 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
If, for example, there was written into some document (an offer from someone, or some group, to someone else, or some other group), such as The Judiciary Act of 1789, where the offer, in writing, gives, affords, allows, accepts, agrees to POWER retained by the others, such as a POWER to hold anyone, anytime, to account for charges against them, as if everyone were under this POWER, and everyone commanded this POWER equally, then said offer, in writing, ought to be understood clearly by more than one individual.
The problem I have with the Judiciary Act of 1789 is that it was fraudulently acted upon by the creators of it, and then the deception in it enabled crimes to be perpetrated under the color of law, despite the half truth of the document containing a clause, or two, that could be interpreted as a POWER commanded by everyone equally: the common law, all are under it, and all command it, with equal power.
I don't know if we are on the same page at this point.
EDIT: I see that I "spoke too soon," and you have added to the most recent response. I have an opportunity at this time to cook my Cajun Seafood Gumbo today, and I'm on it: and looking forward to more of this process.