| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Control | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Jun 16th, 2013 01:22 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The concept of LAW, realized by individual people, as individual people relate to other individual people in time and space. A competitive angle of view: Wrapping heads around property rights Before reading further, commenting further, the idea that a fictional thing, such as a title, represents another thing, such as a measured section of the surface of the earth, or land, is the creation of a thing based upon the existence of a thing. 1. A place on Earth, or Mars, or the Moon. 2. A title One is one thing, the other is another thing, exclusive use of one thing by a human being is factual because two human beings cannot occupy the same place on Earth, or Mars, or the Moon, at the same time. One person standing in time and place excludes another person standing in that same place at that same time. Ownership, or property, is factual in that measurable state of being human. Building an impenetrable wall around a place on earth, a cube, or a complex geometrical shape, a globe, a pyramid, whatever shape actually existing, whereby one human being has the only way out into or out of that walled in area is another example of physically real ownership, which can now exist as absentee ownership. The owner, in a strictly physical sense, has exclusive control over that walled in area, and physical occupation of that area is not necessary to demonstrate the actual fact of the matter, proven to be a fact of the matter, that that one individual human being has exclusive control, or ownership, of that specific walled in, physical area, with, or without having to demonstrate actual occupation of the actual physical space occupied the that actual physical body. By definition, by demonstration, by actual fact, the individual human being commands exclusive power to exist in that space owned by that person, and therefore that space, within those walls, are owned by that person, and no one else owns that space, as a matter of physical fact. Such a space, in physical terms, would be difficult to actually demonstrate in reality, but not impossible. The last human being in the entire universe, or the first, is a demonstration of an idea, a thought, a concept, of ownership in that sense too. As soon as another human being exists, in the universe, is the moment that ownership is potentially challenged as a power commanded by each human being to occupy or exclude occupation in any place where one human being exists and another human being can potentially exist in time and place. Therefore, obviously, the concept of property is a connection between individual examples of human beings, or living beings, whereby there is either an agreement to allow each other to exist in time and place or a disagreement to not allow each other to exist in time and space. Ownership, in that sense, is the power to remove anther human being from time and place, or remove the power to be in specific places at specific times from a specific person or specific persons. In other words, an individual human being access, gains, the power to exclude any other human being from a specific time and from a specific place in demonstrable fact. Someone can therefore demonstrate ownership by killing every other human being and in so doing someone can own everything. Other human beings are alive, so killing them, is owning them, in that sense, as power is employed by the killer, killing, occupants of time and space. Creating human beings, demonstrated as reproduction, occupies space at the time of conception or birth in a real sense, as on cell becomes two cells, then four, then 16, and another life form, a human being for example, occupies more space, as time proceeds, and as matter moves in time. So I have a competitive arrangement of symbols, ideas, filling up space, to offer as a good use of space, since there is so much space, enough space to satisfy any desire for more space, unless someone, somewhere, wants to own everything, excluding everyone else, I can still, at this time, afford to create more messages in English text. There is land, on Earth, and it exists. There are people, on Earth, and they exist. There are things called titles, and Frank O'Collins offers arrangements of symbols in English to other individual people, like me, to read, process, and hopefully know what other people intend to do with me, and what other people intend to do with other people, as people occupy placed on Earth in time. People create titles, out of nothing, out of thin air, and then these Titles are used by people for some reason, and the obvious reason is to exclude other people from specific places on Earth, to keep out, to remove, to exile, to force out, to take the power away from, other people, as other people have the power to exist on Earth in time and place, including the places and times described in these things called titles. So an impenetrable wall, with only one way in, usable by only one person, is, again, an example of a physical fact of being, which can be called ABSENTEE ownership. The owner can leave, and still exclude, all other human beings from that specific walled in, and locked up, physical area on Earth. If there is an idea, a fiction, that serves as an impenetrable wall, where only one individual human being owns, or controls, or has the exclusive power of use, then that idea, if it is Real, as in Real Estate, then it is a very powerful idea, an idea that is equal to, or exactly the same as, an actual wall, with an actual key, where one human being has the exclusive power of ABSENTEE ownership. Otherwise, one human being occupies time and space, since two people cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Even mothers who are pregnant have to make room for new human beings. The certificate of title is not the property itself; it is not the home or the land, but yes it is ‘property.’ It’s not the home or the land. What it allows is a fictional construct to be created after a survey of that land which creates a title of ownership that allows that land to be sold, moved, and administered. So even from the times back to Egypt, Sumeria and in the most ancient of traditional cultures it was recognized that creating a fictional icon of something tangible but immovable was a way then of administering rights, ownership, possession, occupation and the trade or the rights inherited by those things. I realize that no one, on this planet, may ever read my viewpoint on this, but I write anyway. What Frank is describing above is the creation of money. Frank is describing a type of money, or currency, which can be compared to any other form of money, and I offer a few example by which the facts of the matter can be compared one next to the other as forms of money take shape and appear to the viewer for what they are in fact. 1. Land titles, pieces of paper, to be invented by, produced by, and then used by, or maintained by, those who the move those forms of money from one person to the next person equitably, or in iniquity (criminally). 2. Debt notes, pieces of paper, to be invented by, produced by, and then used by, or maintained by, those who the move those forms of money from one person to the next person equitably, or in iniquity (criminally). 3. Commodity money, pieces of things, including paper (paper is a commodity), to be invented by, produced by, and then used by, or maintained by, those who the move those forms of money from one person to the next person equitably, or in iniquity (criminally). Here the viewer may scoff some, but the thing is just a thing unto someone invents the concept of money, and either another person agrees with the thing, and then it is money, or another person does not agree with the thing, and in that case, between those two people, it is not money in that place, at that time, currently. 