 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Pre-conference still open, one active jurist present and accounted for: Joe Kelley.
At this time it is my considered opinion that my time and energy (power) consumed in this National Liberty Alliance is currently threatening my sanity. Knowing what I know and then finding a solid wall of impenetrable falsehood in place between my own, individual, perspective and most other people, including John Darash, tests my resolve to do the right thing.
What is the right thing?
Effective defense of the innocent is the foundation I stand on as the right thing to do with no other competitive offer from anyone, as yet, convincing me of a better foundation.
Effective defense of the innocent can also be offered with fewer words, or one word, such as Liberty. Accurate accounting works well enough to offer the same foundation as effective defense of the innocent and Liberty.
I know that much, reasonably, because my time and energy (power) has been working on finding the best foundation and so far that is where my work reaching for that goal discovers that foundation, precisely that foundation, no other foundation, so far, can reasonably be understood by me as a better foundation for doing the right thing.
I missed the Monday Night Conference Call by John Darash and those at NLA Central Command. Now I have the time to listen to it and comment on the words offered.
Here is the link to the call record:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/mondayrecording/14-06-30.mp3
I stopped at time 11:09 so as to offer competitive points of view that stand as my Public Notice of my disagreements concerning the points of view offered by John Darash.
First thing that must be understood if anyone cares enough to know a competitive viewpoint such as the one I am offering from my single viewpoint, and the first thing is that the contradiction exists within the information offered by John Darash, as far as I can tell, and so I keep my mind open, as I welcome anyone, anywhere, who will step up to the plate and let me know if the contradiction offered by John Darash is not my own misunderstanding.
1. God says rule by man, or earthly kings, are bad, not the right thing, on, and on, with a list of things kings do, and that list sounds exactly like the things done by criminals who run organized crime monopolies.
2. The so called Constitution of 1787 (hatched in Secret Proceedings in Philadelphia) is ours.
Those are not John Darash's exact words. Anyone can listen, to the link, listen to the exact words offered by John Darash, and stop at time 11:09, and then please tell me where those words are not a contradiction.
1. NO EARTHLY KINGS
2. The Constitution of 1787
The contradiction exists as far as I can see, because I did my homework, and the information that is available is uncontroversial, mere fact, as those at the time the criminals took over explained precisely what the criminals were doing, while the criminals were creating a Monarchy here in America.
The criminals knew they could not call the King a King, so they called the King a President instead of a King. That is fraud. That is prima-facie evidence proving the fact, and it is written in their ink, and signed by their hands.
John Darash challenged me to show him precisely wherein his Constitution (not mine) there is evidence of what I claim. I did so, in writing, and then John Darash claims that he does not have time to read my writing.
That is willful ignorance, and it is fine, fine so long as the contradiction does not manifest itself in the willful destruction of the innocent.
If your constitution, whoever owns it, uses it, as a rationale, an excuse, excuses further extortion and fraud, then it does, and so you fall in line with all the other earthly Kings who use it for those purposes.
So long as you, and anyone else like you, anyone else claiming that you have this Constitution that is yours (not mine), do not willfully use it to destroy innocent people, then there is no harm done by you while you excuse harm done by you with your Constitution.
I happen to know the facts of it, meaning I happen to know the facts of your Constitution, even if you don't, so that is what it is, a viewpoint offered, and the contradiction is not mine, not unless someone else can explain to me where, precisely, there is a contradiction that is mine.
1. No Earthly Kings
2. A Constitution written by, signed by, criminals who divided up their prizes as they stole our defensive government and turned it into organized crime Nation-Wide and Country-Wide.
You can ignore the facts at your own cost, as I know better than to consent to anyone excusing their crimes based upon that criminal document.
The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, on the other hand, are well done explanations of how people can agree to defend themselves from earthly Kings, or criminals, since earthly criminals, and Kings, are one and the same thing.
Moving on from that restatement of that working contradiction that is not mine, since I know better, moving from that working contradiction to the concept of courts in this land.
A link:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
A quote:
________________________
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
__________________________
Contradiction number 2:
All means all.
Those words offer Kings absolute POWER over what is the meaning of is.
Those words inspired these words:
A Link:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Antifeder...
A quote:
___________________________________
Antifederalist No. 15
RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!
This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-America Intelligencer?)
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.
They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.
The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury.
