| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Frank | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Sep 15th, 2013 08:52 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Common Law Grand Jury Link: http://nationallibertyalliance.org/default.html My response: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=961&forum_id=10 Where can I find a copy of Codex Justinian and the false version? ____________________________________________________________________________ Canon 2928 In the 6th Century, Emperor Justinian went further in developing a new version of the Holly Roman Law called the Codex Justinian that outlawed the Menesheh altogether and made the worship of Ba'al or Mithra a capital crime. In response, King Julianus ben Sabar of Israel ordered the writing of an anti-law against the Codex Justinianus called the Gemara, which was to become the second unholy installment of the Talmud. Canon 2963 Civil Law, also falsely known as “Law of Justinian” is a fraudulent system of law created in the late 16th century by the Jesuits and claimed as legitimate Holly Roman Law. Canon 2964 While it is without dispute that Emperor Justinian did in fact create a master codex of law, the work of secret Jesuit Denis Godefroy published in 1583 as Corpus Iuris Civilis is a complete and utter fraud, therefore null and void from the beginning. __________________________________________________________________________ What is Wampum Law? Canon 2875 As Wampum Law descends from Atl Law and incorporates the laws and knowledge of its common ancestry with the peoples of Central America and South America, Wampum Law remains the unbroken legitimate system of law of the land of North America. Why is there a dispute? Canon 2917 (i) Cormac introduced a new class of professional jurists called “breithem”, whose job it was to actively seek out and resolve property disputes using the a code of law that actually placed a commercial price on various property disputes called an “honor - price” - connecting the strength of one’s word (still the bedrock of the law), the list of injuries and a commercial price for restoring honor. Later, these considerations were to become the basis of the corruption of the law under the guilds of Genoa, Florence and Venice; and Why is the so called dispute a dispute so called when a competitive concept, or law, defining the form of the connection would be an effort to know better as to the right way to continue from a point of confusion concerning that right way to proceed? Work shop type answer is to provide an example and then solve the confusion exemplified. Person A seeks control of a thing while, at the same time, person B seeks control of the same thing. What causes the connection between Person A and Person B to become a dispute instead of the connection being a mutual effort to benefit by seeking the facts concerning the matter? Example: The concept of exclusive right to use, or ownership, appears to be a false and misleading concept since a more accurate concept would be such that one Person is more or less able to employ the thing so as to increase benefits of both people, or all people, and therefore the better able person is then entrusted with that responsibility more so than the person less able to employ the thing so as to increase benefits of both people, or all people. That is highest and best use dogma, which to me is the same root concept as is the concept of divine trust. Instead of one person demanding exclusive ownership the concept is a contest to promise a greater employment of God’s gifts to man, with an oath to keep that promise of higher yield or in case of failure to then yield control of said thing to another because of that obvious proof of inability to honor the oath and the promise. Would that not completely alter the concept of dispute? More workshop type illustrations: Person A submits a claim of potential productivity in improving the value of said thing, or in employing said thing to produce more things that are of greater use to any human being individually or to human beings as a whole. Person B submits a counter claim of relative productivity. Person C is hired by both Person A and Person B to estimate the truth or likely future conditions of this life on Earth at this cross road, to then proceed on the better path rather than proceeding on the next best to the better path. Call it the replacement of the lesser of two evils with the greater of two goods dogma, if you will, the actual measurable physical reality of the situation can be meticulously documented in fact. More workshop type illustrations can proceed with specific examples of specific people who are currently employing lesser of two evils dogma, which to me is part and parcel with the use of the word dispute. Note: Private and Public (private = privateer = pirate = criminal OR private = sovereign = not owned by anyone other than self (or God) = noncriminal AND public = no ownership = open to everyone = owned by everyone equally = non-criminal OR public = no ownership = close to everyone = owned by those in power = criminal) To trust in retaining value? Canon 2959 To ensure uniformity of leases and rights of use of land between terra- land held through lords, barons and earls as well as lend- land held directly by the church, Anglo-Saxon Law from the 8th Century CE invented the concept of the Tenant and the Tenancy Agreement (from Latin tenere meaning to ‘hold/keep’) which meant literally “one who holds land by tenure” – with tenure meaning “an agreement for holding immovable property (tenement), equivalent to lease.” The concept of “hold” was also significant to the Franks as the word itself denoted certain obligations namely “to keep, tend and watch over (the land)”: Here is the use of the word equity: (i) The right of equity (equite) was the right of fairness and fair use whereby a tenant has the right of fair use of the property without constraint by the landlord and may seek remedy from a higher authority if the landlord creates unreasonable impediments or demands; and I think there is a need here to challenge the idea of fairness because of many possible situations whereby one person may fail by relative comparison to another person in taking good care of any land anywhere, but the true test of the principle being used involves those extreme ends of human interaction. Example: The land whereby the location is of vital importance to many people other than the individual who may currently be located on that specific land is an extreme end of this fairness dogma/doctrine/ownership/right/law/consent/negotiation/agreement/trust/promise/oath/duty stuff. A very obvious example would be a water source in the desert whereby the current owner refuses to allow access to the water while such a decision results in the death of people who may have made their own errors in arriving on that spot in the desert where their lives are then within the power of the owner of that location on Earth to give or take away those human lives. So the idea here can be expressed again with a workshop type example of 3 people as such: Person A owns the land where there is water in a desert. Person B makes the severe error of arriving at that spot in the desert, but none-the-less is at that place at that time. Person C is hired by both Person A and Person B to judge the highest and best use of that land at that time in that place since there appears to be a confusion concerning right from wrong and the LAWS of supposed EQUITY place POWER in the hands of the OWNER of that land and that OWNER can then, by that LAW refuse access to the potential trespasser. Person C, naturally, says something along the lines of, hey, give the guy a drink of water, what is the matter with you? Person A says, the law is the law, this is my land, go pound sand. Person B says if I don’t gain access I will die. What is the principle in claiming such ownership? It is ridiculous. Highest and best use of the land, obviously, is not ownership, it is a case of trust in which the trustee does not abuse POWER in such a way as to cause injury. There is a principle at work here and it is well illustrated and explained by Josiah Warren in his work called Equitable Commerce. What is the meaning of the word “equity”? On to Common Law: Canon 2974 Common Law is an inequality system of law created by King Henry VIII and Venetian advisers in 1548 upon the complete remodeling ofthe Executive, Legislature and Judiciary Branches of Rule in England whereby the private Guild (Livery) of Judges and Notaries (from which the private Bar Associations were spawned) was granted royal warrant to convert judicial assemblies into their private courts (cautio) and for the rulings and judgments of the private Guild to take precedence over ancient customs of Anglo-Saxon law and rights, except those needed to make the law still technically function. common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”. How does that compare to the following? http://nationallibertyalliance.org/default.html Common Law Grand Jury? I could not find references to the minimum number of people required to regain control over rule of law, as I thought that was a reference to Grand Juries and therefore appropriate to this topic of discussion. In one video presentation for Jurists there is a claim that Civil Law is Babylonian Justinian Law and Maritime Admiralty Law. Canon 2893 Babylonian Law, also known as Hammurabi Law is the world's first written equality system of law and language emerging around 1760 BCE across the Babylonian Empire by King Hammurabi (died around 1750 BCE). Someone has the dates mixed up?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 19th, 2013 11:59 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Note: It occurs to me that there is a moment at which an old concept is left behind in favor of an improved one during comparative analysis, and resistance against the process is an example of that process, as resistance to improvement in accurate perception becomes outdated. That conceptualization occurred while viewing this: Go to What is the Process of Reason. Note: Same link under Rule of Relation the image of concentric circles, or encompassed 3 dimensional spheres (looking with an imaginary third dimension), could have an outer layer called Distrust or even Criminal; whereby the (false) anarchists, or "Anarchists," Nihilists, Ungodly, or whichever specific viewpoint of those in that group from their own viewpoint or from a viewpoint within the inner layers, are labeling those in the outer layer, as in "within law" and "without law," and those in the outer layer are not "worthy" of trust by reasoning done regardless of which individual is applying, or failing to apply, reason. Those outside of "The Box of Lawful conduct," so to speak, reason their way outside of Trust, as well as those inside the "Box of Law" trusting that those outside are to be distrusted as to their possible false claims of being inside said "Box of Law." Here is where the term Anarchism shows up as either/or inside or outside said Box. If reading Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Lysander Spooner, all said to be Anarchists, leave the reader distrustful of their offers of voluntary knowledge, then my own judgment is such that said reader who distrusts those writers are the ones to be distrusted because of that expressed opinion, and a presumption of innocence from that point, upon that discovery of that distrust, the concept of willful intent could be discovered through further discovery of viewpoint through voluntary questioning (not forced confessions or demands made "under duress," threat or involuntary association forced upon the subject by the subjector of those questions). In other words the sphere outside of the Trust sphere is the involuntary association sphere. Those who confess, honestly, that they are in that sphere are those who can be known as criminals, those who know they are forcing upon innocent people involuntary associations, and they are not inspired to hide the fact. Those who do not confess, those who hide the fact, also being criminals, enforce involuntary associations, upon the innocent, covertly. Those who enforce involuntary associations upon innocent people may also include those who are of a belief that they are helping their targets of enforcing involuntary associations may be considered by some, me in particular, as being misdirected people, suffering from false ideas, as if to say that a person can be helped by causing them injury: "In order to save them, I have to kill them. In order to free them, I have to enslave them." On and on. Outside Sphere: Criminals 1. Willful Overt Criminals (Illegal Criminals) Those who know they are destructive to life, consumers of life, and their enforcement of involuntary associations upon the innocent are overt acts done out in the open, nothing to hide, and there is no effort to falsely justify open, honest, crime, where the criminals takes what the criminal wants from the targeted victims honestly, consuming innocent victims for fun and profit. This group does not invent, create, and maintain Misled Agents of Willful Criminals. 2. Willful Covert Criminals (Legal Criminals) Those who know they are destructive to life, consumers of life, where their enforcement of involuntary associations upon the innocent victims are covert acts hidden behind false communications targeting the innocent victims which include the creation of Misled Agents of Willful Criminals who are led by those false communications produced by Willful Covert Criminals. The Willful Covert Criminals gain the lions share of fun and profits as the innocent victims are consumed, while the Misled Agents of Willful Criminals are kept alive only so long as they continue to serve the Willful Covert Criminals, and if a Misled Agent of Willful Criminals fails to obey (without question) the false communications, then a Misled Agent of Willful Criminals may then be targeted and consumed by Willful Covert or Willful Overt Criminals or the former Misled Agent of Willful Criminals may become either/or a Willful Covert or Willful Overt Criminal. 