| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Karen Hudes | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Mar 3rd, 2016 02:15 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Karen, Absolutes? No, the answer is not absolute as if the group (one thing) "is not" (will not, can not, absolutely not) going to help us (one thing) get closer toward shared, voluntary goals, such as averting another dark ages after another world wide trade war, and another world wide war. Many people at National Liberty Alliance are working very well at replacing the many lies (counterfeit truth) with more accurate, useful, productive, defensive, powerful information, such as the true meaning or Rule of Law (due process, law of the land, legem terrae, common law, with trial by the country), while the lies destroy themselves, collapsing in on themselves, and again this is parallel to money. Try this: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=791&forum_id=2 Especially relevant is the Worgle Austria example. Counterfeit items counterfeit something real, and counterfeit items always destroy themselves, such as entropy relates to ectropy. So you have 4 basic fronts at work right now, and you know the financial one best. 1. The counterfeit financial system has run its course to the inevitable (planned) end result. You call it gold backwardation. There will be a replacement or there will be no more human beings alive, and the replacement will either be a return of the same counterfeit (monopoly rule by criminals) version, improved, adapted, but on the same Boom Bust Cycle, or there will be many replacements, all of which are competitively better than the nearest competitor, and all of which are accurate, or based upon elusive truth. A mix of all possibilities is what can be called The Prisoner's Dilemma also known as game theory. See the app here on The Prisoner's Dilemma: http://prisonersdilemma.sergehelfrich.eu/ 2. Counterfeit Rule of Law, which is Rule by Criminals, which is a shared set of rules followed (without question) by those sharing this ideal set of rules shared by all criminals, and most of them are not even aware of these very simple criminal rules. Like rats on a sinking ship the rats eat each other until there is only 2 rats left, and the Criminals Rules (might makes right) inspires the more powerful rat to eat the less powerful rat, and this is inevitable because the rats share the counterfeit financial system which ends up with the same collapse of economy, which ends up with the same last 2 rats on the sinking ship, and the way to settle the rat problem (law) is the shared understanding that the more powerful rat consumes the less powerful rat. The replacement needed is to take the dick out of dictator and replace might makes right with the original version of Rule of Law, which is to reject any attempt by any individual (or individual group) to decide any matter of truth, or law, or fact, or remedy, or restitution, and instead to employ an adaptive, effective, method by which the whole country of people must agree unanimously on what is or is not fact, is or is not law, and is or is not restitution, remedy, or if absolutely necessary, what is or is not a just punishment: trial by jury according to the common law, in America, survives in (at least) the Bill of Rights. 3. Counterfeit information, which is also called half truths, which are deceptions based upon the basic Criminal Rule that is understandable by example, which is a thief intending to injure a victim and the thief invents and produces a NEWS bulletin, whereby the thief points and proclaims "There is a thief, right there, where I am pointing,," and while concerned, defensive, people are looking in the direction pointed out by the thief, said thief injures the innocent, targeted, victim. The replacement is, as a rule, accurate information, known as the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the tried and true method of validating the truth, in any case where an individual is potentially harmed by lies, false accusation, or demands for punishment is trial by jury according to the common law, here in America. 4. Counterfeit federation, which is known as Might make Right, Nationalism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Monarchy, Summary Justice, Rule by Criminal means, Monopoly, Tyranny, Despotism, on and on. Thieves change the meanings of words on a regular basis. Case in point: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp03 "There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. " Case in point explained according to game theory (if you can connect the dots yourself): http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037/ref=pd_sxp_redirect "Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely." Federation explained precisely: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ "That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on usa fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:" National Liberty Alliance includes many people who know much more than I do about certain things. I think, however, that many people in that group were not, and are not, prepared to know the whole truth concerning when, how, and why the criminals took over America, and therefore many of them are ill prepared to defend against the latest generation of criminals who have inherited the States that were Captured this routine way. I think that the next link, and the next quote may be a vital piece of the puzzle required: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/JEFFERSON/ch14.html "The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal." What is needed in each county are these justices of the peace whereby all accusations by anyone against anyone are accusations that matter to all people everywhere, because the weakest among us are those who need our help the most, and so they must be heard, they must be represented, and their accusations must be validated. The problem of course is that there are many counterfeit accusations, and who handles any accusation now? An accuser who accuses someone of a crime, such as human trafficking, in a case like The Franklin Case, ends up having the accused in power to validate the accusation. When the accused is guilty is it likely that the accused, who has the exclusive power to validate accusations, will validate an accusation against his tyrannical self? The answer is clearly no. Joe