________________________________________
Where people, as people, acknowledge that there are no Kings, as in rule by man, there may yet be criminals. People defending themselves effectively against criminals are people who refuse to participate in criminal proceedings, or so called Admiralty, Equity, Chancellery, so called courts, because those courts are run by Kings. What do you think is the power behind Admiralty Law is in demonstrable fact?
So the people stood a chance before 1787 in preserving courts run by people, for people, as a common method of maintaining an effective defense against criminals even while the criminals were infecting our land with their Summary Justice (crime) in their Admiralty and Equity Courts (organized crime), but after 1787 the criminals supposedly created a Supreme Court of MEN ruling everyone and ruling all.
Those who closed the door, issued gag orders, and commenced to criminally take over America in Philadelphia in 1787 singed a document as witnesses to that crime, and they called that document a Constitution.
Those who smelled a rat documented many examples of precisely what the criminals were doing while the criminals where criminally taking over America, in no uncertain terms, as demonstrated by the fact that Slavery was no longer a crime "made legal," and demonstrated by the fact that people were doing well enough with trial by jury BEFORE the take over when criminals made their Kangaroo Courts legal for them to impose upon their victims while they, the criminals, continue slave trading, fraud, extortion, and this so called Summary Justice stuff with these supposed Equity and Admiralty Courts.
So the contradiction here is that somehow we the people must regain control of our effective common defense against all criminals foreign and domestic and in order to do so we pay lip service to the criminals running the false federal government whereby those criminals run false courts such as Equity and Admiralty courts?
Right their in their criminal document the criminals gave themselves permission to infect their victims with their Equity and Admiralty crimes; and I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut about it?
I'm supposed to drink the cool-aid and swallow the lies whole?
Good enough for government work?
That is plenty enough writing (my time and energy making me insane by the minute) by me as due diligence, doing the right thing, exposing the contradictions, and hoping, beyond hope, that someone, somewhere, might also see the contradiction, and then someone, someone somewhere, might help expose the contradiction, so that the contradiction, the lie, the falsehood, no longer captures and renders powerless so many innocent people for so long, on, and on, in the foreseeable future while so many people remain willfully ignorant of the facts that are in no way hidden at all.
I tried to listen further and keep silent, but there is no way I can see to do so, not without a complete separation from National Liberty Alliance, anyone connected to it, and myself. I do not willfully ignore the demonstrable contradictions.
Stopping at time: 11:45
Contradiction 3
I keep hearing John Darash claim that some people are his servants.
1. No Earthly Kings
2. Some people are John Darash's servants.
To me that is a very obvious contradiction. If someone is offering productive work in the form of a paid member of a government (defense), then all business done by him, or her, with anyone else, anywhere, is done as one with another one, not one master, not one slave or "servant," so the contradiction is in my view repugnant to the first Law vis:
1. No Earthly Kings
2. Some people are John Darash's servants.
Contradiction 4
1. No Earthly Kings
2. John Darash quotes John Adams
John Adams was the so called President (earthly King) presiding during HIS Alien and Sedition Acts. John Adams was one of the frauds, the pack if liars, known as The Federalists. So the contradiction here does not at all concern whatever message may have been offered in the quote, rather, again, the DEEDS, not the words, are repugnant to the first Law.
Time 12:27
Now John Darash is quoting from the words of another Federalist liar named George Washington. George Washington was the Earthly King who dictated a Proclamation while this criminal took his turn as King. Deeds, not words, measure up as repugnant as anyone can ever get, to the first Law. What do you think a Proclamation is in fact?
The God worshiped by Washington may have been a different God that the one spoken of by John Darash; explaining the contradiction. Does anyone still issue Proclamations?
Time: 14:12
I stopped to offer information concerning what I have learned about this time period of American formation into a criminal organization after 1787, and what was going on before 1787 when people defended themselves effectively against criminals foreign and domestic. In reading the Constitutions of the first Republics that formed the true Federation (before the Federation was turned into organized crime in 1787) it becomes obvious that there was religious battles happening between what may have been Roman Catholic, or Jesuit, controlled religious people, including some very evil people, including what may have actually been devil worshipers at the top of that pyramid structure, top down dictatorial religious fake faith, whatever, and on the other side of that battle may have been Protestant and other religious people attempting to defend themselves from the devil worshiping types.
What was obvious was the idea of avoiding an institutionalized, criminal based, religious ORDER controlling the people who are hired to run the defensive government; hence the idea of separation of church (devil worshipers) and state (organized crime). It is all a bunch of lies; as the criminals fight each other over the monopoly power. The experiment in America that happened between 1776 and 1787 was none of the above, no religious dictatorship, no supposed state dictatorship, no dictatorship at all, or:
1. No Earthly Kings
That was the experiment between 1776 and 1787 including where people were able as many trials by juries as possible according to laws known BEFORE Magna Carta.
