 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Hi, this is Joe Kelley writing to you concerning subjects that matter, such as might be the meaning intended when employing the term subject matter jurisdiction.
I picked up on a term used by you in the previous group discussion session last Tuesday (5-2-17) and I found the following information concerning the term Clearfield Doctrine:
https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/clearfield-doctrine.pdf
"What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation."
From my view the above can be perceived from at least 2 opposing foundations of knowledge.
1. The people are themselves the source of moral conscience, judgment, and therefore law, and therefore any segment of the whole people charged with any work for the whole people are specifically not the source of moral conscience, judgment, and therefore law.
2. The people as a whole are under the control of a segment of the population whereby those in control of the whole people claim to be (and enforce their claim by any means possible) the source of moral conscience, judgment, and therefore the law.
From those 2 foundations above the information concerning the Clearfield Doctrine can be understood in at least 2 opposing ways.
1. From the people as their own law foundation (liberty); that foundation can look at the Clearfield Doctrine as further inculpatory evidence proving the case that the criminals have taken over, and the criminals are claiming that some of their own number (a segment of the criminal population ) have counterfeited the counterfeit government, turning the counterfeit government (rule by criminals) into a more obvious counterfeit government (rule by criminals), as exemplified by this case where counterfeit money is claimed by the criminals as their exclusive power to enforce their criminal orders. In other words this case proves that some of the criminals are ratting on some other criminals concerning a specific crime that could be labelled with a label that works to accurately identify the specific crime in this case: a label such as Mixed War, or Treason, or Central Banking Fraud Under the Color of Law.
2. From the Special Interest Group Elite Controllers of the Whole People foundation (despotism); that foundation can look at the Clearfield Doctrine as a means by which the victims (the whole people minus the dominant criminal group, but caution is advised here, see for example Proverbs 1:8-19 concerning what can be called the blowback effect) are fooled yet again, as the deception concerning the criminal take-over of government is again covered up as some of the criminals rat on (throw under the bus) some of the other criminals within the dominant criminal group. Meanwhile the criminal hierarchy remains intact, as the people are still made to believe that this Special Interest Group constitutes the source of moral conscience, judgment, and thereby law.
Since the last open discussion I've been working further on the Essay on Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner here:
http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1310&forum_id=33
Eventually the study will move to the evidence proving (caught red handed) the criminal take-over, in ways that constitute confessions, or written documentation of the criminal acts perpetrated by the criminals themselves, while they were in the commission of that crime. The principles should be enough for any living being in possession of moral conscience, but that assumes that the virus of disinformation has not taken control of the living being formerly in possession of moral conscience.
An example is found here:
http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/Sedition%20and%20Treason%20in%20the%20Confederation%202015-10-01.pdf
Example:___________________________quote
Make no mistake, Congress is clearly committing sedition against the current confederation at this point. Let us examine each paragraph.
The first paragraph acknowledges that revisions need to be made to the current constitution (the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union) because there are certain unworkable conditions in governing. In February of 1787, Congress authorizes a Convention of the States for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein, as should when agreed to in Congress, and be confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government, and the preservation of the Union.” This follows the law of the land based on Article 13. The Convention were to report their results to Congress, Congress would debate and amend such results, then agree to such, and then pass them on to the States for their unanimous approval.
In the second paragraph, Congress acknowledges that only 12 states were present, not 13, and even though being unanimous of the 12, the Convention DID NOT DO WHAT THEY WERE TASKED TO DO, AND PRESENTED TO CONGRESS NOT ANY ALTERATIONS OF THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION BUT A SYSTEM THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, in the following words “. . . for their Assent and ratification which constitution appears to be intended as an entire system in itself, and not as any part of, or alteration in the Articles of Confederation; to alterations in which Articles, the deliberations and powers of Congress are, in this Case, constitutionally confined, and whereas Congress cannot with propriety proceed to examine and alter the said Constitution proposed, unless it be with a view so essentially to change the principles and forms of it, as to make it an additional part in the said Confederation . . .”
End________________________quote
I go one step further (in my study, it is not me constructing conspiracy theory (falsehood), it is factual, demonstrable, knowledge) in pointing out that a County government, a State government, and even a Federal Union of State governments, do not constitute "the law of the land," if those people charged with those duties do not recognized, acknowledge, and follow the law of the land trial by jury process, whereby the people themselves can veto, or consent to, any claims of authority by anyone, anywhere, including presidents, governors, sheriffs, lawyers, judges, and corporate officers.
Joe