3. Mislead Agents of Willful Criminals Those who claim to be saving their innocent victims by enforcing involuntary associations upon their innocent victims so as to help, save, preserve, secure, benefit, their innocent victims fails. The misled, misdirected, enforcers of involuntary associations upon innocent victims consume those innocent victims, despite the honest goal of trying to help them. Despite all such false efforts to save them, the victims are consumed instead. The misled criminals may actually be consuming themselves as they view their own lives as complete failures, since the misled criminals can never reach their goal of saving their innocent victims as every attempt to save their innocent victims by consuming their innocent victims results in complete failure. Misled criminals (not for personal, exclusive profit) consume themselves due to their failure to realize that they are mislead. Misled Agents of Willful Criminals may also be those who are led by Willful Overt Criminals, and Willful Covert Criminals to consume other Willful Overt Criminals and Willful Overt Criminals. Leadership within the outer sphere is inevitably those who consume the most by overt or covert means, and here is where it becomes obvious that the greatest power to consume life is FALSEHOOD, since the Willful Covert Criminals have leverage, advantage, or POWER, over Willful Overt Criminals. Note: Would the idea of a "thin blue line" be a small sphere in between the Trust Sphere and the outer Distrust Sphere, and in that Sphere is the violence common among criminals destroying other criminals for dominance over the supply of innocent victims? When all hell brakes loose, with a prime example being the Pol Pot (financed by The Dollar Hegemony) reign of Willful Covert Crime in Cambodia, there is not longer an Trust other than the Trust that everyone, everywhere, will destroy everyone else, everywhere, or, in other words, the logical, reasonable, result of Might Making Right, or do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you, or Civilized Cannibalism, or any other words describing human life without The Golden Rule, or doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, or whatever words convey the realization that human life depends upon the POWER of honesty, and the POWER of trusting in the innocence of human existence. When all hell brakes loose, the illustration is then such that the outer (criminal) sphere consumes all the spheres inside of it. Go to the Illustration labeled What is Law. Relinking the link here Early identification of lawful human existence is recorded as being Divine Law, as if human life at the beginning was such that it was common knowledge that the source of lawful human existence was not one human being having exclusive power over other human beings whereby the exclusive individual dictated what was or was not law upon those who had to obey those dictates without question, whereby failure to obey dictates by man upon man would result in some men enslaving, and consuming other men. That can be understood as a move from Cannibalism, or Might making Right, to something better, something less destructive to human life. The source of the power of law is then understandable as a mutual agreement to understand that the power of law does not originate from one man or from one group of men who then enforce their will upon everyone else, one group of men enslaving another group, recognized as being wrong, and recognizing that the source of the power of law was not inside man, because the obvious results of experience when one man, or one group make such claims of having the power to dictate law involuntarily. So the emergence of the concept of law being a voluntary association arrives as an idea that is outside of human capacity to invent Law, so it is instead a concept of the human capacity to discover law. Law by man upon man is destructive, so where can man find law? Enter stage left (or right) the discovery of law. What in ancient history is recorded as the discovery of law once it is abundantly clear that law cannot be the willful enforcement of one man, or one group, involuntarily overpowering the will of another man, or another group or men (and women of course)? Early identification, or discovery, of The Rule of Law, was called Divine Law, and it matters not to me what other attributes are discovered by those doing the discovering at that time. Law POWER (voluntary association) wears a white robe and has a beard, for example, is not the point. The point, the focus, at this point is to point out that Rule of Law, or The Golden Rule, or Liberty, or no longer falling for the lie that Might makes Right, can be called Divine Law because it is a discovery that is outside of the confines of one individual person, or one group of individual people, themselves internally. So that is the point of stating that Divine Law supersedes, or is more powerful than, the inferior, the less life sustaining, scientific law, which is the next layer inside the illustration of concentric spheres. This is not that tough to understand for me because I've been working on this for a long time. Since I am such a simple person, however, being of no significant measure of higher intelligence, me being just an average Joe, I can relate the information that is complex, and I can offer it is a simple form. Divine Law removes the inevitable errors of human perception, no longer can a claim of scientific discovery be used by a man or a group of men to be the source of power that justifies enslavement. See? An example could be a group of people who agree that no man can claim to have justified powers to enslave other men are cooperating, trusting each other, making life better and less miserably, raising standards of living, and lower costs of living, without many criminals consuming victims, without the high costs of defense against many criminals, without criminals consuming the innocent, and then as time goes by in this situation, there is a claim made by someone who claims to have power over other men, but a claim of divine power is false if Divine power has already be discovered as being outside of man, and a claim of scientifically justified power that gives one man, or one group of men, power over another man, or another group of men, scientifically justifying the enslavement and the consuming of the innocent, is still that same problem of having to nullify the previous existence of a discovery that no man can justify the consuming (cannibalism) of another man. However, as can be easily proven with the scientific method, and human reason, human logic, the claim of "right" to enforce "might" (cannibalism with or without the false claim of cannibalism being civilized) mathematically proves to be unsustainable. If it is right for the mightier to consume the less mighty then the logical result of that mode of operation is ubiquitous distrust of the mighty among us, as those less mighty must, logically, defend against the threat of being consumed by the obviously measurable few who are measurably consuming the most or largest number of victims, or, failing to defend (to become more mighty) results in being consumed. The obvious result of that mode of operation forced upon everyone by everyone else is the rapidly accelerating destruction of everyone until there are only two people left, and at that point either those two had better wise up, and they had better be male and female, or the human species ends when that Might makes Right Mode of behavior is used by one of the last two human beings as that one consumes the second to last one. The discovery of voluntary association, or Liberty, as a Divine Law first, is therefore rediscovered by the true employment of The Scientific Method. That covers those two concentric spheres. There is listed in the link offered by Frank at UCADIA another layer (not illustrated as a sphere) called Edict. Here again is both Divine Law and Scientific Law reinforcing the understanding that the Might of sound, true, leadership is recognizable by the many as the many are apt to elect wise/knowledgeable/trustworthy/experienced/and proven to be capable, or response-able, honest, account-able, powerfully productive, and powerfully defensive, intelligent, resourceful, maintainers of voluntary associations despite emerging problems. Those leaders among the many are then offered a measure of trust so long as those leaders prove to be worthy of trust in offering, in return, a suggested mode of specific, but voluntary, behavior, in the form of an Edict. If an Edict is counter to Scientific Law, then that is one obvious test as to the validity of said Edict. If an Edict passes the test of Scientific Law but fails to pass the test of Divine Law, then there is a problem. If and Edit fails Scientific Law and Divine Law, there is a problem. Are those who offer leaders the power to offer Edicts incapable of refusing to obey an Edict if said Edict opposes either, or, or both Scientific and Divine Law? Note: Scientific Law can be understood as Natural Law (in my opinion) The Declaration of Independence can be said to be an Edict, for example, whereby this particular Edict is in harmony with both Scientific Law and Divine Law. The Constitution of The United States, being an Edict that claims that slavery is legal, and an Edict that claims that it is against the Law to resist Might making Right, then this example of an Edict is counter to both Scientific (Natural) Law and Divine Law, as proven by such actions as The Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation and subsequent kidnapping of slaves (conscription) into an Aggressive Army of Invaders for fun and profit, to crush money competitors in Pennsylvania, and the Alien and Sedition Acts and the subsequent kidnapping and injury of innocent people whose only "crime" was to report the facts that expose the crime perpetrated by the dictators who stole the power of moral law. According to the Edict known as The Constitution those who wrote The Declaration of Independence, and all those following those offers of wise leadership, were criminals that must be punished or killed if they dared to question the demand for punishment. I don't know how anyone can fail to see that obvious contradiction unless said person who fails to see that obvious contradiction is either willfully refusing to admit the obvious or is suffering from very destructive falsehoods (see Mislead Agents of Willful Criminals above). Custom or Ceremony over time is the next layer within the confines of Edict. There in those words are the misled people who have been lead to believe that Common Law is only one thing. Common Law is both genuine and counterfeit, and failure to understand the difference here is a very serious part of being led into the group that are Misled Agents of Willful (Covert) Criminals. Just as the so called "Federalists" where in fact the Willful Covert Criminals behind the Usurpation of The Declaration of Independence so has Common Law been counterfeited from the original form into the Willful Covert Criminal form. So beware. Here are two sources of information on that Usurpation. Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner That is a report on the 13th Century employment of common law as a Custom or Ceremony that included Trial by Jury which was then based upon Sortition. Sortion (random selection) is the force of willful abuse of hand picking, or paying for, or commercializing, jurors NULLIFIED. In other words the use of random selection NULLIFIES the power to STACK THE JURY in favor of Rule by Man. So Sortition (used by Greeks in ancient Athens as far as I know at this time) is one Custom or Ceremony carried over from 500 BCE (BC) into 1200 CE (AD). Here is where Frank at UCADIA offers information on the Usurpation of Trial by Jury and Common Law: UCADIA/Positive Law/Common Law Canon 2974 Common Law is an inequality system of law created by King Henry VIII and Venetian advisers in 1548 upon the complete remodeling ofthe Executive, Legislature and Judiciary Branches of Rule in England whereby the private Guild (Livery) of Judges and Notaries (from which the private Bar Associations were spawned) was granted royal warrant to convert judicial assemblies into their private courts (cautio) and for the rulings and judgments of the private Guild to take precedence over ancient customs of Anglo-Saxon law and rights, except those needed to make the law still technically function. common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”. Think twice before employing the words Common Law, please, it may be better to use the words Scientific Law or Natural Law, and as explained above it may be a good idea to maintain the concept of Divine Law if for no other reason that Scientific Law or Natural Law does, in fact, support Divine Law (the opposite of the Might makes Right ongoing fraud). Note: No definition provided for the word "culpable" in What is Due Process. Culpability appears to have something to do with malice having not been established while action is accurately accountable to the accused. Examining a "cause" or "affidavit" (or examining a solemn or sacred oath of testimony concerning fact) is required in due process (no "just kidding" or "my fingers where crossed" or "I don't remember what I said the accused did"). No definition offered for the meaning of the word transgression. Returning to: Restore Law Moving to Trusts, Estates, Funds, and Corporations. In the section What is title? There is the use of the word equitable and I am very confused on the word equitable for reasons that can be offered at length. I found the following definition: Equitable Action an action which may be brought for the purpose of restraining the threatened infliction of wrongs or injuries, and the prevention of threatened illegal action; case in which payment of money damages will not be adequate compensation That is much more specific to a defensive use of force compared to my understanding of the term equity as I understand equity to be merely a voluntary agreement that is intending to avoid error during the voluntary agreement, such that no one volunteering to agree is "taken to the cleaners" in any measurable way, so that the end result is equity, fairness, liberty, justice, as being the precise, exact, opposite of iniquity. Over many years, it seems, the word equity has been used in a word of specific meaning in context to law enforcement? So I have my understanding of the meaning of the word Equity, which is based upon the work done by Josiah Warren in Equitable Commerce: Equitable Commerce UCADIA referencing Law Powers has a different definition that the one I use, where my use is derived from Equitable Commerce. There is yet again another definition and it is a definition used in the following context: Fitts In that context the word is used as Equity Markets which means, as far as I can tell, a use of Legal Purchasing Power to finance processes that result in the production of valuable things, and therefore the concept of "equity" is the measure of how much those who have the finances are able to take as a percentage of the value being produced. In other words if there is only 10 units of actual value (equity) before the new use of the Legal Money is invested into creating more units of actual value, and if by the end of a period of time there is now 20 units of value, and those investors take all 10 units of new value, then that amount being taken is in that way called "Equity." In Real Estate the word Equity is used as a word that intends to covey the accurate measure of how many units of legal money can be kept by the seller of a property after the seller of a property receives the sale price payment from the buyer, and then the seller pays off any costs owed by the seller (such as the mortgage), and that "profit" by the seller is considered as "Equity" in Real Estate Markets. My confusion results from my use of the word Equity to mean the opposite of Iniquity, and if the word I use is unusable, because other people think the word means "profit" of some kind, then I am left with a confusion as to what word works when my intention is to convey, or communicate, or offer, a desire to focus attention on that which is the opposite of iniquity. Liberty works as a word that is the opposite of iniquity, however Equity as a word that works as the opposite of iniquity, to me, is more fitting because the subject matter often leaves Politics behind (the psychological realm) and then there is an actual accounting to be done in the Economic (or commerce, or physical) realm. So Economic Liberty, to me, is the same as saying Equitable Commerce, and I suppose that could be along the lines of defense by everyone against anyone being taken to the cleaners by anyone? Would that be a negative way to look at something that could just as easily be seen as a positive, especially when considering how mutually beneficial it is to cooperate compared to how mutually destructive it is to be antagonistic? Next up is What is a Fund? No definition provided for hypothecation. Here is one taken from a Web source: HYPOTHECATION, civil law. This term is used principally in the civil law; it is defined to be a right which a creditor has over a thing belonging to another, and which consists in the power to cause it to be sold, in order to be paid his claim out of the proceeds. I have a very hard time with that because that appears to assume that a Lender is in some way FREE FROM LIABILITIES associated with risks involved in the practice of Purchasing Power Transfers. Why is the one who transfers the power to the other in any way less responsible for any losses resulting from that decision to transfer that power compared to the person who receives that transfer of power? The obvious reason for all this type of nonsense is the Legal Money Monopoly, created through deceit, threat, and aggressive violence, is thereby able to destroy any competition in purchasing power transfers. If there was competition, instead of monopoly, there would be a Market Force (many free choices among those choosing better from worse) that works to increase the quality of purchasing power transfers, and lowering the costs of the same products, processes, services, etc. Instead of one money having only one source, where the one source can make money so scarce as to inspire people to pay any price to gain access to one unit of the ONE LEGAL MONEY, or starve for failing to do so, there would be instead, many offers by many competitive money suppliers, each finding the best investments, where the most productivity is found, and instead of money (purchasing power) scarcity, there would be a measurable increase reaching for abundance, as more power is used to create more power, instead of scarce power controlled by the few who use that