Many people don't know, obviously, that Magna Carta was not a document of the people, by the people, or for the people, it was the beginning of the take over of England from the people based upon fraud. In other words the criminals were managing their crimes out in the open under King John, just plain old open warfare, in your face, basic, criminal activity, run by a so called King upon whoever was targeted at the time. The Power of the King was only as far as it was, and it was not far enough to overpower trial by jury of the people, by the people, for the people. That information is found in the study done by Lysander Spooner here:
A link:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/trial-jury
When the criminals took over after Magna Carta, the deal was struck between the Roman Catholic (Jesuit) Devil Worshipers, slave traders, addictive drug pushers, torturers, murderers, and mass murderers, to sell everyone in England, and the world, to claim ownership of ALL and then do as is pleased with ALL. As far as the courts run by the people, for the people, and of the people go, there was then a covert war upon them by the Jesuits, through the Monarchy (and Central Bank Monopoly), to bribe jurists to weaker trial by jury, and then to actually counterfeit the common law of the people, to brand it, to register it, to trade market it, into a criminal version of common law. The covert war recaptured the people after the Barons had defeated the overt war visited up the people of England.
The law of the land, the trial by jury due process, was operating before Magna Carta, and that ought to be understood, because English Language was not in use at the time of trial by jury due process, so the wordings in English, such as Common Law, have to be understood in the context of that later covert war upon the people, when trial by jury was evolving into Admiralty, Equity, and Chancellery, so called, courts. The English Monarchy (run out of the Roman Catholic Jesuit Order) created and maintained a false court system that they called Common Law. The criminals had, and have, a false version of Common Law, so it is easy for ignorant people, even easier for willfully ignorant people, to confuse a true common law trial by jury with the counterfeit version vis:
1. No Earthly Kings = due process due everyone without exception
2. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and their counterfeit versions of everything good as they take turns running the new Monarchy they fraudulently established in 1787.
Time: 15:48
I heard "...without hypocrisy..."
Contradiction may be resolved as a case of hypocrisy; so the evidence exists, and the evidence is offered, and were 12 people to be assembled for the purpose of seeking wisdom as to any judgment, at all, concerning who is innocent of hypocrisy or who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, according to ancient wisdom, then those 12 randomly selected jurists can either agree unanimously or not and as far as I can tell the facts are what they are even if no one knows the facts. There is hope in finding agreement so as to avoid hypocrisy, sure, I get that, so..., why claim that the constitution was anything other than a criminal take over of the same people who invented Admiralty and Equity courts?
Time: 16:10
We need to save our nation? I can look past that contradiction for only so long, and then after a long period of time whereby no one offers remedy of that contradiction, then there is no longer a contradiction in my view. If the so called nation is built by frauds for their exclusive use as they divide up and conquer all the people in the so called nation, then saving it is aiding, and abetting, lending moral and material support to Earthly Kings, in point of fact. If on the other hand we the people are saving the innocent from the criminals as we retain our power of effective defense with our insistence of discovering the accurate accounts of the facts in our due process that is due everyone, affordable to everyone, without exception, then the people on that path ARE the nation.
18:18
I hear "...pretty easy to fall into that trap...," and my comment is the same comment, in other words. Obviously, measurably, those who pay into, invest into, obey, give credit to, the constitution are in that trap. That trap was sprung and the criminals went to work with vengeance from that point on.
An involuntary association is a way of labeling a crime in progress, so making claims of saving the nation are fine so long as the people are realizing their need to get back to voluntary association such as due process of law, such as trial by jury according to ancient wisdom, whereby no one in punished without due process, so that means that due process is afforded to everyone without exception; no friends letting friends enforcing involuntary associations, since any victim of involuntary association is afforded the same due process each time. That works because it then takes 12 people agreeing to perpetrate a crime upon someone, to create this involuntary association stuff, and the ancient wisdom of offering randomly picked people eliminates the problem of 12 people assembling as fellow criminals forming their own deals where they divide up the victims among them, as they did in 1787.
So, even though criminal will get together in secret meetings and hatch crimes, the people who defend people still write down such wise things as the 5th and 7th Amendments to the so called Constitution, and in those words are those wise processes utilizing the power of randomly selecting jurists before anyone is injured by anyone in any legal, or lawful, or just, or merciful, way.
