Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > National Liberty Alliance |
Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > National Liberty Alliance |
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Step 1 Record of Oath in the form of an Affidavit What is the source or citation from which the legal authority of the actual form being used as a record of Oath? Example: United States Code such and such: California State Code such and such: On the Affidavit which intends to be a legal record of a Sacred Oath (to abide by moral principles created into each one of us by the creator of us, such as the duty to defend each other from harm by criminals among us, even when they claim to be our masters, such as is worded well enough in The Declaration of Independence) there must be a citation of the source of the authority to which the specific form is derived, so as to trace back to the Sacred authority from which the document, the paper, is derived, and used, in an authoritative manner. If anyone questions the Sacred Oath, where it comes from, by what authority does it exist, and on the document is a reference (cited) where previous employees of our mutual self-defensive government have prescribed the manner in which such Affidavits pertaining to Oaths can be produced, and used, by those who take those Sacred Oaths, and use those Affidavits recording that FACT, then those who question can be reminded, right there on the paper, how to trace back the steps (take me to your leader) to the source of the authority. In essence the idea is to have an authoritative statement of a factual Sacred Oath, a record of that event, to be used as a method of proving the agreement to agree to the fact that it is our duty to defend ourselves and each other, as dictated to us by Natural Law, or The Creator, and on the document is the information required to trace back that authority, through the man made law that prescribed the form known as Affidavit of Oath, and then back from that prescription to The Constitution of the State, or The Federal Government, then onto The Declaration of Independence, then to the source, which is either Natural duty, or duty according to our Creator, whichever works for those who are religious or those who are merely natural human beings created with moral conscience. If there are any questions, or challenges, as to the source of the authority, and as to the prescribed steps required to reach agreement concerning how to process due process, then all the information required to prove, as fact, those steps are documented on that document. Document Authorized according to United States Code such and such or whatever. Who is likely to challenge the document? Me for example. Before I spend much time producing my own Sacred Oath recorded onto paper, to be then used for some purpose, it makes sense to me to have all my ducks in a row concerning how I can find agreement with anyone claiming that the document is a misstep. What is the justification for using this particular piece of paper? Show me the Law that prescribes the use of an Affidavit of Sacred Oath? I can agree to the need for it, but by what previous agreement has there been a prescription to follow this due process that is due to be processed in this specific way, with this specific form, where the Sacred Oath, on a Sacred Object (in my case The Declaration of Independence), is useful as factual proof that I take that oath, and that I do so according to previously agreed upon methods. Show me the law, please. I think that law should be printed on that Affidavit. Here is a reinforcing source of information relevant to this concern: Restore Rule of Law |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I cut and pasted notes from my comments to Frank at UCADIA: 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. The concept here is to understand what happens in any meeting among human beings whereby there is any indication of lack of trust by anyone. The slightest hint of distrust during a meeting among human beings becomes a process that can be explained in a phrase: "Take me to your leader." The same process occurs, earlier, as two, or many, people connect to each other in some way involving some medium of exchange, in person, facial expressions, gestures with body parts, language, money (trading things, or commerce), written words, sounds through devices like radio, visual images through television, internet or networks complete with video chat features, etc. "Take me to your leader." Before distrust there is a part of the exchange that establishes TRUST. Trust is a form of leadership and it is outside any one human being. Trust is given to all examples of human beings thereby having that POWER, or that capacity to trust. Trust is created into human beings as a species, whereby we would not be human beings, we would be beasts, were we created without this capacity, this POWER, of trust. Why am I so stuck on this "take me to your leader" principle? Pledge of Allegiance to an object that was created by criminals who are led by a leadership principle known as Might Makes Right? What is the history of that FLAG, and what is the trustworthy history of that INVOLUNTARY UNION created under that FLAG? It is CRIME MADE LEGAL. I trust that crime made legal can cause the extermination of every single human being, leaving only barbaric savage beasts who will then consume one another down to the last one, because that is how that guiding principle works out IN DEMONSTRABLE FACT. Where do I get these ideas? What do you think the following words intend to communicate? What do you trust to be the essential principles being offered by this speaker to anyone who may care to listen carefully? No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the... What is the conduct of people following (blindly) The Pledge of Allegiance to The