 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
With the help of Debra there is now an assembly of information made available to me from a group calling themselves Union States Assembly.
Their Web Page is Private. I was allowed to view it once, so far, and there is vital information assembled by them concerning the criminal take-over of America during the 1787 Con Con event involving criminals such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton perpetrating treason under the color of law. Any crime involving any number of victims is a crime involving any number of criminals. Concentrating on each individual criminal, in turn, is a lawful course, and one that was not followed, resulting in the Criminal Dictatorship currently existing, in fact, today, in America.
How did they do it?
Consider the following explanation:
http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_41_43_2.php
"All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place."
That warning was offered by the 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled.
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/richard-henry-lee/
Richard Henry Lee
6th President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
November 30, 1784 to November 23, 1785
Time Line:
First is the time before 1776 when Americans formed a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, or Federation, whereby people in former Colonies (Subjects of British Criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of Law) created independent Mutual Defense Associations, or States, of a Republican (res-publica literally means the public thing) nature, which were also democratic in the sense that the people were the government, and the people formed independent republics, and the people formed a federation of independent republics, and the FEDERAL representatives of the people wrote their first Federal Statute, which was a Declaration of Independence.
Clarification at this point might help someone who is not yet up to speed on the basic principles of political economy (or LAW) concerning the often used term "we the people" as in what the people can do in their own, mutual, voluntary, defense. The people, as in "we the people," means "goof for humanity" in this sense. In other words the question "what can we the people do for our voluntary mutual defense?" is on one side of a power struggle and on the other side of a power struggle is the question "what can we the organized criminals, who are organized behind a false front, or color of law, do to remain in power so as to then enforce our special interests, doing what pleases we the criminals, as we perpetrate crimes upon the group we have targeted, who are the victims?"
See that?
When the entire group of people who are for humanity as a whole think along these lines, and act along these lines, of thinking and acting for all of humanity, then these are the people spoken about in "we the people," of (all) the people, by (all) the people, and for (all) the people.
There is more to it, unsaid in normal speech and normal writing on the subject of political economy (LAW), having to do with reasoned out moral awareness.
So take those words already clarified above and add the moral awareness to those words and there is then further clarification (increased awareness) as: Of all the moral people, by all the moral people, and for all the moral people, which constitutes moral humanity.
This is not idle talk, this is clarification of moral awareness if you think about it, because the concept of morality reaches out to all the criminals who have in their capacity to be human beings, an opportunity to be guided, nurtured, and offered, voluntarily, a salvation of their lives, a redemption of their lives, and a chance to decide, on their own volition, a course in their lives that is much better for themselves, and certainly much better for their intended victims that would be victimized without an offer from "we the people" to mend their ways. So..."we the people" are all the moral people who think and act in such a manner to help those who have perpetrated crimes (created innocent victims injured by the criminal), help those who are currently perpetrating crimes, and help those who may be inspired to turn to crime because, for some strange reason, innocent people are aware of the fact that crime pays well when the criminals take over governments.
So we the people have at least one undeniable common goal in the battle against crime done by guilty criminals upon innocent victims, and that is to work effectively to protect all humanity (including criminals) from further crimes done by guilty criminals upon innocent victims.
This is where it is vitally important to understand the difference between a guilty mind (mens rea) and a mind that may not be guilty, concerning a crime (actus reus) whereby there is a factual injury done by someone who factually caused the injury, and there is someone innocent (not the cause of the injury themselves) who is injured by someone. If it can be established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the guilty criminal has no conscience, no remorse, no understanding of morality whatsoever, then how is that example of life a member of the group that is knowable as all the moral people? Is it possible to reason with someone who has no moral capacity? If so, then that factors into the prescription for remedy, restitution, redemption, or punishment, for that individual in that case. If not, if the individual found to be a clear and present danger to all the moral people is incapable of moral reasoning, as if the individual who is the cause of the injury done to the innocent victim were a mad dog, foaming at the mouth, out of their mind, a criminally insane sociopathic psychopath, then remedy (offer a mad dog their opportunity to defend against the accusation of crime?), restitution (restore a mad dog into a working moral member of all the moral people?), redemption (redeem a mad dog?), is ludicrous in that case, it is beyond reason. Think in numbers along these lines. Suppose all the moral people discovered a pack of mad dogs occupying Washington D.C., and under closer inspection this pack of mad dogs are found (through due process) to be the cause of many innocent deaths, children torn apart and eaten, by this pack of mad dogs, and a trial by the country (a trial by all the moral people) results in you commanding your representative part in said trial by the country, where you determine fact, you determine law, and you determine the best course for helping these mad dogs return to the group known as we the moral people. Do you unleash these mad dogs on the hope that you can figure out a way, as your part representing the whole group acting in defense of humanity, to restore, redeem, and bring these mad dogs back to their senses, their morality, back onto our side, the moral side?
If that does not work, then how about the natural disaster scenario? A mad dog can be reasonably helped, by all the moral people, to become one of the group known as all the moral people as can a tornado. A tornado runs amok damaging so much life, and it is just as reasonable to accuse a tornado of willfully deciding to perpetrate the crime of murder, with malice aforethought, as it is to accuse a mad dog of the same (mens rea = guilty mind) crime. There is no way a mad dog, or a tornado, is part of the group known as we the moral people. There is no reasonable application of due process where the goal is to help a mad dog, or a tornado, to be given the choice to mend their ways, to return to we the moral people.