Rather than saving the nation (involuntary association perpetrated by criminals upon victims) the idea can be to save the people who then are the nation of people who save each other from the criminals who perpetrate such crimes as that so called Constitution of 1787.
End of controversy, end of duplicity, end of hypocrisy, ended when no one is punished for anything unless afforded the due process due everyone without exception.
32:10
Voting from California to indict someone in New York goes against all the principles I know including justice, honor, and mercy.
What must happen anywhere, anytime, is for the innocent victim, or victims, and the accused and presumed to be innocent criminal, or criminals try the case, in time, and place, which requires agreement with the accused; therefore the accused has to agree to the presentment.
If there is no agreement then there is no presentment; so what is being voted on?
I can say yes, or no, to a case where someone refuses to agree to the presentment and I am asked if that refusal constitutes a cause of action.
Such as someone deciding to burn babies alive in a church constitutes a cause of defensive action. Meaning good people are inspired to action when a criminal, or a number of criminals, are burning babies alive in a church.
So...suppose those who were documented as those people burning babies alive in the church are then offered a presentment. Here, it says, you guys really need to attend this event where you are presumed to be innocent until 12 randomly picked jurors assemble to find out if there is a cause of action in defense of babies in churches based upon the information assembled whereby you, and you, were documented as those people burning those babies in that church. Those babies are dead now, but it may be a good idea, so says me, that you ought to agree to help us find out precisely who burned those babies so that we can know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the people burning babies alive are accurately accounted as the people who burned those babies alive.
Time 32:56
I hear "...they did violence to the constitution..."
What happened to no victim to crime, and the government cannot be the victim?
That is another contradiction.
Time: 50:44
Executive Orders are UN-constitional? The first Monarch American Style wrote a Proclamation.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/text.html
So who has the power to say what the King can or cannot do legally?
Time: 52:25
The nation speaks by voting to indict? That is not the same thing as trial by the country because trial by the country is accomplished through the process of selecting jurists (voters) by lot. If the idea is to utilize a voting system used to vote something and the assembled voters are volunteers volunteering to vote then that is only that, and that is not trial by the country; again the missing element is random selection of voters from the whole, which is the method by which rule by man is avoided and instead of rule by man the rule, the vote, is the whole country voting according to a representative sample, which is random selection, and anything other than random selection of the whole, whereby the choices as to who votes, and the choices as to who does not vote, are choices made by chance, because God does not issue orders to vote, or not vote, in time and place, so who does? Who claims to have the authority to say that this group, or that group, vote, or don't vote, and then their votes constitute a cause for action?
Time: 55:50
I think that John Darash is now calling me a liar. Lie from hell?
All anyone has to do to know the facts is to read the actual Proclamation, which is a product of dictators and tyrants, a Proclamation by the tyrant, a Proclamation by the dictator Washington exists on the public record for all to see.
If those among us fall for dictatorship then they do, and if someone claims I am a liar then they first have to prove that I intend to deceive. How can someone prove that my intention is to deceive? If I am merely deceived myself, then that must also be proven, and in that case I am not a liar, I am merely infected by the lie.
So two more people on the list of liars, now three on the list of liars according to my accuser John Darash are:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html
Murray Rothbard
And
http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Constit...
DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA
A Dictator Dictating Proclamations existed, there was the first one, the first ever Proclamation, then another one, then another one, whereby the Dictator Dictating the Proclamation may change, but the fact that the Proclamations are Dictates does not change. The facts remain to be the facts even when the messengers offering the facts are demonized with false claims of lying.
This is not impertinent arguing over frivolous details of meaningless drivel. The method of divide and conquer includes controlled opposition. Knowing, by accurate accounting, in some manner, some due process, is one competitive method by which the liars can be known, and those who are merely infected lies can be known, and those who happen upon demonstrable facts can be know, or, on the other hand "knowing" by executive fiat, by merely claiming truth to be truth, can be another way of "knowing."
Over, and over, and over again, during Conference calls, on forums, in e-mails, I have offered due process, deliberate exchange of information seeking to know rather than to merely guess, these specific facts that are vital concerning our side, and the criminal side, where the Kings reestablish dominion over their victims.
Now I am being called a liar. What pains me most, in this, is that I have been very vocal, very up front, doing the honorable thing, offering over, and over, and over, again, and again, Public Notice, and now the accusation of lying, aimed at me, is ambiguous? Someone, somewhere, is lying? Some unnamed mysterious nobody is lying about good old George Washington?