Flag of The United States which was created out of very carefully EXPOSED deception by criminals who employed deception as a means of injuring many innocent people? Neither can I be trusted were I to Pledge Allegiance to that Flag nor can I trust those who are misled by such deception. Before moving on, I have a warning to offer to you. Do NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER in this case. I am being told that the orderly step by step process of starting a Grand Jury begins with this very controversial subject matter, so the source of this very controversial subject matter is not me. I am pointing out (the messenger in this case) that this is a grave error to start out on this wrong foot. I am not alone There are many people waking up to the facts concerning what has been going on deceitfully for over 200 years. I do not demonized the concept of socialism or capitalism, as does the person in the link above, so my trust in that source of information is reserved to being only a trust in the fact that more, and more, and more, people are becoming aware of the TIP OF THE ICEBERG concerning how deception has been working among us for over 200 years in these so called Untied States. It is not a Federation, it is not a Republic, it is crime having been made legal in 1788, and that fact was well established by those people who were falsely labeled as Anti-Federalists. What about the Flag? Obviously there are problems with Pledging some nebulous (ambiguous) fealty to a secular Flag, for who, and for what purpose, but there is also another can of worms concerning the history of that specific (Admiralty) Flag. I cringe when I hear people repeating (robotic like or worse: in earnest) the word "indivisible," for what do you actually think that means? Masters don't want their slaves running away, they want to maintain an indivisible bond of masters upon slaves, and that was originally (in this country) knowable as The Dirty Compromise done in secret so as to CONSOLIDATE in to an INVOLUNTARY MONOPOLY UNION OF CRIMINALS, and thereby crushing competition and Liberty in one fell swoop. So if you want to offer that can of worms, I'm not accepting it, I cannot, it would be me accepting a lie, and I will do no such thing, but if you do offer that Pledge of Allegiance to THAT Flag, then you supply the can, and if I am the only one opening it up, then you, and whoever you get to follow you, will be following those worms in that can, and eventually those worms bust loose. Flag stuff Corporate FLAG of the British East India Company? The problem is that, although Betsy did make flags for the State Navy Board as early as 1777 and continued until 1816, there is no official record of her making the "first" flag with the round pattern of stars. Although Betsy did, in fact, know how to make stars with one snip of the scissors, again there is no proof that she did so for the flag in question. At best, the whole Betsy Ross story is simply an undocumented, but interesting, American tradition. So you can have your offer, I reject it, there is no way (unless in hell) I am going to pledge allegiance to a lie. When I hear "citizens" obeying the order (without question) to repeat said "oath" I hear the following: 1. What is being said: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands under God with liberty and justice for all. 2. What I hear: I pledge allegiance to the corporation of the Union of Professional Liars and Thieves and to the crushed Republics for which it stands victorious over, under Satan, with might making right for all. Knowing what I know now, there is no way I can maintain any sense of trust, or honor, while repeating those words as if doing so were to accomplish any worthy goal whatsoever. I can summarize my viewpoint on this and I can counter offer the offer by which someone, somewhere, claims that I must make a pledge in order to employ due process of law generally, and specifically a Grand Jury. I pledge allegiance to the creator of all authority, a power not commanded by a single human being, nor a group of human beings, for human beings are not the source of authority, so my pledge is to all who will listen, that true authority can be found through voluntary consent, among human beings, so can we continue finding it, please? Failure to recognize the true meaning of democracy is predicated upon the ignorance of sharing a belief in the false, counterfeit, meaning. 1. False meaning Level 1: Democracy is Mob Rule whereby a nebulous entity known as The Majority is ambiguously in the wrong concerning a nebulous entity known as The Minority. Rule by Agent Provocateur? Level 2: Democracy is Mob Rule, whereby The Majority (a list of names of actual people) perpetrates crimes upon innocent minorities (a list of names of actual people). 2. True meaning Democracy is the sum total of moral power acted out by individual people as moral people interpose their will between criminals and innocent victims in such a way as to effectively prevent crime. Ghandi effect? ------- link Gerard at NLA 10/7/13 Monday Meetup Note: There are no degrees of falsehood associated with the true meaning of democracy, since the false (counterfeit) version at Level 1 is further from the truth, and the Level 2 version of false democracy (counterfeit democracy) is closer to the truth, or in some way, as the saying goes, half true. There is typically some truth to any lie, so as to afford the lie a measure of false legitimacy. Illustrations: A person in a group reports to the other members in the group that The Constitution was, in demonstrable fact, a usurpation of Liberty. Everyone in the group, other than the one person reporting the facts, focuses their own, individual, aggressive thoughts upon the one reporting the facts, and then the Mob becomes Angrier, as the level of aggression feeds upon itself as a