 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I would like clique members and clique minions to hear of two mandatory sentences upon being found guilty by jury proceedings:
1. Deportation from their home countries.
2. Life imprisonment, solitary confinement, no parole.
While there would be no capital punishment, I believe it is important to send a heavy message to would-be human predators in the future.
That is a clear second example of the failure to know the demarcation line between true, organic, grass roots, natural, law, and the Rule by Men counterfeit version of law.
If this Grandfather writing this Perspective understood true law, as in "the law of the land," then he would know that the 1789 Constitution, by his definition of is it "constitutional" or is it not "constitutional" is NOT constitutional.
That is best expressed in the words of the first congress as the first congress laid down the true meaning of the term federal.
Here:
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 usa 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it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn: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 James II. never declared the people of England out of his protection; yet his actions proved it, and the Parliament declared it:
The fraudulent constitution (not openly declaring that the people of America were being sold out to dictatorship) was based upon no authority, there was no authority to write the Constitution of 1789, and there was no authority to enact it. There was no authority, other than criminal deception, criminal threat of aggressive violence, and criminal aggressive violence, afforded to the so called Federalist Party members, for them, in their secret meetings, to make their dirty compromises, dividing up the spoils of their crimes against humanity.
The criminals turned rule of law on it's head, enacting the RULE that would force non-slave "owners" and no-slave traders to pay the costs of maintaining the slave trades: African Slave trade, Irish Slave trade, and debt slavery through fraudulent central banking "legal" extortion.
Out went rule of law where everyone - all the people including the criminals - had a duty to voluntarily defend the innocent, through due process, where due process applies to every volunteer, and those who don't volunteer are - by their own power of will - outside of said law. In place of rule of law was dictatorship whereby only the dictatorial out-laws were powerful enough to punish anyone that pleases them to punish, whenever they felt like punishing anyone: just ask them who has absolute authority - to make slavery "legal" - and they let you know when they want you to know.
So...you ask the criminals that took over, with their criminal constitution, and their criminal Judiciary Act of 1789, if they would, please, hold themselves accountable for their crimes they perpetrate under the color of law, with their "just us" system, and what do you think the answer is going to be: the truth?
You then are powerless in your own defense other than mock trials, where you claim to have dictatorial powers to enforce mandatory sentencing?
In rule of law the whole country (represented by 12 randomly selected local jurists) determine fact, determine law, and determine punishment, and if the whole country - unanimously - decides to hang the bastards until they are dead, then, unfortunately, that is a whole country of people bent on revenge. Is it not as likely that the whole country (represented by 12 jurists), unanimously, decide instead of "capital punishment," that the best remedy, the best restitution, and the best redemption in this case is to offer the accused, and found guilty, a voluntary way to mend their broken souls?
What is missing from modern understanding of rule of law?
A failure to learn from the past?
So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Have you read Age of Reason?