Time: 57:21
Now those who lie about Washington (the Proclamation dude) are Marxists? One and the same? You lie about Washington (actually offering the facts as the facts exist) and you are then a Marxist by default; because John Darash decrees it?
Edict?
Then, added to that, someone, somewhere, is claiming that something is going to destroy the dollar and that is a good thing, and these people are brilliant criminals?
What is happening is the fraud money racket is reached the end of its rope:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
That scratches the surface of accurately accounting for precisely how much surplus wealth was stolen from any producer anywhere, and how much the thieves now own according to them. The official record is now past a certain point of no return as anyone with half a brain can see since there is absolutely no way that those who are claimed to owe as much as those who claim to be owed can pay up. There is absolutely no way at this point that the so called National Debt can be paid off without more fraud added, such as default, or hyperinflation, or trade wars, or currency wars, or shooting wars escalated in the effort to monopolize a New World Reserve Currency.
Meanwhile people are inventing and utilizing local currencies BECAUSE fraud money is fraud money.
The Frauds took over in 1787.
Hamilton was mentored by Robert Morris and they created the means by which all the constitutional republics could be monopolized into one National Debt Fraud.
That is so well documented as fact, by those who were there when it happened, there is no need for anyone to claim to anyone else otherwise. What would be the need for refuting the existing evidence then, or now, as then it was National Debt, National Interest, and the criminals at the top, and now it is the same thing. Why would anyone claim otherwise?
Save the Nation so as to save the National Debt, and save the National Interest, so as to allow the next King of the National Debt to conscript another Army as was done by good old George Washington, to Proclaim the necessity of suppressing a tax revolt concerning a supposed National Debt, payable in the Gold that left the country because of the fraudulent money ordered into being by the same criminals now demanding payments in Gold for the unforgivable crime of creating local money, such as whiskey, as a necessity in the absence of any accurate money that accurately accounts for who produces what, and who is worthy of which credit, and therefore trade is possible?
Trust in Kings hidden behind false titles such as President, trust that they will enslave us all at the point of a bayonet?
And those who dare to tell the truth are called liars?
Now I am listening to lectures on preparedness in times of trouble and the speaker who just called me a liar, a Marxist, evil, I am evil, this guy says store months of food? The Whiskey Rebellion and the Rebellion before that which was Shays's Rebellion and the Rebellion before that which was The Revolutionary War, all had somethings in common.
1. The people learn to trust each other and they store their wealth in accurate money, and that increases production, increases the quality of life, and decreases the cost of life, because so much less surplus wealth is locked up and unused. The money can be gold, and silver, and accurate written accounts, or paper money, backed by gold, and silver, and real estate, and any form of stored wealth.
2. The criminals running the criminal money monopoly power of the day targets those people and the criminals work diligently to remove all the trust, all the accurate money, from those targeted victims.
3. The people grow wise to the game and they localize their trust, their accurate accounting, and their defensive power.
4. The criminals demand payments, without question, from those local defense associations.
5. The criminals who took over government call the local defenders terrorists, insurgents, levelers, rebels, anti-government infiltrators, traitors, and criminals.
6. The victims try everything possible to avoid violence.
7. The criminals who took over government start locking up individual defenders starting with the weaker ones.
8. The victims realize that nothing but violence will stop the criminals who took over government.
9. One side wins.
10. The winners and losers write history when the good guys win.
11. When the bad guys win only they are allowed to write history.
Why was a gag order placed on those who attended the Con Con of 1787?
Link:
http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up
Quote__________________________
The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.
____________________________________
Another liar?
Time 1:00
Just before Jason from New Jersey signed off there was an obvious move to inform the Military of current realities concerning the take over of defensive government and John Darash began to explain the contradiction in his own words.
Why is the Federal Government not the people?
Why is the Military not the people?
Because the former Republics joined voluntarily in a Federation became a Military Dictatorship in 1787, as proven by the Proclamation of 1794, and the assembly of a false Federal army of slaves (conscripts) taken from any place that men can be enslaved and then this Military Force invades a formerly sovereign Republic (Pennsylvania) to collect a tax on whiskey payable in the gold that left the country because the frauds drove gold and silver out of the country through Gresham's Law.