So...we the moral people always offer help to all the moral people all the time, as a goal, but we the moral people are not always aware of our own crimes against we the moral people, such as our failures to effectively defend we the moral people against special interest groups who use words like "special interest groups" to hide the fact that they are, in demonstrable fact, criminals, as they create victim after victim, because the pay is good. We the moral people might do a better job at effectively protecting the innocent people from the criminals if we use words more effectively, rather than being fooled when the criminals use words more effectively when criminals create victims through fraud, and other criminal means.
Back to the timeline:
Organic (or grassroots, grows naturally, and in this case out of necessity in defense against British crimes against American people) Federal Agents declare their state of nature (free people) as these Organic Federal Agents produce their first Federal Statute, which is an indictment against the Criminal British whose crimes include African and Irish Slavery. Only African Slavery is included in the indictment in the original Declaration of Independence. There were criminals already infiltrating the Organic Federal Government during the creation of the first Federal Statute, and those criminals struck out the indictment against African Slavery; while Irish Slavery Crimes were not so much as mentioned in the indictment against the British criminals (criminals acting under the color of law, which is worse than simple criminals, because the crime of treason is added to the other crimes, such as African, and Irish, Slavery).
https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Coriginal-rough-draught%E2%80%9D-declaration-independence-0
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:[11] 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, by 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.
Who were the criminals infiltrating the Organic Federal Government during CRISIS (CRISIS was the British Aggressive War for Profit = same crimes perpetrated by Nazi's a few centuries later)?
Jefferson confesses:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/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.
Earlier in the formation of the Organic Federation the Federal Agents issued orders to stop African Slave Trading, that is what Jefferson is referring to concerning the people running those two Independent Republics, which were trusted with their part in the Federal Association, so why was there not indictments issued, according to the common law, concerning those treasonous actions of continuing those crimes against nature itself?
Note these words in the (as yet to be ratified) Federal Constitution known as The Articles of Confederation:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/SMAN-107/pdf/SMAN-107-pg935.pdf
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 attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
Here is the law of the land formed by the people in past generations and retained by the people forming their Voluntary Mutual Defense Association: Federation:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
Here is a definition of Federal association offered during the decision to publish the first Federal Statute known as a Declaration of Independence.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/
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:
That is vitally important in any case where one individual connects to another individual and the idea is to understand if the connection is made in Liberty (voluntary), or the connection is criminal: involuntary.
That firmly establishes the Organic Federal Government of America as an attempt to reject involuntary servitude, also known as slavery, also known as a "crime against nature itself," and in place of involuntary servitude (under the color of law, or treason) the Organic Federal Government of America creates a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association of people in independent States, all of which are both democratic (of, by, and for the people) and republican (res-publica literally means the public thing), and the law of the land is the common law, which is literally translated from Latin words: legem terrae.
See:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
“Per legem terrae.”
One other phrase remains to be explained, viz., “per legem terrae,” “by the law of the land.”
All writers agree that this means the common law. Thus, Sir Matthew Hale says:
“The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence,lex terrae, as in the statute of Magna Carta, chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words,aut per legem terrae; as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III.” chap. 3 which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae, as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9,“Nolumus leges Angliae mutari,” &c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni (the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. --, and de quo warranto, and divers others. But most [*35] commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas, cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes.” --- 1 Hale’s History of the Common Law , 128.
The Federal Constitution is agreed upon by the representatives representing the independent Republics, or States, which are democratic, and which are retaining the rights of the people to consent to any government punishment, whatsoever, with their own trial by jury, which is trial by the country, and each State is an independent country.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html
March 1, 1781 - Maryland delegates signed the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were finally ratified by all thirteen states.
Back to Richard Henry Lee, 6th President, and the date of publication for his explanation as to how the law is altered by those who alter the existing law. I call it counterfeiting. The method was explained by Richard Henry Lee's quotes above concerning the use of fiction. I call that fraud.
https://patriotparchment.wordpress.com/biographies-speeches-and-writings/anti-federalist-papers/timeline-and-overview-of-anti-federalist-papers/
1788?
Previous to the 1787 Con Con, there was no Direct Taxation of people by a false Federal Government, there was no unlimited POWER to take wealth from every single individual in America, at will, and a POWER commanded by 1 or certainly a few, obvious criminals, whose crimes are, at minimum, spelled out in Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence, and then the confession of their failure to police their own Congress, let alone their failure to police their own constituents in their own Independent States.
So who, according to established laws, is in charge when the representatives of the people (as a whole, meaning the public thing is all the people, not a legal fiction) fail to police themselves?
What is missing, I propose now, is a body of people known at that time as justices of the peace.
Look here:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/JEFFERSON/ch14.html
The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal. If the criminal be a slave the trial by the county court is final. In every case however, except that of high treason, there resides in the governor a power of pardon. In high treason, the pardon can only flow from the general assembly.
Work that out with experiments in modern situations please. I'll start with an example in the next post.