 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The obvious opposite of authority of law is falsehood, or the willful (with malice aforethought) employment of truth (accurate perception and employment of facts) to destroy life, to make life not worth living, and thereby ensure the end of life.
If someone, Jesus for example, figures out a better way to reach closer toward the ideal of perfect knowledge, or absolute truth, or highest possible authority of law, then that example of life is worth something.
Such as:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
I call that the law of agreement.
Is it true, or is it false, that agreement is required in order to know a fact and therefore separate the fact from fiction whereby fiction hides the fact?
If, as I've tried to explain, that the common law was, is, and always will be a method by which everyone agrees to acknowledge a fact, which means that no one disagrees with that acknowledgement of a fact, then so long will people have within their power a method of reaching the goal of acknowledging facts, at least to the extent that people are able to do so.
Everyone agrees, and no on disagrees, and until someone disagrees, the fact is acknowledged as a fact within the power of awareness of people as a whole.
Try that out with Matthew 7:12 please.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
I acknowledge a fact in those words, but I also acknowledge that those words can be misunderstood, by me, or by anyone, since I am unable to contact, question, and confirm my acknowledgement of what those words mean according to whoever acknowledges those words as factual words.
I can try.
I cannot ask Jesus; certainly not in person.
Latin is useful at this point: When I say "in person" I mean that I am an individual perceptive being living in time and space, and I am not suggesting any other form of entity, such as a legal fiction, or separate entity standing in place of me, myself, and I. Not 3, just 1, just me, a living, individual, and therefore responsible, and therefore accountable, being of one.
Speaking of Bonding (before returning to my need to find agreement with the words known as Matthew 7:12):
SOURCE: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm
QUOTE:_____________________________________
9.2 - Escalation
Further:
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.
"I found this insight on the UBC to be very perspicuous and most useful to the Patriot movement, but like all laws, it is useful only to the one(s) who use it and enforce it."
Remember the etymon at the tine of law's creation and The Federalist Papers. (Read and discern until it's perspicuous.)
"Prior law governs always." "Prior etymons govern always."
"To act in pro se fashion in a court of law or equity is to profess in law, thus, casting yourself to drift away from logic and into the arms of a fool."
_______________________________
End of Quote
The term used in Latin for someone representing themselves as a free, independent, living being, in liberty, as far as I can understand, known, agree to use as fact, is propria persona.
So returning to a less than perfect meeting with Jesus, is a meeting with someone other than Jesus, someone other than me (propria persona me) to seek agreement as to the meaning of the words offered in Matthew 7:12.
To me it is the law as I understand the law of connections between living beings known as humans.
The way we are constructed as cooperative beings, as beings constructed in such a way as to be very powerful beings when we cooperate, by finding agreement, by avoiding wasting power on disagreement, is a way in which there is a right way that aught to be our agreed upon way to treat each other, and there is a demonstrably wrong way that we ought to agree to deal with each other.
A. Right way, where we all agree, and there is no disagreement.
B. Some of us agree, such as wolves agreeing to eat the sheep, where we are not wolves or sheep, we are all human beings, but the twisting of words tends to water down, or disguise, or hide, or falsify, the actual willful intent, with malice aforethought, for some of us to conspire to destroy, or consume the others of us.
In A there is the principle of agreement at work, for all of us, all the time, where we employ A.
In B there is the principle of agreement only at work with group B, where group B is historically known as criminals, or outlaws, and why use 2 words when 1 word keeps things simple?
So the how to of how to actually connect more than 1 individual to another individual, and maintain law power, is a process that is worth labelling with an agreeable label.
If Common Law (still on the books in the Bill of Rights in America) is not agreeable, then what is?
Interesting things worth connecting to find any truth (agreement) in the five seemingly unrelated processes (not static things, rather dynamic processes) listed:
SOURCE:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
Process 1 (1 thing to connect by agreement to other things, potentially):
QUOTE:
It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people.