power to steal from producers, and then invest that stolen power in the necessary work required to steal more power from the producers of power. I am still stuck on What is a Fund? There is a help in this confusion of mine in the form of a definition of the word Certificate: From 14th Century Latin certificare meaning literally "to give permission, suffer in dispute/contention". From Latin certo = "to contend, settle, dispute, to settle by combat" and facio= "to give permission / to experience, suffer (troubles)". In modern legal terms, "a document containing a certified statement, or evidencing ownership or debt". So the FUND appears to be the creation of a claim of ownership by a legal fiction known as a bank? "Bank then issues its own Paper as guarantee for Payments of debts or exchange for lawful money." So what is lawful money? Why would I want a bank note, for anything, including as a exchange for my labor, or if I am selling something I will write for someone, or in exchange for something I make for sale, if instead of a bank note I can get something I can measure as being as valuable as that which I am selling. Why would I want a bank note? Why would I want lawful money for that matter? Why would I want anything other than measurable value that is as valuable as that which I offer in exchange? Where does the need, or want of, or desire for, a bank note, or legal money originate? I do not demand any of it, so who does? Who demands bank notes, or lawful money, so as to then inspire someone else to produce bank notes, or lawful money? I don't, so who does? Where is this person, or this group of people, who desire the production of bank notes, and lawful money, and can they answer the question of why, why do you want those things produced? What is the reasoning behind the production of those bank notes, and that legal money? Next is the Will an Testament of the Estate. I was speaking with someone and I offered my understanding of having a Testament whereby there is produce a record of Stewardship and in that record a human being declares to anyone claiming anything that the human being is independent, not owned by anyone else, so the idea here is an individual Declaration of Independence written by, produced by, and employed by an individual human being. Such a thing as this could be a few words on a piece of paper such as "I do not agree that any other human being owns me." I don't need to confess any religious beliefs, all I need to do is to declare my independence from false Gods claiming ownership of me, when those false Gods, who are merely human beings, are contacting me and making false demands upon me, based upon lies that somehow they own me, and that somehow I have in any way agreed to such nonsense. If you are merely another human being, then you do not own me, if you are in fact God, then you don't need to prove that you own me, so your claims are in fact inculpatory evidence proving the fact that you are not God, and therefore you do not own me. A personal testament to me is a personal Declaration of Independence.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 21st, 2013 03:54 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Returning to: Restore Law First, I am at that source rather than at the National Liberty Alliance source at this time because the Oath question was to me a source of controversy, and after expressing that concern on the Monday Meeting for the National Liberty Alliance (Grand Jury) there was a change in the Oath, so I spoke to Frank (UCADIA) on Wednesday and the obvious solution was offered by Frank whereby The Declaration of Independence serves better than The Constitution (False Federal one) as a document that is useful in solemn oath taking and keeping. I am not at: Official and Agency Business I am stuck on words again: Mendicant Minister Plenipotentiary No definitions for mendicant or plenipotentiary offered in the UCADIA Lexicon. A Web source says see Parasite for Mendicant, and another source says "beggar." PLENIPOTENTIARY. Possessing full powers; as, a minister plenipotentiary, is one authorized fully to settle the matters connected with his mission, subject however to the ratification of the government by which he is authorized. Vide Minister. Why use the word Mendicant? You are the Mendicant Minister Plenipotentiary of a Charitable Corporation Sole of the Estate as Agent and Minister Plenipotentiary as Agent and Minister Plenipotentiary Having to do with 3rd person or Agent, not 1st Person (Trust) or 2nd Person (Estate) so this may be along the lines of "corporate person" (slave, parasite, beggar)? Finding further in the information from UCADIA: CLEAN HANDS (Mendicant) Means no claim, tie to wealth, especially as vow to poverty. This does not mean living on the street, in means you are custodian to property and use property with respect to others and good character.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 24th, 2013 07:55 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Having trouble in knowing the validity of the form in which a Oath takes, so as to make the form valid, I find that a return to Positive Law may help resolve troubles. Canon 1444 Knosis is a fictional term meaning confidence in or reliance on the validity of some quality or attribute of a Form based on Proof, Reason or Logic; without the need of Belief or Faith. Knowledge therefore in its truest sense means the quality of possessing and displaying Knosis (gnosis). That tends to sew up some loose ends, or resolve contradictions, specifically along the lines of establishing the source of authority being a source other than an individual human being making any claims of authority on their own say so, or just because I say so, or just because my army (or my lies) are mightier than your army or your Knosis (gnosis) or displays of competence concerning the fact that true authority originates from some source other than the bully, liar, fraud, extortionist, criminal, with or without a counterfeit badge. Earlier in the Positive Law Cannons there is this: Meaning is a fictional term used to define the quality of having intention or purpose. Hence the early definition of "mean" as having in mind a purpose. The basis of authority to me is understandable from a power perspective once again, as the power to create is as external to the individual human being as is the power to survive as an individual as well as the power to survive as a species is external to the species unless, again, the counterfeit authority offers Might making Right (because I say so) being a form of cannibalism whereby the many eat each other and in that way, as the lie works out, there can be survival of the species so long as there remains at least one more member of the species left to consume. That to me spells out the power struggle in a nutshell. One side recognizes external power as the source of power of creation and survival, and this is necessary information required in the process of surviving (and surviving well) and the other side claims that authority originates internal to each individual whereby the most powerful one consumes all the other ones. The power to recognize true authority is within the individual, as a function of the power of will, or the power to self control, to decide, to act in this way instead of that way, and so that reinforces the understanding further (understanding that true authority is not will power within one individual) because often is the case whereby an individual will decide to take a path that is destructive to the individuals own life as well as steps are often taken whereby the individual destroys those who could have helped the individual survive, and survive well. If the power of authority were inside of individual human beings then there would be no mistakes made by individual human beings, no need for lies, no need for threats, no need for aggressive violence, as each individual would possess, or control, always, the same proven true authority. The reasoning here, again, is based upon the concept of a power of creating life, as well as a power of sustaining life. If the idea is to claim that true authority is derived from the power to destroy life, then such an idea may actually work out in time, whereby that authority arrives at the goal stated by that authority, and life ends, and is never to be seen again.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 25th, 2013 11:10 am |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Governments A and B Governments A are examples of organized crime employed by criminals upon victims. Governments B are examples of defense against crime employed by former victims no longer being victimized by criminals.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 5th, 2013 11:49 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. Hyksos 28 YO-YAH told him, 29 That it be but a season of the heavens, 30 That no god did cause such action, 31 But one god, the lord of all gods- Aten. 32 To feed the hungry, 33 And save the empire, 34 The Pharaoh must re-organize the treasury, 35 And the grains, 36 Ridding them of ancient superstitions, 37 That stops work, 38 And devote better effort, 39 To the use of water and channels, 40 To expand good land, not reduce it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Dec 13th, 2013 03:39 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
My sense of obligation to mankind includes inspiration driving me to read from many competitive sources. Sometimes I miss one thing for anther thing. Latest Blog from Frank This is very important to my way of thinking: The most significant use of this concept of “oathing our blood” or “oathing our flesh” and cursing ourselves is actually in the origin and the concept of debt, that is, debt as opposed to obligation. Think about it please. What would be the difference between National Debt, for example, compared to Federal Obligation?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Dec 20th, 2013 01:58 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
It was the ancient Egyptians who first documented the belief that the original meaning and form of words are "sacred". This was principally due to their belief that language, words and their meanings were the "gifts of the gods". Many cultures still retain similar beliefs today, often classing certain words and their meaning as "sacred". Source The idea I have at this time concerns the human condition at a time before written language whereby those individuals members of the species were born with exceptional ability in memory. Is that not a very valuable competitive advantage for the individual alone and for those who may then rely upon that power commanded by that single individual? The concept strikes me as being significant when comparing human existence before written language and human existence after human language is documented in some form. Before human language is documented there would be a greater dependency upon the few members of the species who excelled in the capacity to remember useful information. After human language is documented there would be a competitive method by which human memory can be stored. In other words, in the time before human memory was documented onto things as separate places that store human memory the only place for human memory to be stored would be inside human minds, and so all collective stores of human memory would survive or perish along with those individual human minds unless there existed a way to transfer that human memory from one mind to another, and do so intact, or do so without error. There was then a greater significance in speaking the truth; for example the remedy for a specific medical problem, or the remedy for a specific human fault (willful injury of the innocent for the fun and the profit of the criminal at the expense of the innocent victim), requires the utilization of sounds and gestures as the only (monopoly) means of preserving those tried and true remedies for those persisting threats. Failure to preserve the tried and true remedy for a specific illness results in persistent destruction by that specific illness despite the invention of a cure at one point in human history (memory), which would then require a re-invention, or a re-discovery, of the same cure, or another cure that may or not be as effective (competitively) as another cure. Failure to preserve the tried and true remedy for crime, which appears to be honesty among the defenders, may have been easier to remove out of human memory, when all the criminals had to do was to kill off all those people who remembered well, and kill off all those people who re-invent the known cure of crime, which is honesty among the defenders. 31 The only true evil is willful ignorance, Source Is the force driving honesty less or more powerful relative to the ease in which deceit can be discovered? In other words, if there is a method by which anyone can confirm the honesty of anyone else, at almost no expense to the individual seeking the information, is there then no force driving an individual to be honest? In other words, if there was a hand held device that is the size of a cell phone, or a device produced as a part of an average cell phone, whereby the user of the cell phone can point the device at someone who is speaking and the cell phone will report if the words spoken are accurate or false, if that is possible, then will that ability in human hands result in a reduction of the force that forces people to be honest, or, on the other hand, will that type of device cause the end of human beings deceiving human beings? Certainly, if such a device existed, and the device worked as advertized, if the device was perfect, as it always reported the facts, and the device never reported false information, then, certainly, some people would seek, and eventually find, a way to fool the device, so as to fool almost everyone, and of course, again certainly, those who invented the way to lie to the truth machine would not, themselves, confess their deception. The power to eliminate human deception is honesty, which is internal to each human being? 21 That for every calamity claimed as the will of the Divine, 22 One may find equally the mind or hand of Man. Same Source 22 Simon did reply that no man can demand of another, 23 He worship one god or cease the worship of another, 24 But that he speak the truth concerning that which he knows. 25 To which Gamaliel did reply that the people be sheep, 26 And the priests the shepherds, 27 And that prudence demands the shepherds sometimes dress as wolves, 28 To confuse the predators and to keep the sheep alert. 29 For there be no greater weapons than fear and deception. 11 Instead of attacking seasoned Roman guards, 12 Gamaliel and the Zealots attacked innocent people, 13 Themselves dressed as Romans to ferment division and fear. 14 Gamaliel even arranged for constant attacks against his own people, 15 Using elite Sicari dressed as Nabatean and Romans, 16 To perpetuate the climate of fear of victims, 17 And reinforce the lie of a people cursed by the gods, 18 And unjustly hated by all races of men. 19 Thus the invention of Gamaliel of a people united only in hate and fear, 20 With no history but lies led by leaders who despised them, 21 And tricked them with constant falsities of fear and attack was born, 22 A philosophy of madness that came to be known as Zionism. Define the meaning and entomology of False Flag? From the same source: 14 With Simon Magus declaring that while priests may be in awe of knowledge, 15 The people as sheep cannot discern truth from lies, 16 Nor can they discern miracles from false magic. 17 Gamaliel the Elder agreed that the people be no more than sheep, 18 Who yearn to be led by whomever looks to be a good shepherd, 19 Even if they be the most bloodthirsty wolf. 20 Let us then create a religion led by wolves in sheeps clothing. 21 Simon Magus did then describe his vision for such a religion, 22 Saying that people believe half-truths more than knowledge, 23 And false magic tricks than true miracles of divinity, 24 Thus let us create a religion for the masses, 25 And ignore the ancient priests of Baal and Mithra and Holly. 26 Lets us create our own scriptures and stories, 27 And give the masses the greatest of magic tricks, 28 And the worst of nightmares and fears, 29 For this is what the simplest of sheep seek, 30 And the key to controlling the world. 