 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
"I don't see anything about the Constitution of 1789 not being in force.
"I don't see anything about the return to Constitutionality via an Article V Constitutional Convention. In short, this seems to be waving a red flag at a bull. No incentive to get from here to there. "Why is that?" Karen Hudes (commenting NLA)
Why is it that many people are misdirected and failing to effectively defend against harm done by the worst people perpetrating the worst crimes under the color of law? The problem is the false color of law. An Article III court is possibly a transitional step during interregnum, whereby a return to Rule of Law (common law) is a possible goal. If the idea is to return ONLY to the (fraudulent) Constitution of 1787/89, then interregnum will be followed by Rule by Criminal Means, not Rule of Law. In order to understand this it is vitally important to understand the true account of what happened to the true voluntary mutual defense federation known as The Untied States of America in Congress Assembled. If the true federation was usurped (which it was) in 1787/89, then returning to the Constitution of 1789 is returning to a crime scene, and returning to an Article III court is handing back the power of mutual defense to the offenders. Giving the power to defend the innocent to the guilty. So...the idea here is to inspire the guilty to turn themselves in, in their own court, and then what? Let them keep their fraudulently gained authority to perpetrate whatever crime pleases them from then on? That makes no sense. A return to Rule of Law, if that is the goal, must actually do so, and what is Rule of Law? Rule of Law, in the American example, was, is, and can be in our future, the common law, not a fraudulent Article III court.
So this sounds more of the Pot calling the Kettle black to me, if National Liberty Alliance is wrong, then so is the effort by Karen Hudes, and those in charge of the Global Currency Reset, if they think (falsely) that a return to an Article III court, and an Article V Constitutional Convention is the goal. It may be a step, but it may also be the same waving a red flag at a bull, or it may be a Tar Baby. It is better than doing nothing. What is the goal? If the goal is rule of law, then the Constitution of 1787/89 must be understood in the context of Rule of Law. No lawful authority is ever gained through fraud, only rule by criminal means is gained through fraud. The step after interregnum must be a return to the Articles of Confederation, a return to voluntary, mutual, moral, defense of all, with an actual federal (not "national") power in conjunction with independent (nation) states, which are now 50 in number not 13, whereby any effort to hold a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) has to actually follow the original federal (organic) laws. A misstep at that crucial junction of offering the current (criminal) powers their incentive to do the right thing is the WRONG thing, and that misstep leads right back to the same our criminal business cycle. Why would anyone want to postpone World War III, giving those investors in it another chance at it?
How many steps ahead of the game will the winner of the game be required to know in advance? Does the fencer, or the chess player, or the military airman, solider, fall into a trap ever? Is it a good idea to avoid falling into traps?
The defining moment when America turned from Rule of Law to Rule by Criminal means (dictatorship) was the move from federation (voluntary mutual defense association of free people in liberty) to nationalization (tyranny by another false name) in 1787/89, a well documented fact. If the plan is to follow interregnum with Rule of Law, by offering the criminals at large (article III courts, article V con con), a way - during interregnum - to return to Rule of Law (offering remedy, redemption, restitution, salvation, restoration, sanctuary in liberty, mutual, voluntary, defense against all criminals including the criminals themselves), then it makes absolutely no sense to claim that the criminals keep their false authority. The common law IS the voluntary, mutual defense, sanctuary, in liberty, rule of law, due process, law of the land, legem terrae, point of view, that offers remedy, restitution, redemption, by a process offered, given, to all by all. How absurd is it to get past interregnum and instead of returning to rule of law (federation of free people in competitive nation states in liberty) the game is won by the criminals themselves (under the color of law) with a return to their fraudulent criminal version of law, that required the actual founders to amend the criminal constitution with the Bill of Rights, in the vain, weak, and powerless effort to defend Rule of Law? How soon do you think the criminals ignored the Bill of Rights (common law due process) when they stole the American version of federation?
Have you read the criminal Judiciary Act of 1789, a criminal at perpetrated before acknowledgement of the Bill of Rights? How about the criminal Naturalization Act of 1790? How about the first fraudulent Bank of the United States? How about the criminal extortion fee on money competition known as the whiskey tax? How about the criminal Whiskey rebellion Proclamation of 1794? How about the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798? You want to start at the start again and allow the criminals to restart the same rule by criminal means, the same way, just a new day, a fresh start, and a return to business as usual, the criminal business cycle phase III. At least we avoided the dark ages after world war III? Is that the plan?