C. Calhoun, PUBLIC LETTER TO J BAUSKETT AND OTHERS, EDGEFIELD DISTRICT, November 3, 1837 “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” 14th Amendment (thought crime) Who is doing what, when, where, to move the force of liberty in the accurate accountability direction inside their own mind, or external to their own mind, and who on the other hand is suppressing the facts that matter to life on earth? All politics is local, and to be clear, the Emperor's naked body has no clothes on it, and the little man behind the curtain is not the all-powerful Wizard of Oz. The reason King John did not want to sign the confession known as Magna Carta was (at least in part) because that document entered into the public record (court of record) accurately accounts for the power of each individual (volunteering on a jury) to nullify any law made by any so-called dictator. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Voluntary Mutual Defense 7-14-2019 Skeptics persist in the face of overwhelming evidence, perhaps. Skepticism is necessary on the path seeking an elusive truth: accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case. Willful ignorance of the facts that matter is necessary for the creation and maintenance of violence, falsehood, and fake government. Some will agree with the lie parroted by every single criminal who has made the choice to create and maintain counterfeit government. Call that lie whatever you want, in any words you choose or borrow from the pile of lies that document the process created and maintained by criminals and their ignorant victims. Example: The Strong Man Fallacy If we do not find and empower our own Strong Man, those people over there will enslave us with their Strong Man. In principle, those who exist in liberty, naturally, can voluntarily associate for their mutual defense against the Strong Man Fallacy, but they can’t do so if they are sucked into that lie too. Next is further evidence from a previously mentioned source, a discovery of facts that matter, offered to all those who are skeptics, and placed in front of those who may stumble upon this evidence even as they willfully ignore this evidence. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy by William Watkins "Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely." When did the liars get away with the lie? When did those lies begin to emit that familiar Rat Smell to those who prefer liberty over despotism? Those who insist that “our” Strong Man must sit upon our arbitrary “government” to kick ass with impunity upon “our” innocent targets before they can attack “us,” will ignore the facts that matter in the case. That will happen in that individual mind, in that individual place, at that individual time, and that fact will contribute to obvious consequences down that road to those who seek the obvious causes of those obvious consequences. Patrick Henry: “Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.” Sam Adams: “From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” In truth like so many before him, Sam Adams turned his coat during Shays’s Rebellion, and that ought to be entered into the public domain right here and now. The following is for the skeptics, remain vigilant, but if you can Smell that Rat Smell, consider the value of the information on its own merits; please. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
So-called Majority Rule Extortion: “The use of force, or the threat of force, to obtain money, something else of value, or services from a person is often known as the criminal offense of extortion. Many jurisdictions classify extortion as a “crime against property” or a theft-related offense, but the threat of harm to a person is an essential element of the offense. This could consist of physical harm, financial harm, destruction of property, or abuse of official power.” Source Justia Example: “Affairs were in this situation when on the 28th of September last a resolution was proposed to the assembly by a member of the house who had been also a member of the federal convention, for calling a state convention, to be elected within ten days for the purpose of examining and adopting the proposed constitution of the United States, though at this time the house had not received it from Congress. This attempt was opposed by a minority, who after offering every argument in their power to prevent the precipitate measure, without effect, absented themselves from the house as the only alternative left them, to prevent the measure taking place previous to their constituents being acquainted with the business- That violence and outrage which had been so often threatened was now practised; some of the members were seized the next day by a mob collected for the purpose, and forcibly dragged to the house, and there detained by force whilst the quorum of the legislature, so formed, compleated their resolution." We shall dwell no longer on this subject, the people of Pennsylvania have been already acquainted therewith. "We would only further observe that every member of the legislature, previously to taking his seat, by solemn oath or affirmation, declares, "that he will not do or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state." And that constitution which they are so solemnly sworn to support cannot legally be altered but by a recommendation of the council of censors, who alone are authorised to propose alterations and amendments, and even these must be published at least six months, for the consideration of the people.- The proposed system of government for the United States, if adopted, will alter and may annihilate the constitution of Pennsylvania; and therefore the legislature had no authority whatever to recommend the calling a convention for that purpose. This proceeding could not be considered as binding on the people of this commonwealth. The house was formed by violence, some of the members composing it were detained there by force, which alone would have vitiated any proceedings, to which they were otherwise competent; but had the legislature been legally formed, this business was absolutely without their power.” Source: The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention, Pennsylvania Packet (December 18, 1787) Note: “That violence and outrage which had been so often threatened was now practised; some of the members were seized the next day by a mob collected for the purpose, and forcibly dragged to the house, and there detained by force whilst the quorum of the legislature, so formed, compleated their resolution.” That is America. That is Mob Rule. That is not democracy. What ought to have happened then is the same as what ought to happen now. It is very simple, all that is needed is an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in the extortion case that is euphemistically called Mob Rule. At the State Level: IV. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them. Source: Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776 At the Federal Level: Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Source: Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781 Who decides if in fact members of the Pennsylvania legislature were extorted, if extortion is a felony, and if so does that injury cause the people (who are the government) to act in defense of the victim? “The principles that judicial tribunals should conduct open, public proceedings and give redress to every person who has suffered a legal injury are two of the linchpins of AngloAmerican law. Other basic precepts require that notice and hearing precede such hearings, and that tribunals be impartial. Together, this modest bundle of principles—in large part procedural—defines what people think of as the vital core of our legal system. Everything else flows from them.” Source: Chapter 14 COURTS TO BE OPEN; SUITS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH Article I, Section 11 BY Donals Marritz https://www.pabar.org/public/committees/lspublic/atj/Chapter14-final.pdf When the mob is the government, what is the rule? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Stupid, Servile, and Disenfranchised Those who are victims are those who bear a measure of accurate accountability for having failed to avoid becoming victims. Why? Evidence: “It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.” Source: Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852 The English victims were collectively stupid and then servile. Why? Evidence: Exhibit A: "Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.” Source: English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta, The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes, Henry Care Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721 Exhibit B: “By the late sixteenth century, and especially with the accession of the Stuarts, the court of chancery was closely associated with the royal prerogative and became the target of opposition. Equity was therefore disadvantageously contrasted with common law in an era when “ancient law” took on revolutionary constitutional overtones. The struggle between the two systems of law became explicit in Glandville’s case, the 1616 litigation, jurisdiction over which sought by Chancellor Ellsmere, who enjoined suitors from proceeding at law, and by Chief Justice Coke, who prohibited the same litigants from proceeding in equity, and in which James I finally intervened on the side of chancery. The common lawyers of the early Stuart period strongly objected to the prerogative character of equital law, but they also attacked particular abuses: the use of chancery jobs as royal patronage, the delay and expense of chancery proceedings, and the increasing formalism of equity litigation. At bottom, of course, they anticipated Selden, who sneered that “Equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. ‘Tis all one as if they should make the standard for measure a Chancellor’s foot.”” Source: Perspectives in American History, Law in American History, Fleming and Bailyn The English victims collectively paid for their eventual servitude as they collectively lost the power to hold to an accurate accounting the criminals in pubic offices. In America, the same routine occurred in which the criminals took over the power to hold the criminals to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, in any case, civil or criminal, foreign or domestic, in or out of public office. Evidence: Exhibit A: "The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor." Source: George Mason, Objections to This Constitution of Government, September 1787 Exhibit B: “They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places. “But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states.” Source: The People's Panel, The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941 Richard D. Younger, Exhibit C: "For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action. Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury." Source: The Conviction Factory: The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, Roger Roots, 2014 Exhibit D: "In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88" 88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function"). Source: Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias, FordhamL. Rev. 1205 (2000). Reminder: “For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws. Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty”—a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government—they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed. But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them. That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. “The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country”—that is, by the people—as distinguished from a trial by the government. It was anciently called “trial per pais”—that is “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.” The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” 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. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are? Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other—or at least no more accurate—definition of a despotism than this.” Source: Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852 Prescription: Hold the worst criminals to account first, do so lawfully, and then move down to the next one on top of that pyramid scheme. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I was not inspired to join the right against left statute conflict until the link to Pike was added, fortunately. Why Albert Pike’s Statue Must Fall The Scottish Rit’s Ku Klux Klan Project By Anton Chaitkin In that work are words describing what I see as a written confession. In the words of the authors of these written confessions are found - inculpatory evidence - which constitutes all that an independent individual in a free society needs to get rolling that process often called the law. That process often called the law can be counterfeited; of course. What warning (cause of action, probable cause to act in defense, etc.) are the following words confessing? “Magic is the science of the ancient magi….Magic unites in one and the same science, whatever Philosophy can possess that is the most certain, and Religion of the Infallible and the Eternal. It perfectly...reconciles these two terms...faith and reason…[T]hose who accept [magic] as a rule may give their will a sovereign power that will make them the masters of all inferior beings and of all errant spirits; that is to say, will make them the Arbiters and Kings of the World….” That is a confession of intent to deceive targeted victims - a confidence scheme - so as to overpower and then consume - enslave - those “inferior beings.” That is in another word a confession of treason, but treason as to what? The left (Marxists) will convict all those in the right (Fascists) of treason because the left has been conned into believing everyone the the right is inferior (errant spirit) while everyone on the right has been conned into believing everyone on the left is inferior too. Also in the document that eludes to a confession concerning a specific con-man named Pike are these words: “President Zachary Taylor faced Quitman down. President Taylor was determined to bring the new southwest into the Union of free states. On June 21, 1850, nine days after the secession convention, Governor Quitman was indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the U.S. Neutrality Laws!” The whole story-line is false. The law can be expressed this way: “If treason or felony be committed, and one hath just cause of suspicion, this is a good cause, a warrant in law, for any man to arrest the person suspected, but he must shew certainly the cause of his suspicion be just or lawful, shall be determined by the justices in an action of false imprisonment brought by the party grieved, or upon an habeas corpus, &c.” British Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance Printed by H.Woodfall and W. Strahan, 1766 What does that mean in context? How about fast-forwarding the same principle conflict that put in place a false “Federal Grand Jury” System of Plunder Under the Color of Law in 1789, which is the same principle conflict that then inspired the pogrom falsely called The Civil War, and instead of applying the basic principles to history, the idea with the fast-forwarding, is to apply the lawful principles to the current situation. Those who are inspired to tear down statues of their opponent's sides Con-Men in HIStory can apply the basic principle of law in their partisan way. Those who are inspired to tear down statutes of their opponent’s sides Con-Men in HIStory can apply the basic principle of law in that opposite way; targetting the other side’s Con-Men in HIStory. Why tear down any of the statutes of any of the Con-Men in HIStory? Why not let them hang themselves (figuratively) with their own words for posterity as a warning that is not to be forgotten; perhaps forgiven, but not forgotten. Had people been inspired to avoid becoming the enemy of freedom, and liberty, they could have, an can do so now, employ the law power as the law power is intended. The law power is intended to be a deterrence, a sign on the wall that says Keep Out. The sign on the wall says Crime does not Pay here. Crime does not pay in the land where the law of the land is to hold all the Con-Men seeking false Public Office to account for the facts that matter in each case. Trump can wash his hands of the whole dirty business, as can the members of the Clinton Crime Syndicate (which operates even today under the color of law), as the people themselves take the law into their own hands where it always is in fact. But that won’t happen until the people crawl out from under the Magic curtain that hides the little man pulling the levers. That won’t happen until the people crawl out from under the Magic that dons the Con-Men with invisible clothes. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"Allow me please to simply drop one little pebble into the smooth surface of the pond of your reflections." Thank you for your time and effort. To me there is duty, call it a calling, call it a form of work done by a complex brain with a built-in power of law called human conscience, and a huge part of that duty (again to me) is to communicate with other complex life forms in the effort to improve, adapt, survive, and pass on those improvements, pass on those capacities to adapt, to posterity. If I thought, even for a minute, that no one would ever lend me their brains, in a discussion on vital topics, why would I expend the effort to communicate? A single viewpoint can be compared relatively to many competitive viewpoints, finding where they agree, finding where they disagree, and eventually a more accurate viewpoint is possible for those willing to expend that effort. Now I contemplate the audacity of the idea of exchanging viewpoints while constrained to the customary measure of a sound bite. Duty drove by moral conscience, an internal power: “Mankind was on this planet before any government existed.” If mankind was built with a complex brain but without the internal government known as moral conscience, then each individual would be out to cut each other’s throat before they suffer the routine throat-cutting themselves. Trial by jury, or the law of the land, was trial by the country, and the process nurtured instead of starving moral conscience. “The morphing transmutation of the perceived need for group protection against saber-toothed tigers and other natural threats to human life created without design the "Tribe". Tribes congregating in regions created ultimately governments.” If the true government power did not exist from the beginning there would be no tribe, and there would be nothing to counterfeit, all individuals, including mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, would be at each other’s throats, fathers raping mothers, mothers eating babies, brothers raping sisters, and more baby eating. The true government is an idea that works to help those individuals whose brains lack internal government, to help them see that cutting someone’s throat is going to earn the individual a greater injury than the injury they contemplate upon another. But even those offers of perspective can be misunderstood and turned into a counterfeit copy. I am not speaking about punishment -throat-cutting - set in motion by sociopaths who take-over the collective moral conscience of the tribe, turning the tribe into organized crime under, or not under, the color of law. I’ll end the sound bite with a hint from the past, and this was written down, but natural law and agreeable man-made law (voluntary mutual defense) had to exist before writing was a thing, these man-made agreements had to exist in times and places sufficient to afford mankind the powers needed to survive well enough to want to survive. "8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors." Proverbs 1 |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
“I agree with you that all edifices of our past be retained as guideposts to our future as intelligent, observant, and well-learned individuals seeking personal responsibility at the individual level as the proper path to freedom, liberty, and self-government.” What about organized crime? What about organized crime under the color of law? What warrants action by someone in time and place to act in defense against malicious aggression? What if the malicious aggressors are constituted by an agreement made by each individual, each individual promises on their honor to aid and abet their fellow malicious aggressors? Each individual constitutes an organized unit of malicious aggressors who put themselves into bondage by that voluntary agreement to aid each other so as to reach the goal of malicious aggression. Is it treason to opt-out of that group once you join it voluntarily? What if the cost of failing to be maliciously aggressive is to have your individual body turned out of the protection of the maliciously aggressive group, and turned instead into the targeted victim group? Is that treason? What if the original definition of treason is an errant will applied to an errant act that disturbs the peace of any individual who vows solemnly to avoid that malicious will and avoid that aggressive act, someone who keeps his promise to avoid those malicious thoughts and those harmful acts? So - in that case - the treasonous criminal is the one who willfully, with malice aforethought, aggressively attacks an innocent individual, and in that individual case, that individual attacker disturbs the peace that is founded upon simple concepts such as to do unto others as one would have others do unto one's self. Is that treason instead of the other definition of treason explained previously? There, then, are two working definitions of treason. One definition of treason could work for each individual that constitutes a collection of individuals whose will follows the action that is strictly defensive, and the willful offenders are thereby accurately accountable as those guilty of treason by their willful, malicious, aggression. Everything in that definition is strictly voluntary as each individual can, at will, remain within that lawful conduct, doing only onto others as each individual would have others do to themselves. Those who don’t agree, go outside that law, and those outlaws commit that treason when they specifically, and with malice aforethought, do onto others what they would avoid at all cost having that same thing done to themselves. The outlaws, outside that law, cut each other’s throats because that is what they choose to do regularly. A few things are voluntary in the other definition such as when the individual chooses to make a victim out of an innocent individual; of course, the victim does not volunteer to be one. That definition of treason is also voluntary when an individual chooses to join that organized group of willful consumers of innocent victims; assuming of course that the volunteer has any idea as to what is being joined. Once an individual joins that group - voluntarily or by extortion - it is treason to unjoin it. "8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors." Proverbs 1 “If treason or felony be committed, and one hath just cause of suspicion, this is a good cause, a warrant in law, for any man to arrest the person suspected, but he must shew certainly the cause of his suspicion be just or lawful, shall be determined by the justices in an action of false imprisonment brought by the party grieved, or upon an habeas corpus, &c.” British Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance Printed by H.Woodfall and W. Strahan, 1766’’ “Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.” Englishman’s Right A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762) I looked into Treason in America by Anton Chaitkin and found these warnings: {Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman} “The weakness in this book, and to me it’s a considerable one, is the idolization of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.” I have read my fill of the works that originate from the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. It is the same basic concepts regurgitated, rationalized, apologized, excused, etc. Am I wrong in that case? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"If I suggested that book to you, but upon seeing your excuse for not wishing to read the book I have changed my mind and have withdrawn my recommendation that you read it, have I just committed treason?" If you convict me of going off-topic, then my response is to ask you to write my responses for me, that way I won't go off-topic according to you. For those who may have been able to grasp the connection between my last comment and this topic, which may be a wild assumption on my part, the connections can be discussed by people who have diverse viewpoints, and the objective of such a discussion is to share those viewpoints so as to reach the possible goal of improving the viewpoints shared. If each county in each State had Statues in place in each State Park, Statues of King George III, Statues of Oliver Cromwell, just to name a few Loyalists loyal to a specific Oath of Alliance, then, in that hypothetical case all those in America today on the Left, and on the Right, could theoretically join sides to tear down those Statutes, or leave those Statues as their collective will, and their collective actions play out in that opposite case. Thumbs up for keeping those Statues up, thumbs down for tearing down those Statues. Forget about the actual law of the land: who needs it anyway? There are obvious and not so obvious reasons why Statutes of King George III are not placed in each State Park in America. Thomas Jefferson (Un-censored) Declaration of Independence "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." Why censor someone when someone attempts to keep the record straight? I could ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finicum, but they are dead, if they had Statues what would the inscription be: Guilt of the Capital Crime of Speaking the Truth, be warned? Here, here, and here, these are the words that you are authorized to speak, and if you step out of line, well, there are consequences for doing so. 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." |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