Now, to anyone, everyone, this is Public Notice, the divide and conquer method works to cause brother to fight brother in fact; so it is not me claiming to be judge, jury, an executioner of John Darash, claiming that he is lying here, all I'm saying is that the facts speak for themselves as to precisely when the criminals took over, and precisely when the people were no longer afforded due process because the criminals took out the voluntary Federal government, where people consent, and the criminals put in place a counterfeit version where a dictator can enslave a whole army of aggressors so as to make sure that the people never gain any power on their own, with their own local money.
The criminals have to create a demand for their counterfeit money and to do that the criminals demand tax payments payable in their money of choice. There has to be a National Tax, or there is no demand for National Debt. That is why the true Founders objected to direct taxation of the people.
Link:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/george-mason-speech/
Quote:
___________________________________
George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 04, 1788
Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.
_______________________________________
George Washington was the Strong Man used by the English Central Bankers, through Hamilton, to ensure a National Debt, to remove competition in money markets, so as to create that dependence upon the criminals for everything. It is not that difficult to understand. It is not brilliant. It is merely criminal. While the Strong Man is collecting up any remaining Gold, and crushing the spirit of Liberty in Pennsylvania, the Central Banker is working feverishly to open up the first version of the American Fraud Money Monopoly or The First Bank of The United States. What do you think the FED is? Where do you think the Marxists copied their manifesto?
I am a liar? I am a Marxist? How so? For the crime of offering the facts, the punishment is public damnation, and to fail to actually accuse me by name is not any consolation; it is salt in the wound. What that does is create plausible deniability. To make ambiguous claims of guilt publicly there is the benefit of having the mud thrown on the target, hoping it will stick, while at the same time there is no possible "following the money" back to the source to find who is guilty of false accusations upon me specifically.
The message is discredited. Anyone daring to discredit to holy Washington is discredited. The actual accused people are unable to face their accuser; since there was no specific individual accused. I'm supposed not to know how that works? I won't expose the plan? I'll keep my mouth shut?
Which people do I share this country with in fact? Are we the stewards of all in our power, asked by the creator to avoid harming each other, please, or be damned?
If you can fool some of the people some of the time then that is good enough for Hamilton, Washington, Adams, and whoever else offers evil hidden behind nice sounding words?
Time: 108
Dave from California is asking about logistics. I will be at the California Call tonight and I will ask for copies of what I am expected to sign so that John Darash can authorize checking boxes, fast track, but not cutting corners, and the honorable way, not the dishonorable way.
My blood boils at that point. For my trouble I am called a liar, and I cut corners, and I am dishonorable. All I am doing is working to defend the innocent. The box checking is not my idea. The effective defense of the innocent through trial by jury is not my idea. Some ideas are very good ideas, proven over time.
/////////////////////
/////////////////////
/////////////////////
__________________________________________
6-30-2014 Announcement
Pre-conference open.
Please consider deliberately deliberating upon the information offered and add to or subtract from the information offered.
Will we meet to sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people so that those criminals can injure us more, or are we meeting to sign documents to declare our independence from those who demand that we sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people who will use any advantage they can get from their targeted victims?
If you have no idea as to what that question means, and you have no interest in finding out if that question is a valuable question worthy of at least a few competitive answers, then in my opinion your help is as good as this:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/SamuelAdams1776.html
Quote________________
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!
___________________________________________________
There were, there is, and there will be people who say one thing so as to then have the criminal power to do the opposite thing.
I am here to help. That is a shinning example offered by criminals as they then set about to help themselves to whatever they can take from the targeted victims of their lies.
Rather than focus monopolistically, or only, on the accurate measure of the threat, and instead of combing through the paperwork that I do not even have in my possession, concerning the scheduled meeting to "constitute" California Counties, my effort now is to offer a competitive answer to the question tabled, and to offer an example of what is an Individual Declaration of Independence as I see it.
Back to the question (fenced in):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will we meet to sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people so that those criminals can injure us more, or are we meeting to sign documents to declare our independence from those who demand that we sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people who will use any advantage they can get from their targeted victims?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question can be reduced in word count (symbol count) down to a Stop or Go sign, for those who prefer to communicate with symbols like TL;DNR; but that would be an example of an answer to the question.
The question can be reduced and rewritten as a multiple choice question; but again that would be offering an answer to the question.
The question can be improved during deliberate deliberation among free people as free people deliberately decide to command their own power of will and apply their individual power toward our common defense; whereby the sentence is built up from many competitive viewpoints offering many competitive versions of the question, so as then to built up a multidimensional point of view that is not the same thing as "too many cooks spoil the brew."