4. Deposit receipts, records of things, or pieces of paper recorded as records of other things, such as a measure of grain made by a farmer in Ancient Egypt, whereby the depositor is depositing a ton of wheat grain into a Central Bank, or Silo, or Granary, and the person recording the deposit of wheat into the Granary, or Bank, writes that record of that deposit onto that piece of paper, and that piece of paper is then a form of money, that can be an agreement to credit the holder of the note with the credit of 1 ton of wheat, that exists as wheat in that Bank, or Granary, which may remain valuable, powerful, as food, or it may be stolen, eaten by rats, or depreciated over time for physical reasons involving the perishable nature of food. 5. Water access, or control, as a farmer in Ancient Egypt, for example, may work a farm that depends upon a System of Irrigation, from a Central Source, such as The Nile River, and control over where the water goes from that source could be a manufactured agreement to reward those who get the water and use the water to make wheat, then return wheat into the Granary, and to not reward those who use the water to enslave people to work farms like so many animals, cutting off that water supply to those criminals, and therefore that MONEY, in the form of that "water right," is then sold to someone who may buy it once the criminals, who now have no water to use to enslave people, dry up and blow away, and the buyer of that "MONEY," in that form of Water Rights, may BANK that Money, or Sell it, or whatever so long as that BANKER does not also resort to crime in the form of enslavement. Is 5 too many words? Well Joe, I think 5 is equitable, not too much, and not too few. From the Blog by Frank: "This was the first creation of the concept of trusts. This was the papal bull called Unum Sanctum (1302). Well Frank, there is this concept called trading with the enemy, lending moral and material support to those criminals, as power to defend against the enemy becomes power to be destroyed by the enemy, and the end result of such transfers of power are formerly powerful defenders who are now defenseless, and formerly powerless criminals who are not absolutely powerful and are perpetrating every conceivable form of crime that a criminal can invent, produce, and maintain upon their shrinking supply of innocent victims, including the crime of forcing, by deceit, by threat, and by violence, their formerly innocent victims into joining the crime spree for fun and profit. By whatever twist of fact, confidence scheme, or deception a criminal may invent, produce, and maintain, the routine is the same in principle, each time, because the base principle is the common denominator shared by all criminals, their goal is the destruction of innocence, they destroy the actual spark of life, and that is their goal, that is the common denominator, and it takes at least three obvious, and accurately measurable, forms as such: 1. Deception employed by the criminal upon the targeted innocent victims. 2 Threats of violence employed by the criminal upon the targeted innocent victims. 3. AGGRESSIVE (not defensive) violence employed by the criminal upon the shrinking supply of targeted innocent victims that shrinks if the innocent victims are powerless to defend against the inevitable results of the path chosen by criminals. So thanks Frank, thanks for all the careful research, as it can be know how the criminals took over, with their lies, their threats, and their violence upon their supply of targeted innocent people. No we know how they did what they did in good order, or bad order, depending upon who defines good, and who defines bad. The Papal Bull in question, presuming that it is a factual record of actual events, which makes all too much sense to me, is this: Unam Sanctum I see no reason to read that with any expectation of understanding the motives of the writers who arrange those symbols, so I skim past what looks like just so much bla, bla, bla, and then arrive at the point where the actual message appears to be conveyed, as if the reader is then well capable of understanding the motive. "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." In other words, obey. Not obey, or else, rather the message is Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question. In other words, you will pay, and if you exercise any power of your own individual will, all you will be doing is increasing the amount, measured by you, that you will pay. Am I reading too much into the arrangements of symbols offered to me by those people (people?) who wrote that message, in blood, on the skin of murdered children, as may be the case where those children were skinned alive? And don't even reach for the idea that I am insane, and I am making up stories, because the EVIL has arrived at a Theater Near me, you, and anyone else living in this Country we call America. Waco the inculpatory evidence is well reported Reality Television Who done it? Are the authorities very well capable of finding out who does what, when, where, and why? So Frank (and other people who agree with Frank) offers a competitive version of the definition of property, and before I cut and paste that definition I want to make sure that I go on the record as saying that Legal Criminals Define Property precisely as shown in the example offered by Legal Criminals in Waco Texas during those months that those Legal Criminals owned, and disposed of, their property which took the form of pregnant mothers, babies, toddlers, teenagers, adults, and old people, tortured for months, as property, and burned alive, beheaded, and who knows what else, as property. A competitive version of property offered by Frank and whoever else may agree with this offering of the meaning of property: Property is any fictional Right of Use expressed into a Trust relationship with other Forms whereby there exists a claimed Form of Ownership or Executorship, Form of Trustee(s) administering the Form as Property and Forms of Beneficiaries. Hence Property is the Rights of an Owner to Use the Form, never ownership of the object or concept itself.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 17th, 2013 03:04 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Following the thinking: Trusts LEGAL CRIME (iv) At least one Executor of the Trust possessing the highest fiduciary authority and function over the Trust, either appointed by the Owner of the Property conveyed into the Trust, or by the laws of appointment of Executor if a Cestui Que Vie Trust or the Beneficiary of the Trust if the beneficiary is also the Grantor; and Following that specific thinking, in my opinion, there is a way to connect the intent of deceit, written into law, whereby the power of those stealing power are thereby armed to take power from their targeted victims. The term Cestui Que Vie can be connected to the source of the deception whereby words are used to confuse the targets, as the targets are led to believe that the Label of the Officer, or the Label of the Authority is true, and therefore the Authority is a True Authority, but then the Label of the Authority is switched, and instead of the Label of the Authority being True, a False Label is put in place of the True Label. That is ROUTINE. That is a recognizable ROUTINE. That is an accurately measurable ROUTINE, and it can be explained as such from one person to another. So the thinking here, that I am following has to do with these things call Papal Bulls. At some time in history there were these people who inventing a fraud and extortion crime that they would then perpetrate upon all the targeted victims within reach of this "long arm of the law" so to speak. So these people who invented this fraud and extortion crime created a form of this crime and the form of this crime was then written down, and the form of this crime was written down on the skin of murdered children, and the form of this crime was a Papal Bull. To be specific to the concept of "ownership," "trust," "authority," "property," "deed," and "title," as forms of Man Made Laws, and Man Enforced Laws, there is the following invention of a FORM of Law in the FORM of a Papal Bull specifically. This: Unam Sanctum Specifically this: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The claim there is then done then as being a claim of authority, ownership, control, of all that exists, including all the people who exist, as those people making that claim say that God gave them the right, control, power, whatever to do as they please with everything, and that includes everyone. It is as if someone had the bright idea to say that God said to me, hey, God says hey, listen you, and I said what, and then God say you have permission to control everything, since I, me, God, I am very busy, me being God, says God, to this person, and this person says OK, God, you are very busy, so I'll mind the store. God, according to these people who just so happen to find reason to skin children