OK, well no news from my character assassin, so I will move on in the intended direction. “...this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die....” Recap: The quote above is yet another of those very odd messages from one of the so-called “Founders” of both Americas. The name of that so-called “Founder” of both Americas is Thomas Jefferson. The odd quote has to do with Statue (statute) building. A working definition of a Statue: Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Well, that doesn’t agree with the modern version of so-called “Illegal Alien,” does it? Tear that one down? Thumbs up Thumbs down Who decides any fact at issue according to the law of the land? Back to Jefferson (off-topic to some, perhaps less so to others): A fact about Institutionalized Slavery before 1789 is such that only the British demanded an Extortion Payments (taxation without representation) so as to keep their Slave Trade in the Economic Black; rather than the Economic Red. You know: “If we can make the slaves pay for their chains, we are back in business.” It was not just men enslaved. It was generations of babies unborn, babies allowed to be born, babies before the age of 7, and then people of all configurations after the age of 7 who were, by a Legal Fiction, enslaved by their Human Traffickers, and their creditors, investors, apologists, and sycophants. So, please know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly who you are choosing by your will power (what remains of it) to share that one bed. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"Does my request that you stay focused on the topic of this thread strike you as being tyrannical?" Counterfeit good manners are the opposite of good manners. If someone thinks that someone else is off-topic, an idea is to ask the one that is presumed to be off-topic for a clue, or two, as to what connections are possible between the suspected off-topic information and the topic. Tyrants have a routine that goes like this: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Example 1a: A Declaration of the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." Those are not the words of the off-topic Pike. Those are the words of a Slave Owner with a documented 7 Statues. That is also one of the Slave Owners - unlike George Washington - who tended to treat slaves as employees, or as actual people, who freely wandered onto his land, or was at least invited in at a price, or a cost charged to the invitee. Those words are the words of a Slave Owner who had a documented history of working to free the slaves: do as I say, not as I do. Example 1b: Elliot’s Debates: Volume 1 Gradual Approaches Towards Independence In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10, the following proceedings, on the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, are disclosed: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ "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." "We're all big boys and girls here,..." My character assassin suggests that I am a child. Is that childish? "The topic of this thread is in regard to some people wanting to tear down statues which reflect our actual history." “I brought up the Pike statue piece because I wanted to add a twist to the theme of this thread.” Another routine that can clue people in as to who is or who is not a tyrant is the routine where the tyrant strictly enforces the do as I say, not as a do rule. Call it setting the stage, or displaying behavior worthy of emulation: counterfeit. “Wow. I must be going blind.” That is why it may be a good idea to ask for clarification before going right into attack dog mode. The blind can finally see! Free at last! I’m all for Statues of famous criminals like Jefferson, or Pike, or George the Third, or even psychopaths like George Washington, or Charles Manson, in Public Places, so long as I am not enslaved so as to pay for them. Those who wander into Public Places, such as Public Forums, can be exposed to all those dynamic actions that routinely occur in Public Places, anyone can wander in unattended, to view Statutes, or learn the history of the people represented by the Statutes, or do the pigeon thing on the Statute, you know: defecation, not deification. Here in the Mojave Desert, for example, the whole State of New Jersey could be hidden away where no one would ever wander into it. No one has claimed vast portions of this Public Place called the Mojave Desert as their exclusive domain in which anyone happening to wander into it - or invited into it - will have their character ruthlessly attacked by the owner, for the crime of speaking the truth. It just doesn't happen, and a wanderer could wander for years without ever being accosted by some pretentious owner. Yet, someone claiming to own it could conceivably erect a thousand Statutes, and the only ones defecating on them would be what: lizards? “Yes indeed, and there are reasons why no statues of Donald Trump have been erected on the Moon.” That political hit is called hyperbole, and it is inserted in place as part of a Man-of-Straw attack on my character; which is done to avoid the actual information offered on this very topic. The only one mentioning Donald Trump is the political hit-man, the pretentious owner of the Public Place, yet the inference is that I am the dummy who goes off-topic with absurd claims that suggest putting Statues on the Moon. That Man-of-Straw, that is supposed to have my name, is an easy imbecile to tear apart with words, once that Man-of-Straw - with my name on it - is constructed out of straw-like thin air; like the purchasing power earned at the “Federal Reserve.” Talk about tyrants! But that is enough of the off-topic truth-telling, accurately accounting for the aggressor, and his intended target. A possible on-topic question to ask, and have answered, is: who cares about Statues in Public Places? I don’t, and I certainly would not spend my limited resources on building them up or tearing them down, while statutes, on the other hand, could be useful suggestions offered by reasonable people to other reasonable people, so long as that which is suggested for the goose is also good for the gander. If the goose claims ownership of public places, by hook or by crook, then anything goes as often is demonstrated in fact. How about a Statue of Barry Soetoro, or the famous one who said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 I trust that I will be clued in. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I don't have all day, so this present effort will dispense with some of the connections, links, references, and sources of offered data. For example, there are 2 opposing processes that have commonly known labels which were made common as people repeat these labels whenever people refer to the 2 opposing processes. Law Equity Law, as in Law of the Land, also known as due process of law, is a process based upon a very simple, eloquent, suggestion known as The Golden Rule. The process called law is a process in which people endeavor to accurately account for the facts that matter in any case of controversy involving any single individual and any other single individual, and of course the process of law also involves any combination of individuals who find themselves in conflict with any other combination of individuals anywhere, anytime, and any place. As Lysander Spooner points out the concept of law dates back thousands of years, traced originally (perhaps) to Ancient Greece, moving up to Ancient Germany, moving then to Ancient England, and eventually moving, as a concept if not a process, to America. Again the concept driving the law process is The Golden Rule, and each individual is on an equal, or equitable, footing with each other individual, which is a concept that has many descriptions in words, and symbols, such as the words offered in that famous Declaration of Independence, and that symbol of a blind lady holding a scale. Those who remain on that equitable footing choose to maintain lawful order. Here it is useful to consider the fact that the law is for moral people only, and the law has only one use for immoral people. Moral people, in fact, take the law into their own hands, that is their duty in fact. The only use that immoral people have for the law is to counterfeit it, which is then a very efficient mask for immoral people. Recap: The law is for moral people. Moral people maintain the law as individuals. Moral people employ the law to discover, to publish, and to determine the facts, as they exist, in any case where someone is suspected of willfully choosing to break the law. Criminals, as a rule, do not obey the law. Criminals choose to step outside the law, and that choice is what constitutes a crime. Criminals, as a rule, lie. One often told lie, told by criminals, is that they are the only law, and their dictates must be obeyed without question, or else. Moving on to Equity. Equity in this context of juxtaposition to Law has an intended meaning that is not commonly understood or employed. The meaning is a mask. The common meaning for the word equity goes something like this: “the quality of being fair and impartial” Or this: “the value of the shares issued by a company” Equity - as in Equity Court - in stark contrast to Law has an entirely different, curious, and potentially understandable meaning. Equity Courts are Summary JUSTus Kangaroo Courts. This curious and potentially understandable label (Equity) is clearly a false front or false flag, like cheese in a mousetrap. Out goes The Golden Rule-based process of individual people endeavoring to keep the record straight, with the process known as the law, on an equal footing with everyone else, and in place of Law is this counterfeit version of law called Equity. That is offered here and now as a bread crumb along the way for those who may want to know the details, the facts, that help explain what Lysander Spooner offers in the following quote: "It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.” In the process of Law, the whole body of people are duty-bound to represent the whole body of people as they work on grand and trial juries to ensure that facts are discovered, published, and those facts are placed before a trial jury so that the whole country (the whole body of people) are thereby represented as The Decider. In the counterfeit law process known as Equity, there are profit-seeking monopolists taking the power from the people, and using that power of cognizance, discovery, judgment, and right, and turning that power against the whole body of people. This is clearly so, and those who are unaware of it, and those who faint (if they dare to do so) argument against these clear facts, prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts in the case. The power to discover the facts, once taken from the people as a whole, and once commanded by the profit-seeking monopolists, ensure that the people as a whole remain ignorant. That explains why you are ignorant about these facts. Take it, it is yours. If by chance someone, somewhere, is ready to argue that these facts now presented are in any way in error, then be my guest, please. Every shovel dug into this pile of crap will dig the hole deeper, and that is why no one will endeavor to argue in favor of so-called Equity. Equity comes from Exchequer. Equity is similar to Maritime, Admiralty, Family, or other labels placed upon the same Summary JUSTus System of plunder. It has taken some time to discover and assemble the information that shows these facts to be facts, and my work is far from done, so have at it, and again: please do so. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Diverting to another topic: "Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?" https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?board=17.0 Jeffrey Epstein could be effectively protected if the law power was in power in America, but it is not, and that same question works for everyone, everywhere, all the time. Could ___fill-in-the-blank___ being "suicided," be prevented? Put the name John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, and any name of anyone, anywhere, anytime in the crosshairs of those who wish to "suicide" someone, and what are the obvious answers for every one of them? People are not protected in so-called "custody." The criminals run the law power. The people themselves run the law power when the law power is genuine. Solid proof of the fact that the criminals run the law power is abundant since so many people confess by their actions, and their words, that they are ignorant of this very fact: the people themselves run the law power: not the government. If someone innocent (or guilty) is brought before the criminal versions of JUSTus, they are routinely consumed for profit, because that is how criminal versions of JUSTus work in actual reality. Criminal versions of JUSTus are working monopolies that cause the flow of power to begin flowing from a victim group - each victim in turn from birth to death - to a criminal group, and that flow of power is meticulously documented - unarguably - as a matter of fact. Putting on a fantasy hat that wrongfully presumes that the powers-that-be (criminal), are in any way just, and in any way capable of following the law of the land: What would happen to secure the blessings of liberty for this Jeffrey Epstein (or any) alleged criminal? The (or any) accusation of wrongdoing is passed from the accuser to someone who can then assemble an independent grand jury. If the grand jury is, in fact, independent, then the grand jurors command all jurisdiction civil and criminal in this case. They can, therefore, subpoena witnesses, including the original accuser. The grand jurors, or someone more familiar with the actual law power, can inform these accusers that they voluntarily place their liberty, life, property, and reputation on the line as an official - not kidding, and no fingers crossed - witness to a criminal act perpetrated by a named perpetrator. Lying is fraud, fraud while serving as a witness is perjury. Accusers are subject to obvious and demonstrable counterclaims of False Accusation; what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the grand jurors find no cause (no probable cause to begin exerting the law power) they can place the accusation in the round file, and inform the witness that they have no cause to prosecute the case, but those grand jurors could inform the witnesses in the case of possible methods that the witnesses could employ in the future to ensure that probable cause is, in fact, established. The grand jurors can thereby excuse those nebulous witnesses and the grand jurors could, on their own authority, pursue the case as they see fit, if they see probable cause other than the nebulous witness testimony. Here is where the laugh test ought to be employed. If witness after witness brings at least 10 tortured bodies to the “Grand Jury,” along with videotaped evidence recorded by the “accused” showing how those tortured bodies were tortured by the “accused,” and one of the “Grand Jurors” is the accused, then that would not be - laughably not be - an independent Grand Jury to some. To other people, I suppose, anything goes. Since the case in question involves sufficient evidence to have already caused a Kangaroo court trial involving alleged multiple victims, and the alleged perpetrator has already placed on record a plea deal (which could have been extorted), it is likely that this case would breeze through the independent grand jury phase of a real trial according to the real law, and the presentment from a real grand jury would officially place on record the reasons why the cause moves into action mode: a jury trial by the country, according to the law of the land, which is the common law: not Equity, not Maritime, not Admiralty, not Family, not Military, or any other Summary Justice System of Plunder other than the law of the land, which is the common law. Note: The actual common law has been counterfeited in England, and that is well documented. The actual common law involves a trial by the people, not a trial by the so-called legal fiction sovereign fake being, or fake government with a black-robed devil worshiper swinging absolute JUSTus and a little hammer. So, there are the particulars concerning how the accused, who is free to protect himself as best he can, leading up to an offer by the people, who are represented in this case by the grand jurors, for the accused to clear his name, liberty, property, and reputation in open, public, trial by the country, with the help of the government if the government is actually a government. If the government is just another despotic criminal organization operating under a very thin color of law, then anything goes, just ask them, obey them, and don’t question their dictates or else. If the accused refuses to appear in a trial by the country, then by the actions of the accused - confession by action - the accused willfully chooses to become an outlaw in fact. If the accused is in danger, likely to be assaulted for merely appearing in front of armed bandits (with or without badges), then clearly that alone can excuse someone from attending a dangerous situation which threatens their life, liberty, property, security, health, well-being, independence, freedom, etc. If you go around doing onto other people that which you would fight tooth and nail to prevent having the same done to you, then it is unreasonable to expect peace in your lifetime. The real law is natural law, you get what you pay for, even if it was falsely advertised. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Back to Voluntary Mutual Defense Colonial Courts and Secured Credit: Early American Commercial Litigation and Shays' Rebellion Claire Priest https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2298&context=fss_papers "Yet, while the debt-recording interpretation of colonial courts is the dominant explanation of default judgments in current colonial law scholarship, other evidence characterizes the operations of the colonial court system in a dramatically different way. In 1786 and 1787, shortly after the Revolution, Shays' Rebellion constituted a widespread attack on the structure of the colonial court system, culminating in the violent takeover and closing of many county courts in western Massachusetts and throughout New England. The Shaysites (who referred to themselves as "Regulators") raised an armed revolt against the colonial court system. They condemned its injurious costliness, its fee structure which, they claimed, enabled judges, witnesses, and sheriffs to profit at the expense of litigants, and its cooptation by lawyers." That is a figurative Gold mine. As was clearly the case in England previous to a deal made between Barrons and a Despotic King, to document Law in the form of a Constitution known as Magna Carta, the people did JUST fine with something called legem terrae, which was (and is) the law of the land, which was also coined the common law genuine, not counterfeit. As it was clearly the case in England those who practiced the dark arts of criminal behavior (deception, threat, and violence upon the innocent, so as to consume the innocent) moved incrementally to counterfeit the common law so as to gain power over the targeted population, and that is clearly shown as so-called "Equity," took market share from the common law process. Now, as this information (I just found) shows so far, the move in America was in principle the same move. The Americans had escaped the criminals (under the color of law) in England (and diverse other places in Europe) to regain individual responsibility, individual accountability, or in a word: sovereignty (of the individual), as opposed to "collective" sovereignty deceptively transferred (against the knowledge, or will, of actual people) from individuals to a Legal Fiction, or State, or "government." In both cases, the people policed themselves, as individuals do in nature, albeit with standardized common law processes, involving representatives chosen to positions known as Sherriffs, Justices of the Peace (pool for grand jurors in some cases), Grand Jurors, and Trial Jurors (Petty Jurors). The people themselves were prosecutors or defendants, not so-called "lawyers or attorneys" who (as far as my study goes so far) work for a "legal fiction," and assume (extort) immunity from persecution (not prosecution according to the common law), as is their accurate accountability turned on them like shinning the truth. They, meaning criminals posing as representatives of a fictional character (legal fiction), persecute, and they impose Summary JUSTus, as positions in their criminal gangs known as Equity, Exchequer, Maritime, Admiralty, Family, Nisi Prius, and various other false fronts before the false word Court Judges, dictate their (false) Law upon targeted victims who are not paying members of their group. How is it known who is in, and who is out of, their group? Why is that at all difficult to account for with precision? If the people try a case of Treason, what is a likely form of restitution offered by the people, through their representatives in a trial by the country, to the ones found guilty of treason? If you don't know then it might be a good idea to find out. Those in the so-called legal fiction group, which are those in what I call the criminal organization that operates under the color of law, typically torture and murder anyone who dares to leave, or "rat on," their fellow partners in crime: under the color of law. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more." I can posit, of course at risk of obvious consequences. My posited notion concerning the quote above is what I will call the Ostridge syndrome. Unwanted information inspires the Ostridge to not only stick the sensory mechanism into darkness, said Ostridge leaves a warning sign to any similarly constituted Ostridges: stick head in the sand now. I've been on forums for over 30 years now, and it isn't so much that the general population cannot be all satisfied with the information offered by so many varied perspectives, rather the routine is such that the so-called moderators claim to fill the demand for those fact-based, or potentially fact-based perspectives, while those same so-called moderators are the first to stick their heads in the sand, and insist upon the righteousness of doing so. The hideousness of worldwide consumption of posterity is hardly more evident in what has now become "human trafficking." Children, extracted from mothers prior to birth, in pieces, well I didn't want that in my head anymore. Children (posterity) brainwashed as slaves from birth to death, nope, don't want that in my head anymore. Children kidnapped and sold for body parts, again not something I want in my head anymore. Children forced into poverty, by obvious, less obvious, and very well hidden mechanisms, and sold into what? Is it righteously called Satanism? I don't want that anywhere near my head anymore. One of the moments that this fake “legalized” consuming of posterity became current events in my head was an obscure (censored) documentary titled The Conspiracy of Silence; an apt title. I don’t want that in my head anymore. I'll save the Ostridge gang the trouble of allowing such unwanted information to pierce their sterilized, secure, environment, and for those constituted with some vague duty to know the truth, and provide for it, those exceptions to the rule (non-ostridges) can find the title of the documentary if they so choose. I suppose that this is again off-topic, daring to move the topic from Jeffery Epstein, and moving the topic to someone named Steve, as Steve offers some names of people who are known associates of Jeffery Epstein, such as: “Court papers put daughter of Robert Maxwell at centre of ‘sex slave’ claims” That is a title of a “News” Article, with a reference to a Kangaroo Court Case in the Plantation known as Florida. Of course, that may be as poor a choice for information as is listening to a fictional character named Jack Ryan, but there are so-called (kangaroo) Court documents, for whatever that may be worth to any current or future ostridge. Everyone is lying or sticking their heads in the sand? You tell me, please. In law (a verb) a suspected perpetrator is offered a trial by jury, which is a trial by the country, and 12 randomly selected people who represent the whole country to determine fact, law, guilt or innocence, remedy, restitution, or punishment, attempt to get all the facts in the case, it is their duty in fact. In a world run by criminals, the plebes know when to stick their heads in the sand. "Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime." |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"To imply that Bill St. Clair is refusing to acknowledge reality,..." Did I imply (strongly suggest something), or did someone other than me infer something? Why not just ask? Dictatorial people tend to put words in other people's mouths as if the dictator has a sock puppet. The concept of dictation is one-way communication. The shoe does not fit me. My point had to do more with the process known as gatekeeping. "...not chasing down every iota of evil is..." That is called hyperbole, added to a false claim of implication concerning an inference. Why is attack mode the default mode? Why not simply ask? That shoe does not fit me either. "... smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician..." That is potentially libelous, but certainly not in that form. Someone is waving an indiscriminate finger at an unspecified evil. Who is an evil politician according to the one making that claim? Who fits that shoe? "Not wanting to smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician, is NOT the same as being "unaware"." Who said that the one thing claimed is not the other thing claimed? I did not. This is the Man-of-Straw process. It is routine. The creator of the Man-of Straw puts a fallacious process of thought out into the data stream. Who fits that shoe? I do not. I don't know anyone who fits that shoe. Perhaps the one who created that shoe has in mind someone to fit that shoe on; Cinderella? A sign was placed in the path of information as such: "I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more." Does the gatekeeper shoe fit on the author of those two sentences, in the context of this topic? It looked to me like someone was warning other people about information that they have judged to be unworthy of credit. I can be mistaken. Some people will read that warning sign, read it as a warning, such as keep out, and those people may take that advice. The information does not flow to those people, because they obey the warning sign, that gate is thereby closed by that gatekeeper. Other people may read that sign and be inspired with greater curiosity. The obvious intent (at least as far as my ability to infer such a thing as motive) is discredit aimed at someone or anyone who might credit the information that exists on the other side of that closed gate. "I believe you have done him a great disservice by your erroneous implication..." You have inferred something about what you read. I can tell you as many times, in as many words, as possible, to let you know that your inference as to my intended implication is incorrect, at least as far as I am able to find the intended meanings of your words. In your mind, as far as I can tell, you have determined, on your own authority, what my intention “is”, and you have formed a belief concerning your ability to find the intended meaning of my words. Is your trust in your belief accurate or something else? Do you understand the difference between an inference (in your control) and an implication (something I am in control of while I write)? "...not that he probably cares about your uppity superiority..." That is called an ad-hominem attack. 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. "vicious ad hominem attacks" You do not know me, you have no idea (very likely false ideas based upon your resort to ad-hominem attacks) what is, or is not, my character flaws, of which there are many, and all that is beside the point: off-topic. "...nor would most of the thousands of people who have read and followed his postings and quest to promote freedom over the years." If it acts like a gatekeeper, then perhaps it is a gatekeeper. How would one know without asking? Is it an example of gatekeeping? Was there already a Court Case in Florida involving the daughter of Robert Maxwell? Is that on-topic? Who might be targetting Jeffrey Epstein? Who might have a clue as to what might be possible if the idea was to prevent a false suicide, which would be an assassination, of Jeffrey Epstein? If someone, or a lot of people, ignore the information from sources like Steve Pieczenik, why - what is the motive - in doing so? What is the stated motive? "Bill, THANK YOU for sharing your few minutes of watching that crap, so I did not have to. I join you in not wanting that stuff in my head." If there is an actual trial, a trial by the people themselves, not a trial by the fake government, then is it possible that the flow of innocent lives flowing into a figurative meat grinder will abate? If the bird is dead, it don't sing; that gate is closed too. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Posit: "assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument." Assuming something, or presuming something, is akin to a hypothesis, which is an idea, which is not a belief, not a conclusion, not a determination, not a judgment, rather it is a "basis" from which to discuss a specific topic from a specified (assumed) point of view. See also rhetoric; as in a rhetorical question. rhetorical question: "a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer." I prefer not to use the word argument, and I prefer to employ the process known as discussion. To me, a discussion is a voluntary effort in which many participants offer their limited viewpoints in the effort to construct an improved viewpoint that is made up of many diverse viewpoints, on a specified topic. The concept of "argument" tends to illicit a winner take all battle of viewpoints, and typically anything goes, as the saying suggests: All is fair in love and war (war with words). "If I, in my ignorance of language, misinterpreted your statement, then I apologize." I also apologize for my many character flaws that are painfully obvious to almost everyone save for myself. I can't seem to say anything without either being too wordy, too brief, insulting, boasting, meek, combative, confusing, boring, nonsensical, you name it, I'm guilty. The topic is if anything a topic about gatekeeping. If the bird can be disappeared, it won't sing anymore. If, on the other hand, the song being sung can be employed factually, so as to account for specific actions done to innocent people by specific guilty people, then those on deck to do the same evil things may think twice out of concern for suffering the same focus of attention in their evil ways. Nicomachean Ethics By Aristotle Written 350 B.C.E "Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs. "Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit." |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Recap: Voluntary Mutual Defense is a description (in three words) of a process by which people create and maintain something people have also called the law of the land, and/or the government. Here is where idea turns into action. If the idea behind the action is along the lines of “live and let live” (Golden Rule), then the idea is to create and maintain voluntary association, freedom, liberty, or whatever word, in whatever language, means the same thing. The idea is to find out (discover) those forces that tend to destroy voluntary association and do so accurately. That idea then leads to action. If, on the other hand, the idea is to consume other people as if other people were consumables, like air, food, water, and other power providing generators, then the actions following that idea are opposed to the previous idea. One idea driving action inspires the other idea to act, as in the term cause of action. If there were no people born with this idea to consume other people, ever, then there would never be an opposing idea to discover that destructive idea where and when it is manifested. Words like “follow the money” would be absent from the records of human history if there were never any individual humans born with this idea to consume other people. The cause (idea) to act in a manner that destroys natural peace, harmony, freedom, liberty, adaptability, creativity, productivity, etc., is precisely recorded with the word crime, and once crime follows from the idea phase into the action phase there are then people who are precisely recorded with the word victim. If no one ever wants to know about crime, placing their heads in the sand, then the first criminal creates the first victim, and that idea (cause) followed by that action (crime) inspires at least two obvious possible consequences, which follow the natural law knowalbe as the law of consequences. The first obvious consequence following natural laws is that the first crime rewards the first criminal as the first crime is costless, having no negative consequences charged to the first criminal, which then inspires the criminal to repeat the crime, so as to continue following that chosen path, leaving more victims as the next undefended victim is consumed. The rate of new victims can expand exponentially as the criminal discovers improved methods of consuming other people. The next obvious consequence following natural laws is such that victims may be turned from the “live and let live” idea to the “consume other people” idea for many reasons including the simple transfer of the criminal idea that may have been foreign to the victim before the crime, but after the crime the victim is then aware of that criminal idea: crime pays the criminal something valuable, something that cost the victim something valuable. There is a possibility that this criminal idea can spread like a communicable disease, a plague. People infected with the new idea may be inspired to abandon the old idea. Gone in that individual then is strict adherence to actions that avoid personal gains that are costs born by other people. That natural order in which higher-quality life marches along in liberty, one innovative step at a time, adapting to changes in nature, is incrementally destroyed as that former victim turns to crime, as the new criminal removes more people (victims) from the pool of contributors - as that happens unnaturally - victims may also turn to crime: a potential exponential growth rate from ubiquitous liberty to ubiquitous despotism. The one Hitler, Stalin, or Rosevelt wannabe takes out another potential Aristotle, Michelangelo, Nicola Tesla, Josiah Warren, or any of the many contributors to advanced, high quality, low cost, human life. The infamous criminals set the standard, and no one will ever know the true cost of their actions caused by their idea, an idea that all criminals share: consume other people. No one can know the true cost because consumed people never get the chance to shine. I don’t know if this forum is the right place to offer these words, evidence suggests otherwise. However, as with the unknown cost of precisely what has been destroyed by criminals, it is also unknown if this information will reach someone and help them. This information may help someone realize that the government they were taught is false. Someone reading this information may find the real government power described here. This forum may last a thousand years for all I know. In some future situation, someone may have access to an efficient search engine - a connection to all the records placed in digital form - and something someone wrote, not necessarily my own words, perhaps something I quote here, or elsewhere, and the message intended may transfer to the individual seeking that message. There is hope for those who look for it. Example: “As to “process of attachment for contempt,” it is of course lawful for a judge, in his character of a peace officer, to issue a warrant for the arrest of a man guilty of contempt, as he would for the arrest of any other offender, and hold him to bail, (or, in default of bail, commit him to prison,) to answer for his offense before a jury. Or he may order him into custody without a warrant when the offence is committed in the judge’s presence. But there is no reason why a judge should have the power of punishing for contempt, any more than for any other offence. And it is one of the most dangerous powers a judge can have, because it gives him absolute authority in a court of justice, and enables him to tyrannize as he pleases over parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors. If a judge have power to punish for contempt, and to determine for himself what is a contempt, the whole administration of justice (or injustice, if he choose to make it so) is in his hands. And all the rights of jurors, witnesses, counsel, and parties, are held subject to his pleasure, and can be exercised only agreeably to his will. He can of course control the entire proceedings in, and consequently the decision of, every cause, by restraining and punishing every one, whether party, counsel, witness, or juror, who presumed to offer anything contrary to his pleasure. “This arbitrary power, which has been usurped and exercised by judges to punish for contempt, has undoubtedly had much to do in subduing counsel into these servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits, which so universally prevail among them, and which have not only cost so many clients their rights, but have also cost the people so many of their liberties. If any summary punishment for contempt be ever necessary, (as it probably is not,) beyond exclusion for the time being from the court-room, (which should be done, not as a punishment, but for self-protection, and the preservation of order,) the judgment for it should be given by the jury, (where the trial is before a jury,) and not by the court, for the jury, and no the court, are really the judges. For the same reason, exclusion from the court-room should be ordered only by the jury, in cases when the trial is before a jury, because they, being the real judges and triers of the cause, are entitled, if anybody, to the control of the court-room. In appeal courts, where no juries sit, it may be necessary - not as punishment, but for self-protection, and the maintenance of order - that the court should exercise the power of excluding a person, for the time being, from the court-room; but there is no reason why they should proceed to sentence him as a criminal, without his being tried by a jury. “If the people wish to have their rights respected and protected in courts of justice, it is manifestly of the last importance that they jealously guard he liberty of parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors, against all arbitrary power on the part of the court.” Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852 Summary punishment? Servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits? Does that compute? I do not expect 1 in perhaps a billion people on this planet today to read through the books I am reading through with a mind to know better from worse, but that above ought to ring some bells in some minds that are less than obedient when it comes to ubiquitous falsehoods that aid and abet the current criminal regimes posing as the governments. The people are either in power as one to judge the government as a service to the people, or there will be criminals posing as the governments. That is a dynamic process where opposing ideas lead to opposing actions: original offense and cause for defense. When the people are the government, in Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, generally those people, through their representatives in common law juries, act: the people caused to act in defense will arrest, try, and attempt to redeem, restore, or punish only those who are the worst, first. Why would reasonable people sweep the bottom step first? And if there be punishment, it will not be torture. That is a clear - in your face with a waterboard - clue as to when the governments became criminal organizations or profitable monopolies. Example: “Judging, therefore, from the special provisions in Magna Carta, requiring fines, or amercements, to be imposed only by juries, (without mentioning any other punishments; ) judging; also, from the statutes which immediately followed Magna Carta, it is probable that the Saxon custom of punishing all, or nearly all, offences by fines, (with the alternative to the criminal of being imprisoned, banished, or outlawed, and exposed to private vengeance, in case of non-payment,) continued until the time of Magna Carta; and that in providing expressly that fines should be fixed by the juries, Magna Carta provided for nearly or quite all the punishments that were expected to be inflicted; that if there were to be any others, they were to be fixed by the juries; and consequently that nothing was left to be fixed by “legem terrae.” Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852 People merely want to live and let live, criminals want to enslave, torture if necessary, and when criminals take-over governments, the RULE is that the worst end up on top, and the worst are known to do unspeakable things to the weakest, innocent, among us. Example: "The same pattern of grand jury independence crossed the Atlantic to the colonies. Indeed, since the colonies lacked an efficient constabulary, colonial grand juries exercised greater independence than their English counterparts. American grand juries had a penchant for presenting government officials. These presentments could be for crimes or noncriminal violations of the public trust. The latter type of accusation would now, and sometimes then, be called a report. Colonies that lacked a representative legislature often turned to grand juries as a substitute; grand juries regulated areas higher officials did not address. As tensions between the colonies and the mother country grew, grand juries played an increasingly prominent role. They not only refused to indict, but also issued angry and well-publicized presentments and indictments against British officials and soldiers. Because of its boldness and independence in both defending and accusing, the grand jury emerged from the Revolution with enhanced prestige." Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments, Renée B. Lettow, 1994 |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"If that's ostrich syndrome, then I own it, proudly." The shoe was not meant to fit anyone that does not fit into the shoe, and I hope that these are not too many words, or too few. Discussion is the real law power, as for example investigatory jurors deliberate in the effort to share viewpoints as to the right or wrong of ignoring false or trivial accusations, and the right or wrong of presenting legitimate accused individuals with a trial date, so as to offer the accused their equal footing of real law power. Similarly trial jurors deliberately deliberate in the effort to constitute a true representation of the whole country of people in the location where an accuser has accused an accused individual of something worthy of unleashing the whole country into action in the effort to remedy a conflict. Someone creating a pond, on their own authority, on their own land, to then provide water in case of fire that endangers life in the area, is not a terrorist in my view. I am one of those who constitute the whole country of people in the location where I locate. Someone kidnapping babies, or children, or young adults, or adults, or middle-aged people, or old people, and using those enslaved people for amusement or profit is a serial perpetrator of treasonous, heinous, capital, felonies. I would most certainly put my 2 cents into a presentment that moves a Jeffery Epstein from freeholder at liberty to accused, presumed to be innocent, defendant stating his case before the whole country represented in a trial jury in a trial by the country, if I were afforded the opportunity to do so by my fellow Americans. I would do that in the location where I locate because the accused is accused by someone in my location for having perpetrated the accused crimes in my location, according to what remains of the common law in my location. If we the people have been corralled, cajoled, enticed, or otherwise controlled into becoming a single Nation State, then we are one country now, not many independent localities formed into independent individuals, families, towns, cities, counties, Nation States (example: Rhode Island), and all those independent, sovereign, entities, voluntarily formed into a Federation for our mutual defense of our lives, liberties, property, and our common law. If, on the other hand, we the people afford each other as much law power as we voluntarily take upon our own authority, then we ought to learn from history and mind our own business in our own jurisdictions that extend roughly as far as we can afford to relocate when duty or necessity requires. An assembly of the most discrete and honest among us in that area we all can afford to police on our own authority constitutes a grand jury in fact, not in fiction. Imagine a counter virus that works like a cure for the cancer of malfeasance in office and in each sovereign (independent) individual law power, those counter virus empowered people work effectively to discover, find, locate, become aware of, and inspire those who are most discrete and honest, and all of these counter viruses actually form those historic, ancient, cures for the cancer of malfeasance in office, those grand juries in those localities in every area where the common law has always been, and will always be, in power, if we decide to access it. What would a presentment look like concerning anyone in any office anywhere in each town, city, county, State, or Federation of States? Which one would be good enough? Which presentment would constitute the cause to act in defense of all those slaves yet to be born, all those slaves just born, all those slaves yet to learn how to speak, and all those slaves yet to be shown either lawful behavior or the opposite? If the shoe doesn’t fit then you don’t wear the shoe. "Responsibility must be individual, or there is no responsibility at all." Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, 1852 If you decided to volunteer to be a grand juror, and you were faced with a go or no go decision to place Jeffery Epstein (or anyone similar in your location) before a trial by the country (trial by jury) to state his case, would you help document a legible presentment, and if so what message would you place into a court of record in that, or a similar, case? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"Don't be disappointed by a lack of reaction, as most forum members realized years ago that "government" was the problem, so basically, "you are preaching to the choir"." I think that it is important to point out - in the most efficient way possible - that every time people volunteer to create and maintain a working defense against destructive aggression those people use words to label their efforts, and every time those same words are soon counterfeited. In other words, the sheep figure out an efficient (low cost, high quality) way to defend against wolves, and then wolves figure out how to disguise themselves as sheep. So...someone may read your words and see that "government" is written with quotation marks. Someone else may disregard the quotation marks and they might read a message that they interpret as a warning that says all government is bad, and therefore there is no such thing as good government. The sign says: The enemy of all good things is the government. The message may be interpreted in such a way as to make people believe that there never was, nor will there ever be, anything, anywhere, that can serve all the people in such a way as to provide to all the people who want it, a means by which the lowest cost, and highest quality, defense against harmful aggression can be constructed and maintained by those people who want it. I’ve met people who believe that message. They tend to call themselves anarchists. I did some homework on that too. Proudhon and his Translator The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews "Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it." At a time when Andrew Jackson has pulled the plug on the National Central Banking fraud, there was a rejuvenating free-market spirit generally, taking on forms such as Wild Cat Banking, not without the un-free, despotic, and criminal influences of course. In that time-period were people who began writing and producing free-market stuff, such as the words of Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, and Stephen Pearl Andrews quoted above, and these people are claimed to be Anarchists. Josiah Warren, for example, is still claimed to be The First American Anarchist, but the actual man rejected, in writing, such labeling. This may be a good time to ask a valid question. Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of government that is strictly voluntary, and a form of government that is adaptive, competitive, free-market, anarchistic, and works to move people toward higher quality and lower cost defense of all free people against all enemies of free people? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"Such a government would hardly be a government." I read that as; "Such a non-government would hardly be a government." or "Such a government would hardly be describable with the term government." A famous, apt, quote is: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" If the word government means Involuntary Association, then that meaning is the same as the meaning of the term Subsidized Slavery, and then that meaning is the same meaning as Profitable Monopoly Under the Color of Law. Why would people seeking to govern feel the need to falsify their intended motives and their intended actions if the intended subjects of their form of government knew in advance those intended motives and those intended actions of those people intending to govern in the way they intend to govern? Example: "But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program. "To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter." Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy by William Watkins Hamilton and his gang included Robert Morris who was another so-called Central Banker, which is another term that is constructed so as to put the sheep costume on the true motives and the true actions of the Central Banking Frauds. Hamilton and his gang were not Patriots, not Democrats, not Republicans, not Central Bankers, not Governors, not Law Abiding Citizens, not Free Traders, not the type of people who could be trusted with any power at all, let alone arbitrary, absolute, dictatorial, tyrannical, criminal, power hidden behind a thin veil of easily exposed false words. “Get the total tax rate, local + state + federal, down to 3%, and the difference wouldn't matter much to me, as long as it was impossible to ever raise it, and an affirmative defense for homicide of anyone who proposed, voted for, or enforced such an increase. Of course, we'd also need real constitutional money, gold and silver coin, and nothing else, except paper and electronic vault receipts that were exchangeable for PMs. Otherwise, the inflation tax could get around the tax cap. And no government borrowing except via bonds sold to the public, at buyer's sole risk.” An apt quote from Benjamin Tucker (1854 to 1939) fits right here and now: "First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. "It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. "If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. "This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. "Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.” Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism: HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888) So-called Central Bank Notes are counterfeit forms of money. Someone seeks an equitable exchange with someone else, but the other free trader is a fraud intending to perpetrate a crime upon a victim. That is simple like simple addition. What is not simple is the means by which people can help other people see the more complex math problems such as: "This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.” Someone meets a so-called Liberal Democrat today, and the motive behind the imaginary someone meeting the Liberal Democrat today is to help the so-called Liberal Democrat find a way to increase the general labor price exchanged between employers with capital stored as money and employees with capital stored as labor. The Liberal Democrat is trained to be an idiot. The Liberal Democrat is trained to be a member of a cult, a subject of ubiquitous falsehoods, and as such, the Liberal Democrat - more accurately knowable as a Marxist Communist - is trained like a Pavlovian Dog to salivate when a bell is rung. Like a trigger the bell ringing causes the well-trained idiot to respond with aggression. But for now, in a discussion on vital topics, I am creating a Straw-Man Liberal Democrat that has command of the power of will; an individual responsibility. Rather than stupidly and servilely obeying the dictates of your masters, consider the possibility that once those masters no longer convince their victims of the absolute necessity to pay them for fake protection, those former masters can no longer dictate who is allowed to start a new business. So the Liberal Democrat made of Straw responds with a spark of curiosity. The curious one asks for particulars. Once the market is flooded with a glut of employers those employers will then run into a curious problem. Those many employers will be spending their capital stored as money to accomplish the goal of discovering, targeting, and marketing their higher quality and lower cost jobs, so as to then get those few employees before someone else will. To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine November 15, 1802 "But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic. "But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners. "As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power. "There is in America, more than in any other country, a large body of people who attend quietly to their farms, or follow their several occupations; who pay no regard to the clamors of anonymous scribblers, who think for themselves, and judge of government, not by the fury of newspaper writers, but by the prudent frugality of its measures, and the encouragement it gives to the improvement and prosperity of the country; and who, acting on their own judgment, never come forward in an election but on some important occasion. "When this body moves, all the little barkings of scribbling and witless curs pass for nothing. To say to this independent description of men, "You must turn out such and such persons at the next election, for they have taken off a great many taxes, and lessened the expenses of government, they have dismissed my son, or my brother, or myself, from a lucrative office, in which there was nothing to do"-is to show the cloven foot of faction, and preach the language of ill-disguised mortification. "In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness." So the Liberal Democrat made of Straw (by me) may scratch their head when the math problem moves from simple math to something like basic algebra, or not, depending upon how much the Liberal Democrat has been clubbed with the club labeled government. It is a club. It is a club with a label on it. George Carlin joked about The Big Club, and that is worth something. "Such a government would hardly be a government." If it is a Big Club, why call it something other than a Big Club? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"Verbosity can dull the argument, if not the spirit." The topic is Voluntary Mutual Defense. The topic isn't how well, or how poorly, the messages are offered. If, on the other hand, the topic is much less worthy of discussion compared to the alternative subject, then I am all for discussing the most efficient ways a message can be constructed. Have you read the following? 1. Equitable Commerce or True Civilization by Josiah Warren Or 2. The Disadvantages of Being Educated by Albert J Nock I offer that as a means to standardize how I think a message can be efficiently constructed. I can’t do that, so I appreciate actual help. Help, so-called, that merely insults I have a hard time with because I don’t want to waste time dealing with insults. Help arrives in a form that the one being helped can construct improvement; with that helpful help. From Warren in Equitable Commerce: "Responsibility must be individual, or there is no responsibility at all." Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, 1852 From Warren in True Civilization: “Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.” True Civilization. Warren, Josiah (1863) Boston, Mass. Note the time period, please. I won’t quote from Nock since I am very likely guilty of dulling the argument and murdering the spirit; in defense, as I alone see it, and I take responsibility for my error-prone viewpoint. How about a test? If 1000 working members of the British Accredited Registry, in any county in America, were asked to define the meaning of the word codify, would you find the same words describing that meaning in every case, and if so (or if not) what does that say about that type of authority over meanings, or law power? “Although in the Saxon"s time I find the usual words of the acts then to have been edictum, (edict,) constitutio, (statute.) little mention being made of the commons, yet I further find that, tum demum. leges vim et viggrem habuerunt, cum. fuerunt non modo institutae sed firmatae: approbatione .communtitatis." (The laws had force and vigor only when they were not only enacted, but confirmed by the approval of the community.)” Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852 In that work, which some people these days would find cause to avoid reading, blaming the author if necessary to massage the ego, are steps that confirm Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government if government is defined by the people as a whole, not “government” defined by a Special Interest Group of criminals working under the color of law: VERBOSITY DEFINED). Voluntary Mutual Defense Association is confirmed in something called The Bill of Rights, but if Criminals take-over said Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, counterfeiting it, turning it into the opposite of the original spirit, meaning, goal, etc., then The Bill of Right can mean anything at all to suit the purpose of the criminals who took over. Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention 1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42 [6 June] George Mason: “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?” In the words of Slick Willy: “That depends upon what the word is: is.” IF I HAD ASKED? "Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of…” ORGANIZATION The point being pointed out is very simple, a very simple math problem, regardless of which words are chosen to present to the intended audience THE math problem. Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government) Involuntary Special Interest Profitable Monopoly (i.e. FAKE government) There is clear evidence (such as a lot of people alive at the moment) that the chicken and egg conundrum is evidently that Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government) came first, and only as a means of usurpation by fraud, by threat of aggressive violence, and by demonstrations of torturous, horrible, terrifying aggressive violence, did government (original) become government counterfeit. I stand corrected? So, when speaking to the so-called choir I must remember that the word government means a criminal organization formed in place of a voluntary association, and at no time (other than obscure tribes dreamed up by no one precisely) was there ever a working voluntary association named a government. A government, in short (avoiding verbosity), means the enslavement of everyone by a few rotten apples? Do I now have the choir understood correctly instead of incorrectly? I don’t think so, but I can ask. “Your question, as I understand it, asks if a strictly voluntary community is possible, I would suggest yes! I believe Bill is correct that there probably have been historical instances, among tribal peoples but I am not enough of a historian to supply any examples.” "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." STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SCOTT First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff vs Jerome Daly, Defendant. December 9, 1968 “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.” U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788) Codify: “...to organize and write a law or system of laws.” Spooner: “No freeman shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed,or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, (harmed.) nor will we (the king) proceed against him, nor send anyone against him, by force of arms, unless according to (that is, in execution of) the sentence of his peers, and (or or, as the case may require) the Common Law of England, (as it was at the time of Magna Carta, in 1215.)” Spooner: "It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.” Step, by step, by step, incrementally, the criminals will take over, but not “no matter what,” and it is a simple math problem to turn things back around. But I am always guilty of verbosity. Forget about me, which subject is more or less worthy of your time? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
“Is your point communication or argumentation?” I tried to point out that the word is not the point, the point is that actions are inspired by the nature of specified associations. If you think that the word “government” must be an involuntary association, or it isn’t “government,” then that is fine by me, mere semantics. If you think that there might be many examples of voluntary associations for mutual defense that have existed, do exist, and can exist, easily, relatively costless, and of high quality, then you might see my point as I continue to quote people who have documented examples of voluntary associations for mutual defense, and they have been known to call it government. So the semantics argument is not with me. The people who originally formed organizations (they called it a name in another language) for their mutual defense date back before the following example of people: The Athenian Constitution: Government by Jury and Referendum "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 If in their language the word for their voluntary mutual defense association is spoken and written in the Greek language, then there is no argument to have about the English word government. But there are plenty of references in English where the one making the reference labels that early example of an advanced non-tribe of people with the label government; specifically a democratic government. Example: Thomas Paine Rights of Man Chapter III Page 176 "Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As those democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed. Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical or aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin. "As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others. "It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case. "The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative. "What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object. "Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it. "Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government, for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject. "It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practice upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., etc., a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society. It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences. "Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man. "As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them. "Referring them to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge. "Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature. "It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood and the most eligible in practice; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy. "It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and populous as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivalled her own democracy. "That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system. It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interest of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has already been observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage. It is never in the cradle, nor on crutches. It admits not of a separation between knowledge and power, and is superior, as government always ought to be, to all the accidents of individual man, and is therefore superior to what is called monarchy." https://www.ucc.ie/archive/hdsp/Paine_Rights_of_Man.pdf That is early so-called “government,” not a tribe (unless we don’t share the same meaning for that word too), and it was a democratic government. Since that example of a democratic government, there has been a successful effort to counterfeit the meaning of the word democracy. Gone is the original meaning of the word democracy and in place is an ambiguous nothingness meaning that suggests despotic power wielded by a nebulous special interest group called The Majority. From the study of one of the earliest Democratic Governments, or Democratic Voluntary Mutual Defense Associations if you prefer your chosen meaning of the word government is the following important message: “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.” That sounds like this: "It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States. "If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself. "If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: "1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, "2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed. "The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust. "All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government. "The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it. "Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-an-essay-on-the-trial-by-jury-1852 My point is that there is a simple way to end Involuntary Association, which you can call anything you want, including the word “government.” So long as the people, not the Involuntary Association, determine fact, law, guilt, innocence, remedy, restitution, or punishment, then the only ones who are subjected to Involuntary Association are those who disagree with the judgment of their fellow members of the Voluntary Association. This is very simple. This is as simple as the clear understanding that as a rule, a criminal will not obey a voluntary association rule, such as, for example, don’t do onto other people what you yourself would fight tooth and nail to defend against were other people to do the same thing to you. This is very simple. Voluntary Association Rules are for the volunteers, not for criminals. Criminals, as a rule - decided upon by every criminal in order for a criminal to be one - do not volunteer to obey rules made by the volunteers. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Well Tahn L., if you see a contradiction I don't. You offer ambiguity to me as an intended meaning for the word government. "1 : the act or process of governing specifically : authoritative direction or control" What is being specified in that definition? I see "plausible deniability." Someone with 60 years experiences hammering nails without ever bending a nail or hammering a finger could offer authoritative direction. Someone can control everything that will or will not be allowed to contact someone else: arbitrary control of someone by someone: subsidized slavery. Which is it? Plausible Deniability was once called “construction” as exemplified here: Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention 1788, 6 June George Mason: “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?” If the meaning can mean up and down at the same time, then my advice is to be a bit more specific. A tribe (if you want to call them a tribe) created one of the first democratic governments according to recorded history available to the general population on earth: it was a working voluntary association for mutual defense. The place was Athens, Greece, the time was quote: "Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BC is famous for being the purest, most extreme form of democracy in human history." That idea, adapted, improved, and preserved as an ideal moved to Germany, and the Saxons, another tribe, if you want to call the Saxons a tribe, employed voluntary association for mutual defesnse. Another tribe called the English, if you want to call those people a tribe, learned from the Saxons, adapted, improved, and also maintained voluntary association for mutual defense, and here is where the English word “government” became currency. Not Greek, not German, but English. Another 13 tribes in America also employed voluntary association. Voluntary association was perfected, adapted, from the English government example, in America, and that lasted from at least 1775 to 1789. I suspect strongly, based upon information I have read, that much of the American version of voluntary association for mutual defense was improved with the help of the Indian tribes already homesteading in America. I don’t know why this is at all hard to point out, seriously. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I may continue this thread or I am may not as time goes on. The idea, as expressed earlier, is to point out something already pointed out by so many people in so many words as to cause (inspire) people to reason out the information being pointed out. Some people will not ever see it. I don’t write to those people. I can take information as it exists, and I can attempt to figure out what is intended by whoever constructs the information given. “If you don't see a contradiction between "being governed" and "voluntary action", we are on such different planes, I don't see how communication is possible.” Quotation marks are used to identify 2 different planes as such: Being governed (which can mean anything to anyone) Voluntary action (which can also mean anything to anyone) So a definition for “Being governed” was offered and that definition was unspecific and therefore without specific meaning as to what is meant by anyone when someone says “being governed.” “Authoritative direction” could mean “being governed”? Authoritative direction could mean an offer by someone or some group concerning experience earned by the offering party. Someone seeking earned experience from people who have earned experience may decide - voluntary action - to take authoritative direction from those who earned experience. An example was offered, and rejected, apparently. Someone with 60 years of experience in carpentry could offer someone with no experience in carpentry and someone with no experience in carpentry could decide - voluntary action - to take the authoritative directions offered by the one with 60 years of earned experience. Perhaps “being governed,” is meant to mean the opposite of “voluntary actions,” as was also my inference of the offered definition of government. The offered definition of government repeated: "1 : the act or process of governing specifically : authoritative direction or control" What is control? The meaning of control that I infer is the opposite of “voluntary actions,” and once again, the offered meaning of “government,” is useless if the idea is to specify a specific meaning for a specified phenomenon labeled with a specific word. Government is either authoritative direction (or earned experience offered to those seeking earned experience) or government is control (or power exerted by someone or some group upon another individual or a group of individuals). Government cannot be both voluntary actions, such as earned experience offered to those who want the earned experience being offered, which can be a form of authoritative direction, and government cannot be the opposite at the same time, which is control, or “being governed,” if being governed means an individual enslaving another individual, or many individuals enslaving many - controlling - many individuals. If the plane people plant themselves on is a plane where the only meaning for the word government is the same meaning as the word slavery, then why not use the word slavery? If the plane people plant themselves on is a plane where the only meaning fo the word government is “being governed,” and “being governed” means the same thing as slavery, then why not use the word slavery? If people today plant themselves on a plane where the word democracy means “being governed,” which means slavery, then those people deciding - voluntary action - to plant themselves firmly on that plane will have to ignore history or deal with history, because history shows that there is a contradiction between the original meaning of democracy and the meaning people choose to plant themselves on. The Athenian Constitution: Government by Jury and Referendum "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 Take the Jeffery Epstein Suicided or the Ranch for Kids Ambushed by Montana Government phenomenon, or “stories,” for example. No action is allowed to be performed by anyone upon anyone without first gaining probable cause, and if it turns out that the actions taken were based upon false probable cause, then the actor is liable for costs created by the actor who acts with a false cause. Anyone initiated defensive action upon anyone else without gaining probable cause to defend someone who will be harmed by an aggressor is someone who is, in fact, an aggressor. Why call those who are aggressors by any other name than aggressors? Why call those who are defenders by any other name than defenders? How can one defender agree to cooperate effectively with other defenders? Murder them? Why is this hard to see? Is it hard to see because people refuse to see? If murderers are murdering people does it make sense to call them the government instead of murderers? What kind of sense is that? How many potential defenders, actual defenders, or past defenders, saw as clear as day that Jeffery Epstein would be “suicided” (murdered)? And what is the latest story told by storytellers? Facts are offered, such as perhaps an actual dead man no longer walking, and facts are offered with a little twist, a bend in the information, a spin. Instead of an announcement of concerned defenders forming an independent grand jury to command all jurisdiction civil and criminal in that case of suspected murder by criminals posing as government agents, to present discovered suspects with a trial date, the NEWS is just Spin. How many potential offenders, actual offenders, or past offenders will parrot the lies? Poor thing killed himself, did everyone a favor, now what are the Kardashians doing? Instead of “Ranch for Kids Ambushed by Montana Government,” which is spin, how about an announcement that is factual? A gang of criminals posing as agents of the Montana Government ambushed, assaulted, kidnapped, or however many crimes were perpetrated in that case, by the offenders upon the defenseless victims? "All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.” Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852 I will continue this here or elsewhere. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
More evidence of the ongoing power struggle between Voluntary Mutual Defense (agreements agreed upon by volunteers) and the opposite which is Counterfeit Law. Note please that some of the earliest attempts to counterfeit Law Power arrived in forms of Summary Justice titled with many deceptive labels: Exchequer, Maritime, Nisi Prius, Admiralty, Equity, etc. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec7f/25c9208eca556b84a673af69dfdf1086f8fa.pdf Book Review. The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860 by Morton J. Horwitz "More and more, courts resorted to the idea of damnum absque injuria to deny a plaintiff's claim. By accomplishing subsidization through the legal system rather than through taxation, Horwitz maintains, the ultimate political choices were hidden from view and insulated from debate. The developmental urge had captured the courts, and it was by this allegedly apolitical agency of government that the subsidy was levied." Exemplify double-speak: damnum absque injuria "loss or damage without injury" Does that depend upon what is is? If the people decide through their representatives in a Trial by the Country (Trial by Jury) what anyone can do to anyone without consequence, and what anyone can do to anyone with consequence, then that is one thing, one form of government, by a tribe, or by a people homesteading within a specified geographical area. The other thing is not the same thing as a people, through their representatives in a jury, deciding fact, law, guilt, evidence, innocence, remedy, restitution, or punishment. The other thing, other than Trial by the Country, is termed: Summary Justice. A government by, of, and for the whole people as one, on one side. B Government by, of, and for Special Interest Groups, at the expense of everyone, on the other side. Not one meaning for the word government, but two meanings for the word government, where one meaning is truth based, and original, and the other meaning is false based and counterfeit. If you refuse to see it, then that is your choice. One is original, grass-roots, organic, natural, reasonable, spiritual, religious, honorable, truthful, productive, adaptive, preventive, and this one deters crime before crime ripens to fruition. The other is counterfeit, top-down, inorganic, unnatural, unreasonable, spiritless, anti-religious, dishonorable, false, destructive, entropic, undefendable, and this one creates criminals exponentially. Some people caught in the exponential growth rate of counterfeit government are made to ignore the alternative as if there never was, and never will be an alternative to the exponential growth rate of counterfeit government - criminal - power. What does the following mean in context of Law (due process) versus Equity (Summary Justice)? Chapter 14 COURTS TO BE OPEN; SUITS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH Article I, Section 11 BY DONALD MARRITZ “That justice may be speedily as well as impartially done, and that to prevent tedious and expensive pilgrimages to obtain it, I do for me and mine hereby declare and establish . . . that monthly sessions shall be held in every country in which all sorts of causes belonging to that county shall be heard and finally determined, whether relating to civil or criminal acts. And . . . that every person may freely plead his own cause or bring his friend to do it for him. And the judges are hereby obliged to inform him or her what they can to his or her assistance in the matter before him, that none be prejudiced through ignorance in their own business . . .” Free stuff? Volunteers, often without pay, or their pay is restricted significantly according to statute, are given all jurisdiction at law, and these volunteers in government constitute the pool from which a grand jury is formed for the purpose of accepting accusations and moving legitimate accusation to an offer offered to an accused for the accused to defend himself against the accuser, in a trial by the country: NOT a trial by the government. If the accuser is false, then the right thing to do is to account for that fact, and charge the false accuser a judgment that intends to discourage false accusations. What is the opposite, counterfeit, law form in as few words as someone of letters can muster? "The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor." George Mason, 1787 One is not the other, and the existence of the counterfeit form confirms (does not deny) the existence of the original form. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
There is plenty of evidence available to confirm the opposite meanings of government as explained up to this point so far. My intent now is to explain some of the histories of counterfeit government in America. As explained in the work done by Leo Richards concerning the Regulation (true government) of the Corrupt Massachusetts government (counterfeit government), the corrupt government agents created a Man of Straw, also knowable as a Legal Fiction, in the form of an Angry Mob that has a common intention. The common intention of the fictitious Angry Mob is to level the incomes of everyone, and this fictitious Angry Mob (that does not exist in reality) will use Subsidized Slavery (counterfeit government) to reach the goal of leveling the incomes of everyone. Does that sound at all familiar to anyone? The Angry (fictitious) Mob desires absolute control over everyone (counterfeit government power) so as to level every income “from each according to ability, to each according to need” and the word used at the time was not Democrat. The word used at the time was “levelers.” In fact, the people who were given the name “levelers,” were Regulators in the tradition of many cases already in the past in American history, the most notable case of Regulators is documented with a Declaration of Independence, and various Bills of Rights. There were other cases of Regulators Regulating Corrupt Counterfeit Government. An example offered by Leo Richards is the example in the Carolinas. For now, consider the creation and maintenance of a fictitious Angry Mob of Levelers. Go to time 17:00 (or so) in the lecture below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY Speaking about David Humphreys, American Revolutionary War colonel and aide de camp to George Washington, Leo Richards lectures: “...and David Humphryes reported these people were levelers. They wanted to seize the land of the rich, and redistribute it to the poor.” Then Leo Richards adds the opinion of Henry Knox “informing” George Washington about the Regulation against the corrupt government in Massachusetts: “...and he reported the same thing, that these people are really levelers, that they want to take all the property and redistribute it, that they want to overthrow the state.” This is before a Political Party was formed out of this fictional group of people who do not (yet) exist. There were no democrats in the Democratic Party (™) at this time. No one existed who could constitute such a Party, it was pure fiction. In fact, the actual people who were actually redistributing wealth were the people who were soon going to form a (false) Federalist Party. These people who would soon form a (false) Federalist Party were war-mongers and central bankers. Leo explains how the central banking redistribution of wealth worked in Massachusetts at the time of the attempted Regulation in Massachusetts (1786, 87) by ex-military veterans, families, rich and poor farmers, etc. Got to time 25:00 (or so) in the Lecture on the Regulation in Massachusetts. “The problem is by 1780 the notes have all gone to Speculators, they have disappeared. The soldiers who got the notes, they no longer had them, they got rid of them, for whatever they could get, and they had fallen into the hands of people who speculate notes, hoping they will go up in value.” Start a war. That creates a demand for Promises Not To Pay (Central Bank Debt Notes). People fight the war and are paid in those Promises Not To Be Paid. People are robbed of their ability to make ends meet, to feed the Meat Grinder of War, and they are paid with the same fake money. People who need to produce in free markets can’t afford to hold onto currency, people who produce in free markets need currency to be current, active, moving, so people creating wealth don’t hold onto currency that is fake, counterfeit, and “depreciating,” at the moment. Speculators, War-Mongers, Central Banking Whores, and Slave Traders, on the other hand, can form a Political Party and pay themselves whatever they can squeeze out of their target subjects. Criminals love Summary Justice Court Systems of Counterfeit Justice. Criminals can issue orders to pay, to pay now, or go to jail. The opposite, the original, the genuine, the organic, Court System does not allow the issue of an order to pay, issued by anyone in government, nor does the opposite government power allow anyone to go to jail merely at the pleasure of a government agent. The organic government power demands that no action can be done to anyone without the say-so of everyone, unanimously, as represented in both grand and petit juries; according to the real (ancient) common law, not the counterfeit, summary justice, Common Law (™) that was then current in England. “In fact, 80 percent of the State Debt ends up in Boston, and 40 percent ends up in the hands of just 35 men, who turn out to be the powerhouses of the State Legislature, and also, one of them is the Governor himself.” So, central bankers, war-mongers, and Slave Traders (previously alluded to in this topic), redistribute wealth by creating a Legal Fiction, an all powerful fictional character, all the while these criminals pull the strings, move the levers, behind the curtain, and that evil beast gives legs to their false authority to “collect” anything they want at their pleasure, and if anyone dares to resist that aggressive force, those who resist will be made to pay even more, as an example of what happens to anyone who dares to step out of line. “ The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” 14th, so-called, Amendment to the Criminal Constitution of 1789. That is in your face, uncontroversial, mind control. You, they say, in writing no less, can’t even think about questioning your absolute obedience. On the other hand is real government power: “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.” U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788) Respublica v. Shaffer Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia February Sessions, 1788 |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Following is yet another historical record offered in Spooner’s Trial by Jury Essay. To those who have some cognizance of current affairs since Ruby Ridge, Waco, and a growing so-called Militia Movement, these words may offer some help along the lines of affecting an expedient, effective, just, remedy for the problem known as malfeasance in office, or in many other words, such as simple corruption. Spooner: Rapin, in his discourse on the “Origin and Nature of the English Constitution,” says: “There are but two things the Saxons did not think proper to trust their kings with; for being of like passions with other men, they might very possibly abuse them; namely, the power of changing the laws enacted by consent of the king and people; and the power of raising taxes at pleasure. From these two articles sprung numberless branches concerning the liberty and property of the subject, which the king cannot touch, without breaking the constitution, and they are the distinguishing character of the English monarchy. The prerogatives of the crown, and the rights and privileges of the people, flowing from the two fore-mentioned articles, are the ground of all the laws that from time to time have been made by unanimous consent of king and people. The English government consists in the strict union of the king’s prerogatives with the people’s liberties. But when kings arouse, as some there were, that aimed at absolute power, by changing the old, and making new laws, at pleasure; by imposing illegal taxes on the people; this excellent government being, in a manner, dissolved by these destructive measures, confusion and civil wars ensued, which some very wrongfully ascribe to the fickle and restless temper of the English.” - Rapin’s Preface to his History of England. Any collection of people anywhere in this area known collectively as the United States of America, can affect the expedient, effective, just, remedy at their pleasure. To fail to do so ensures, as a matter of course, inevitable escalations of violent confrontations. The topic is Voluntary Mutual Defense. The following offering is not offered as a distraction from the topic, so as to then change the topic to relative attributes or flaws of the characters involved in authorizing the next information media offered in context of this present stream of information. Title: No More Free Wacos: An Explication of the Obvious Addressed to Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States. Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 Excerpt: “If we are no longer under the rule of constitutional law but are merely subject to irreversible bureaucratic diktat and we do not fancy being railroaded in a patently unfair federal trial where expert witnesses are denied access to evidence, then our options when approached by ATF agents are rather limited. It is plain, in the absence of the right of a fair trial, that a target of ATF investigation has little to lose by resorting to the right of an unfair gunfight. This may be an unintended consequence of those cases. It is nonetheless real.” And another excerpt: “ There's still lots of vicious drug gangs, murderous career criminals and real terrorists out there to keep them busy without picking a fight with honest American gunowners who merely want to be left alone.” So there you have past experience moving to current experience in so many words. The following offers an alternative to rinse and repeat bloodbaths: The People's Panel The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941 Richard D. Younger Excerpt: "THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law." Additional information from that last source quoted: "They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places. “But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states.” That is already a huge wall of text, so for the next effort my intention at the moment is to move to a future step whereby the so-called Divine Right of Kings, with special powers over inferior subjects, is clarified with greater precision, and more importantly what happened in America after the people ended such nonsense, as the law-abiding volunteers took control of those prerogatives that were once the kings exclusive domain. The idea will be to glue these seemingly confusing sources of data into something useful, a how-to guide for volunteers seeking that just remedy so as to avoid inevitable escalating violence between the criminals in government and the actual people who abide by the law. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Man walks into a bar… Wait, I’m not Joe King. Actually that is a joke my dad told his 6 kids. Not the “Man walks in a bar” joke. Guy calls my dad asking for money to pay some nebulous debt. Dad says: “You must be Joe King.” No, that is not why I’m here to bother people with information. Man walks up to the BAR... A treatise on extraordinary legal remedies, embracing mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition by High, James L. (James Lambert), 1844-1898 A comparison of the writ of mandamus, as now used in England and America, with the writ of injuction, discloses certain striking points of resemblance as well as of divergence in the two writs. Both are extraordinary remedies, the one the principal extraordinary remedy of courts of equity, the other of courts of law, and both are granted only in extraordinary cases, where otherwise there courts would be powerless to administer relief. Both, too, are dependent to a certain extent upon the exercise of a wise judicial discretion, and are not grantable as of absolute right in all cases. It is only when we come to consider the object and purpose of the two writs that the most striking points of divergence are presented. An injunction is essentially a preventive remedy, mandamus a remedial one. The former is usually employed to prevent future injury, the latter to redress past grievances. The functions of an injunction are to restrain motion and to enforce inaction, those of a mandamus to set in motion and to compel action. In this sense an injunction may be regarded as a conservative remedy, mandamus as an active one. The former preserves matters in status quo, while the very object of the latter is to change the status of affairs and to substitute action for inactivity. The one is, therefore, a positive or remedial process, the other a negative or preventative one. And since mandamus is in no sense a preventive remedy, it can not take the place of an injunction, and will not be employed to restrain or prevent an improper interference with the rights of relators. Footnote: See further as to the distinctions here noted, People v. Inspectors of State Prison, 4 Mich.187; Attorney-General v. New Jersey R.& T. Co., 2 Green Ch.136; Washington University v. Green, 1 Md. Ch. 97; Blakemore v. Glamorganshire R. Co., 1 Myl. & K. 154; Crawford v. Carson, 35 Ark. 565; Fletcher v. Tuttle, 151 Ill. 41. Legg v. Mayor of Annapolis, 42 Md. 203. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