collective, self-sustaining, self-accelerating, emotional state of shared hate, until a point is reached whereby one person [BARRETOR?] in the group begins to escalate the power of shared hatred to a point of aggressive action, and the end result is that the reporter who reported the facts is tortured and murdered by being hung for many seconds on the end of a rope, perhaps an hour of hanging, in pain, by a rope, strung from a tree. That is supposedly a case of democracy according to those who counterfeit the meaning of the word, as the word dates back to, at least, ancient Athens, Greece. An illustration of a counter to the false, and counterfeit meaning, is such that another, more powerful group, which may actually be one person, interposes their power of moral law, cuts down the reporter of fact, before the reporter of fact is dead, and the democrat in that case, employing democracy, gives himself, or herself license, and authority, to democratize the situation, by freeing that victim from that group of criminals. The democrat doing the democratizing of that situation can claim that moral people are the majority of people as moral people don't go around torturing and hanging people who merely report the facts to criminals who may not want to confess to their own accountability concerning the crimes that are currently being perpetrated by criminals who may be merely following orders, or who may be willfully targeting innocent people for the fun and profit they enjoy as they consume their victims. I don't know if that report above will bear witness, at all, these days. A shared lie is not far from shared hatred of innocence. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Comments for the following: Ucadia Blog 9/25/2013 Equating socialism, democracy, or what genuinely can be called moral human power (an individual power) equating that, (even as a sum total of individual power summed up as collective power), equating that to be something other than that, inventing a counterfeit version of it, which could be called Mob Rule, or Criminal Rule, or Might makes Right, whereby, in this case, the supposed power is a Majority of people perpetrating crime upon a Minority of people, in accounting and banking (commerce), is a confusion, or problem needed to be overcome. When offering an interim, step by step, solution to a Criminal Banking Monopoly Scarcity of Purchasing Power Event, or so called Collapse, a problem arises when the solution is seen as another version of the same problem. That can be avoided. To make the solution known clearly as a solution, there can be the understanding that in the absence of power to purchase (willfully caused by the scorpion group) those frogs who are thereby choking to death (in the water) are able to invent, produce, and maintain dry land, by creating their own interim forms of purchasing power which is, in the interim, a function of democratic, rule of law, not-for-exclusive-profit, or accurate government banking accounting services offered voluntarily. A life preserver is thrown to the drowning frogs while they do not yet have a power at hand by which they can breathe. Even if the argument is such that Free Market Banking (so called) is higher in quality and lower in cost (in principle), because Free Market consumers constitute many individual choices that force the Free Market producers to supply higher quality and lower cost alternatives to meet the demand for all those individuals who demand those higher quality and lower costs alternatives specific to accurate accounting in banking finance services, even if that is THE ARGUMENT against “government services,” there remains to be a duration of time involving inaction, scarcity, power-less-ness to purchase, a length of time where there is a vacuum, a span of time between the end of the last Monopoly of Scorpions, and the beginning of competition in supplying the demand for accurate currency (purchasing power), and in that interim there can be a self-governing, rule of law, not for (exclusive) profit, defensive, offer of an interim service, until such time as the non-for-profit accurate accounting service at a fixed (no profit) quality/cost is no longer as high in quality and as low in cost as any Free Market product may become available in due time. To remove suspicion as to the legitimacy of the offer to supply the demand for accurate bank accounting services offered as a function of government, the idea of such a thing being legitimate can be confirmed by those promoting such an idea, that there will be no enforcement of such a service as a MONOPOLY power, that relies upon fraud, threat, or violence upon the innocent for its CONTINUED existence if higher quality and lower cost alternatives may become available to those who prefer a non-government alternative in future conditions where COLAPSE by Monopoly (scorpion) enforcers is no longer the rule of the day being perpetrated upon the frogs (producers of things worth stealing). Along those lines it is possible to entertain the idea of accepting bids from contractors who then gain the license to fill the contract to supply the demand for the accurate accounting services. In other words: rather than the so called government buying the so called existing banking accounting service, there is a demand notice offered for a supply of bids to be filled by existing business people who already supply such or similar services, to contract according to government specifications, an interim banking service in the absence of any competitive one during the collapse. Name any current business, Pay Pal, Bitcoin, a new example of The Liberty Dollar (the old one was crushed), E-Gold (they were being crushed last time I looked), and in such names are possible people who could supply BIDS based upon a government demand for BIDS, so as to bridge the gap between Private and Public interests. There can be many winners of the BIDS, a Pay Pal winner of the Bid in New York, a Bitcoin winner of the bid in California, or however the interim SUPPLY of Legal/Accurate/Accounting/Purchasing Power is supplied during the Collapse that will happen, because the nature of that Monopoly of Crime in Banking is such that it Collapses on Purpose, and it leaves the victims of it powerless as a RULE, not an exception. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