My single, monopolistic, prone to error, dictatorial, limited, bound, fenced-in, low quality, and high cost viewpoint, offered as a wordy question in English, can be looked at from other angles of view, and other angles of view may be other added vantage points where other people can see things I do not see, other people can see faults in the sentences hidden from me, other people can see unnecessary redundancies, superfluous extravagance, errors, omissions, contradictions, other people can see viewpoints that are not viewable from my point of view, and as a two dimensional viewpoint becomes a three dimensional viewpoint the thing being viewed takes three dimensional shape of greater accuracy which is higher quality and the accurate viewpoint is less costly and again that adds to the higher quality.
Low quality:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will we meet to sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people so that those criminals can injure us more, or are we meeting to sign documents to declare our independence from those who demand that we sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people who will use any advantage they can get from their targeted victims?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question tabled right now, right here, at this preconference CALL TO PENS is for the purpose of getting prepared in advance of the Conference Phone Call on Tuesday before the Meeting to sign documents on July 12th, and that question tabled right now is fenced in by my very limited and very error prone viewpoint; but at least it is offered, and it is offered in writing, and it is offered as a PUBLIC NOTICE.
All of you all are the PUBLIC as far as I am concerned. When I ran for congress I ran as an INDIVIDUAL, on my own dimes, my own two feet, my own words, my own offers of single-minded viewpoint; whereby it is wrong to torture, experiment on, cut off heads, and burn alive, pregnant mothers, infants, babies, toddlers, and other innocent fellow friends in Liberty.
So my viewpoint is tainted with moral conscience.
But my viewpoint is offered. My viewpoint is in writing. My viewpoint is PUBLIC NOTICE.
Before the Tuesday California Conference which is on the schedule before the signing (ceremony?) on July 12th, there is a Public Written Meeting Offered here and now, and at this meeting ONE individual offers ONE question in a fence:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will we meet to sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people so that those criminals can injure us more, or are we meeting to sign documents to declare our independence from those who demand that we sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people who will use any advantage they can get from their targeted victims?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And added to that fenced in tainted viewpoint tainted by the heavy load of moral conscience is an opening bid in writing as a document worth signing, in my single opinion, so it is singularly authorized by me, written by me, because I'm having a real hard time dealing with my taint of moral conscience applied to the so called documents I hear about, or I have seen, or I have signed in ignorance, or I have signed in apathy, or I have signed under duress, the same duress that is measurable as that heavy load of moral conscience.
I Joe Kelley declare as fact that there is absolutely no way that I have, can, or will give anyone my power to defend myself in time and place. If my power to defend myself is transferred in any way from me to anyone else that transfer is accomplished by criminal means, and I mean to find out precisely who those criminals are, in fact, in time, and in place. That is the least I can do as an individual bound by moral conscience.
That is it, that is all I have now; but I can sign something like that, and I can do so with honor, and I can do so with a clear conscience. From that point of my stand on principle I understand myself I can move to another possible step, baby step, from here in a time, and a place, where my fellows, as far as I can tell, are not helping me when my questions are ignored.
Now as to answer:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will we meet to sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people so that those criminals can injure us more, or are we meeting to sign documents to declare our independence from those who demand that we sign documents for exclusive use by a few criminally powerful people who will use any advantage they can get from their targeted victims?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As to answer for that question ignored by other people, not ignored by me, I can offer comments and possible answers that may be useful.
I will not sign documents that I think will be documents viewed by criminals as my consent to be their victims.
Well Joe, your signature is on your Drivers License, and our signature is on mortgage papers, and your signature is on many documents that are viewed by criminals as consent by you for you to be their victims, on, and on, and on, in a sea of deceit, a pool of lies, a stew of deception, a war between accurate accounting and falsehood known as moral conscience.
No.
No more.
I won't, it is past time, there will be no more of it.
I can sign the following (or something better):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I Joe Kelley declare as fact that there is absolutely no way that I have, can, or will give anyone my power to defend myself in time and place. If my power to defend myself is transferred in any way from me to anyone else that transfer is accomplished by criminal means, and I mean to find out precisely who those criminals are, in fact, in time, and in place. That is the least I can do as an individual bound by moral conscience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't even have to sign it. I acknowledge it. Here is Public Notice. Who dares to claim otherwise? Those who will claim otherwise confess their guilty minds.