“I understand the difference between valid and invalid government, but I don't really care. The state ALWAYS becomes corrupt. That is its nature. There is no way to prevent it, except to never allow ANYONE to impose authority on anyone else. Most humans are sheep, so they're not going to do it themselves, and I sure as hell don't want to be cop of the world. So I'm going to live my life as I please, and the rest of the world can do what it will, since it will anyway.” Note in the above the mixing of terms. In the first sentence the word government is used to describe a process that the author knows (or understands) as both valid and invalid. The author does not care, but I’d like to know which process is valid, and which process is not valid? The same word is used for both opposites. 1. Government (valid) 2. Government (invalid) The same word is used to denote 2 opposites. Imagine trying to describe a process to someone who cares, whereby this process happens in time and place were some people consume other people for fun and profit, and instead of using the word slavery, or using the word cannibalism, the word used is the word government. Try as I might to describe a specific evil perpetrated by specific evil people, I am prevented from doing so because I use a word that means the exact opposite of the process (slavery, cannibalism, organized crime) I am attempting to describe with words. What about a simpler example? I try to describe, to someone who cares about good things, a good thing, such as a cure for scurvy. Suppose the one who cares to know about this good thing is suffering from scurvy. Scurvy can be seen as a process that consumes individuals who have a limited diet. In the attempt to describe the process of consuming food that prevents scurvy I use a word that means – to the one suffering from scurvy – the same thing as the current diet that causes the scurvy. Then while confronting this problem of failing to describing a scurvy preventing diet – all the scurvy victim hears is grog, grog, grog: his diet – there is yet another complication. The one suffering from a diet of grog also eats salted meat, so the conversation goes something like this: Me: “In your language do you have a word for a good diet?” Scurvy victim: “Grog” Me: “Good, then if you want to prevent scurvy you need grog.” Scurvy victim: “I don’t care about grog. Salted meat always goes bad.” Me: “You don’t want a good diet, you don’t care about it, so I’ll move onto someone who may want to prevent further damage done to them by scurvy. Thanks for your time.” I’m left wondering what salted meat means, why is salted meat introduced to the conversation that has to do with a good diet, and why would someone involve themselves (voluntarily?) with something that always goes bad? I won’t bother to ask for clarification, since I’ve been informed that this individual does not care. I probably misunderstood most – or all – of what this individual cared to offer as a message in a written language. Perhaps the language barrier is insurmountable. This is not a mystery. This is a predictable consequence resulting from a process known as counterfeiting. When counterfeiters decide to counterfeit they have in mind something good, such as free market currency, or accurate accountability, and in place of the good thing in mind these counterfeiters desire the power to consume people for pleasure or profit, and so these counterfeiters design a replacement for the good thing. The good thing is replaced with the opposite of the good thing. Out goes free market currency, and in place goes a money monopoly. Out goes accurate accountability, and in place goes a profitable monopoly. Example: “Once established as a tool that could be used by a monarch, it also establishes it as a tool for use by the people when they become the sovereign, as happened upon adoption of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.” Original URL: //www.constitution.org/eng/stat_quo_warranto_1290.html Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society Original date: 2014/3/8 — Last updated 2019/8/26 In history people died from scurvy and from criminals in fake government. In history people refused to care about treatments for scurvy and death by criminals counterfeiting government. Before England was turned from free markets, good government, England was for a time a sanctuary where people effectively governed themselves, and that history is well documented by many people including Lysander Spooner in his essay on The Trial by Jury. Example: (MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721 Notes on Magna Carta "Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.” Before fake government in England, as documented above, people were the government: sovereign individuals, each born with standing in natural law, then known as legem terrae, the law of the land, and the common law, with trial by the country, which is trial by jury. Then the criminals began to counterfeit law. Gone was accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, and in place was placed summary justice courts of plunder. Courts of law became courts of equity. Before equity there was exchequer. The list of fake names from fake government courts is long, a sordid history of counterfeiting good government: accurate accountability of the facts that matter in every case. I may move to mesne profits next. I may do that here. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime. On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor ever can exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist; that there is nothing for them to do, and that there is nothing that they can do. They are confessions that the governments exist for the punishment and prevention of acts that are, in their nature, simple impossibilities." Natural Law, Lysander Spooner, 1882 I was helped on this forum when a link was offered by someone on this forum, and the link was a collection of works by Spooner. This may appear to be a sidetrack from my original goal, and from my attempt to zero in on mesne profits. The original goal is to offer clear evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that government is - exclusively is - a voluntary association for mutual defense, as proven throughout history where, when, and how people remain free and at liberty. The problem with this goal is the simple fact that criminals have managed to counterfeit government in almost every place and almost every time to some degree or another along the same timeline as free people maintain liberty. Actual law, which is always a voluntary association, does not require documentation. Actual law exists whenever, and wherever, defense against harm is facilitated by any individual, or any group of individuals who cooperate - by agreement - to facilitate the same shared goal. Counterfeit government, on the other hand, depends upon a facade such as a sign from an all powerful entity, a tablet of commandments, a book of orders from the all powerful entity, orders that must be obeyed without question, whereby the counterfeiters construct a facade that is put in place of the individual counterfeiters who pull the strings from behind the facade. This is a simple principle known as deception, a framework from which to construct a more elaborate hoax. Simple fabricator, simple target to be fooled, simple employment of the fabrication upon the target, the simple fact that the target is deceived, and while the target is deceived, the simple fact that the target is in some way consumed factually, by one calorie at a time over a long period of time, or many calories all at once. A thief can employ the basic principle when yelling and pointing in a direction away from an intended crime scene, the thief yells “THIEF!” while pointing the finger, and as soon as people are captured into the hoax, looking in the direction pointed out by the thief, the thief swipes the prize, doing so undetected. A much more elaborate hoax is organized religion, and I found a prime example in a new book that cost me a pretty penny or two. That example will now be offered to those who may want to dive into this natural law, voluntary association, free market government, conceptualization offered in this thread. Before offering the next quote from my newly purchased book, I will attempt to reset the stage. The history of voluntary association did not start with the Saxons, but from those Saxons are proofs offered in Spooner’s work, showing a framework that worked, and within that voluntary association framework was something called trial by jury. Then the English adopted that voluntary association framework as documented in a work known as the Magna Carta. Clearly the people had the framework working in the form of independent trial juries consenting to, or not consenting to, any claim of authority claimed by anyone, anywhere, anytime. In other words the people, represented in their juries, were the judges of law, the judges of fact, the judges of any need for force of government unleashed upon any wrongdoer deemed a wrongdoer by the people themselves, not by the government as such. That was called the law, the law of the land, in Latin it was legem terrae, and it was known in English as the common law, the same terminology imported to America. The people volunteer to check any government power, to consent to any government suggestion offered by anyone in any position in government, and so long as the people volunteer to do so, so long will there be voluntary government power to resist corruption in government. One effective method of counterfeiting government in England was a fabricated authority known as Equity. Clearly in the literature there is a demarcation between either a court of law, where private prosecutors prosecute alleged wrongdoers before the country in a jury trial known as a trial by the country, or a Court of Equity where a government agent has already determined guilt and those found to be guilty by the government are processed for a fee. Those deemed guilty by the government are made to pay a fee to the government in an Equity Court. An Equity Court is a Summary JustUS Court. That battle between private prosecutors prosecuting alleged wrongdoers before the country in a court of law, and “jurisdiction” assumed instead by a Court of Equity (Summary Justice) was imported to America, as documented very well in Shays’s Rebellion, 1786 to 1787. In Shays’s Rebellion (so-called by the victors whose victory was “possession” by conquest) the battle between Law and Equity was clearly a battle won by Equity over Law, as was the case in England, which led to all that Empire Building, which included War with France, The Slave Trade, and so-called Opium Wars. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Change of venue: Individuals may commit a crime. Individuals may be currently committing a crime. Individuals may have committed a crime. Who in America decides what is or is not a crime? If the "government" arms an individual is that a crime? If the "government" disarms an individual is that a crime? If an individual arms an individual is that a crime? If an individual disarms an individual is that a crime? Did the "government" give anyone a right to defend themselves? If a gun, or a government, is used to perpetrate a crime, is it reasonable to conclude that the gun, or the government, is guilty of the crime? Who decides if someone is guilty of any crime, anywhere, anytime, according to common laws of free people in liberty? Who decides if someone is guilty of any crime, anywhere, anytime, according to cult members who blindly follow obediently any order dictated by a legal fiction? “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Which individuals are guilty of the crime of infringing the right to keep and bear arms, if in fact doing so has been determined lawfully as a crime? “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.” U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788) Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia February Sessions, 1788 |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Having taken a long break in this effort to spell out Voluntary Mutual Defense it may now be worth the effort to recap before introducing a long quote from a Law History book from Cambridge. The quote from The Cambridge History of Law in America spells out the already spelled out falsehood that I call dogma from members of the cult of Might Makes Right. Clearly there are 2 Parties in conflict throughout the history of mankind as such: The Criminal Party The Party formed in defense against the Criminal Party The Criminal Party has learned a long time ago that they gain a tactical advantage when they counterfeit the opposition Party. When the Criminal Party poses as the Defense Party, the Defense Party is thereby rendered defenseless in fact as demonstrated very well throughout the history of mankind. Why then is it time and again apparently so easy for the Criminal Party to get away with this obvious fraud? Here is where it pays to learn the Criminal Party dogma, as previously offered in a quote from the introduction in a book by Nicola Machiavelli titled The Prince. Here again: "Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual." The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction) The Criminal Party members know how to craft a false message that projects their malignant thoughts onto their targeted victims, and that projection of false evil projected by evil people onto innocent people - so as to falsely justify intended criminal acts - constitute the basic tactical advantage previously spelled out. The targeted victims are misdirected to a point at which the targeted victims defend their enslavement in a collective manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome. An actual member of the actual Defense Party will be violently destroyed by dupes who are caught by the fundamental lie, dupes who are caught and thereby inspired to attack anyone who dares to tell the truth about the fundamental lie. The fundamental lie is restated time and again - various forms - throughout history, just as it was done in the quote from The Prince. This now is a lead-in to another restatement of that fundamental lie, where the restatement of the fundamental lie is retold in a book claimed to be a history of law in America. Before quoting it may be worth the effort to put this piece properly in place on the puzzling map of the ongoing struggle between the 2 distinct - opposing - parties. While the Defense Party (Liberty Party) is effectively rendered powerless by the Offense Party (Criminal Party), one would think that a little truth might go a long way, but that depends entirely on each individual member of either Party, and only when individuals are capable of waking up enough other individuals in the Liberty Party will there then be a collective sum total of individuals who are armed with enough facts that matter (the truth) to constitute an actual (rather than a counterfeit) defense. The Liberty Party also produces messages that are published for consumption by members of the Liberty Party, and these messages are opposite the messages produced by members of the Criminal Party. An example in stark contrast to the message in The Prince (introduction) is the Golden Rule, a message crafted to inspire actual just thinking, which then may be followed by actual just action. Another example in stark contrast to the projecting of evil being projected by evil people onto their intended - innocent - victims is a document written by a member of the Criminal Party, as that member of the Criminal Party attempts to tell the truth, to confess, and to turn from the Criminal Party to the Liberty Party instead. That document goes by the name Declaration of Independence. Clearly documented in human history at the time of what became known as the American Revolutionary War is the Criminal Party lies starkly contrasted by the Liberty Party facts that matter in that case where armies of people polarized by evil intend to cause injury to armies of people polarized by the facts that matter in that case. That is my lead-in to the long quote that I think is worth the effort to transcribe from a book, placing the message in digital form, which can then be cut and pasted by anyone who cares to know these facts that matter in this case. There is more to this puzzle piece because the two sides are always gaining or losing power as the lies infect the minds of individuals who would otherwise be polarized in such a way as to work effectively at the necessary work required to keep the criminals from hurting themselves and their victims in time and place. The purpose of law - actual not counterfeit - is to deter crime before it ripens in the minds of individual people, and that is accomplished by telling or finding the truth, and spreading that truth that matters in any case; caveat emptor. Who claims Divine Right to Rule arbitrarily, and it is worth the effort to dispel such falsehoods? The Cambridge History of Law in America Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815) Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins “Virginia was the clearest instance of a land of conquest, but it was by no means the only one. The early charters and letters patent are all liberally scattered with references to conquests and occupations, which for some jurists at least, seem to have been taken to be the same thing. Occupation, declared the most influential of them, Sir Edward Coke, “signifieth a putting out of a man’s freehold in time of warre...occupare is sometimes taken to conquer.” “The initial claim that America was a land of conquest, was not, however, made in isolation. It was but one, of which the annexation of India by the British Crown in 1858 was to be perhaps the last, of a long series of “conquests,” some more obviously so than others: the conquest of Wales, completed in 1536; the conquest, or at least the seizure, of the Channel Islands (although this was not completed until 1953); the conquest of the Isle of Man in 1406; the prolonged conquests of Ireland between 1175 and 1603; and the initial attempt at union with Scotland or of the subordination of Scotland to an English Parliament, which was to become one of the issues at stake in the Civil War, in 1603. For more than two centuries before the first colonies were established on the eastern seaboard of North America, England has been in a state of constant and determined expansion. It was to remain more or less uninterruptedly in this state until World War I. "In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering" the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them. “Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settled and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason." "In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace." "Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World , both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both , as soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner." “By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which , at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage." “Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For if America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law.” That is a puzzle piece on the war map between lies and crime on one side and truth and justice on the other side, and there are clearly defined borders between the two parties. I felt the need to stop quoting mid stream, as the clearly defined borders between the two parties are only clear to those who are solidly on either side. To those who are caught in the middle there is darkness, confusion, misdirection, and defenselessness; a powerless state, and a ripeness for exploitation. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Note please the clearly demarcated sides as members of each side define the meanings of words for their side alone, and this tells an important story about Liberty versus that which opposes Liberty. The word “civil” defined originally by human beings means the development of life from a negative, base, savage, barbaric, bad, form of life that is incapable of adaptation (and therefore destined to suffer extinction without the capacity to adapt) to a positive, principled, cultured, peaceful, good, form of life that is capable of adaptation and therefore capable of surviving as nature demands that capacity to adapt or suffer extinction. The original meaning of a word such as the word “civil” in English is the same original meaning of any word intending to convey the same original meaning in any human language. To mistake the map for the terrain is a common error worthy of note. To know instead that the terrain is what it is, and to know that the terrain is not the map, is a fact that matters in any case where someone might be making the mistake of mistaking the map for the terrain. The terrain is the terrain. The map is the map. The terrain is not the map. The map is not the terrain. The word is not the intended meaning. The intended meaning is not the word. The word “civil” was used in the quote from the Law History of America book to mean the opposite of the original meaning. Instead of a positive improvement - an adaptation - of life from barbaric to civil, the word “civil” was used to mean a move from peace to war, or from civilized co-existence for mutual defense to barbaric enslavement of innocent people for the profit of a few investors who invest in the extraction of life from their own kind. In order for the strategic advantage of falsehood to affect the targeted victims to their detriment the targeted victims must be made to confuse the map for the terrain, and to accomplish this goal the evil people must distract their victims, occupy the minds of their victims, to a point at which the victims are then incapable of accurately discriminating the stark difference between the original meaning of the word, which is a good meaning, and the counterfeit meaning of the word which is a bad meaning. Civil good: Accurately account for the facts that matter in any case of controversy anywhere, anytime, involving any number of people, and provide for a just remedy, so as to then be less occupied in violent conflict among members of the same species, and instead of that condition of “perpetual war,” the human species can focus their powers on surviving against the forces of nature. Civil bad: Transfer all political (and therefore economic) control from those who produce excess wealth to the worst criminal individuals currently living, and allow those criminals to run amok on the planet enslaving and destroying everything that pleases them anywhere, anytime. Why is it difficult to see that the original meaning of the word is opposite the meaning being used by the criminals and their victims? Or What is Civil Law? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
