 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
In all seriousness the solution to antagonism is not more of it. My response is required? How will that be taken naturally, other than taken as a threat?
If someone can explain to me what "vigorous legal action" means, then I'll know as much as whoever is claiming to be ready to employ "vigorous legal action."
There is another question concerning how National Liberty Alliance can have belongings, which to me is more of the same Legal Fiction we the people are effectively exposing as false information, demonstrably inaccurate, misleading, or at best a matter of expedience (reference to a group of people rather than listing all the names in the group).
This e-mail is not condoned by me and if someone in National Liberty Alliance moves along whatever path is intended with this e-mail then they do so despite my clearly expressed objections now being clearly expressed in my response to this e-mail. I have added the support NLA address in the hope of getting some help remedying these enumerated contentions. 1. Is antagonism going to solve the problem? 2.Is there an honorable promise to employ common law due process in this case, or can someone explain to me what "vigorous legal action" means as that appears to be a threat made by someone upon someone? 2a. Which common law grand jury is going to handle this case, if so? 3.Why is the false claim being made that someone is required to respond to this e-mail? 4.Is National Liberty Alliance now a Legal Fiction capable of ownership? 5.Is my disagreement of this approach to solving a problem cause for me to be removed from National Liberty Alliance for these specific contentions (questions) enumerated?
Joe Kelley
California State Coordinator?
National Liberty Alliance (Legal Fiction?)
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2014 04:17 pm