 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Stop judging.
Is that hypocrisy?
I ask because I am curious about this present part of this ongoing exchange of information that is - to me - a voluntary mutual association for benefit.
How can I know if there is benefit, and therefore reason, cause, to continue?
How can I know if there is the opposite of benefit, and therefore reason, and cause, to discontinue?
I see a clear requirement for accurate judgment of accurately perceived measures of demonstrable fact; without which I will not know anything.
Am I to rely upon instinct alone?
Stop judging.
Perhaps your definition of the word judging is not the same as mine.
Your definition of the word law appears to be to be a similar definition for the term organized crime under the color of law, as far as I can tell.
My definition of law: Common law due process by which volunteers volunteer to hold each other to an accurate accounting and the process by which that is done includes trial by jury.
An example is the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trail, however that example was run - in part - according to rules that are not voluntary, therefore not lawful, and therefore the trial by jury case was - in that way - not lawful, not voluntary, not according to due process, not according to the common law. It was, for example, much too late, and it was, for another example, a crime scene when someone claiming to be a judge misinforms the jury as to what powers the jurors command as representatives of the whole (moral) people in the whole country in trial by the country, which is a court of conscience.
So my working definition of law is specific, not ambiguous, and not in code, so there is no need to decode, decipher, or confuse the definition offered through me, through Lysander Spooner, through many other sources already quoted, and through many other sources not quoted here, and your working definition of law, as far as I can tell, is the same definition that applies to organized crime under the color of law.
Example:
The "conversation" so far consists of you trying to assert that the Constitution is a criminal action. The law, and corpus of that trust, is described in metaphor at Books of Samuel and Kings in the Bible. The Law is for individuals. The only escape from law is love and unity.
Specifically this:
The only escape from law is love and unity
Love and unity is law, so why would anyone choose to escape (step out-side) law, and become, thereby, an outlaw?
Part of the confusion might be discoverable in this:
The Law is for individuals.
What is not for individuals? I'd like to know. I can offer this:
Link: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp03
Title:
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism
Quote:
There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.
Apparently there is a lot of confusion going on when words and terms begin (grass roots, adaptation, invention, creation) as meaning one thing, and then an individual (and then more than one individual agreeing) changes the meaning from the original meaning whereby the new meaning is opposite the original meaning.
Case in point:
Federalism started as:
Link:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/
Title:
Elliot’s Debates: Volume 1
Gradual Approaches Towards Independence
Quote:
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:
And now Federation - as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents in Waco Texas, and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents conspiring to murder Martin Luther King Jr., and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents enforcing the Judiciary Act of 1789, and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents subsidizing the African slave trade since 1789 - means rule by criminal means: also known as organized crime under the color of law.
Is that what you mean when you work with, use, employ, communicate with, the term "Law"?
When you use the term "Law" do you mean rule by criminal means, and do you mean organized crime?
What exactly do you mean, when you refer to that which is law, as far as you are concerned, as far as you know?
Law, to me, is this:
...love and unity
Also expressed here:
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Also expressed here:
Link:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/
Title:
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788 at Philadelphia
September Sessions, 1778
Quote:
It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land.
And:
This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country.
The definition of law is also offered in the following work:
Link:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
Title:
TRIAL BY JURY
Quote:
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government.
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.
Law, as explained, is a voluntary association among volunteers for their mutual defense, and the volunteers who agree to employ law agree to hold each other accountable for whatever each individual is responsible.
That is my working definition of law in so many words, and how can anyone confuse that voluntary association for mutual defense with anything other than a voluntary association for mutual defense, and what is the motive for creating such confusion if such confusion is created by an individual in time and place?
Above is my working definition of law in a nutshell, and it is not, apparently, the same definition of law that you are working here and now.
If you can, please, let me know, without code, what your definition of law is as far as you require when you employ the term law: please.