and write things on the skin of murdered children, gave these murderers of children, whatever, the rights to own everything, or control everything, from then on, so help me God, or whatever story they are telling at that time in that place. Where, sir, do you get your authority over me, one of the victims may ask, and then the person claiming to have this authority over someone asking for the badge, or the license, or the authority, is directed toward the badge, the authority, or the license, on up the food chain, until such time as the target, the victim, the subject, the foreigner, is brought to the fearless leader. So, get that straight, please, the target/victim/thing/subject/foreigner asks: "Take me to your Leader" when confronted with someone claiming to be an authority over the target/victim/thing/subject/foreigner. Take me to your leader is a counter claim, seeking agreement. Person A says, I own you dude. Person B says, not so fast. Person A may then beat Person B senseless, and while doing so Person A is claiming to be "beating some sense" into Person B. Got that? Two people meet. Person A says something to the effect of Person A having a claim of some control over Person B. Person B does not agree with the claim of control or ownership by Person A subjecting Person B to this act of ownership, this claim, at this point at which the two people meet. Person B asks for evidence of authority. Person A beats Person B senseless, for daring to question authority, and while Person A beats Person B the Person doing the beating claims further that Person B must have sense beaten into Person B. Person A chooses to beat Person B senseless. Person A claims that Person B is gaining the power of knowledge, per se, as this knowledge stuff is being transferred from Person A to Person B in the form of broken bones, severed fingers, and maybe Person B is skinned alive, and Person B may be a defenseless, powerless, child. Take me to your leader, being a reply, an offer, a request, a response to claims of authority, is answered with the actual fact of deceit, threat, and violence upon the innocent, so, therefore, that proves of what is that claim of authority, as that claim of authority is true in the sense that is is criminal, and the pretense of lawfulness is in fact a lie, demonstrated as a lie, as the criminal perpetrates the measurable definition of crime. What if Person A does not automatically resort to deceit, threats, and violence once the claim of authority by Person A is answered with a counter claim, an offer, and a request to "take me to your leader" or "by which authority does your claim originate"? Person A is apt to resort to ignorance, if there is no resort to deception, threat, or aggressive violence. Person A may answer the counterclaim with an accurate statement such as "I don't really know." followed by a action that is intended to answer the question accurately, such as "let me ask for help, I will call my fearless leader, who has authority over me, so as to answer your question as to why my authority over you is my authority over you." Where does the buck stop? If the buck stops at The Constitution then I say forget about The Constitution, it is a lie, but go ahead and find those things called The Bill of Rights, and since The Bill of Rights are attached to The Constitution, then that claim, if that is the claim, that Authority is The Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, that being the authority, then in that case, Person A has no authority beyond the Bill of Rights. I have the right as Person B to question that Authority, so if that Authority claims to have the right to beat sense into me, then that is no authority. On the other hand, if the buck is passed, and passed, and passed on up the food chain, and bypasses The Bill of Rights, then where does it stop at that point? Does the authority stop at Cestui Que Vie and the bait and switch routine of God being the authority one second and then some guy who murders children for fun and profit, for skin, to write things down, because that murderer of children has a bad memory, and can't be trusted for his, or her, memory? So these black robed employees of Devil Worshipers get their authority to lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape, sell child sex slaves, push destructive drug addiction upon their targets, serial kill, mass murder, and other crimes, their authority to do as they please, to commit all those crimes, does their authority actually come from The Devil, or is The Devil just another False Front they use as another diversion from themselves, so as to misdirect any defensive power that the targets, and the victims, may command, to then waste that defensive power hunting down a fabricated being of complete nonsense? How does the sense of the devil, the actual authority of the devil, transfer from one person to the next? How does this power of the devil, this sense of the devil, travel from someone who has it to someone who may yet get it? How does someone invent a way to help someone get the reality of the devil? Does Person A have to beat the sense of The Devil into Person B, or are there less violent ways to make sure that Person B understands the true meaning of The Devil? Will lies work alone? I don't think so. Will lies combined with threats alone? I don't think so. Do devilish, evil, people have to combine lies, threats, with aggressive violence so as to ensure that the reality of The Devil is understood by those who have yet to understand the true meaning of The Devil? I think that crime is the medium of exchange required to teach someone who had no power to know what evil is, and once a criminal does target an innocent person, the medium of exchange, or crime, or lies, threats, and aggressive violence, does, in fact beat into the victim that realization of exactly what is evil. Can a targeted victim remain innocent if a criminal teaches the victim the meaning of evil? I think the answer is yes. I went a long way away from lessons in Legal Crime, as to how the Legal Criminals actually do what they do, when they do it. But I think I nailed down the basic principles. if the beneficiary is also the Grantor I think that complication can be reasoned and one reason is to confuse. Complication can be an effort to cause confusion. If a Grantor has something beneficial then what is the need of granting something already granted? Equitable Title The word equity may be a word that was made duplicitous because the idea of a world without criminals gaining the power to make victims can be a world described with the word equity. Such as: Equitable Commerce Moving now to: Positive Law (tm?) A Deceased Trust, also known as a Testamentary Trust, also known as a Deceased Estate and simply a State is the lowest form of Trust and the lowest form of rights of ownership of any possible form of Trust. Deceased Trusts are exclusively an invention of inferior Roman law whereby property is conveyed into a Testamentary Trust upon the death of the testator. Inferior Roman law has a hybrid Deceased Trust called a Cestui Que Vie Trust which uses false and extraordinarily illogical presumptions to create Deceased Estates for the living on the presumption they are “dead”. That is where the rubber meets the road in any case where a voluntary association becomes an involuntary one in time and place, apparently, as the resort to deceit so as to create a victim, so as to gain power from the victim, is defined by the criminal upon the targeted victim, or in the case where the players involve are merely actors acting out the routine, having no actual, individual, power of will, the event is understandable in that context. A victim plays the victim, being told to be a victim, obeying the order, and failing to question the order as being in any way wrong, or judged, by the victim; while the extractor or the power from the victim, in the same boat, is merely following orders, without question, going along to get along, and collecting the power, or benefit, because that is the way things are done, as they say: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. As soon as someone prefers not to be a victim, or a criminal, then that moment begins the process that has become known as "waking up" and from then onward there will be valid questions asked and competitively accurate answers can be discovered, and used.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 18th, 2013 12:20 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
