 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Antifederalist.pdf
Federalist Papers (genuine NOT false)
I am finding many words worthy of note such as the word Trimmers.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trimmer
Someone who fluctuates between opposing factions, political parties etc., according to current interest.
Second. The trimmers, who from sympathetic indecision are always united with, and when not regularly employed, always fight under the banners of these great men, These people are forever at market, and when parties are nearly equally divided, they get very well paid for their services.
That from:
ON THE PRESERVATION OF PARTIES, PUBLIC LIBERTY DEPENDS This essay follows a theme similar to Federalist No. 10,and appeared in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 18, 1788.
My work here:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comments-monday-meetup-03-31-2014
Is cut and pasted now:
_____________________________________________________
Is anyone investing in accurate accounting of free market government insurance against fraudulent defenders of the innocent?
Is it a good idea to offer a question compared to enforcing an order to obey without question?
Those who seek to enslave the innocent know precisely how to accomplish that goal, and when that goal is reached for by those who reach for that goal, they, who are knowable as criminals, enslave themselves, as they voluntarily give up, entirely, their own innocence, trading that precious commodity for gilt instead of innocence.
Above are 3 offers of sentences offered to anyone who cares to read, 2 are questions, and the third is an accurate accounting offered in the form of a declaration.
Keeping within a framework of enumerating I will reach for an investment in accurate accounting of free market government insurance against fraudulent defenders of the
innocent.
1.
Go to (not an order, rather a request) the Blue Menu Bar, go to Doc, go to Founding Documents, go to Anti-Federalist Papers – Please.
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Antifeder...
Why?
If you do not read those words written in that form, which is a form consisting of voluntary offers of competitive efforts to accurately account for sound investments in defense of Liberty, defense of the innocent, defense of this country, as the people invest in defense against criminals who take over, and monopolize, the power of money, the power of currency (including language), and the power of defensive government.
If you do not understand that, you won’t understand this:
2.
http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up
Why is it a good idea to understand that?
Understanding that will empower those who understand that with the power required to recognize the accurate accounting of those who invest in effective defense of the innocent AND those who invest in effective enslavement of everyone including themselves.
3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMSF8mCR6M0#t=445
Those who blew the whistle on the first Con Con in 1787 were precise, very precise, in accurate accounting of precisely what was being done behind those closed doors in Philadelphia.
Here is a quote for those who seek to invest wisely:
“But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention. “
All that above is a whole days work for someone just now waking up to the fact that we the people have been warned about our enslavement many times and it may be a good idea to listen up.
4.
http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes/equity.php
Quote:
_____
EQUITY AND THE COMMON LAW
Rivalry between the Courts
The Court of Equity (or Chancery) became very popular because of its flexibility; its superior procedures; and its more appropriate remedies. Problems arose as to the issue of injunctions: the common law courts objected to the Chancellor issuing injunctions restraining the parties to an action at common law either from proceeding with it or, having obtained judgement, from entering it in cases where, in the Chancellor's opinion, injustice would result. Consequently, a certain rivalry developed between the two courts and this came to a head in the Earl of Oxford's Case (1616) 1 Rep Ch 1 in which the common law court gave a verdict in favour of one party and the Court of Equity then issued an injunction to prevent that party enforcing that judgement. The dispute was referred to the King who asked the Attorney-General to make a ruling. It was decided that in cases of conflict between common law and equity, equity was to prevail. From that time on the common law and equity worked together, side by side.
As equity was developing, it had no fixed rules of its own and each Chancellor gave judgement according to his own conscience. This led to criticism about the outcome of cases and John Selden, an eminent seventeenth century jurist, declared, "Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor's foot". To combat this criticism Lord Nottingham (Lord Chancellor 1673-82) started to introduce a more systematic approach to cases and by the nineteenth century, equity had become as rigid as the common law. Delays were caused by an inadequate number of judges and the officials depended on fees paid by the litigants so that there was every incentive to prolong litigation for individual tasks and mulitply these tasks.
Some attempt was made to assimilate the remedies granted by the Court of Chancery and the common law courts. Thus under the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 the common law courts were given some power to award equitable remedies and the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 gave the Chancellor the power to grant damages in addition to, or in substitution for, an injunction or a decree of specific performance.
___________
Before moving on I can offer an explanation concerning all that hard work above, for your deliberate deliberation and sound judgment as an investment by the people in defense of the innocent people, so helps us God, so help us anyone with common sense.
The common law was counterfeited along with every other effective method by which the people defend the innocent, so you must know, failure is not an option, you just know by now that there are always, there will always be, a genuine effective offer of something valuable AND a counterfeit version offered by criminals who invent counterfeit versions of the genuine articles so as to then have a false front that criminals love to hide behind, and what better false front than the one that falsifies investments in effective defense against those same criminals?
The Joke is on who? Please consider the value of confession.
Were you taken in by first Con Con Con Job?
What is government?
What is money?
If those who supply government and money to meet the demand for government and money are criminals and those supplies are not accurate accounts then they are not accurate because those who offer them are lying, or because those who accept them are lying?
Note the question mark.
5.
http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed26/26225.pdf
Investments made by investors who invest in a future benefit must be understood along these lines:
a. Genuine accurate accounts crediting the source of the power to purchase as being the creator of that power to purchase and therefore following the money to that source finds people who are innocent of the crime of theft.
b. Fraudulent accounts crediting the criminals as the source of the power to purchase as being the creator of that power to purchase and therefore following the false money to that source finds people who are guilty of the crime of theft. They stole from people who actually produced anything worth stealing.
If common law (genuine not counterfeit) was not destroyed or incorporated (counterfeited) by the criminals in 1787, which is or is not an accurate accounting, a demonstrable fact, then a trial by jury (genuine not counterfeit) would be written down in a genuine (not counterfeit) Court of Record according to common law.
Where is such a case? If there is no such case, then it is well past time to put the first case in the record books.
What is the subject of this TOPIC?
The bad news is that the truth is that the accurate account is that the criminals took over America in 1787 and John Darash is blind to that fact, or won’t admit it, or is too busy to be bothered with minor details, or some other accurate accounting that I am unaware of but not unaware of due to my failure to ask. I’ve asked. I’ve challenged. What is the accurate account?
a. First Con Con was a Con Job as told by many of the actual Federalists (not the counterfeiters)
b. First effort to assemble the representatives of the people so as to figure out how to pay War Debt was the creation point of a powerful document used to accomplish specific goals such as, legalize slavery, enforce fugitive slave laws, legalize piracy with "Letter of marque and reprisal," which is, demonstrably, code (legalese) for piracy, begin enforcing a National Debt Payment Schedule directly targeted the people, no longer chained down from such tyranny, and were it not for the true, genuine, founding fathers such as George Mason, Patrick Henry, and other Federalists (falsely called Anti-Federalists in the Monopoly Media Press of the day), there would have been no Bill of Rights offering investments in effective defense of Liberty, pointing to common law, and trial by jury.
c.
All hail the Constitution (blind obedience: without question)
The good news is that John Darash understands the solution to the counterfeit government problem.
Who else understands the solution to the counterfeit government problem?
If trial by jury according to the genuine (not counterfeit) common law (predating the English language so even the words “common law” do not accurately account for trial by jury handed down from generation to generation in the history of people) is going to work then more people need to know the accurate account, not less, so parroting lies does not help.
That is the ending of this genuine offer.
Parroting lies does not help.
Final quotes from one of the founding criminals:
"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."
From:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolution...
Failing to realize the value of accurate accounting is not an option if the goal is accurate accounting.
Prima facie
TOPIC:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/mondayrecording/14-03-31.mp3
Current United Republics History?