41 And to be scared and frightened by his sermons, 42 Of a coming destruction of the world, 43 By an emotional and spiteful god that loved those that followed the Baptist, 44 But would subject disbelievers to an eternity of torture and hate. 77 Verily I say to you that a man is obliged to pay his debts in the same manner, 78 And to the same extent as the moneylender offers forgiveness and good faith.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Dec 21st, 2013 03:49 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The following is beyond my current ability to understand: 44 The action of a valid law can do no harm (injury). 45 An action decided in law must reflect cause of such action. 46 No injury to the law means no valid cause for action by law. I can understand, and agree with 44. The next message could be understood as a the punishment must fit the crime, or the message is along the lines of remedy instead of punishment. If so then the word choice of "penalty" can be understood as an action that does not cause harm to the criminal who caused the injury which sets in motion an action aiming for remedy. Now I think I see how 46 works. If there is no crime then there is no injury to the law, as there is no injury to anyone, and therefore there is no action set in motion seeking remedy. How is that? 126 The first being Prolocution and the right to speak as a matter of law, 127 And why the complaint and investigation should not continue, 128 The second being Collocution as to why the complaint and accusation is false, 129 And upon such proof why the burden should now be placed on the accuser, 130 And the third being Adlocution being a final speech in defense, 131 Against a complaint or accusation having been heard. What is the definition for Prolocution, Collocution, and Adlocution?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 22nd, 2013 04:32 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Moving to UCA Thus the contemporary meanings and usage of reason and rationale significantly strengthen the bivalent (black or white) approach. The past, static, memory, non-living (non-loving?), fixed, record, noun, thing, perceived/possessed, as if held by power of will unmoving, obedient, following, instructed, orderly, repetitive, looping, sameness, conserving, preserving - opposes - in stark contrast to current, moving, seeking, living (loving?), adapting, recording, verb, action, produced/employed, as if moved by the power of will, directed, leading, instructing, adaptive, inventive, discovering, creative, investing, producing. A form of action is digital, or either/or, or ones or zeros, or individual movement from A, no longer A, moving to B; while at the same time a form of action may also be A being B at the same time that A is not B. So to say that all things are either digital (bivalent) or non-digital (multivalent) is an example of a perspective that things are digital (bivalent)? Is-not is defined as the primary and absolute non-idea that defines the boundary of IS and itself. Anything that is, is and must necessarily exist within the bounds of IS. IS-NOT shall always remain a non-idea, for if it were to be realised, then IS-NOT would then by definition become part of IS, by virtue of being an idea. -->IS Nothing (if nothing WAS/IS/Will be), to my way of thinking (time based) had to be first, before there was anything at all, anywhere, since the concept of there being anything, such as perception (an absolute undeniable fact ----->perception), removes the condition knowable as nothing. As soon as there is something, there is no longer nothing. But my idea, or my dream, or my perception qualifies my above communicated perception with the perception that my perception is severely limited to a point at which it is not possible for me to know nothing, certainly not from something, so if nothing IS, it is entirely possible, according to my perception of limits to my perception, that nothing exists while something exists. For practical purposes of me perceiving me being alive, nothing is not possible, since something (perception) exists. What good is it for me to entertain the notion that nothing can exist while I perceive? Wishful thinking? Fear? A belief or assertion that states A = not-A to some degree, thereby resulting in the inability for a statement to be made that is 100% true or false. I see that as being an argument (possibly) for the sake of argument. I have no trouble perceiving perception as being 100% absolutely true, so long as I perceive, so it IS true 100% (perception IS) while it is true, to that degree, and when it is no longer true, I won't know it, so of what use is the argument? Perception IS How can that not be 100%, absolutely true, to the degree determined by perception existing as it exists? I don't see the argument that requires either/or 100% true, absolutely, or not, since perception IS while it is, and if perception ends, then it does, but then so does any argument that may claim that it does not exists by any "degree". This is not the same thing as a machinist ordering a part that is of a size being plus or minus a certain range of tolerance. Of course the part is not going to be absolutely, perfectly, 100% exactly, precisely, the size ordered. The idea size IS within the range ordered, not larger, and not smaller, than the range. But absolutely, 100%, the part ordered cannot be out of the range, because the part will fail to fit, to work if the part is out of range. To me there may be a range of perception from the perception perceived by a hydrogen proton on along the range up to the perception perceived by the creator of the hydrogen proton. I don't know either. I do not see, perceive, from those ranges of perception. I do perceive. I perceive. How can that be anything other than 100% absolutely true? A semantics argument? I see no argument. I perceive. There is no point in arguing against what IS, while it IS, it IS. I perceive. There is a range of perception, certainly, and perhaps that is the point of the intended message. A belief or assertion that states A = not-A to some degree, thereby resulting in the inability for a statement to be made that is 100% true or false. I perceive within the range of perception? <------ while I do that IS perception or that IS what it IS even if I use a different label other than perception, or the range IS. (7) Once something is created, nothing is uncreated If time existed as a linear progression from a beginning to an end of time (which is not accurately measurable by me within my limits of perception) the concept of nothing being nothing could fall into a range of time that is very large compared to the range of time whereby something was created (and therefore there is no longer nothing or "nothing is uncreated" at that time) and then that range of time between nothing an now is a time span. Like this: Time span for there being nothing is [................................................................] Then the time span when nothing ends and things begin to be created is [.] So nothing lasts for a very long time, supposedly, or imaginably, and then for a mere spark of very small time, relatively speaking, there is the age of things. We human beings are measuring the time span, the range of time, whereby things exist, and to us this range of time is relatively a long time. What if the range of time for nothing is vastly longer than the infinitesimally small range of time of things? What if there is nothing after this range of time where things were created? To illustrate the concept of time span it may help to suggest that the range of time whereby nothing is anywhere could be compared to the whole known existence of time compared to the time it takes light to travel the distance between a hydrogen proton and a hydrogen electron. In other words, the difference between the entire span of time whereby all known (perceived to be known by human perception) matter exists is compared to the small fraction of time that it takes for light to travel a very short distance is a similar relative difference between the time that nothing exists and the time that we know as the time that matter exists. Range appears to be subject to perspective as time can be well out of range for a human being to know, other than by creative imagination, since human perception is subjected to the limits of human time. One human experience may last the time it takes to be shocked by a static electricity spark. The entire length of time between the existence of anything (however long that may last) and the next time when something replaces nothing could be a very long time? I think that my imagination is suggesting is something along the lines of "awareness loves life" or "the value of things" since it may be, in some way imaginable, that awareness of nothing is in some way possible, along the lines of "missing" those rare moments when something interrupts the seemingly eternal vacuum of nothingness. Along the lines of awareness cherishing the slightest flicker of the smallest thing, even to the degree, in that range, whereby the mere hint of an idea becomes, by relative measure, a monumental accomplishment.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 26th, 2013 06:53 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Returning to UCA and finding: 4.1.4 The simplest model of existence From all the definitions and all the various qualities attributed to the concept, the simplest model of existence is (1) an observer and (2) a thing observed . The observer observes the object and so validates the existence of the object. The observed object exists so validates the existence of the observer. My thinking returns to the observation that something and nothing are two things. In other words the very first thing is nothing, and then something in addition to nothing is the second thing, not the first thing, because something can obviously be compared to whatever was before something arrived. Again the concept of time becomes a factor added to nothing, and then (time), something. So nothingness, or nothing at all anywhere in any form, can be seen as always (time) which is, and remains, until something else, anything else, exists, and then there is a second thing existing, not the first thing existing. Perhaps that is a way of confessing that human perception is severely limited?  I am lost at the point at which the symbols are offered by Frank. In the context of the English text offered by Frank I am at a point where perception exists. I am at that point. Perception exists. I know this, at least this, that there is at least one thing that does exist, and this one thing that does exist is perception. So perception can then perceive perception. Those are just words arranged as a sentence in English. The actual process happens. The observer, in this case I am the observer, observes the process of observing that I can observe. I observe that I observe. Does that somehow equate to an idea about an idea? So my thinking then returns to the existence of 2 things, not 1 thing, as 1 thing would be nothing; going back to the concept of absolute timeless eternity BEING something, and then, in time, there is at least one other thing, and the one other thing is perception. That clearly points to two things, not one thing. 1. Eternal nothingness (absence of anything including the absence of perception and the absence of time) 2. Perception That does not clearly point out three things; meaning that those 2 things do not clearly point out any other thing such as time, or something other than perception that can be perceived. Perception of nothing is what? So a third thing is somehow added to those 2 things. 1. Nothing 2. Perception 3. Perception of something other than Perception and Nothing Time, for example, could appear, displacing, interrupting, refuting, replacing NOTHING. So perception begins because time begins, but the quality of perception (Nothing but Nothing for a span of time stops and there begins a time of "quality") begins when there is a fourth thing. 1. Nothing 2. Perception 3. Time 4. Something other than Nothing/Perception/Time Now there is space at the moment that there is something to observe, some matter, some thing, a particle, whatever, because the emergence in time of something replaces the space that is now occupied by the new thing, this new whatever, this thing that is very small and this thing that begins to build larger things, and more complex things. 1. Nothing 2. Perception 3. Time 4. Space 5. The first thing that occupies space The confession for me is the part where the only thing I can know for certain to be true, to me it is absolutely true, is that perception arrives at some point in time and space, and perception replaces nothingness for an absolute certainty because it matters not that perception may not have ever existed anywhere, it does now, so now is certainly the end of nothing anywhere.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 8th, 2014 04:33 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Thoughts on Life? Journey UCA Octahedron What is under the Pyramids of Giza?? Comparative surface area to volume ratios of shapes? Cubes and spheres What happens? Question: What happens to the surface area to volume ratio as the cube gets larger? Answer: SA / V decreases as the cube gets bigger So... Surface Area of a Regular Octahedron  Volume of a Regular Octahedron  Example Calculate the surface area and volume of an octahedron with an edge of 5 cm.   A = 2 x 1.7320508 x 5 x 5 = 86.60254 A = 3.4641016 x 5 x 5 V = 1.4142136/3 x 5 x 5 x 5 = 58.92556666666667 V = .4714045333333333 x 5 x 5 x 5 Octahedron change in ratio of surface area to volume as size increases: Unit measure of 1 = Edge SA for Octahedron A: 3.4641016V for Octahedron A: .4714045333333333 SA / V Ratio = 7.34843900 to 1 Unit measure of 3 = Edge SA for Octahedron B: 31.1769144 V for Octahedron B: 12.7279223991 SA / V Ratio = 2.449489 to 1 Unit measure of 5 = Edge SA for Octahedron D: 86.60 cm2 V for Octahedron D: 58.92 cm3 SA / V Ratio = 1.46969 to 1 Question:What happens to the surface area to volume ratio as the Octahedron gets larger? Answer:SA / V decreases as the Octahedron gets bigger The cube goes from 6 to 1 (at 1 unit measure for Edge) to 2 to 1 (at 3 unit measure for Edge) The Octahedron goes from 7.3 to 1 (at 1 unit measure for Edge) to 2.4 to 1 (at 3 unit measure for Edge) The Sphere has no edge; but the measure used often is radius in calculating volume to surface area ratio? UCA: To exist, something must have shape and occupy space. Both concepts have strong ties to common sense principles of geometric shape. Some shapes are more efficient at forming volume than others. Spheres for example have a surface area to volume ratio of 4:3, meaning that there is less volume area compared to surface area. Perfect Cubes for example have a surface area to volume of 2:1, meaning that there is one half the volume compared to surface area. Octahedron The most efficient shape in terms of number of points combining to create maximum volume is an octahedron (six points) combining to create eight equally proportioned triangles, expanding to a middle point and reducing to a single point. The surface area to volume of a perfect Octahedron is always 1:2. That is, an octahedron creates twice as much volume as it takes surface space to create it. Octahedrons are therefore the simplest and most efficient shapes in terms of minimum number of points for maximum volume creation. Why do I think (intuition?) that a sphere is the most efficient shape in terms of creating the most volume for the least amount of surface area? Why do I think that this has to do with the shortest distance between two points in a straight line? The cube at 6 (area) is not equal to Octahedron at 7.3 (area) so that needs to be standardized for clearer picture, then get Sphere formula standardized to 6 (surface area) so as to compare Standard measures of Surface Area (cube, octahedron, and sphere) all at 6, before finding volumes inside that total measure of surface area for each shape! 1 standard cubic measure of volume requires 6 standard square measures of area with a cube shape. Online cube calculator 1 volume (cubic unit) requires 6 square measures of surface area for a cube. 1 cubic inch or 1 cubic meter requires 6 square inches or 6 square meters of surface area. Note the same is true for 1 cubic mile and 6 square miles = changing the standard measure recalculates the ratio based upon the new size (from inches, to meters, to miles, etc.?) How much surface area measured as the same standard square measures of area are required to encompass a sphere that measures 1 standard cubic measure. Sphere calculator .28204 Radius for a Sphere is .096 volume for a standard measure of 1 surface area. 1 standard measure of surface area for a sphere encloses .096 standard volume measure. 1 standard measure of surface area for a cube encloses... This math stuff is not my hidden talent. Back to the Sphere calculator looking for 1 standard measure of volume not a standard measure of surface area because I am looking for a standard measure of volume of 1 square inch - shown in the cube calculator. Standard Cubic Area of 1 Cube requires 6 standard square units of surface area - 6 square units for 1 cube Sphere requires 4.8365 standard square units of surface area to enclose the same Standard Cubic Area of 1 - a radius of .620259 Standard units (length) Cube = 1 Volume to 6 Surface Area Sphere = 1 Volume to 4.8365 Surface Area What about the Octahedron? Solving for 1 standard unit of surface area? Octahedron Calculator Sphere = 1 Volume to 4.8365 Surface Area Octahedron = 1 Volume to 5.719 Surface Area The sphere wins? Sphere = 1 Volume to 4.8365 Surface Area Octahedron = 1 Volume to 5.719 Surface Area <-----not the right shape? Cube = 1 Volume to 6 Surface Area