On the trail of knowing better the competitive suggestion made by Frank was to read what he calls Positive Law, and in particular to read about Trusts in Positive Law and be better prepared when reading the next Blog entry after this one: http://blog.ucadia.com/2013/03/trusts-what-are-theyhow-do-they-work.html So I read and I find this: Definition:The claim of the word "trust" being from as early as the 12th Century from Old Norse origins is deliberately misleading. In its strictest sense, a trust is a fictional religious and legal concept --therefore a Trust does not exist unless some formal oath, pact and agreement exists in good faith. Here So the evidence suggests that Frank is working toward investments in producing defensive voluntary associations so as to offer a competitive alternative to the existing Involuntary Association Monopoly that he called The Roman Cult, and the same Monopoly Power that I call Legal Crime. Not cutting and pasting, as a rule, rather an inspiration, and cutting and pasting when inspired, at the moment I choose only to comment, and I choose not to cut and paste. My comment at this time is to say that it appears as if Frank is creating a reference of ideas to be offered to anyone who may want to choose something other than Legal Crime as a choice. In other words, it is one thing to say to someone, hey, look, here are these criminals, and they are perpetrating these crimes, and that is very bad for these victims, and you are included in the list of victims, and so it may be a good idea to stop being a victim, if you don't want to be injured in this way, and in this way, and in this way, and if you don't want your children, or any children, to be injured here, and here, and here, in this way, and in this way, and in this way, then you aught to find a way to stop being a victim. It is one thing to say there is a clear and present danger in this precise form. It is one thing to say that it might be a good idea to avoid injury due to the clear and present danger that takes this precise form. It is one thing to say warning, warning, warning, and point to that warning, and it is another thing to point to a form in which remedy can be realized if someone decides to realize remedy. I do this too. I say look here, here is Legal Crime, and it is very bad for the victims. Then I write things like this: 1. End the FED 2. End the IRS 3. Bring the Troops Home (look in the mirror) 4. Start now, and have the job completed by July 4th, 2013. Current Example Now, what I am thinking, at this moment, is a memory, which is a record of what I have seen, the form of the record is a Movie, and the movie is called First Encounters. In that movie there is an idea recorded as a series of visual scenes, and the idea was such that many people from many different places were finding each other based upon a shared perception of some measurable commonality. This person meets that person and they find that they share a measurable commonality, a shared idea, as if to say, hey, I am thinking thoughts similar to your thoughts. That is a record of an idea I have in the form of a memory. If you, anyone, shares that idea, in a similar form, then that exemplifies the sharing of common, or agreeable, ideas. Those are my thoughts at this point in the study of Frank's records of ideas. 1. Shared, common, or at least similar, ideas. 2. Enforced thoughts and behavior enforced by criminals who use deceit, threats, and violence upon the innocent as the common, shared, ideas, and actions shared by people who define the meaning of crime as those criminals willfully perpetrate crime, with or without the deceit of a false claim of authority. Cutting and pasting again: Any claimed ownership, conveyance, lien, or other fictional device over any Form within a Divine Trust that are not in accordance with these canons is a fraud and gross injury to the Divine Creator and therefore automatically null and void from the beginning. What power brings me to this time and place? Sergey, to me, is as spiritual as anyone I've ever met, being a person in tune with the power of knowing, for that is my idea of this power I call spirituality. Sergey is, on the other hand, very anti-enforced (criminal) religion. Mike is, perhaps, an unknown, but his words express a competitive viewpoint, so Mike, when he does manage to offer a viewpoint, can be considered as a random factor at this point. There is an abundance of information that can stand as the viewpoint known as Legal Crime, or Nihilism, or whichever term accurately identifies those people whose shared idea is to find, and then injure, anyone who has any power worth stealing. bear is strictly religious according to a record of a specific religion, while, again, apparently, there is an identifiable, quantifiable, or perceptible measure of individual spirituality originating from her, as she is an individual spirit, or human being, or in my way of perceiving, she is an individual perspective in time and place, a source, or origin, of perspective. Frank shows up in my field of vision and apparently there are, from Frank, many sources of information that do not agree with many perspectives including the perspectives gathered on this specific forum. I look for common denominators, things that agree, things that are voluntarily welcome among competitive perspectives. I think one thing that does agree is the accurate identification of the existence of fraudulent messages, whereby the origin of the fraudulent messages, invariably, invent the message so as to deceive those who are targeted, those who will be connected to the message, and those who will then be adversely affected by the message that is false on purpose, and the purpose is, again, accurately measurable as a transfer of power from the target to the criminal. I don't know if the message I intend to send with the last paragraph will reach anyone intact, but I think that the message intended is a commonly agreed upon message known by anyone who understands how crime works. Knowing how crime works is one thing. Knowing how to avoid being a criminal or victim is another thing. In accordance with these canons, every child or higher order spirit that is borne from now until the end of time possesses a Divine Personality through the creation of their Divine Trust before any other legal entity or claim. Source The above is a curious source compared to all the other sources of information I've come across because that source is easy to find, and ask questions, right now. Frank is answering questions each Wednesday. The objective in those messages appears to me to be a counter-claim referring to the often made claim made by criminals who target innocent people so as to then perpetrate injury (take power from) the targets that they target, and in order to cover up, hide, their crimes, those criminals make these deceitful claims to which Frank is offering a counter-claim. Frank is offering a counter claim to the specific claim that Frank says is the origin of Modern Law, which I call Legal Crime (or counterfeit Law). The Papal Bull that documents the original claim made by The Roman Cult, a claim that claims that God gave the people running The Roman Cult the power to control everything, or "own" everything, including all the people, absolute power in a nutshell, is linked on Frank's site. The original (fraudulent or criminal) claim, to which Frank's counter-claim is made, was an original version of a specific FRAUD, a claim made by people who define the meaning of the word crime, as those people, those criminals, target and then injure innocent people for fun, and profit, or for the purpose of gaining power at the expense of the innocent targets. What constitutes a target? The criminals do not target rocks. The criminals target any living being, any human being, whereby there is power that can be taken from the human being. The criminals target rocks that contain power, such as rare earth minerals, sure, but the same process is at work, any power worth stealing is a power targeted by a criminal. So Frank offers a counter claim as a counter to the claim that The Roman Cult of old, and anyone picking up that form of crime today, which can be called an Involuntary Association, or Crime, or Legal Crime, anyone making that false claim is now faced with a counter claim made by Frank, as Franks offers anyone who cares to accept, voluntarily, the use of that same counter claim. What form does the voluntary counter claim take, when the competitive voluntary counter claim is the one offered by Frank? If you care to know, you don't have to ask me, since Frank is available for questions on Wednesday. When a particular Divine Person of an organic higher order life form no longer has any valid association to a True Trust and a living flesh vessel, then an association is permitted whereby one hundred (100) Divine Persons in similar condition come together as an aggregate to form a Supreme Divine Trust. I will look for a similar message written by Lysander Spooner in reference to a time and place where the victims worked effectively to avoid being victims and there was at that time a threshold number of 100 employed by those people who agreed to form a voluntary association and the number of members in that historical voluntary association was the number 100. Before I do that searching, or researching, I want to say something concerning the concept of Black Magic, and Spells. Who has a mysteriously bad feeling associated with the number 666? Where does that power to cause a mysteriously bad feeling associated with mere numbers? 