End of Quote
Process 2
Same Source
Quote:
Even when laws were made at the time of a parliament, they were made in the name of the king alone. Sometimes it was inserted in the laws, that they were made with the consent or advice of the bishops, barons, and others assembled; but often this was omitted. Their consent or advice was evidently a matter of no legal importance to the enactment or validity of the laws, but only inserted, when inserted at all, with a view of obtaining a more willing submission to them on the part of the people. The style of enactment generally was, either "The King wills and commands," or some other form significant of the sole legislative authority of the king. The king could pass laws at any time when it pleased him. The presence of a parliament was wholly unnecessary. Hume says, "It is asserted by Sir Harry Spelman, as an undoubted fact, that, during the reigns of the Norman princes, every order of the king, issued with the consent of his privy council, had the full force of law."[7] And other authorities abundantly corroborate this assertion.[8] The king was, therefore, constitutionally the government; and the only legal limitation upon his power seems to have been simply the Common Law, usually called "the law of the land," which he was bound by oath to maintain; (which oath had about the same practical value as similar oaths have always had.) This "law of the land" seems not to have been regarded at all by many of the kings, except so far as they found it convenient to do so, or were constrained to observe it by the fear of arousing resistance. But as all people are slow in making resistance, oppression and usurpation often reached a great height; and, in the case of John, they had become so intolerable as to enlist the nation almost universally against him; and he was reduced to the necessity of complying with any terms the barons saw fit to dictate to him.
End of Quote
Process 3
Same Source
Quote:
Under the Saxon laws, fines, payable to the injured party, seem to have been the common punishments for all offences. Even murder was punishable by a fine payable to the relatives of the deceased. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. When a criminal was unable to pay his One, his relatives often paid it for him. But if it were not paid, he was put out of the protection of the law, and the injured parties, (or, in the case of murder, the kindred of the deceased,)were allowed to inflict such punishment as they pleased. And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. Afterwards the custom grew up of exacting fines also to the king as a punishment for offences. [26]
And this latter was, doubtless, the usual punishment at the time of Magna Carta, as is evidenced by the fact that for many years immediately following Magna Carta, nearly or quite all statutes that prescribed any punishment at all, prescribed that the offender should "be grievously amerced," or "pay a great fine to the king," or a "grievous ransom," - - with the alternative in some cases (perhaps understood in all) of imprisonment, banishment, or outlawry, in case of non-payment.
End of Quote
Process 4
SOURCE: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm
QUOTE:
A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on the question of whether an organization could be set up to legally announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital cash.
I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have no information that could help the authorities find the person responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death.
It was not my intention to provide such a "tough nut to crack" by arguing the general case, claiming that a person who hires a hit man is not guilty of murder under libertarian principles. Obviously, the problem with the general case is that the victim may be totally innocent under libertarian principles, which would make the killing a crime, leading to the question of whether the person offering the money was himself guilty.
On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under libertarian principles.
The organization set up to manage such a system could, presumably, make up a list of people who had seriously violated the NAP, but who would not see justice in our courts due to the fact that their actions were done at the behest of the government. Associated with each name would be a dollar figure, the total amount of money the organization has received as a contribution, which is the amount they would give for correctly "predicting" the person's death, presumably naming the exact date. "Guessers" would formulate their "guess" into a file, encrypt it with the organization's public key, then transmit it to the organization, possibly using methods as untraceable as putting a floppy disk in an envelope and tossing it into a mailbox, but more likely either a cascade of encrypted anonymous remailers, or possibly public-access Internet locations, such as terminals at a local library, etc.
End of Quote
Process 5
SOURCE
https://www.rt.com/news/bitcoin-assassination-market-anarchist-983/
QUOTE:
‘Assassination market’: Bernanke tops ‘kill-list’ in crowd-sourced bitcoin fundraiser for wannabe hitmen
End of Quote
Comments:
The law is such that the law remains the law even when people fail to agree with it. If all the people agree to blindly believe in falsehood without question, living lives of desperation under Rule by Criminal Means, then trial by jury, or trial in courts of no-conscience, or trial by the country, is immoral, and everyone agrees to seek, and obtain, revenge, or other goals other than redemption, restitution, and offers of sanctuary, protection, defense, against Rule by Criminal Means, and blind obedience to falsehood without question.
If everyone but one (King John for example) agrees to abide by law, and this one King John inspires one other, now there are two outlaws, to murder King John, then was it agreed upon, in common law due process, that the murderer could return to sanctuary by paying the fine, because King John was unredeemable, an out-law by choice, an out-law by nature, as a Mad Dog would be unable to agree to abide by law, as would a hurricane, as would be any natural disaster including sociopaths, psychopaths, or other living things that have no capacity to choose to agree to remain inside the law, within their power to do so, as they have no power to do so?
What happens in case law when the jury (the country as a whole) agrees to murder each other for fun and profit?
So much for case law?