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2014 12:54 am |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
reductio ad absurdum http://blog.ucadia.com/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=11 The way in part to overcome it, is by ensuring any memorandum of facts includes a severance clause to counter the attempt to use reductio ad absurdum. The severance clause merely states that if any part of an argument is rendered deficient, or in error then the remainder still stands. However, you can’t put a severance clause effectively in an affidavit and this does not excuse willful stupidity. More paper does not equal more chance of success. As to proclamations: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/text.html What do tyrants do?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2014 04:04 am |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Frank, Anyone? Nothing is something. Nothing is proven to be something when there is more than nothing. When there is more than nothing the other thing takes up space, or displaces what was once nothing. That is not easy to understand, but it works in my thinking, and that working now applies to the problem worked on in the earlier math problems concerning volume and surface area; comparing relative shapes. So...I started thinking about surface area as a fictional skin, or a dimension of no substance, not thickness, this surface area non existence. Then I imagined that single object that becomes the one thing that proves that nothing is no longer the one thing. A = a time when there is nothing = there is no thing, and there is no things. B = a time when there is now two things, = nothing is displaced in time and place with a thing, a shape, and the shape of the shape is not required in the following thinking. The new thing that displaces nothing is a volume that can be imagined as a shape, such as a round sphere, or a square, or octahedron. If the volume doubles and the new area displaced exists as an equal expansion of the original shape, expanding as another layer of uniform skin, rapping around the original shape, making the shape larger, then it is obvious that the shape is the same shape, and the volume is double, but the displacement of space is not shape that is twice the distance from one surface to the other extreme end of the surface, in the case of the sphere that measure is diameter. In other words, double the volume is not double the diameter. What happens when the volume is double again: the diameter grows even less compared to the first time the volume was doubled. Suppose the time required to double the volume is one second (time according to our solar system) and each second the volume doubles, but each doubling of volume the diameter grows less each time. How much time goes by in order to reach a doubling of the diameter? If the same math problem is applied to a square, double the volume, rap the volume around the original square, measure the extreme end to end measure (corner to corner, or width, or height) and doubling of volume occurs each second, and then how much time is required to double the measure of length which is in that way a measure of displacement? The first object is x amount of displacement. Doubling the first object displaces the same volume. If it is a circle, and two circles cannot exist inside each other, then the displacement of the space that was once nothing (or space) is now occupied by the second circle, where once there was nothing, then there is one circle, then there is two circles. If the second circle is not a skin around the first circle, then the second circle takes up an amount of room, or space, or displacement that is very large, and very large fast, compared to squares, because squares can fit next to each other precisely, leaving minimal room between the boarders of one square and another square. Which shape reaches double the length faster when doubling the volume (as skin) at the same rate? 1. Circle 2. Square 3. Octahedron What happens to the rate of growth when doubling volume at a constant rate of time? If, for example a circle doubles volume at the rate of one per second, and if the first diameter is 1, the second diameter is less than 1 one second later. Diameter is 1. Volume doubles in one second. The diameter after one second is less than 1. That is obvious. Call the new diameter measure 1/x, which is less than 1, or 1 - x, or x < 1. Volume doubles again in one second. The diameter is less than 1/x, so there is now a rate of change in diameter, or a ratio of change between volume doubling and diameter increases decreasing. What that looks like to me, an obvious observation to me, is that the increase in diameter reaches a very slow, and slowing, rate of increase compared to volume increases. That looks like a rapid acceleration rate of acceleration whereby the rate of increase in diameter reaches nothing, or practically nothing, fast. Diameter is already in decline after the first increase in volume less than 1. Diameter is 1, a second later, volume doubles, but diameter does not double: diameter increases less than 1. Soon it will be such a small increase as to be imperceptible without eons of time going by? How about the reverse? Start with 1 volume. The shape is a sphere. Volume is reduced by half in one second. Diameter decreases by how much? Call the diameter reduction a measure of 1, and it will not cut the diameter in half when the volume is cut in half, but in the first second the measure of cutting of diameter is 1. Now a second goes by and the volume is cut in half again. The diameter is cut by a more than 1? The original viewpoint was a problem I had with the concept of surface area, so the competitive solution to that problem was to create a layer of skin which had a thickness dimension to it. If it takes eons for a sphere to grow at a rate of volume doubling, because the rate of growth of the diameter decreases to an ever smaller amount, then does the opposite mean that the increase in diameter becomes an ever larger amount going the other way? No, the time factor at the ends of the scale are not the same. Starting small going big is once second and eventually the rate of change in diameter is very small relative to increase in volume. Starting big going small the rate of change is insignificant in one second, imperceptible, until the rate of change begins to be visible?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2014 02:12 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Like so many words offered by Frank and Ucadia the income of those words into my thinking process sends my thinking to work on the meanings of those words. I cannot attest to the intended meaning, all I can do is work on the meaning I work out as those words work in my thinking. The example here and now has again to do with the math problem concerning surface area to volume relativity, or ratio, and so my thinking turns back to the specific problem I found in words as follows: Again: In other words: Surface area is measured in 2 dimensions and it is therefore a theoretical type of measure, a fictional type of measure, it is a measure that has no depth. Here: http://www.ucadia.com/uca/u05/050400.htm Concepts of dimension (meaning?) is offered in that link; and I roughly connected midstream in that stream of meaning, so as to roughly connect into the specific words specifying the meanings offered concerning dimension. Back to my thinking: Surface area as a shape, such as a ball, a globe, an orb, is measurable in 2 dimensions, having no thickness, but it is not simply fictional in fact, it is simply fictional in theory; meaning it has no depth, it is a theoretical amount of space taken up, taken from space, and therefore the obvious thinking, the obvious meaning, is to look deeper into how much space is taken up by this shape, not merely the surface area, but there is space taken up in 3 dimensions, which can then be called volume. Surface Area = no depth = only shape, or skin, or no thickness Volume = the total amount of space including depth taken up or displaced, or removed, or occupied, or no longer space, this area, this volume, this place, at this time, is no longer space, this area, this total area, is now occupied by this volume of stuff as this stuff displaces whatever was (or was not) occupying that space before the volume was taken up with new stuff. I use my imagination at that point and imagine the Moon around the Earth on a toggle switch whereby the one who switches the toggle switch on places the Moon where it is and the same one who switches the toggle switch off takes the Moon out of that space: on, off, on, off, and it may be a 2 year old kid who is at the switch while everyone else on Earth has to deal with the reality of having the Moon exist in that space, then not exist in that space, then exist in that space. A 3 year old has access to the switch that places and takes away the Earth, and then a 4 year old has access to the switch that places and takes away the Sun. All three kids have a party and they take away and replace the Moon, Earth, and the Sun in apparent random order: just having fun. What happens to all the people on the surface of the Earth when their Earth is switched off for that moment when the 3 year old hits the off switch? The volume and the surface area accurately measure something real, a globe, a planet, but the surface can be taken away at a minimum level, a very small thin, very thin, microscopic thin measure of thickness. The thickness of the surface area can be so extremely thin as to take a kid at a switch taking away one layer for billions of years and at that time, billions of years later, none of the people on Earth can measure the thickness of Earth diminishing at all. The kid taking away the volume in one instant takes away a lot. The kid taking away a very small layer of the surface for billions of years and each second of time the kid takes away many layers at a frantic pace as the kid pushes the remove button, removing a thin layer each time, and the layer is so thin that no one on Earth notices any change, at all, in the surface area of Earth. The volume does not change at all, as far as anyone can tell, ever. So my thinking was along these lines where 1 unit of volume exists as 1 unit of volume, and the shape is a globe, or ball, and then another amount of volume is suddenly placed as a new layer of skin around that 1 unit of volume. Now there are two shapes to measure. A. 1 Unit of volume in the shape of a ball. B. The same amount of volume as A; but this new shape is a skin that is rapped around A, so this new shape is an inner skin boundary and and outer skin boundary. A and B are the same amount of volume. A and B are Globes taking up the same amount of space. A does not capture any space inside of A. B captures space inside of B. A fits exactly into B without changing shape. B cannot fit into A unless B changes shape. The math problem is as follows: What is the thickness (skin) of A compared to the thickness (skin) of B? The skin or thickness of B is measurable as length from inside surface area to outside surface area: a straight line; in theory a straight line if not precisely straight when measuring with the truest, straightest, possible accurately measuring device. Thickness of A is Radius not diameter; because it can be noted that the center of A is a very, very, very, very, very, very small globe, or ball, and A is a skin around that ball, so the thickness of A is Radius, not Diameter. The math problem is then: Is the radius (thickness) of A larger or smaller than the thickness of B? I think, not confirmed, that the answer is that A is larger than B in thickness; which is intuitive, or rational, or reasonable, since the same volume as A is outside of A and so that volume occupies more space, so that UNIT of volume is spread thin around the same UNIT of volume. Seeing this with math rather than with words is worth doing; but I have chores to do and I am still thinking about it, with words, with imagination/imagining shapes. The first UNIT of volume becomes smaller in thickness when the volume is doubled. The first time, the first case, the first expanse, of the first UNIT of volume, when that first UNIT doubles is a resulting thinner skin... So, in time, with that above in mind, the skin thins when doubling volume, so when will the doubling of volume end up with (how many double expanses in time) a very small increase in skin compared to volume? This is along the same lines as the rate in which the rate of acceleration increases? During errands the intuition takes over and the increase in size of volume (from 1 Unit upwards, always doubling volume) never changes ratio - it is always the same ratio of Volume to Surface area. Working with 1 Unit (doubling volume to 2 Units one outside the other as skin) is the same as working with 10 units, 100 units, or 1 billion to the billionth exponent Units, the ratio is always the same, intuitively, because all the observer is doing is adding ZEROS to the process of what happens when volume is doubled. So that is as far as my intuition goes... What about the actual math? Needed is a formula for the volume of a sphere. http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/sphere.html There is the original problem I had with the words offered by Frank at Ucadia. Here is Math is Fun: "Of all the shapes, a sphere has the smallest surface area for a volume. Or put another way it can contain the greatest volume for a fixed surface area." Here is Ucadia: "The most efficient shape in terms of number of points combining to create maximum volume is an octahedron (six points) combining to create eight equally proportioned triangles, expanding to a middle point and reducing to a single point. The surface area to volume of a perfect Octahedron is always 1:2. That is, an octahedron creates twice as much volume as it takes surface space to create it. Octahedrons are therefore the simplest and most efficient shapes in terms of minimum number of points for maximum volume creation." Back to the need for a formula to find volume in a sphere there is this: Surface Area = 4 × π × r2 Volume = (4/3) × π × r3 I am so ignorant with math, that puts my mind in a tailspin. What is the reasoning for placing (4/3) in the Volume formula? 