A possible point of order to be thoroughly understood concerns the bait and switch routine employed effectively by Legal Criminals upon their targeted victims, where focus of attention is precisely focused on the useful meaning of the term Common Law. Example: Common Law Competitive meaning: From 14th Century English usage following the formation of the Commons "the third estate of the English people as represented in Parliament" from 1377. Therefore, the popular (but incorrect) assumed meaning of Common Law as being "the LAW of the people". In a strict literal sense, the correct etymological meaning of common law is more accurately defined as "the laws to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation" -- completely opposite to the popular misinterpretation of the phrase. The main procedural foundations of Common Law since its inception remains the false Roman Law was VENETIAN LAW (more commonly known as MARITIME LAW and/or ADMIRALTY LAW) introduced in the 12th and early 13th Century during the creation of the highest legal PERSONALITY under Common Law--the HOLY SEE (Sea). Hence, under the corrupted Roman Law of the ROMAN CULT living men and women are considered VESSELS subject to JURISDICTION of the SEE (Sea) with the WATERMARK of all nations with diplomatic recognition (CONCORDATS) of the SEE (Sea) set at the highest mountain peaks--hence all land is therefore "Under the Sea" and PROPERTY of the SEE (Sea). However, in many JURISICTIONS, CUSTOM LAW is also accepted as part of Common Law thus providing some RELIEF. In the late 16th and early 17th Century, Common Law was further modified with the introduction of the LEGAL FICTIONS, LEGAL PROCEDURE and PRECEDENT embedded in Jesuit constructed works embedded in popular culture and plays. Today, Common Law is incorrectly and deliberately defined as "The law established, by precedent, from judicial decisions and established within a community". I know that such a deluge of information may attack a person's common sense all at once, and then destroy said person's capacity to think clearly. The point here is to point out that fact that one person may have the meaning of Common Law understood in their own mind, however, the meaning INTENDED in the mind of someone else may be contrary ON PURPOSE, so as to cause argument, and so as to cause controversy, and so as to then be in a position to profit as a result of that controversy being cases in that manner. This is typical Divide and Conquer (Hegalism or Thesis - Antithesis = Synthesis) methodology by employing counterfeit language (which is "currency" or "money") as a means to reach that end. This is willful deceit employed legally, and therefore FRAUDULENTLY, by criminals as criminals create victims willfully, and they do so under the "color of law" so that their crimes are in that way higher order crimes, whereby the word for that level-up of severity of crime is what? Malfeasance Modern version: The wrongful or unjust doing of some act which the doer has no right to perform, or which he has stipulated by contract not to do. No definition offered here: Why are the true original meaning of so many words hidden?Cause for concern? Do the parties in question (controversy) share the meaning of any word or does one member of the controversy (one side) willfully employ deception as a means of profiting at the expense of the other member(s)? Comments on: Court of Record What authority lists the requirements of a court of Record? Court of Record info 1 Court of Record 2 [url=http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Sealing_Guide.pdf/$file/Sealing_Guide.pdf]http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Sealing_Guide.pdf/$file/Sealing_Guide.pdf[/url] Modern version (missing common law reference?) Returning to Court of Record: Information on Writs of Habeas Corpus includes words that communicate to me a measure of a power struggle among the incorporated (counterfeit) courts as to which court profits from the exploitation of a specific targeted victim. One judge/court wins the battle to gain the license to exploit the target in question, or another judge/court wins, or neither court wins, and the victim is free to go, as there is no clear winner among the judges/courts engaged in the turf battle. Modern source Habeas corpus originated in English common law as a means to protect individuals from illegal detention. An individual who had been held in custody could file a petition seeking a writ which would require the custodian to provide adequate legal justification for the detention. If the custodian failed to do so, the court could order the petitioner’s release. Today, habeas corpus is mainly used as a post-conviction remedy for state or federal prisoners who challenge the legality of the application of federal laws that were used in the judicial proceedings that resulted in their detention. That is one of many corporate versions of corporate licensed (patented?) facts. Here is a competitive source of information on Habeas Corpus: Habeas Corpus "You have the body." - the name given a variety of writs whose object is to bring a person before a court or judge - in most common usage, it is directed to the official or person detaining another, commanding him/her to produce the body of a person detained so the court may determine if such person has been denied his/her liberty without due process of law. Also here 112.14 |
|||||||||||