666 is just a number like 999 or like 12, or like 5. I like 5. I have a mysterious feeling about the number 5. I like 5. 12 is a number that is competitive with the number of 5, or the number 100 if the idea is to measure the power of collective thought. Collective thought can be understood with such things as the Jelly Bean Experiment, also known by the phrase The Wisdom of Crowds. Back to research and the question of the number 100. Trial by Jury Essay by Lysander Spooner Here But we have additional evidence that, up to the time of Magna Carta, the laws of the king were not binding upon the judicial tribunals; and if they were not binding before that time, they certainly were not afterwards, as has already been shown from Magna Carta itself. It is manifest from all the accounts we have of the courts in which juries sat, prior to Magna Carta, such as the court-baron, the hundred court, the court-leet, and the county court, that they were mere courts of conscience, and that the juries were the judges, deciding causes according to their own notions of equity, and not according to any laws of the king, unless they thought them just. [11] The court-baron was the court for a single manor, and there was a court for every manor in the kingdom. All these courts were holden as often as once in three or five weeks; the county court once a month. The king's judges were present at none of these courts; the only officers in attendance being sheriffs, bailiff's, and stewards, merely ministerial, and not judicial, officers; doubtless incompetent, and, if not incompetent, untrustworthy, for giving the juries any reliable information in matters of law, beyond what was already known to the jurors themselves. 65 [12] It is plain that the juries, in these courts, must, of necessity, have been the sole judges of all matters of law whatsoever; because there was no one present, but sheriffs, bailiffs, and stewards, to give them any instructions; and surely it will not be pretended that the jurors were bound to take their law from such sources as these. [13] Of those that were written, few copies only were made, (printing being then unknown,) and not enough to supply a11, or any considerable number, of these numerous courts. Beside and beyond all this, few or none of the jurors could have read the laws, if they had been written; because few or none of the common people could, at that time, read. Not only were the common people unable to read their own language, but, at the time of Magna Carta, the laws were written in Latin, a language that could be read by few persons except the priests, who were also the lawyers of the nation. Mackintosh says, "the first act of the House of Commons composed and recorded in the English tongue," was in 1415, two centuries after Magna Carta. [14]. Up to this time, and for some seventy years later, the laws were generally written Cutting and pasting is not working well. This: These courts, it must be considered, were very numerous, and held very frequent sessions. There were probably seven, eight, or nine hundred courts a month, in the kingdom; the object being, as Blackstone says, "To bring justice home to every man's door." (3 Blackstone, 80.) The number of the county courts, of course, corresponded to the number of counties, (36.) The court-leet was the criminal court for a district less than a county. The hundred court was the court for one of those districts anciently called a hundred, because, at the time of their first organization for judicial purposes, they comprised, (as is supposed) but a hundred families. [11] The court-baron was the court for a single manor, and there was a court for every manor in the kingdom. All these courts were holden as often as once in three or five weeks; the county court once a month. The king's judges were present at none of these courts; the only officers in attendance being sheriffs, bailiff's, and stewards, merely ministerial, and not judicial, officers; doubtless incompetent, and, if not incompetent, untrustworthy, for giving the juries any reliable information in matters of law, beyond what was already known to the jurors themselves. This from Spooner on Trial by Jury: The hundred court was the court for one of those districts anciently called a hundred, because, at the time of their first organization for judicial purposes, they comprised, (as is supposed) but a hundred families. This from Frank and his offering: When a particular Divine Person of an organic higher order life form no longer has any valid association to a True Trust and a living flesh vessel, then an association is permitted whereby one hundred (100) Divine Persons in similar condition come together as an aggregate to form a Supreme Divine Trust.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 19th, 2013 02:08 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Returning yet again to Positive Law and concepts such as property, ownership, trusts, deeds, titles, control, exclusion, all merely English words intending to CONVEY the fabrication of ideas, the fabric of ideas, and the POWER to inspire actions. I find much use in returning my efforts to fit these competitive ideas into a frame or reference by using the frame of reference I call the Power Struggle and the form, in the form of a sentence, that reports how the Power Struggle works productively. Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces that cost of production. If every living being where connected to each other living being with the same exact mind, same exact thoughts, same exact ideas, same exact inspiration to inspire action, then there would be no need for communication. There would be no demand, and therefore no supply, of mediums of exchange that serve the purpose of conveying messages, ideas, information, language, calculation, among the individual forms of life. There would still be individual perceptions as a mediums of exchange CONVEY accurate (or inaccurate) identifications of physical matter as individual life forms perceive those THINGS that are necessary for survival. Eyes see light. Ears hear sound. Mouths can taste; but to speak from one individual to another there would be no need for it, if all life forms share the same thoughts. All life forms do not share the same thoughts. Which thoughts are worthy of sharing, and which life forms have the power to share any thoughts, and which life forms have the power to reject any thoughts? In accordance with these canons and the sacred Covenant Pactum De Singularis Caelum, each and every living man and woman have been duly appointed Executor in mind and Trustee in flesh of a unique True Trust through the conveyance of Divine Rights by Divine Personality. Much of what I read in Positive Law is merely competitive, merely inventive, merely voluntary, merely adaptive, merely one way to look at things in a productive way, and therefore easy to accept, to share, to acknowledge, to consider, and to use in a productive, voluntary, peaceful, way. Some of what I read is defensive as a power against the power of crime in general and of Legal Crime specifically. Frank spells out in great detail the specifics of that which is an aggressive, criminal, power, and therefore the specific threat being defended against is in that way specified, and not at all general, or ambiguous. When the criminals claim