I can add to that:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I Joe Kelley declare as fact that there is absolutely no way that I have, can, or will give anyone my power to defend myself in time and place. If my power to defend myself is transferred in any way from me to anyone else that transfer is accomplished by criminal means, and I mean to find out precisely who those criminals are, in fact, in time, and in place. That is the least I can do as an individual bound by moral conscience. I do not have to sign anything whereby something is self evident such as my power to defend myself existing precisely as it exists in time and place, and if I do sign anything, anywhere, anytime, I do so only as an offer of good will to other people as other people may demand from me evidence of my participation in their lives; at their request.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can add:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I Joe Kelley declare as fact that there is absolutely no way that I have, can, or will give anyone my power to defend myself in time and place. If my power to defend myself is transferred in any way from me to anyone else that transfer is accomplished by criminal means, and I mean to find out precisely who those criminals are, in fact, in time, and in place. That is the least I can do as an individual bound by moral conscience. I do not have to sign anything whereby something is self evident such as my power to defend myself existing precisely as it exists in time and place, and if I do sign anything, anywhere, anytime, I do so only as an offer of good will to other people as other people may demand from me evidence of my participation in their lives; at their request. If anyone, anytime, any place, has any claim of authority over me, in any way, they can either agree to assemble a trial by jury for that purpose, or as far as I am concerned they have no claim of authority over me, and we are bound then by moral conscience to find agreement where agreement may be difficult for us to find on our own volition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can adjust and add:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I Joe Kelley declare as fact that there is absolutely no way that I have, can, or will give anyone my power to defend myself in time and place. If my power to defend myself is transferred in any way from me to anyone else that transfer is accomplished by criminal means, and I mean to find out precisely who those criminals are, in fact, in time, and in place.
That is the least I can do as an individual bound by moral conscience.
I do not have to sign anything whereby something is self evident such as my power to defend myself existing precisely as it exists in time and place, and if I do sign anything, anywhere, anytime, I do so only as an offer of good will to other people as other people may demand from me evidence of my participation in their lives; at their request.
If anyone, anytime, any place, has any claim of authority over me, in any way, they can either agree to assemble a trial by jury for that purpose, or as far as I am concerned they have no claim of authority over me, and we are bound then by moral conscience to find agreement where agreement may be difficult for us to find on our own volition.
If anyone, anytime, any place, removes power from me against my knowledge, against my will, they make war upon me, they are traitors to Liberty, they are traitors to moral conscience, they are criminals by their guilty minds that drive their criminal actions.
Let that be my notice, my declaration, my affirmation, my affidavit, of my acknowledgement of my moral duty as one of a kind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additions:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I Joe Kelley declare as fact that there is absolutely no way that I have, can, or will give anyone my power to defend myself in time and place. If my power to defend myself is transferred in any way from me to anyone else that transfer is accomplished by criminal means, and I mean to find out precisely who those criminals are, in fact, in time, and in place.
That is the least I can do as an individual bound by moral conscience.
I do not have to sign anything whereby something is self evident such as my power to defend myself existing precisely as it exists in time and place, and if I do sign anything, anywhere, anytime, I do so only as an offer of good will to other people as other people may demand from me evidence of my participation in their lives; at their request.
If anyone, anytime, any place, has any claim of authority over me, in any way, they can either agree to assemble a trial by jury for that purpose, or as far as I am concerned they have no claim of authority over me, and we are bound then by moral conscience to find agreement where agreement may be difficult for us to find on our own volition.
If anyone, anytime, any place, removes power from me against my knowledge, against my will, they make war upon me, they are traitors to Liberty, they are traitors to moral conscience, they are criminals by their guilty minds that drive their criminal actions.
Furthermore, the criminals among us must be defended against by us, as our duty to do so is self evidently clear to us, by our power of moral conscience. Failure to defend the innocent will result in the inevitable destruction of all innocence as everyone will then be criminals at that point.
It is my duty by my own self aware moral conscience to accurately discover who will defend the innocent, to find agreement among us, and to accurately discriminate our number from the number of criminals who are formed into extremely destructive organizations of criminals.
It is furthermore my duty as a moral living self aware life form to offer those criminals who are accurately identified as criminals a method by which those criminals can redeem themselves in time and place.
It is furthermore obvious to me that my own propensity for error alarms me to a point at which I must rely upon honest help from other people so as to afford me the opportunity to redeem myself in time and place.
Let that be my notice, my declaration, my affirmation, my affidavit, of my acknowledgement of my moral duty as one of a kind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point my propensity for error appears to me as a reality.