4 divided by 3 is 1.3333333333333333333 I can check one more source for the Volume equation and then I can start using it. http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Volume-of-a-Sphere V = ⁴⁄₃πr³ I want to start with a unit of 1 Volume so as then to have another (double) of that 1 unit of volume. To get that result the equation is reversed? http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-solids/sphere.php Modern Technology = less knowledge stored in my bio hard drive (brain)? r = 0.620350491 m V = 1 m3 A = 4.83597586 m2 C = 3.89777709 m There it is in 9 decimal places for 1 meter cubed for volume of a sphere. I am now looking for that same 1 meter cubed volume amount to be doubled and that volume of space will then be a layer of skin around the 1 cubed volume. r = 0.781592642 m V = 2 m3 A = 7.67663317 m2 C = 4.9108914 m Now I want to subtract the 1 m3 radius from the 2 m3 radius r = 0.781592642 m - r = 0.620350491 m = 0.161242151 m Now I want to double that volume again, which is 4 meters square; again there is one sphere and it is copied, two identical spheres in volume, but the shape of the next sphere (the double) is placed around the first one. r = 0.984745022 m V = 4 m3 A = 12.1858956 m2 C = 6.18733545 m Again the subtracting of radius from radius r = 0.984745022 m - r = 0.781592642 m = 0.20315238 m Now, with math, I can begin to see this phenomenon better in these numbers. From 1 volume to 2 the increase in radius is compared to the 2 volume to 4: r = 0.781592642 m - r = 0.620350491 m = 0.161242151 m r = 0.984745022 m - r = 0.781592642 m = 0.20315238 m I was not seeing that increase in radius when I tried to conceive the meaning of this phenomenon of increase in volume compared to "taking up space," and now this NEWS that is viewed with math is interestingly confusing. I think I had thought "intuitively" that the increase in radius would have been constant, not increasing, and then my work with math earlier on changing volume to surface area RATIO, short circuited my thinking into an error of assuming that radius measures from volume doubling would decrease. So radius measures resulting from volume doubling increase from 0.16 (first doubling from 1 to 2) to 0.2 (second doubling from 2 to 4) instead of staying the same, or decreasing, which should have been intuitive in my thinking, but my thinking is based upon ignorance, mostly, not knowledge. I am going to double the measure 5 times; and place all 5 in order: 1. r = 0.620350491 m V = 1 m3 2. r = 0.781592642 m V = 2 m3 3. r = 0.984745022 m V = 4 m3 4. r = 1.2407 m V = 8 m3 5. r = 1.56319 m V = 16 m3 So as to see more clearly the rate of increase in radius: 1. 0.161242151 m 2. 0.20315238 m 3. 0.255954978 m 4. 0.32249 Subtracting those again: 2 from 1 = 0.041910229 3 from 2 = 0.052802598 4 from 3 = 0.066535022 So, thinking in visual increases in sphere volume, while thinking in English language, while looking at numbers. The 1 unit of volume doubles. The radius of 1 unit of volume originally is .62 and then that length from inside to outside of that shape (volume now as skin around the .62 radius) is now .78. OK, that is where my thinking is again sent off into confusion. The original 1 unit of volume is measurable as a skin around a smaller volume. Here is where acceleration, the concept of acceleration, has my brain befuddled. This is the same problem? Expressed as: Acceleration Problem: Before something starts moving and after something starts moving is a point at which no movement becomes movement. Occupying Space Problem: Before something becomes something and after something has become something there is a point at which nothing becomes something and this is being shown with a shape of the thing that becomes something from nothing in the form of a sphere; whereby the center of the sphere is viewable as a unit of measure; or a sphere within a sphere. In the acceleration problem the movement from point A to point B is realized as an interval of time; such as the Earth is at point A and then at point B as an orbit around the Sun, and that interval of time is 1 year. 1 year is a very long time compared to a very small amount of time. Acceleration MUST be the smallest amount of time possible. See? Acceleration is the interval of time required to go from no movement into the first movement from no movement, so that is, in FACT, the smallest measure of time. That is again this problem of accurately measuring the first displacement of what isn't (nothing) becoming the first accurate measure of what is, such as the first measure of something such as a sphere, a shape, a globe, a thing, an object, where it was, and then it is, again, is the smallest possible accurate measure of it. Before it can move, whatever it is, it has to be something, and then it moves the smallest increment of movement; much smaller than a second of time, it begins to move, but before it can move, it becomes something that then can move. So the sphere idea, the shape of it, returning back to my confusion (my thinking was sent into a wobble) with this radius idea. From the center of what, is measured the radius of a sphere, starting with a unit of measure of 1 unit of volume, which is 1 meter cubed, the radius of that 1 cubic meter of volume is .062 meters of length. From the center of that 1 unit of volume to the surface of that sphere the length of that center to surface measure is .062 meters. 1 cubic meter of volume is .062 meters of skin surrounding a core of no matter of any kind, because that sphere took away that space. Again my thinking goes back to the kid at the light switch where nothing was, and then something is, and that something is a sphere of 1 cubic meter in volume and the radius of that volume is .062 meters. Then the kid doubles the volume but instead of 2 spheres side by side there is now a sphere with .062 meters from center to surface, and outside of that core, there is another thing, a skin, and that skin is measured from inside of it (a volume) to outside of it (a volume) .078 MINUS .062 which is this: So as to see more clearly the rate of increase in radius: 1. 0.161242151 m THE FIRST DOUBLING OF VOLUME 2. 0.20315238 m 3. 0.255954978 m 4. 0.32249 Original 1 cubic meter volume was: r = 0.620350491 m Doubling that volume resulted in another thickness which is: 1. 0.161242151 m THE FIRST DOUBLING OF VOLUME That is because the original 1 cubic meter volume was: r = 0.620350491 m The total radius of the doubled volume was: r = 0.781592642 m So the increase in radius from the original 1 cubic meter volume to the 2 cubic meter volume was: r = 0.781592642 m - r = 0.620350491 m = 0.161242151 m An increase in radius of 0.161242151 m, when 1 sphere becomes twice as much volume. So as to see more clearly the rate of increase in radius: 1. 0.161242151 m THE FIRST DOUBLING OF VOLUME 2. 0.20315238 m The second doubling of volume 3. 0.255954978 m The third doubling of volume 4. 0.32249 m The fourth doubling of volume The radius increases as volume doubles. One unit of volume doubles and the original sphere becomes a skin with an increase of .161 length of its original thickness which was 0.62, becoming .78, which was in increase of .161 length from center. Was .62 length from center, doubled in volume, becomes .78 length from center, and that is a measurable increase in length from center of .16 more skin around the original sphere. That can be shown visually with a computer animation. Still working on this idea of replacing space (what is not) with something such as a sphere the initial thing is what it is and at the center of it is still it, so it is not skin around anything, it is it, and then doubling it's volume, creating a skin around the sphere, is not a smaller amount of skin (original radius reduced in length) the first doubling. So...the next doubling is an increase (not a reduction) in the length of the skin or depth, or additional length of the total radius from the center. So...the reverse is then the obvious thing to look at concerning the reduction of radius as the sphere volume is cut in half. From 1 unit of volume to half a unit of volume the radius of skin reduces. Half the volume is taken away, which is less skin taken away each time half the volume is taken away. As the volume reaches closer to nothing the skin reaches nothing sooner. I think my mind was confused on that point as the work with volume to surface area ratios appeared to suggest a process that exists universally when no such universal process exists, in other words I made a false assumption during thinking. I can return to this error precisely as: Process 1: __________________________________ Octahedron change in ratio of surface area to volume as size increases: Unit measure of 1 = Edge SA for Octahedron A: 3.4641016V for Octahedron A: .4714045333333333 SA / V Ratio = 7.34843900 to 1 Unit measure of 3 = Edge SA for Octahedron B: 31.1769144 V for Octahedron B: 12.7279223991 SA / V Ratio = 2.449489 to 1 Unit measure of 5 = Edge SA for Octahedron D: 86.60 cm2 V for Octahedron D: 58.92 cm3 SA / V Ratio = 1.46969 to 1 Question:What happens to the surface area to volume ratio as the Octahedron gets larger? Answer:SA / V decreases as the Octahedron gets bigger _________________________________________________ That process is a decreasing of the Surface Area to Volume Ratio as the shape grows larger in size. I did not do that work for the sphere so that can be done now: http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-solids/sphere.php r = 0.62035 m V = 1 m3 A = 4.83597 m2 C = 3.89777 m That is 4.8 Surface area to 1 Volume or 4.8 to 1. Starting with 1 cubic meter of volume in a sphere the ratio is then: SA/V Ratio = 4.8 to 1 Doubling the Volume: r = 0.781593 m V = 2 m3 A = 7.67664 m2 C = 4.91089 m That is 7.67664 to 2 or divided (solved) for 1 that is 3.83832 Surface Area to 1 Volume or 3.8 to 1. So going larger in size the ratio goes from: 4.8 to 1 to 3.8 to 1 That may be the source of my confusion (not hard to do for me and math) as the obvious is a reducing ratio down to nothing in surface area as volume increases. Following the procedure through with doubling size from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 to 16: 1 V = 1 m3 A = 4.83597 m2 4.8 to 1 2 V = 2 m3 A = 7.67664 m2 3.8 to 1 4 V = 4 m3 A = 12.1859 m2 3.0 to 1 8 V = 8 m3 A = 19.3439 m2 2.4 to 1 16 V = 16 m3 A = 30.7067 m2 1.9 to 1 100 V = 100 m3 A = 104.188 m2 1.04 to 1 1000 V = 1000 m3 A = 483.597 m2 0.48 to 1 1,000,000,000 V = 1000000000 m3 A = 4835970 m2 0.0048 to 1 So here is the confusion again as the last sphere can be called 1. The last sphere can be 1 unit of measure. The smaller unit of measure (1 small sphere) is small and the ratio between Surface Area and Volume is: 4.8 to 1 The larger unit of measure (1 large sphere) is large and the ratio between Surface Area to Volume is: 0.0048 to 1 The sphere grows bigger and the inside volume increases faster than the outside surface area, as a ratio of Volume to Surface Area while the reverse is the inside volume deceasing relative to a faster increasing skin as a ratio of Volume to Surface Area. Starting with 1 going to .0001, then .0000000001 1 V = 1 m3 A = 4.83597 m2 4.8 to 1 .0001 V = 0.0001 m3 A = 0.0104188 m2 104 to 1 .0000001 V = 1.0E-7 m3 A = 0.000104188 m2 1041 to 1 When surface area is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 the sphere is big skin compared to little volume relatively speaking?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2014 09:41 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
From the latest blog on Admiralty and to here: http://one-heaven.org/canons/sovereign_law/article/190.html#6807 My thinking moved toward the idea that criminals confess their guilty minds by the tools they make. An offensive fleet of criminals will make a weapon of mass destruction, to then use that weapon to enslave every living thing. A defensive fleet of defenders will make something different.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2014 01:44 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The following is meant to be a backup: True History of America -Part 1 (1666-1840): The Curse against the Patriots _________________________________________________________________ Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here (67 min 22 Mb) _________________________________________________________________ Hello, this is Frank O’Collins for Tuesday 9th July 2014 and thank you for taking the time to read and listen to the Ucadia blog for this week in which we will begin the first of a three part series on the true history of the law and controls behind the scenes in the formation of the United States of America. This first part today is entitled “True History of America Part 1 (1666-1840): The Pirate Curse against the Patriots”. Before we start, I want to cover a few points first about people who come to read and listen to this blog and audio as well as those who have had a profound impact on its research and creation. The first point I want to cover is about any possible immediate negative feeling, or concern, or cynicism some might feel, purely on the description of the topic of this blog and the very fact that we will be speaking about the history of the United States of America. Few people or places or empires have felt as strongly about their history as those born upon the soil of the United States of America. Few people have been as brave and as steadfast in their willingness to defend what they perceive is their rights and the rights of all free people of the world. So for this reason alone, I fully understand and say to you truly that you have nothing to fear from this blog or audio. From the perspective of most of the people on planet Earth today, the United States was founded on the highest and most profound set of principles and ideals as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence; and sealed then in the blood of patriotic men, none of whom were professional soldiers who were then willing to die in the face of overwhelming forces during the War for Independence, than live one more day under the boot of tyranny. It is no wonder that the memory of such heroes should rightly be considered sacred and inviolable and not subject to debate or revision. It is also no wonder that so many people who claim to be aware and honorable have joined such movements as the Tea Party against what they perceive as the destruction of such rights. To all of you then I say with absolute integrity that tonight and over the following two audios and blogs, far from desecrating the memory of these founding heroes and patriots of the United States, I will endeavor to honor and restore their memory by challenging the propaganda and lies of over a hundred years that hid and desecrated the very sacrifice of these more than ten thousand men in New York at the hands of the Red Army of the United Company of Merchants. Far from dishonoring such history, I am speaking tonight to try to restore a terrible injustice which continues to be perpetuated by every single American who chooses and wishes to remain ignorant to the truth. Anyone who has sat down to devour turkey in November who has never once said a prayer on the most holy and sacred day in the history of the United States has perpetuated a great injury and stain against the true history of the United States in forgetting the memory of Martyrs Day and the wholesale slaughter of more than ten thousand patriots over a weekend, rather than months or years. In any event, I will have more to say on this during the course of this blog and audio. The second point I want to cover is to all who come to this call who were not born on the soil of the United States of America but who may have their own opinion of the effect upon the world because of the United States. It is true that the United States has been tricked by the bankers to be at war with at least some part or all of the world for more than two hundred years. It is also true that the United States has caused untold damage and hardship across vast continents of Africa and South America and Asia, in perpetual service to European and Wall Street bankers in prosecuting perpetual warfare and piracy. Yet whatever you feel about this history dripping in blood and deception, the United States of America is also the birthplace of an extraordinary dream – an image of utopia - of rule of law, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is worthy to stand beside the great utopias of history. This is the utopia developed and promoted through the dream factory of Hollywood and the mass marketing of Wall Street and American Corporations. Yet I want you to consider a thought and keep it in the back of your mind as we go through the details of this blog and audio tonight- is this dream any less real if the world itself is a dream? Is this ideal dream and Utopia promoted by the United States to the rest of the world for decades any less worthy just because the people in charge and bankers have used it as a façade to hide their real intentions? I put it to you: there is nothing, absolutely nothing that can justify the desecration of the American Dream- as this dream is one of the greatest hopes of humanity - for there remains nothing defective or dishonest concerning the words of the Declaration of Independence today much less over two hundred years ago. If