As easy or as difficult it may be to know the stark opposites of the 2 Parties always at war in human nature the members of each group meet in combat in time and in place, so there are ways to document - and therefore know - precisely what constitutes either party. Times where battles are fought are important for many reasons such as the proximity of a battle to someone having a vested interest in those specific battles. A battle yesterday, today, or a pending battle that is planned for tomorrow can be more important to some people compared to a battle that happened over 200 years ago. Places where battles are fought are also important for many reasons also for the reason of proximity to someone having a vested interest in those battles. A battle where someone is standing is relatively more significant to the one in battle compared to a battle on the other side of the planet. Another important point to understand about the places where battles are fought is the point at which people claim ownership of land, such as for example a claim called Allodial Title, and for another example, there is a claim called Absolute Dominion. I did not make up either of those two examples of claims that concern ownership of land, other people have done so, and I can benefit from their work, as it was them who earned the credit for having created these claims of ownership of land. If I want to use their words I don’t have to pay them rent for doing so, and if I want to transfer their words right here and now, on this forum, then I don’t need permission from them to do so. What follows are examples of people documenting the meanings for both Allodial Title and Absolute Dominion. The first example is now taken from that Cambridge History of Law in America, and this example offered is a continuation of the words quoted in my previous post, so the words now are what followed the words previously quoted. The message context is telling a story, and the point of this is to illuminate the stark contrast between messages from the Criminal Party as those messages can be compared with messages from the Liberty Party that are specific to land ownership. “It was precisely because all conquered territories were a part of the royal demesne that the monarch was able to grant chargers to the colonies in the first place. For however empty those charters might have been considered to some, they were indisputably concessions made by the Crown. Charters, wrote Thomas Hobbes, “are Donations of the Soveraign; and not Lawes but exemptions from Law. The phrase of a Law is Jubeo, Injugo, I Command and Enjoyn; the phrase of a Charter is Dedi, Concessi, I have Given I have Granted.” If this were so, and Hobbes is here starting a legal commonplace, then in one quite specific sense the English colonies had feudal foundations. Most of the lands in America had originally been granted in “free and common socage” as of the manor of East Greenwich in Kent. This formula allowed for what were, in effect, allodial grants, which derived from a contract between the Crown and the landowner but at the same time avoided the duties of feudal tenure - such as the need to provide auxilium et consilium, in effect military assistance to the sovereign. In this way the colonies were both free and unencumbered while at the same time remaining legally part of the royal demesne, and every part of the terra regis had to form a constitutive part of a royal manor in England, Land in Ireland, for instance, was held as of Carregrotian, or of Trim or of Limerick or of the Castle of Dublin, and when Charles II made over Bombay to the East India Company this land too was granted in “free and common socage” of the manor of East Greenwich. In the proprietorial colonies, by contrast, a large area of land was granted to a single individual, who then allocated lands more or less as he pleased. But even here the Crown still maintained that it possessed the ultimate rights of ownership and that it could therefore dispose of the territory in question as it wished. (The Spanish Crown, by contrast, although often represented as the most despotic and centralizing of the European monarchies, only ever made claims to exercise property rights in several limited areas which were described as being under “the King’s head,” or cabeza del rey.)” In context the word allodial above adds the words “free and common socage,” and “free and unencumbered.” Here is another example of what people mean when people use the word allodial: “In England, this law was derived from feudal tenures in real property as held by a succession of what were called tenants-in-chief and mesne (intermediate) lords or a pyramid of proprietors holding from the Ring on down. These tenures, however, never prevailed in the American colonies, as the Revolution proved. Instead, the land titles (not tenures) in the American states were called "allodial" (see Chapter 36 of the laws of 1787 of New York State as a good example), which meant that they were not, as in England, held from a principal original overlord (Ring or Crown), but each was owned outright by the proprietor. These are the same titles that prevailed in England prior to the coming of William of Normandy. The holders of them were called "roturiers." COMMON LAW, STANDARD SPECIE & ALLODIAL TITLE https://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/common-law-standard-specie-allodial-title.106912/ Now contrast the information offered above with the following message taken from a web page which publishes the notes taken during the Federal Congress meeting to discuss the publishing of a Declaration of Independence, 1775. “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:” Who has heard of the term Indian Giver? How about the term Receiving Stolen Property? One more reference to these opposing claims of land ownership: “To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king : “The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war—a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry. “That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old. “Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry. “Townships, from twenty to thirty thousand acres of land, shall be laid out and appropriated to such of you as will come over to us, in the following manner. “[Every captain who shall bring with himself forty men from the service of the enemy, before the first day of September, 1778, shall receive eight hundred acres of good woodland; also four oxen, one bull, three cows, and four hogs. If this captain is accompanied with his lieutenant, the lieutenant shall receive four hundred acres of woodland, also two oxen, two cows, and four hogs. “[Every sergeant who shall accompany his captain shall receive two hundred acres of land, two oxen, one bull, one cow, and three hogs. “[Every soldier who shall accompany his captain shall receive fifty acres of land, one ox, one cow, and two hogs. “[If a lieutenant, or other commissioned officer under the rank of a captain, shall bring off from his company twenty five men, he shall receive six hundred acres of land, two oxen, two cows, and four hogs. “[Every sergeant, or non-commissioned officer who shall bring off parties of men, shall receive an additional bounty of twenty acres of land for every man so brought off. And every soldier, who shall come off without a commissioned or non-commissioned officer, shall receive fifty acres of land; and if he brings off his arms and accoutrements, an additional bounty of twenty dollars. “Both Officers and Soldiers who shall come off together, shall be at Liberty either to separate themselves, or to unite for the purpose of affording to each other Mutual Succor in the Establishments they make, and to form themselves into Townships after the Model of many German Settlements in various Parts of these States, which Exhibit an Example of that Happiness which is now offered to those who are wise Enough to accept of it. “[Such officers and soldiers shall be at Liberty immediately to employ themselves in the settlement of their farms, without being obliged to do any military duty; and they shall receive rations in proportion to their rank for the space of six weeks. “[The stock hereby offered shall be given to such officers and soldiers as shall actually settle on the lands respectively granted to them. “Such of the officers and non-commissioned officers as choose to enter into the military line, shall receive an additional rank in detached corps, which shall be formed of native Germans of those who now reside in America; which corps shall not be employed but with their own consent in any other service than that of guards at a distance from the enemy, or in garrison upon the western frontier. “Such of you as are skilled in manufactures, over and above these lands and other articles, will find riches in prosecuting your occupations, the necessaries of life being very cheap in proportion to the price of manufactures, and the demand for them is so great, that every mechanick will find full employment. Some of you have had an opportunity of observing the truth of these assertions, and will doubtless inform their countrymen and acquaintance of these facts. “We have hitherto met you in the field of battle, with hostile minds, urged on by the great principle of self-defense; yet in those instances, where the fortune of war hath delivered any of your countrymen into our hands, we appeal to them that our enmity hath ceased the moment they were disarmed; and we have treated them more like citizens than prisoners of war. We now address you as part of the great family of mankind, whose freedom and happiness we most earnestly wish to promote and establish. “Distain, then, to continue the instruments of frantick ambition and lawless power. Feel the dignity and importance of your nature. Rise to the rank of free citizens of free states. Desist from the vain attempt to ravage and depopulate a country you cannot subdue, and accept from our munificence what can never be obtained from our fears. We are willing to receive you with open arms into the bosom of our country. Come, then, and partake of the blessings we tender to you in sincerity of heart. “In the name of these sovereign, free, and independent states we promise and engage to you that great privilege of man, the free and uninterrupted exercise of your religion, complete protection of your persons from injury, the peaceable possessions of the fruits of your honest industry, the absolute property in the soil granted to you to defend, unless you shall otherwise dispose of it, to your children and your children's children for ever. “Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, who have vacant lands, to lay off with as much expedition as possible, a sufficient quantity of lands to answer the purposes expressed in the foregoing address; for which lands no charge is to be made against the United States.” Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 10 Which side is the side that affords each individual the freedom to earn a good living by using a portion of unoccupied land, and which side lies to get enough control over their victims to then be in a position to steal everything that can be produced by the subject of that form of robbery? It may not be an arbitrary employment of English words (or Latin words for that matter) to label a process with the following words: The Law of the Land (legem terrae). As Spooner points out another lie about “feudal times,” these words here document a similar battle between regular people getting along and finding ways to facilitate their mutual defense, and those who threaten that peace with lies, false claims, threats of aggressive violence, and displays of horrid, torturous, aggressive, massive, violence. “The authority of a Saxon monarch was not more considerable. The Saxons submitted not to the arbitrary rule of princes. They administered an oath to their sovereigns, which bound them to acknowledge the laws, and to defend the rights of the church and people; and if they forgot this obligation, they forfeited their office. In both countries, a price was affixed on kings, a fine expiated their murder, as well as that of the meanest citizen; and the smallest violation of ancient usage, or the least step towards tyranny, was always dangerous, and often fatal to them.” Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852 In time (1775) and in place (America) there was a battle over claims of ownership. For a very short period of time, in many places all over the world at that time, people afforded other people the power to earn a good living. In order to do so people had to deal with the Criminal Party. There never was and there never is a true choice offered by the members of the Criminal Party, that is the price of membership in their cult. Members of that cult, as a rule, lie. In order to be a member in that cult one must pay that price. They will “give” you something you already have, and then they will take from you the power you have to hold them to account for their lies. I think that it ought to be clear that one side affords everyone their free, unencumbered, cost-less, access to the lawful process to find a just remedy concerning any conflict of any kind, including conflicting claims of ownership, and the other side, as a rule, affords no one but themselves anything, and those criminals on that side, as a rule, hand their victims a bill to be paid to the criminals, to be paid by the victims, for the cost of enslaving everyone. "The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor." George Mason, 1787 “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Current Published Criminal Party Thought Crime Dogma So now there are choices to make concerning those who wish to volunteer their 2 cents in asking and answering two questions offered. 1. What is Civil Law? 2. What is Criminal Law? Next I wish to return to the Roger Roots book for a competitive message that can help answer those questions. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I just stumbled upon a work that will tax me as I employ it for cause. The cause being lawful duty, and the cost of the tax will be time and energy that could otherwise be spent enjoying those enjoyable things that are much less taxing. My aim was to borrow from Roger Roots' book: The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots Page 40 Private Prosecutors "For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action. “Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury." So...the government in America was whatever the local population (people living on an area of the planet, not on water, therefore on specific places of land specifically called America) create and maintain. The law was Indian where the Indians were, then it was a combination of Indian and English, French, and Spanish, where they were, and then it was revolutionized by two opposing methods into what it was when “private prosecutors” did what they did to create and maintain the law as described in the words of Roger Roots, and all the references (quotes, documents, records, publications) employed by Roger Roots in that book. Private prosecutors gained access to the law process and private prosecutors prosecuted cases at law, not in an Equity Court, but at law. Law was law, Equity was not law. There at that time were clear distinctions, demarcations, differences, segregation, between what is law, and what is not law: what is equity. My aim was to zero in on the following: “Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim.” Civil can mean anything to anyone one moment, and then - apparently - the same individual could use the word civil to mean the opposite meaning the next moment. Civil law could mean English (criminal) stooges working for a (criminal) Dictator finding ways to (falsify) justify the wholesale slaughter of anyone who does not cower and beg at the feet of the Emperor and his loyal servants, while enslaving all who do bow down and lick those demonic boots. Civil law can merely mean an adaptive process by which peaceful people agree to solve any controversy of any kind, anywhere, and any time, while expending the least cost to anyone while reaching for that agreeable remedy to the disagreeable controversy at hand. Civil law can be “enjoined” (commingled, confused, annexed, or otherwise unjustly combined) with Criminal law, as is often the case when the criminals take over, as the criminals - as a rule - make criminals out of everyone, all the time, just ask them, and recall the warnings about them: caveat emptor, and those trojan horse gifts from Greeks. I thought to find and pass on - in context - that demarcation line between misdemeanor and felony too, but for now I forgot the reference so I will hazard the use of my own unauthorized - and often criticized - words. A felony at one time was someone understood to be at war with society, someone akin to a mad dog, someone running amok on the playground slaughtering children, the best and brightest along with those even less able to defend themselves. The cost of dealing with people at war with society - felons - was paid for by each victim in turn as these criminals went inexorably from victim to victim, until theoretically there were no more victims, certainly not without some form of individual, or some form of organized, defense of some merit. What is criminal law? So...I found this book along the way, and I think it may help: The Practice of Courts-leet, and Courts-baron, Containing Full and Exact Directions for Holding the Said Courts,... – Sir William Scroggs https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=1gjs0GnQNxoC&rdid=book-1gjs0GnQNxoC&rdot=1 Please note that my viewpoint is such that the true law is necessary, it is natural too. The counterfeit law is such that the mad dogs gain the most power the soonest as they wade through the people like a mad dog wading through all the children on the playground. They do that while they claim to own everything, everybody, and they also claim that they alone can save everyone from themselves. As absurd as that sounds, it is true, and I don't make this up, I am holding an accurate accounting of the facts that matter. So the questions then are: What is the true civil law? What is the true criminal law? What is counterfeit civil law? What is counterfeit criminal law? And is it a good idea to know the difference? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The Practice of Courts-leet, and Courts-baron: Containing Full and Exact Directions for Holding the Said Courts,... Sir William Scroggs January 1, 1728 E. & R. Nutt, and R. Gosling “The Steward may impose a Fine upon one who is elected Constable by the Jury, “ Note the date 1728. At some point after Magna Carta (1215) the nature of law decidedly turned from a just nature to a criminal nature as “jurisdiction” shifted out of the hands of the people themselves (juries, sheriffs, and whatever words are used to mean volunteers volunteering to help secure mutual defense, holding to an accurate accounting of who is a victim and who is a criminal), and “jurisdiction” was taken (by criminal means) by people who counterfeit the law power (finding the truth in any matter), as the criminal elements begin to construct and maintain counterfeit versions of Courts. The original courts (natural law) were made up of the people themselves, selected randomly, and these law officers were jurors. What was the extent of the lawful powers of these jurors in their jurisdictions? There above in quotes is an example of the lawful powers of these jurors at a time when the counterfeiting of the law was already working to a great extent, as measured by claims of counterfeit authority in opposition to the authority already recognized as authority commanded by those jurors. Jurors are representatives of the people as a whole, as confirmed by the fact that jurors were selected randomly. The power of selecting jurors is thereby taken out of the hands of special interest groups, and the power of selecting jurors is given to chance, or is a power given up by any number of people less than the whole number of people: The Public. The power given up by any special interest group (such as The Government), or the accuser, or the defendant, is a power given to more than just chance. The lottery of jury selection is authorized as a known advancement in science. It is not necessary to place a defendant before the whole country, and it is not necessary to place a prosecutor (accuser) before the whole country to prove guilt to the whole country, and it is not necessary to assemble the whole country in a trial to then demand a unanimous decision made by the whole country of people, in order to then unleash the violent actions of law upon presumed to be innocent accused defendants, or to ask for a fine. It is not necessary to ask the whole country to assemble for the purpose of finding a fact in a lawful case. It is possible to find what the whole country (The Public) demands for justice in any case by assembling representative samples of the whole country, but to do so there can be no “jury stacking,” or “packing a jury,” which is a subset of “jury tampering.” If a portion of The Public, a side, a half, a majority, a minority, a fourth, a segment, a gang, a corporation, or other division of the whole, or something less than the whole, takes it upon themselves to hand pick those who will be on or off the jury, then obvious bias is in place, which thereby counterfeits the will of The Public, turning the will of The Public into a Special Interest Group using government power to perpetrate an obvious crime added to whichever is the alleged crime in any case. The government for the people as a whole becomes a weapon in the hands of criminals. The capacity of the people to defend themselves voluntarily becomes the capacity of a segment of the people gaining absolute power over their defenseless victims. What powers (jurisdiction) are commanded by jurors in any case, anywhere, anytime, on this planet? Jurors in the information quoted - apparently - commanded the power to elect a Constable. Why would jurors elect a Constable? Why would true jurors elect a Constable? Why would counterfeit jurors be allowed to, or told to, elect a Constable? As late in the game as this document is dated, it may be important to note that the process (the game) of counterfeiting true law, doing so piecemeal, one small step at a time, is - the process of counterfeiting is - most like the original at the start of the crime, and least like the original at the point where the original is no longer visible to the public. At the start of the crime of counterfeiting government power (voluntary mutual defense through accurate accountability of the facts that matter in every case) the people commanded all jurisdiction civil and criminal, no matter what meaning some imposter might claim as the meaning of the word civil or criminal. The people, not the government, determine any fact at issue in any case. That was at the start of the counterfeiting job done by the criminals, and that was still visible to the public as late as 1787 in Pennsylvania: “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.” U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia February Sessions, 1788 Previous to the confidence scheme imposed by a criminal force, the people, in a jury, elected a Constable. After the confidence scheme imposed by a criminal force, the criminals routinely stack juries, pack juries, lie to juries, coerce juries, threaten juries, extort juries, own juries, control juries, tamper with juries, bypass juries, torture presumed to be innocent people into false confessions known as “plea bargains,” and profit exhorbitantly while counterfeiting the anceint power of law that is commanded by the people themselves. Is it the Grand Jury or the Trial Jury in the Court Leet of England 1728 whereby the people elect a Constable, and to what purpose in either case? Possible reasons: A Grand Jury (independent individuals moved into action - cause - by the need to keep the peace for The Public as a whole) may elect a Constable to issue a subpoena to a reluctant witness, such as an accused individual mentioned in an affidavit placed into the record by a victim or a witness to a crime. Is that true? If true it is as true now, as it was when it was generally understood to be true; understood by The Public at large. A Trial Jury (independent individuals moved into action - cause - by the need to keep the peace for The Public as a whole) may elect a Constable to issue a subpoena to a reluctant witness, such as an accused individual mentioned in an affidavit placed into the record by a victim or witness to a crime. Is that true? If true it is as true now, as it was when it was generally understood to be true; understood by The Public at large. How dumb is the The Public at large now? How did The Public at large generally become so dumb? Anyone, anywhere, is randomly or otherwise elected to serve on a Grand or Trial Jury and they are well informed about their legal, lawful, authorized, justified, moral, powers in any case, anywhere, anytime, and they are not the government, per se. I am someone. So, theoretically, and not conspiratorially theoretic as in Conspiracy Theory, I (or anyone else) can imagine commanding this lawful power being offered in these words that have specific meaning, while at the same time these words can be misconstrued to mean the opposite: counterfeit. Theoretically it is humanly possible to imagine a lawful county of republican nature (res-publica means The Public Thing) whereby a lawful Grand Jury is constituted out of independent people (not controlled by the government), and these people agree by some manner to present a member of the government with a court date. Why would anyone start sweeping at the bottom step on a very long stairway? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The Practice of Courts-leet, and Courts-baron: Containing Full and Exact Directions for Holding the Said Courts,... Sir William Scroggs January 1, 1728 E. & R. Nutt, and R. Gosling “The Steward may impose a Fine upon one who is elected Constable by the Jury, “ Note the date 1728. At some point after Magna Carta (1215) the nature of law decidedly turned from a just nature to a criminal nature as “jurisdiction” shifted out of the hands of the people themselves (juries, sheriffs, and whatever words are used to mean volunteers volunteering to help secure mutual defense, holding to an accurate accounting people who are in fact victims and holding to an accurate accounting people who injured those victims), and “jurisdiction” was taken (by criminal means) by people who counterfeit the law power. Criminals at war with society construct and maintain counterfeit versions of Courts. These counterfeit courts were enforcement arms of despotic criminals, and in order to sell these tribunals of extortion to the people who already commanded lawful - common law - courts, the criminals had to resort to various forms of deception, like baiting a mouse trap with cheese. The original courts (natural law) were made up of the people themselves, selected randomly, and these law officers were jurors. What was the extent of the lawful powers of these jurors in their jurisdictions? Who gave them these lawful powers? Did the people accept these lawful powers? Did the people use these lawful powers effectively to protect and serve the public as a whole? There above in quotes is an example of the lawful powers of these jurors at a time when the counterfeiting of the law was already working to a great extent, as measured by claims of counterfeit authority in opposition to the authority already recognized as authority commanded by those jurors. Already in 1728, the despotic criminal counterfeiters of law were claiming false jurisdiction in an effort to extort the general population, to pay “protection” payments to the organizing mob of criminals. Jurors are representatives of the people as a whole, as confirmed by the fact that jurors were selected randomly. The power of selecting jurors is thereby taken out of the hands of special interest groups, and the power of selecting jurors is given to chance, or is a power given up by any number of people less than the whole number of people: The Public. The power given up by any special interest group, such as an angry mob, a mob of criminals, the government, the accuser, or the defendant, is a power given to more than just chance. Note here the voluntary nature of giving up, rather than taking by force, fraud, or any criminal, aggressive means, the power to decide who decides what is law or not law. Each private interest group, assembled for private interests, give up the power to decide what is a fact at law or what is counterfeit law, and each private individual in each private group gives that power to The Public, through a randomly selected jury. No one gives that power to a private group, but private groups, called criminal organizations, take that power in fact. Each individual gives up their individual power to convict a felon of the crime of being at war with society, and that power to lawfully convict someone is put in the hands of a lottery. While each individual retains their individual power to set someone free on their own authority. This fact that matters was pointed out during the effort to convince King John of the need to sign the Magna Carta. The country, not the government, must unanimously decide on proof of guilt proven in a court of law (trial by jury, trial by the country), and any individual in the country - randomly selected to be on a jury - was given the power to decide that proof of guilt was not proven, in fact: set the accused free. The government (a despotic King) signed the document which recorded these facts that matter concerning our ancient law power. The lottery of jury selection is authorized as a known advancement in science. Just as it is a known advancement to sterilize medical instruments, to avoid infection, it is a known advancement to avoid despotism by giving the power of lawful authority to the public as a whole, done so through random selection of jurors. Giving lawful authority to an independent jury - who represent The Public as a whole - effectively removes despotic power from criminals who counterfeit government power. It is not necessary to place a defendant before the whole country, and it is not necessary to place a prosecutor (accuser) before the whole country to prove guilt to the whole country, and it is not necessary to assemble the whole country in a trial to then demand a unanimous decision from the whole country of people, in order to then unleash the violent actions - the force - of law upon presumed to be innocent accused defendants, who are thereby found guilty. It is not necessary to tax the whole country of people at once to find guilt in a civil case, to then ask the guilty for a fine, if the one who is guilty decides to do what is prescribed in order to return under the protection of lawful order. It is not necessary to ask the whole country to assemble for the purpose of finding a fact in a lawful case. Random samples have been proven to be accurate representations of the whole, and this knowledge found through science is useful when people decide that facts are valuable. When people decide that falsehood is valuable, then people voluntarily give up their power to defend themselves. One path clearly moves toward prosperity as people remain at liberty, and the other path invariably moves toward hell on earth: subsidized slavery of everyone by everyone. It is possible to find what the whole country (The Public) demands for justice in any case by assembling representative samples of the whole country, but to do so there can be no jury “stacking,” or “packing,” which is a subset of jury “tampering.” If a portion of The Public, a faction, a side, a half, a majority, a minority, a fourth, a segment, a gang, a corporation, a mob, or other division of the whole, or something less than the whole, takes it upon themselves to handpick those who will be on or off the jury, then obvious bias is in place, which thereby counterfeits the will of The Public, turning the will of The Public into a Special Interest Group using government power to perpetrate an obvious crime added to whichever is the alleged crime in any case. The government for the people as a whole becomes a weapon in the hands of criminals. Even if the counterfeiters who falsely claim to speak for “society” (The Public as a whole) have good intentions during their effort to falsify the actual will of the people, the power gained by this deception - if it is effective - will inevitably corrupt the people who gain this arbitrary power. The capacity of the people to defend themselves voluntarily becomes the capacity of a segment of the people gaining absolute power over their defenseless victims. Why would reasonable people ever allow such an obvious crime against nature to begin, let alone ripen, and then rot? Why would reasonable people ever plant this cancer in the social body on purpose? Why would people of sound mind and body ever give up their lawful power for mutual defense and instead agree to be subjected to whatever dictates are issued by the worst human animals that pollute the human gene pool, at their exclusive pleasure? What powers (jurisdiction) are commanded by jurors in any case, anywhere, anytime, on this planet? Jurors in the information quoted - apparently - commanded the power to elect a Constable. Why would true jurors elect a Constable? Why would counterfeit jurors be allowed to, or told to, elect a Constable, if a criminal dictated an order to be obeyed by a counterfeit jury? That document reporting juries selecting Constables is dated (1728), and it may be important to note that the process of counterfeiting true law, doing so piecemeal is - the process of counterfeiting is - most like the original at the start of the crime, and least like the original at the point where the original is no longer visible to the public. The true lawful process commanded by the people themselves, in liberty, is as it is, works as it does before the first step is taken to counterfeit that natural, lawful, process: voluntary mutual defense. Then one step toward despotism - counterfeit law - is taken. Then another step is taken. Before Magna Carta (1215) the ancient law included voluntary sheriffs, voluntary jurors, and presumably voluntary prosecutors, and voluntary magistrates, or justices of the peace, or whatever words convey the meaning necessary to designate a volunteer who merits, is credited with or earns the authority to remind the people of the true nature of the process as the process proceeds from the crime scene to the determination by the jury (the country) of any fact in each case. Where does history show how the criminals begin to counterfeit the true law process? The counterfeiting process has occurred before written documentation was generally done, and this bit of information is well documented in the work by Lysander Spooner: Trial by Jury. At the start of the crime of counterfeiting government power (voluntary mutual defense through accurate accountability of the facts that matter in every case), the people commanded all jurisdiction civil and criminal, no matter what meaning some imposter might claim as the meaning of the word civil or criminal. The people, not the government, determine any fact at issue in any case. That means that The People, in case after case, determine what civil means, or what criminal means, in fact. That means, clearly, that a group - less than the whole - such as the government, an angry mob, a majority, a minority, a corporation, a town, a city, a county, a state, a federation of states, or even a despotic Nation-State Legal Fiction Angry Mob of Criminals, does not determine - lawfully - what civil means or what the word criminal means in fact. The determination of fact - in any case - was visible to the public at large at the start of the counterfeiting job done by the criminals, and that method of determining fact - done by the people themselves, not the government - was still visible to the public as late as 1787 in Pennsylvania: “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.” U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia February Sessions, 1788 Previous to the confidence scheme imposed by a criminal force, the people, in a jury, elected a Constable, as reported in the 1728 Courts-leet and Courts-baron document. As the confidence scheme imposed by a criminal force began, the criminals began to stack juries, to pack juries, to lie to juries, to coerce juries, to threaten juries, to extort juries, to claim ownership of juries, to control juries, to tamper with juries, to bypass juries, to torture presumed to be innocent people into false confessions known as “plea bargains,” and to profit exorbitantly while counterfeiting the ancient power of law that is commanded by the people themselves. Each step of the way was facilitated by individual people who chose to ignore each step toward despotism, choosing apathy instead of duty. Is it the Grand Jury or the Trial Jury in the Court Leet of England 1728 whereby the people elect a Constable, and to what purpose in either case? Possible reasons: A Grand Jury or independent individuals moved into action - a cause to act - by the need to keep the peace for The Public as a whole may elect a Constable to issue a subpoena to a reluctant witness, such as an accused individual mentioned in an affidavit placed into the record by a victim or a witness to a crime. Is that true? If it is true, then it is as true now as it was when it was generally understood to be true; understood by the Public at large. A Trial Jury or independent individuals moved into action - a cause to act - by the need to keep the peace for The Public as a whole may elect a Constable to issue a subpoena to a reluctant witness, such as an accused individual mentioned in an affidavit placed into the record by a victim or witness to a crime. Is that true? If true it is as true now as it was when it was generally understood to be true; understood by the Public at large. How dumb is The Public at large now? How did The Public at large generally become so dumb? Who would want to dumb down the public, rendering them defenseless? Anyone, anywhere, is randomly or otherwise elected to serve on a Grand or Trial Jury and they are well informed about their legal, lawful, authorized, justified, moral powers in any case, anywhere, anytime, and they are not the government, per se. I am someone. So, theoretically, and not conspiratorially theoretic as in Conspiracy Theory, I (or anyone else) can imagine commanding this lawful power being offered in these words that have specified meaning, while at the same time these words can be misconstrued to mean the opposite: counterfeit. If people can see the usefulness of true lawful power (accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case), then theoretically people can employ that power: voluntary mutual defense. If people can’t see it, then people may believe the lies that are told by the imposters. Theoretically, it is humanly possible to imagine a lawful county of republican nature (res-publica means The Public Thing) whereby a lawful Grand Jury is constituted out of independent people (not controlled by the government), and these people agree by some manner to present a member of the government with a court date. Why would anyone start sweeping at the bottom step on a very long stairway? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
AP I first read Assassination Politics more than a decade ago, as documented on my own Web page, and from my Web page the link I have there is still a working link: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm I just stumbled on a YouTube presentation by Jim Bell, the author of Assassination Politics, as he eventually made his way out of prison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcJdvQvzlNU According to Jim Bell the first time someone announced the idea coincided with the sudden tripling of Bitcoin price. I follow this idea (not a new idea by the way) and so I saw the Forbes Article mentioned in the Jim Bell YouTube video above: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination-market-creator-whos-crowdfunding-murder-with-bitcoins/#31eb3d903d9b The date on that article is Nov 18, 2013, 08:30am. The Jim Bell Project is here: https://jimbellproject.org/press-release-hackers-congress-paralel-polis-oct-7-2017/ The idea is simple, it is based upon this: "The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community." - 1 Hume, Appendix, l." (Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852) Anonymity for each individual is one thing, but group anonymity is altogether more difficult to maintain, along the lines of a chain being only as strong as the weakest link. For those who care not to peruse the AP information, I will quote a sound bite: "Last month I received an encrypted email from someone calling himself by the pseudonym Kuwabatake Sanjuro, who pointed me towards his recent creation: The website Assassination Market, a crowdfunding service that lets anyone anonymously contribute bitcoins towards a bounty on the head of any government official--a kind of Kickstarter for political assassinations. According to Assassination Market's rules, if someone on its hit list is killed--and yes, Sanjuro hopes that many targets will be--any hitman who can prove he or she was responsible receives the collected funds." Forbes |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Pretentious authority has been a part of human history for sure. Some people agree with it, others point out the facts that matter in any case. If it is a purge orchestrated by one pretentious authority (faction) upon another, then you can call it whatever you want, including the often done color of law names. Famous examples of so-called courts of law, as you claim, have littered the sordid history of mankind. A turf battle fought by opposing criminal gangs is a factual label, an accurate accounting, whenever dictatorship replaces the law, counterfeiting the law, an obvious fraud. I'd like to know if individual people on the soil of America can still constitute actual courts of law where the goal is to get to the truth and defend the innocent from the guilty. If it can happen partially, as in the recent Bundy trials, why can't it happen fully in any case anywhere and anytime? The people, not the so-called government, constitute the law. If the matter has to do with kidnapping, torturing, and enslaving children, and there are gangs of these types of criminals operating on American soil, then it might be a good idea to begin at the top of these gangs of criminals and work down from that pinnacle. Such is the nature of criminals gangs that the lesser ones are merely following criminal orders that originate from the top. Cut off the head and the snake can't find another victim. Cut off the tail and the snake is still able to find the next victim. If the "law" says that Jeffery Epstein killed himself, for example, it might be a good idea to accurately account for the facts that matter in that case, rather than accepting the dictates handed down from pretentious authority. In actual trials at law (common law in America), there are public transcripts for the public, each one, and no exceptions. In actual cases at law, anyone can accuse anyone of a crime, and there are no exceptions to the rule. So long as that is maintained so long will the law be true. As soon as gang members exempt themselves from the "law" they claim to be their source of authority, at that moment when the claim is made, in writing no less, the true law is made false, as a matter of fact. Why would those who are in power fail to publish transcripts of a trial where the accused is the leader of a child slave trade gang? Those who claim to be the law can't even keep the witness alive to testify in a public trial. The true law, in a true court of law, will inform the whole country in each case so the whole country knows what is happening on American soil as a matter of lawfully determined fact. Why would pretentious law hide the facts? "Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime." John Hawles |
|||||||||||