to own things that they call people, then Frank offers a counter-defensive-claim that says no, no, no, no such claim is valid, it is false, and in fact we are all members of the group that are not subject to any false claims. Who can argue with such counter claims? Not me. I am not subject to any false claims, as false claims are only valid to those who agree to be subjects of false claims. What is a true claim? Here I find the words voluntary and involuntary to be very useful. If I volunteer to avoid resort to deceit, as a means of gaining power from other people, then my connections to other people, by my will, will be voluntary associations. If someone claims to own me, and I don't agree, and I don't volunteer to join in on such claims, then that specific deceit is rendered powerless by me, by my power of will, by my power of knowing better than to agree to such nonsense. If the person claiming to own me resorts then to threats, since deceit was not powerful enough, then the matter is still within my power to control, without violence, as threats without proven violence are precisely the same thing as deceit, and therefore my will is employed, and my capacity, my power to know better is employed, and I can merely reject the offer to be afraid of a false threat. If, on the other hand, the person making the claim of owning me has demonstrated aggressive violence to be not only possible, but current, as the person making the claim may actually be currently "beating sense" into a person who questions the authority of the lying, threatening, aggressively violent criminal, then, in that specific case the POWER struggle is no longer peaceful, and my will, my power to know better, can still be employed, in such a way as to avoid that specific person, whereby I volunteer to sever any connection to that specific person, as may be within my power to do so, which still leaves open many possible consequences other than merely my own avoidance of injury by that specific criminal. 1. The current victim being victimized by that current criminal is gaining power at the expense of that victim, and the next victim, and the next, so my power to avoid that criminal may be sufficient at the moment, while that criminal is relatively powerless to victimize me, at the moment, but that criminal is gaining power, and that is a measurable consequence of doing nothing to stop that criminal from further crimes perpetrated upon numerous victims. 2. The affordability of expending my power in the work required to avoid being victimized by that specific criminal is power taken from my capacity to use the power I have in the creation of more power I will have as a result of effective use of my scarce power being invested for the purpose of making my power more abundant. 3. It is morally wrong to abandon defenseless, innocent, victims as they are being consumed by very evil criminals, I know that, and doing nothing effective to avoid abandoning defenseless, powerless, innocent, victims destroys my own power of morality. 4. I may be wrong, I may as yet be as misdirected as all the victims who fail to above being victims, and as wrong as all the evil people who consume their targeted victims for fun and profit, in torture chambers, and in killing fields. 5. There may be no effective solutions and therefore any effort spent looking for effective solutions are wasted efforts that could have been invested in creating abundant power where this is scarce power currently available.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 20th, 2013 12:56 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Back to the Positive Law Trusts section of things to read while looking for effective defensive methods against Legal Criminals perpetrating Legal Crime I find this: Divine Register any valid Register of UCADIA, as distinct from a Register of a lesser entity My frame of reference is again called back to the concept of the natural condition of human life being peaceful, honest, productive, whereby human beings naturally compete in the sense that each individual moves closer to their own ideal power to make all life higher in quality and lower in cost without resort to crime, where crime can be accurately identified as the willful employment of deceit, threats, and violence upon the innocent so as to gain power from the innocent, or "something for nothing" or "war is good for the economy" or "might makes right" or any other deception of the same POWER that is used by criminals who perpetrate crime. So there is Legal Crime, it is factual, is it well documented, and Legal Criminals invent it, produce it, and maintain it, and in that context there is the concept of "a lesser entity". On a scale: 1. Honest, productive, peaceful, voluntary, association. 2. Dishonest, destructive, aggressively violent, threatening, involuntary, association. In that context, and in no other context, as far as I am concerned, there is greater and lesser on a scale of what anything is, or what anything is not, known, and understood, accurately. From: True Trust A True Trust is a form of Living Trust containing Divine Property known as Divine Rights of Use, or Divinity that is validly registered into the Great Register and Public Record of a global Ucadian society. A True Trust may be for a single man, or woman called a “True Person Trust”, a True Location Trust containing Divine Right of Possession of Promised Land, or an aggregate trust such as a Universal True Trust, Global True Trust or Civil True Trust. Compared to Legal Crime run by Legal Criminals who are categorically insane, if ever the word insane meant anything worth knowing, compared to all that Destruction for Fun and Profit, there can be something, anything, compared to it, anything compared to Legal Crime. There is Legal Crime. Many ways to view Legal Crime include: National Debt Clock That is similar (repeating) these: Federal Reserve Notes buying WAR Act I Federal Reserve Notes buying WAR Act II Federal Reserve Notes WAR Act III In other words the Legal Criminals are busy. Defense against Legal Crime is in low demand and therefore there is almost no supply. Defense against Legal Crime is in low demand because people are led to believe that the only defense against crime is the one POWER that is Legal Crime. So fearful, threatened, and beaten people, beaten up by Legal Criminals think that the only way to defend against such harm is to go to the Legal Criminals begging for mercy. No such thing is even remotely possible. Legal Criminals are inspired to greater destruction when the targeted victims prove that they are powerless to defend themselves. How brilliantly insane is it to convince the innocent victims that it is their fault that they are harmed, and how insanely effective is it to then inspire the victims to love their tormentors? Stockholm Syndrome Prevention of Stockholm syndrome at the level of the larger society includes further development of crisis intervention skills on the part of law enforcement as well as strategies to prevent kidnapping or hostage-taking incidents in the first place. What happens when the Criminals take over "Law enforcement"? Common Sense Answer Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Not the lesser of two evils, at all, NO EVIL, or Free Market Government, or Open Source Government, or Voluntary Government, and there are examples such as Trial by Jury based upon Sortition which was in effect, more or less, during that time period in America between 1776 and 1788, under The Articles of Confederation with Voluntary Union of competitive State Governments. Additional Answers Illustrated The spatial variant of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is a simple yet powerful model for the problem of cooperation versus conflict in groups. When criminals take over Law enforcement the victims are beset with the need to invent positive alternatives. When the concept of avoiding the biting of the hand that feeds you becomes a jack boot kicking your teeth in, where the Legal Criminals is demanding that you lick their boots, the thin veil of false legitimacy is almost gone, at that point, so do you lick, or do you find something other than Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question? Again? Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 20th, 2013 01:38 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Back to this: Canon 1939 By definition, Divinity or Divine Rights of Use cannot exist without the existence of a Divine Trust. Therefore, no valid True Trust may exist unless it is connected and created from a valid Divine Trust. The thinking there, as far as I can tell, is such that the Roman Cult, or the current people I call Legal Criminals, claim to get their authority from where they claim to get their authority, and that chain of command goes from whichever Legal Criminal is lower in authority to whichever Legal Criminal is higher in authority according to each one along the way in that chain of command. Then, the idea is to become your own authority, and base your claim of authority on something that will be shared by enough people to constitute a POWER of defense that is more POWERFUL than Legal Crime. The thinking goes on to think that the Legal Criminals, themselves, have been known to claim, in their own laws, that their authority is derived from The Creator, or God, or this, or that, along the same lines, again SHARED, as in an AGREEMENT, as to where authority goes when it goes up to the TOP of the chain of authority. Take me to your leader. That is the thinking. If a lesser power authority intends to cause injury to an innocent person, also known as crime, but in this case it is crime made legal, then the targeted victim may access a defense of this nature, whereby a counter-offer is recognized by the aggressor/attacker/criminal with or without the badge. The Legal Criminal says that you owe him, or her, so pay up, and don't question the order to pay up. What does the targeted victim do in any case? That is the thinking in Principle, in my own words. As to how Frank O'Collins words the communications intending to help victims avoid being victims, there are many words, including True Trust. So the concept of saying the BOSS is God, and no one is above that BOSS, is the basis of this Divine Trust idea. Next down the food chain of authority is, I suppose, this idea called a True Trust, but again, in context, what is the competition offered by Legal Criminals concerning which Trust, which definition, which authority, is more POWERFUL in any case? If Legal Criminals offer a Legal Fiction whereby the Legal Criminals claim that Legal Criminals own the targeted victim, then is that a good idea for the targeted victim to accept that offer? This is exactly the same thing as giving up your guns to someone who will obviously be even more powerful to make you give them more, and you will obviously be less powerful to defend against them after you obey that order without question. Again the concept of providing the means by which we suffer is a POWER transfer. Why make yourself weaker so that those who make you weaker can make you even weaker? It is called the race to the bottom. Look at the Prisoner's Dilemma Applet and see what happens when the RULE is conflict and the exception is cooperation. What happens to the rats when the ship starts sinking? The rats eat each other while they continue to eat holes through the hull of the boat, so the ship sinks faster, and that is the Law of diminishing returns. Invest in crime made legal, for fun and profit, and what do you expect will be the end result over time?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 20th, 2013 01:46 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Now this: Canon 1941 A True Trust may only be associated with one (1) valid Divine Trust and therefore one (1) valid Divine Person. A Divine Person is always the owner and grantor of a valid True Trust. Take the concept of Land Titles, for example, and ask from where does the authority to take control of, or use, including the use of that land in such a way as to exclude any use of the land by anyone else, such as building a fence around the land, and consider an illustration of the POWER struggle as being 2 people meeting and deciding who has the authority over the other one to use the land in question. Here IF THERE IS ONE LIE KNOWN -- IS NOT ALL ELSE SUSPECT? David Wilbur Johnson speaking on property rights and land grants Fourteen hours of weekly telephone presentations given from November 27, 2000 ~ April 16, 2001 Take me to your leader. Travel up the pyramid to the TOP and what is found at the TOP? What is found at the level one level down from the TOP? Federal POWER? State POWER? The International Monetary FUND POWER? The Dollar Hegemony POWER? The most POWERFUL Corporation (legal fiction) run by the most powerful group of Corporate Raiders? You are just you, only you, and what chance do you have against such POWER that claims ownership of everything? Would it be a good idea to ask the question having in mind the eventual discovery of the accurate answer?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 20th, 2013 04:32 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I am not very smart, relatively speaking, but as far as averages go, I am at least near the middle of smartness, so I have a reasonable capacity to know something worth knowing. A True Person Trust is formed when a Divine Person grants certain Divine Rights of Use, known as Divinity into the True Person Trust creating the Trust Corpus of the True Trust, also known as the True Body Corporate, also known as the True Person, having legal personality. The mind and brain of the flesh vessel is always the General Executor and Guardian of the flesh. The flesh vessel, also known as the living flesh, also known as the living body of the organic higher order life form is always the Trustee with the True Person as beneficiary. It is easy for me to get lost in that paragraph. As Frank has tried to accurately communicate the concept of a Legal Fiction, so is it difficult to apply such a concept in current thinking, for reasons that may be focused upon and overcome. A person is a fictional device. See? See how difficult it is to apply that type of thinking? What, may I ask, anyone, is the actual point of origin that we all identify as our own power of perception? When anyone one of us asks our self to define the source of our perceptions, as if asking "what is me?" and asking "were is the me that decides to move my body out of bed in the morning?" and therefore there is this defining of the concept of self awareness, and so what is the accurate answer? I have mine. I don't know. I do not know, exactly, where the real me is, this POWER to will my thoughts, and my actions, where is this POWER, or even what is this POWER, of me, I, my will, my force of decision making, whatever words I use to ask myself, or whatever words I use to ask someone else to help me find the answer, so far, there is no definitive answer, but there are competitive answers. The competitive answer from Frank O'Collins is that there is a Divine Trust, of some imaginative authority, as that authority places authority into each individual living being, in the form of free will, or will power, or self awareness, or a POWER OF WILL, or a capacity to decide, or a way in which a living being responds, as in response ability, to the other things, other than the individual life form, and so there is this POWER, and that is a competitive way to look at one's own self. So this Divine Trust idea is this idea whereby each POWER of WILL is no better, and no worse, in authority over each other, since only one individual has authority over one individual, one soul, one power of will, per customer, and each Trustee, is in charge of each living body, naturally, and that is the end of that POWER according to that idea of that Trust. I am entrusted with the body I call me. That is the God connecting to the individual human being Trust thing, idea, that is competitive, as that idea can be compared to the idea that some guy in a black robe has claimed that God told that one guy that that one guy owns everyone. 1. Each individual is trusted only as far as each individual can be responsible, and therefore accountable, for each individual, with possible fine print concerning children. 2. No individual is trusted with the absolute authority over everyone else. So which is the more competitive idea of what is or is not a Trust? Where complications set in, obviously, are areas of trusts, agreements, voluntary associations, or connections between one trusted individual and another trusted individual being. Now, as it is with the concept of God, an individual, if you will, or many Gods, but all Gods, and then one human being, there is a concept of POWER connecting these entities, these beings. I, me, this POWER of will, is what it is, connected to no one, at some time, and at some place, such as before I was born into a human body, and then at that moment, there is at least one obvious connection, and that connection is called a placenta. 