anything, the revelation of the truth is about exposing the lie- that all of it – all the treaties, the statutes, the bonds, the trusts, the corporations, the rituals are an elaborate ruse to keep those who run America and the military of America trapped and subservient to an old and rotting world of the Roman Cult and elite families. There is no reason that the American Dream cannot be made completely real once the corruption and madness of how we got into this mess is properly revealed. The third and final point I want to cover is a heartfelt thanks and to pray for forgiveness by the man who showed me so much of this and who inspired this journey and to assemble this three part series. He was the one who showed me the connections of the United Company of Merchants and their first flag in America; and he was the one who showed me the key Headquarters for the United Company of Merchants after the War for Independence hidden in plain sight; and he was the one who showed me the tables of Admiralty and Annuity calculations and was insistent in expressing that the world is entrapped by the curse of Admiralty; and he was the one who propelled me to search for the truth in an experience which he left me no doubt was a matter of the utmost honor and reality that all he had shown me and shared with me was true. I am only sorry that it has taken me so long to prepare this blog and audio to honor him and those with whom he created so much history. I pray he forgives me for doubting his intentions and for those with whom he founded the basis of the American dream. I only hope that what we discuss tonight and over the following series goes someway to restoring the dream and vision he and the other brave men had for the United States of America. I am not going to mention his name for now, not because I fear reprisal. As far as my life I am an open book. Those who control the world know there is more to life and existence than the flesh and blood of our bodies. Yet the reason I will not mention the man who was chosen to speak with me and is ultimately responsible for this discussion, is that I do not want those who are suffering mental illness and the mind virus of arrogant stupidity to belittle anything that is shown tonight. Maybe, sometime in the future, I will recount the full events of this meeting, but for now let’s get started in the detail of part 1. The Law of Nations and the Reality of the Commercial World To begin this journey, we need to consider the reality of the politics and power of the world leading up to the War for Independence in the final quarter of the 18th Century and the aspirations of those men who had come to the new world in search of something better. The phrase “Law of Nations” began with a work first published in 1749 by German writer Christian Wolf entitled “The Law of Nations According to the Scientific Method”. The word Nation is a direct loan word from the Latin term natio meaning “lesser tribe, or race, or breed or class of animals”. Unsurprisingly, the appearance of the word “nation” within the “enlightenment” or “illuminati” movement of the 18th Century is obscure at best and positively “Jesuitical”. Suddenly, all across Europe the word Nation was being associated with new ideas and concepts of philosophers such as Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716), Denis Diderot (1713-1784), François-Marie Arouet known as Voltaire (1694-1778) Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), David Hume (1711-1776), Adam Smith (1723-1790) and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767) to name a few. What these brilliant minds started to almost unanimously proclaim is the idea that the old world and hierarchy of religion, then church, then monarch, then government, then people was outmoded and outdated and that this “new” concept of nations under Natural Law where religion was to be kept completely separate was the future. The only problem with this idea was that it did not resemble or align with the history of civilization from the beginning of time, nor the history of law nor the present world then or since. Instead, it created a kind of idealistic overlay on the raw machine and apparatus of power. As I have discussed in these blogs and audios before – and even last week, there exists a natural hierarchy of law and of authority that begins with the recognition that: we are more than animals; and more than just conscious minds; and that we are divine immortal spirits- that can never die or be sold, or enslaved except with our consent or willful ignorance. The strongest possible law, authority and legitimacy is when a people recognize their spiritual, intellectual and physical presence and unity in some sacred covenant of formation, such as we have discussed and outlined through Pactum De Singularis Caelum and the individual will and testament model Voluntatem Et Testamentum. Yet from the middle of the 18th Century moving forward, there was this huge momentum to embrace the concept of the secular state and the secular nation based on “natural law” that disowned such history. One of the most influential of these works to affect the thinking of countless world leaders for more than two hundred years was a work heavily adapted from the work of Christian Wolf by Swiss born Emerich de Vattel, called The Law of Nations or more formally called “Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns” first published in French in 1758. In four books, this work outlined in unprecedented detail the nature and function of a nation, its relation with other nations, the principles of war and the principles of peace. In fact the work called the “Law of Nations” was so detailed and superficially comprehensive that no one thought to question the strange density of admiralty, commercial and pirate banking principles of Westminster within its maxims. Yet today, “Law of Nations” still stands as effectively the foundation of what most people perceive to be international law. In fact, the reality of real power and control between nations, resembled something vastly different than the fictional work of Emerich de Vattel and the Jesuits. Far from religion being on the decline in the 17th and 18th Century, organized religion and in particular the Roman Cult controlling the Vatican was on the ascendency as the power alliances across Europe strengthened not weakened – despite the contrary appearance through war. Take 1666 for example and the formation of the Grand Luciferian Alliance with London as its Capital through royal treaties between the Crown of England and various other crowns including the Crown of Sweden, the Crown of Denmark and Norway, the Crown of Portugal, the Crown of Spain, the Crown and Algiers, the Crown of Tunis, the Crown of Tripoli and the States General of the United Netherlands. This Grand Alliance of Commerce and Navigation under Admiralty, sealed by the auto de fate of burning alive of more than sixty thousand heretics through the ordering of the burning of London by King Charles II, also signals the birth of the infamous Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 and the principle of Proof of Life declaring all the poor of the world to be “dead to law” and subjects of Lucifer, personified by the Black Pope. Far from America being isolated from such madness and delusion, such treaties as 1686 Treaty between Spain and England, set the future tone for America to become the headquarters for this Grand Luciferian Alliance known as the New World Order- exemplified by the absurd amount of Luciferian occultism blatantly built into the city of Washington over a hundred years later. By the way, have a look at the document outlining this treaty published in the 18th Century- do you see it mentioned Great Britain? Of course Great Britain was not created until 1706 or 30 years later, so the document should be treated with great care. In the early 18th Century, the vision of America was far more basic- America was the home of the pirates and privateers. Take for example an Act by Queen Anne in 1707 (6Ann.c.37) promoting licensed piracy and supported by an act nearly thirty years later under King George II in 1740 (13Geo2.c.4). This has nothing to do with the high ideal of Rule of Law, but blatant organized crime. It is no wonder we see a whole string of Admiralty acts concerning the repatriation of prizes and bounty and goods to England from the piracy trade of those in America willing to sell their soul, such as in 1710 (9Ann. c.27), 1711 (10Ann.c.22), 1713 (12Ann.S.1c.9), 1721 (8Geo1.c.12), 1742 (15Geo2.c.31)and 1764 (5Geo3.c.11). It is also not surprising that because the founding of America is intimately connected with the implementation of Admiralty Law upon the land, that the original county courts of America from 1756 (29Geo2.c.27) have always been under Admiralty; and that America is the only place in the world condemned and cursed by the global bankers to be their pirates and privateers forever under perpetual Admiralty by an act in 1761 (2Geo3.c.31). For many, an even deeper curse of the United States than the history of forced and encouraged pirate activity for the Crown and Bank of England was the history of slavery and in particular the importation of millions of African people. In truth, the African slave trade into the colonies and plantations of North America did not begin until after the War for Independence in 1783 across the coffee plantations (23Geo3.c.79) and then all the colonies in 1785 (25Geo3.c.1) through the control of the United Company of Merchants. The claim that more than 250,000 slaves had been imported, much less even 20,000 slaves into the colonies prior to 1783 is a complete and terrible lie. Yes, when you read the acts of Westminster they continue to be obscure at this point, because of sensitivities by calling slaves Live Stock amongst other terms, but you heard correctly. The black slave trade did not commence until after the War for Independence. So some of you might be scratching your heads saying – “hold on, there are all kinds of testimonies and stories about even the founding fathers owning black slaves”. Of course, this same history never mentions white slavery – or the “distempered cattle” or the “horns unwrought” from Ireland, or Scotland does it? So I will speak a little more about this apparent anomaly after we fill in the blanks on a major piece of history about the connection of the United Company of Merchants and their control in the United States of America. The United Company of Merchants and the United States It seems incredible that the involvement of the largest and most powerful multi-national corporation of the world in the 18th Century and its involvement in America and throughout the War for Independence could be so whitewashed from the history books of every single American and student of the world. Just in case anyone reading or listening has an instant doubt about the complete involvement of the United Company of Merchants in the history of America and the United States, let’s talk about tea for a moment – you know the famous stories about the unjust tea trade and tea duties? Well guess what, it was the United Company of Merchants who were behind the control of the tea trade amongst other things such as the acts of parliament of 1771 (11Geo3.c.7) and 1773 (13Geo3.c.44) and (13Geo3.c.67). In fact, the United Company of Merchants was the major trading power importing and exporting goods from the American colonies and enjoyed an unprecedented position of having to pay no duties such as in 1768 (8Geo3.c.27) and 1772 (12Geo3.c.32) and 1773 (13Geo3.c.2). So you could imagine how incensed and furious those early settlers and business people in the American colonies were facing such an unjust and one sided game where the largest multi-national corporation of the day is paying virtually no tax, while the individual farmer or trader or merchant was forced to pay huge duties to get their goods shipped or imported. So who was the United Company of Merchants and what other evidence as to its involvement in the history of America is there? In 1707, Queen Anne issued an act (6Ann.c.17) that the Funds of the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, commonly known as the “East India Company” and the “English Company Trading to the East Indies” be united temporarily as the United East India Company and then once debts discharged and redeemed, that a new company be formed called the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies. Yet in 1711 (10Ann.c.28), the time to conclude and redeem the temporary fund called the United East India Company, or East India Company was left open. So despite all the writings to the contrary, if you look at the acts carefully, you will see that from 1707 onward there remained essentially still two “East India” companies. Now one of the growing points of influence of the East India Companies was the rise of annuities or slave bonds, as was also primarily marketed through the South Seas Company, which ultimately became the primary vehicle of the Bank of England for promoting annuities as effectively slave bonds of all races of people unfortunate enough to encounter the British. We see the business connections in 1720 (7Geo1.S1.c.5) and (7Geo1.S1.c.27) and again in 1750 (22Geo2.c.22). The two East India Companies operated on a large scale business model – they would enslave the local population, using milita employed under the authority and protection of Great Britain to keep the populations fearful and compliant, then would use the cheap labor to manufacture goods to ship back to European markets, while also controlling the import of goods. So long as there was no general uprising, the business model worked reasonably well for them – except in its Asian markets, most notably China and India, the cost of organized terror was becoming prohibitively expensive and the company as large as it was, was at risk of collapsing in an even greater economic calamity than the South Seas Company. The risk to the control of the elite of England was clear – if the East India company collapsed, then their control as the chief slave masters and criminals of the world would be over. The solution was to look toward the plantation colonies of America. For the standard business model of the United Company of Merchants, the vast expanses of land of North America was a huge opportunity. However, the biggest problem was the non-availability of a sufficient class of people to blatantly enslave. By 1749, it is conservatively estimated that the population across all the colonies of North America was less than 800,000. To be viable, the United Company of Merchants would have to important potentially hundreds of thousands of white slaves from Ireland and Scotland and black slaves from Africa. In any event, the United Company of Merchants was granted a two year lease in 1767 (7Geo3.c.57) for the control of the North American plantations. The United Company of Merchants soon found that even amongst the existing plantations of Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Rhode Island of white indentured servants and convicts mainly from Ireland and Scotland, there was resistance to the massive plans for large scale industrial slavery. To make matters worse, the free colonists of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire and New York were vehemently opposed to the moral principle of slavery. In two years, the company had failed to improve its financial position, while still having to pay £400,000 each year to the Exchequer for the lease. By 1768, the Company cried for help and a new lease over the plantations was granted for only five years (8Geo3.c.24), with the plan to conduct a limited and violently brutal war to eliminate opposition amongst the colonists. In other words, the deadline for the United Company of Merchants to deliberately start a war in order to try and kill all the patriots was by the year 1773. Now, if you think this sounds unbelievable, just have a read of the prima facie evidence I am providing in the links. Go ahead, see for yourself. In any event, it turned out that the populations of the British Colonies in America were not that easy to stir into rebellion. First the British tried their old “divide and conquer” method by pitting New York against Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Bay and the rest of the colonies, by permitting New York to print its own money in 1769 (9Geo3.c.35). Yet instead of causing division, the colonialists adapted and began accepting currency of New York as money across the colonies. When the United Company began raising prices of imported goods in its monopoly of trade granted by the crown in 1771 (11Geo3.c.7) and in 1772 (12Geo3.c.32), the colonialists looked to return to their knowledge of piracy and privateering in smuggling goods in and out of the colonies. Even when the crown granted the United Company of Merchants the power to use its own magistrates in 1772 (12Geo3.c.60) to pervert justice and unfairly imprison and murder patriots, there was no rebellion. 