 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Theory?
The criminals claimed that slavery was legal, so your version of the facts is now such that slavery is a theoretical crime and not a prima facie (inculpatory) cause to hold said criminals to an accurate accounting of the fact that their enslavement of innocent people constitutes a self-evident perpetration of a crime against nature itself.
As to the particulars (less inculpatory than the principles such as so called "legal" enslavement):
LINK:
http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/Identity%20Theft%20of%20the%20perpetual%20Union.pdf
Sept. 27, 1787
Congress reviews the convention results and first votes to approve of the new law form. Congress then realizes they do not have the authority to approve of a new law form and the vote to approve is stricken out in the records (but not deleted). (See The Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 33. pages 540-542)
Congress acknowledges they can make no changes to the new law form because it has nothing to do with the existing law form, to which their powers lie.
At first, treason but then lawful.
Congress then acknowledges the people at the Convention created a new law form (that has absolutely nothing to do with the existing law form, i.e., the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union) but does not admonish them for breaking the law. Then Congress, instead of dismissing the results as unlawful, passes the results onto the States for their approval but implying the Congress does approve of the new law form. The States, under the assumption of Congress's approval, begin the ratification process. (See The Journals of the Continental Congress , Vol. 33. pages 543-544)
So... you claim that there are "theories" somewhere in time and place that you are aware of with measured ambiguity. That measured ambiguity faces clear demonstrations of criminal acts in time and place, such as the enforcement of slavery under the color of law, and the organic, grass-roots, voluntary mutual defense association rule book broken in time and place proven by the actual records kept by the perpetrators of the crime while they perpetrated the crime.
Now there is a claim of feelings; as if that has anything to do with the facts concerning what is, or is not, law.
I account it to more projection, like your feeling you have established I am evasive. I would call you paranoid but that is just plain nonproductive.
I can restart with the first question you dodged:
"Why accept fraud as law?"
That question works in either case, where your claims concerning what is law are defendable, or not, and my claims of what is law, or not, is tested in like manner.
So far as I can tell (code) you have a claim concerning the legitimacy of Admiralty Law recorded here and there, while my opposition to such a claim includes these same demonstrations of fact in time and space concerning enforced slavery by people claiming to be law enforcers.
So far as I can tell the reason why you dodge the question is due to the unreasonable act of enforcing slavery upon innocent people. Your claims are morally indefensible, therefore you dodge that which you cannot do.