1. Before birth 2. After birth So there is no connection, and then there is at least one connection, and power flows, and then the cord is cut, and the individual living being is no longer connected. What is the highest Trust? Mothers who abort babies, or serial killers who skin babies alive and write Papal Bulls on their skin, if such things do exist, are examples of Trust. I trust, for example, that disconnecting the POWER of WILL from a little baby, before that baby has a chance to use the POWER of WILL to defend against being murdered, or killed for reasons of self preservation by the mother, whatever, I trust, I trust, that that is not the highest form of trust, rather, that sounds like destructive thoughts and actions accumulating into a no win situation, such as the often repeated phrase "the lesser of two evils," and therefore this is a Trust that evil will be where evil will be, even if I don't want evil to be anywhere. So Trust in The Government, for another example, is like saying I feel lucky today, so I'm going to trust in my luck, and I'm going to send this group of people in black robes a portion of my POWER OF WILL, like signing away my soul, and I Trust that these guys in black robes, or girls in black robes, will give me back more than I pay them. That sounds like an inferior trust to me. Connection to whatever POWER does create my POWER of WILL sounds like a superior Trust to me. Connection to my mother, such as it was, and is no more, unless there is a spiritual connection existing after the living body that was my mother is no longer living, is what it is, and no longer what it was, and my mother did not abort me, or kill me, so she earned that trust, in that way, but again, that is rational thinking, actual facts, and not having much at all to do with legal fictions. A parent may have a better idea as to what another parent is doing with a child, one may think that nurturing the child, allowing it to grow, is a good idea, and the other may think that eating the child, after skinning the child, and using the skin of the child for paper, is a good idea. The child may be defenseless in either case. What kind of trusts can exist between those two exemplary parents? That is the basis, the principles, as I see it, behind legal fictions. Parent A, or POWER of WILL A, has the nurturing idea, and Parent B, or POWER of WILL B, has the skin, eat, and use the skin as paper idea. Which POWER wins in the POWER struggle between competitive examples of creations of living beings in any case? What is the form in which the POWER struggle takes? What does the battle field look like? Does Parent A do with children as Parent B pleases while Parent B does with children as Parent B pleases? No, the answer is categorically no, since Parent B runs out of children when Parent B uses that idea, it is an idea that runs into the law of diminishing returns, so, obviously, Parent B with the baby skinning business, that idea, those actions driven by that idea, runs out of work to do, runs out of customers, runs out of business, and is beset with a scarcity of other living beings from which to offer connections according to that idea. Where does Parent B with the baby murdering business go to drum up more business once all the babies are murdered, skinned alive, and used as books? As it turns out the Parent A idea ends up being one Parent turning into more Parents, and more babies. Obviously there is a new source of things to do for Parent B with the baby murdering idea. Parent B endeavors to connect to Parent A, to offer baby murder business to Parent A, but there is a problem, Parent A does not sign onto the idea, and at that moment there is Trust, in the form of disagreement. Parent B, with the baby murder idea, baby skinning idea, cannibalism idea, human sacrifice idea, devil worship idea, crime idea, legal crime idea, all that in that one idea, is bound to trust that Person A is not going to accept the offer to Person A to have babies shipped over to Person B so that Person B can feed on the steady stream of babies flowing from Person A to Person B. Person B Trusts that Person A is not going to accept that offer. Enter stage left, or right, as Person B pulls something out of his, or her, posterior. Before there is no deceit, and now there is deceit, as Person B finds a need to cover up the baby murder business idea. So, the question here, as obvious as my big nose on my face, why would Person A ever Trust anything that Person B says, and again, what can be found, is an inferior Trust, by any measure, so long as the measure is not measured by Person B, since Person B can be trusted to cook the books, or lie, or deceive, or falsify, and now there are 2 inferior Trusts. Baby murder for fun and profit is Trust B? How about this idea? Since I have managed to confuse A with B above, can it be easier for the sake of accuracy, for the sake of avoiding confusion, to categorize the competitive ideas, the competitive Trusts, this way: Liberty = Trust in such things as equitable commerce, the golden rule, morality, productivity, honestly, justice, reason, wisdom, agreement, voluntary association, and parents nurturing babies also known as reproduction. That can be L L Parent L has this idea, this Trust, that nurturing babies is worth the effort. LC = Legal Crime = resort to deception, resort to threats of violence, resort to aggressive violence upon the innocent, so as to consume the power of innocence, so as to then have more power to then consume more power of innocence, until such time as there is no life left on earth, and make that a business model, and sell that business model to anyone who might sign their souls away in that way, to take up the job of making a living at the expense of the innocent, to get "something for nothing," to make might right, or other such lies, just so long as the innocent victim supply holds out, and then all the rats can feed on each other once all the innocent victims are used up, and, of course, make that into a legal monopoly, so that all the targeted victims seeking defense will find only this devilish evil as the only thing offered by anyone with any power of any kind. So there is a way to get around confusing Parent A with Parent B. Parent L is for Liberty. Parent LC is for Crime made Legal. Liberty is a Trust that is absolutely agreed upon by all those who Trust in that Trust, without exception. If there is an exception then that exception, in each case of an exception, is a volunteer who volunteers to leave that Trust and join the other Trust. Legal Crime is also a Trust, and in that Trust all the volunteers join that Trust by their Power of Will, by their thoughts, by their actions, as they resort to deception, threats, and violence upon the innocent people in the other Trust. Honor among thieves? That must be understood, it seems to me, because failure to understand how the criminals manage to cooperate among their own number is a grave error. Frank is on that trail. I'm not doing my studies so much as I'm offering a competitive viewpoint. Liberty is not a pipe dream, it works, it always works, as advertized. There are examples of Liberty working on small scales and larger scales, from a parent trusting another parent to avoid eating and skinning alive their children during a trip to the library, up to that time period between 1776 and 1788 when a Democratic Federated Republic worked as Free Market, Open Source, government, in this place now called America. Liberty does work, so failure to know is not the same thing as Liberty not working. Ignorance is ignorance, and it is individual. Just because one person is ignorant of one thing does not automatically make everyone ignorant of that same thing. What can happen when accurate information is allowed to flow from those who have competitive viewpoints to those who are ignorant of those competitive viewpoints? I can try to read onward, looking for specific things worth knowing, things I can use, in the words offered by Frank O'Collins. Eventually I will find and no longer be ignorant of a competitive method of recording a Testament of Will, or something along those lines.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 11:49 am | |
| Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Control | Top |