1773 was now upon the United Company of Merchants and there was still no rebellion. So the British aristocracy and the United Company of Merchants could no longer be subtle. They effectively declared open economic war against the colonies to starve the people into rebellion, beginning with the embargo of basic food stuffs into the colonies (13Geo3.c.3) and then completely outlawing any local money bills within the colonies, destroying the currency of New York (13Geo3.c.57). Finally, the United Company of Merchants had rebellion in Massachusetts Bay by 1774 and used this argument to remain in control, despite the expiry under the so called laws of Westminster of their lease. So in 1774, (14Geo3.c.19) Massachusetts Bay was made an example and the population threatened by complete starvation. Riots ensued and the United Company of Merchants was then empowered to use its resources to kill any patriots or those who resisted in the Massachusetts Bay colonies (14Geo3.c.39) and (14Geo3.c.45). It also gave the company the excuse to start building up its Red Army and Blue Army as a completely banker controlled war, with the Blue Army eventually to become known as the Continental Army. The Company then appointed one of its most devious, sociopathic and dishonest mercenary leaders to be the leader of the Blue Army. Once open warfare was successfully ignited by 1775 (15Geo3.c.15), complete trade embargo was implemented from 1775 (15Geo3.c.10) and (15Geo3.c.18) and continued in 1776 (16Geo3.c.5). Yet, this is where the prima facie evidence becomes overwhelming. Because, guess what? While the War for Independence was continuing, the United Company of Merchants was granted through, Westminster from being exempt from the blockade as evidenced by the act in 1776 (16Geo3.c.37) and 1778 (18Geo3.c.55) and 1779 (19Geo3.c.22) and 1780 (20Geo3.c.10) and (20Geo3.c.19) and 1781 (21Geo3.c.29). In fact trade expanded by the United Company of Merchants during the War for Independence and by 1781 (21Geo3.c.65), they were granted a new 20 year lease not only for plantations but territories under dispute – with the lease ending around 1812 and the power to appoint a Governor General for Fort William in Bengal and Fort William at New York on Manhattan Island. The first Governor General being a position granted as reward to the hired mercenary leader of the Blue Army (Continental Army) of the United Company of Merchants who successful tricked over 10,000 patriots into an ambush and their slaughter by the Red Army of the United Company of Merchants. A supremely wicked and disgusting soul who then had his ultimate act of military treachery and cowardice immortalized in a canvas of him at the head of a single boat looking like some crazed figure of the story Moby Dick. Yet the deep connection between America and the United Company of Merchants is but an element of the picture and we need to move on to establishing the final key timeline of events for this blog and audio of what actually is meant by America and the United States of America in Westminster Statute as well as the creation of the dominions of Upper Canada and Lower Canada at the same time by the elite bankers and pirates of London. What does the word America mean under international law? As we discussed some weeks ago, the laws of Westminster are not only a fraud, but a fraud littered with deliberately occult, convoluted and hysterically obtuse concepts. When you actually read their claimed laws you see that there is nothing lawful about them whatsoever. Not one of them, not one matches the Golden Rule of Law, or Justice or Fairness. All of it is designed to keep people permanently distracted, divided and tricked, as they did to those brave patriots more than two hundred years ago. Yet, given this blog and audio is about evidence of what these bankers and elite families did, we need to investigate once more some of these horribly tricky Statutes. I will start with a Statute under George 1st in 1719 (6Geo1.c.5) on declaring the Kingdom of Ireland a dependency and thereafter any mention of Ireland becomes interchangeable with the concept of a kingdom, or nation, or people who have had their own sovereignty stolen by Great Britain. So this is the beginning of the multiple functions of italics, with Italics meaning a title, or name of a ship, or technical term being defined, or foreign word such as Latin. Proper case then in Westminster statutes for a time meant a proper noun such as a corporation and lower case meant a common noun as well as an estate or trust of the same name. So keep this in mind as we go through this final section of this blog. We see an obscure act in 1710 (9Ann.c.17) that actually defines what is meant in Westminster Statute by the word America when defining colonies, provinces, countries and plantations being the whole of North America not just the east coast of America. The act makes clear that there is no distinction between colonies, provinces, countries and plantations in North America whether they be in land now known as Canada or land now known as the United States of America. All of them and all of it was considered the dominions of the Crown of Great Britain. We see the same brutal and emphatic claims under an act in 1766 (6Geo3.c.12) where it is made clear to the colonies that despite their own assemblies and early adoption of principles of freedom and democracy, they remained dependencies and under the foot of Great Britain and its vultures such as the Bank of England and the United Company of Merchants. That is why the military-banking model of control from Great Britain in the 18th Century installed military officials called Governors in colonies and larger plantations, to enforce martial law from time to time and to stamp out any signs of people waking up, or starting to rebel against the utter insanity and tyranny of bankers. It is why today any place that has a Governor as its highest official, still holds ties and dependency back to Great Britain today – no matter what lies, or distractions are claimed. So when the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were formed in 1791 (31Geo3.c.31) for North America, it meant the whole of North America and not simply some adjustment of the previous Province of Quebec. Just for the record, the word Quebec is not some native American Indian term for narrow water, but Latin Que+Bec meaning literally “The Bill”. In any event, the creation of a Legislative Council for Upper Canada with its Capital of Newfoundland saw the uniting of Newfoundland, St John’s Island (Prince Edwards Island), Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, St Peter’s Island (Saint Pierre and Miquelon), Rupert's Land and North West Territories. The first act of the Legislative Council of Upper Canada according to its own Statutes was to pass and ratify the act of Westminster that defined it, thus legitimizing Upper Canada. The Capital of Lower Canada by the 1791 act was to be Quebec and the fourteen other colonies, provinces, countries and plantations of the crown of England in North America including Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and Vermont which was formed in 1791. However, according to the 1795 print of the original statutes of Lower Canada, the act of its formation was never ratified by this body and so the government of Lower Canada was loosely observed until finally abolished under the Act of Union of 1840 (2&3Vict.c.35). Now, I know that many people who come to this blog by this stage are going to find their heads spinning and asking the question – hold on a second, there were treaties signed with the King of England such as 1783 recognizing the United States as well as an act of Parliament that explicitly recognizes the United States of America, so that is all this about Upper and Lower Canada then. If this is what you were thinking, then you are correct. There is a treaty signed in 1783 in the hope of forming a Union – which struggled to be realized until 1789 because the colonists were not prepared to see such a Constitution put in place that kept them under the thumb of Great Britain and the United Company of Merchants. So lets have a look at the statute of Westminster that ratified the treaty in 1796 (36Geo3.c.97). What do you see? Now remember that the way words are presented in official government printing of acts of parliament is no accident. If a word is in lower case it is supposed to be in lower case. Similarly, if it is in italics, then that is the way it is supposed to be listed. So what we see in the official act of 1796, as opposed to any deliberately corrupted reprints of the treaty is that the act recognizes a trust and an estate called the united states of the British Colonies of America, but nowhere does the act recognize a sovereign country, or nation called the United States of America in this treaty. Instead, it is saying effectively “go right ahead” and function as the trust and estate called the united states but we still own you. So here is yet another question with these tricky and deceptive bankers and merchants that seek to continue to divide and conquer the world, as there are plenty of acts of Westminster of the same period that does list the United States of America in proper case- so what is this body? Well, in 1783 in the same year that the Treaty of Paris was signed, there were two acts passed by Westminster (23Geo3.c.26) and (23Geo3.c.39) that did have the United States in capitals and America in italics to indicate it still considered America as its dominions. So what was this United States in capitals? It was the corporation known as the United States established by the United Company of Merchants with its 20 year lease until 1812 remember? So was there any legitimate sovereign positions recognized for the United States by Westminster? Actually, yes – but only one. It was the creation a new position within Admiralty and the Navy called the Treasurer of the Navy in 1785 (25Geo3.c.31) based originally out of Annapolis and then forced to move offshore after the Civil War to the Philippines, then Cuba and finally to Puerto Rico. From this act which grants the position full military, admiralty, financial power from the crown and the Bank of England, it is unquestionably the most powerful position of the United States and the only banking position that can command its own forces acting as mercenaries to go out and act as pirates and privateers. You know the position as the United States Treasury. Now you know If your head is spinning about now, don’t worry – you are not the first. Now you know how and why countless generations of military generals and leaders born on the soil of the United States of America were tricked, threatened and trapped into serving the interests of a few global bankers and ruling elite to continue perpetual warfare and service. Hopefully, such blind obedience is coming to an end. Now you know and enough is enough. Next week, we will discuss the evolution from the 1840s through the Civil War up until just before the changes before World War II on the never ending cycle of banker funded and driven wars this machine was intended to serve. To all of you who continue to support and help Ucadia- thank and until next week, please be safe and well. Thank you and goodnight. Frank
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2014 01:01 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Ucadia Blog: http://blog.ucadia.com/2014/07/true-history-of-america-part-2-1840.html First, let us clear up a deliberate and quite frankly idiotic and unsustainable assertion- the original form of treaty between the States of the United States was a Union through a Treaty of Perpetual Union and not a Confederation. That is why the catch cry of the Northern States to go to war was “To Preserve the Union”. It is also why the preamble of the Constitution refers to a union or a "more perfect union". It is also why the original Constitution refers to the granting of powers (which is a gift) and not a delegation of powers (as in a confederation). It is also why it was called the Union Army and not the Confederate Army. The Confederate Army was called the Confederate Army. So why is there such stubborn confusion amongst people? How could so many suspend common sense and reason in the face of such overwhelming facts? The Articles of Confederation were the papers documenting the Confederation or Federation (free market government design) between 1776, 13 Republics, and a Voluntary Union of Republics (or States), and look what happened: http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Antifederalist.pdf Antifederalist No. 15 There was no fugitive slave laws under the Confederacy between 1776 and 1787, and people, by local representation, could JOIN or UNJOIN the NON-PERPETUAL UNION, until the criminals took over in 1787. http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n112/mode/2up The Criminals, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Robbert Morris, and even James Madison, took over as the FALSE Federalist party. How is that not easy to see? Why is that overlooked as if that does not matter? I wrote that before listening to and reading the following from Frank O'Collins: Well, the reason is because in every single history book and on display in Washington, D.C. is the claimed Articles of Confederation that were supposed to have been formed in 1777 and then “replaced” by the Constitution in 1788. And the reason is simple because Article 1 of these Articles says “The Stile of this confederacy shall be The United States of America”. So no wonder there is confusion. The people, working people, productive people, not the supposed leaders in America were independent minded, independent in spirit, and independent OF the criminals who would be kings, masters, criminals. The VOLUNTARY nature of connection was defended by people defending the VOLUNTARY nature of connection, and that happened in a Federal form between 1776 and 1787, which was a VOLUNTARY UNION of Republics and that was NOT the Consolidated, Monopolized, Cartelized, Criminalized Dirty Compromise of 1787 at the Con Con in Philadelphia. Simple: 1. Declaration of Independence reads: NO MORE LEGAL CRIMINALS 2. Formations of people volunteering to establish defensive Republics numbering 13, including many forms of ideas known as a Bill of Rights. 3. 13 Constitutional Republics forming a Voluntary Federation where a Continental Congress manages the voluntary association of those people in those Republics, and in that group were infiltrators from the criminal cabal. Why else would they have "elected" Generalisimo Washington as the "leader" of the voluntary defensive forces? 4. Shays's Rebellion continued the voluntary independent defensive force against criminal take over of the people, but the defenders lost, but the Federal design proved to be working at defeating the infiltration of criminals into the government, as the defeated defensive forces fled to other Republics as run away slaves. 5. The criminals figured out that the Voluntary Federation had to go, and the criminals figured out that the Monarchy/Perpetual Union/Cartelization/Consolidation/Single Fraud and Extortion Monopoly had to be put in place, so the Con Con was put on the schedule by the criminals who then made The Dirty Compromise between Northern banking/merchant interests and Southern slave trading/tobacco/plantation interest. So whose side was the French in this 1787 takeover? 1. Union of Merchants (British and Bank of England) 2. Dutch East India Company (red, white, and blue flag no less) Wall Street Central Banking/Drug Trade/Slave trade cabal? North looks like 1. South looks like 2. The Dirty Compromise was a deal made in 1787 to start planning on the purge of 1860. Anti-Federalist (false name) Papers spell it out well enough.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:29 pm | |
| Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Frank | Top |