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 3rd, 2016 03:24 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Karen, I have cut and pasted my correspondence to you (not your correspondence to me) on Facebook and onto my own web page already. My assumption (based upon your consistent statements) is that whistleblowing (facts) is good, not secrecy. Again this is entropy versus ectropy. Well said here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenitsyn-lecture.html "And on top of this we are threatened by destruction in the fact that the physically compressed, strained world is not allowed to blend spiritually; the molecules of knowledge and sympathy are not allowed to jump over from one half to the other. This presents a rampant danger: THE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION between the parts of the planet. Contemporary science knows that suppression of information leads to entropy and total destruction. Suppression of information renders international signatures and agreements illusory; within a muffled zone it costs nothing to reinterpret any agreement, even simpler - to forget it, as though it had never really existed. (Orwell understood this supremely.) A muffled zone is, as it were, populated not by inhabitants of the Earth, but by an expeditionary corps from Mars; the people know nothing intelligent about the rest of the Earth and are prepared to go and trample it down in the holy conviction that they come as "liberators"." In order for people to agree, voluntarily, to exchange counterfeit information (money, law, news, language) for accurate information, they must first get rid of their own willful ignorance. That can be done by example, after example, after example, of the cost they face themselves, for their complacency, their "trading with the enemy," and please feel free to post anything, with my name on it, that I transfer to you voluntarily. I am my own power in command of my own conscience, and that, like yourself, provides said examples. Another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTm3Jbr6ePQ People must start looking in the mirror, try their own conscience on their own volition, and when that trial is won, then another individual will begin to help everyone else with these processes of re-instating the good as the bad destroys itself. When people are then polarized in this direction the choice to use accurate local money, at the local government level, or at the individual consumer level, will be an obvious choice for better instead of worse, for accurate information instead of willfully following criminal orders without question. No more of this: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. " A return to this: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Coriginal-rough-draught%E2%80%9D-declaration-independence-0 "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself,..." Meaning, get rid of the lies, double talk, and counterfeit information carried around in our minds, schools, governments, and wallets, and start holding each other to an accurate accounting, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel, just use the principle (accurate accounting is ROUND) to construct a modern wheel with modern technology. I can show you in the Congressional record where the criminal infiltrators where covered up as the criminal infiltrators stole the American wheel (accurate accounting), and that is where we can find examples worth exemplifying now. Out with this: "The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others." In with this: http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf Arthur Jackson Haynes, Jr James M. Lawson, Jr Page 541 "The movement was aimed at reversing that. King's motto was, the SCLC motto, it was not civil rights, it was redeem the soul of America. That was our motto. So you see right away that that is much larger than getting a hamburger at a lunch counter." Page 804 “I have considered in my thirty-five-year career a jury is the best lie detector there is.” Page 1582 William Schaap “Because when year, after year, after year you hear that something was the case, one story -- one day saying, hey, the whole thing was a lie, and it doesn't register on their brain.” Page 1614 “Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, you've described an awesome power that exists in government influenced and controlled, sometimes owned, media -- print, audio, visual media entities -- and how that infrastructure gets focused on opponents of the United States such as Martin Luther King.” [Defenders of the innocent are not opponents of the many (50 or so) Republics which are united into a voluntary federation, the Legal Fiction known as U.S. Inc., is a false front, so people who are opposed to frauds are opponents of frauds, not opponents of the false word] Page 1632 A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be deafening. Disinformation is not only getting certain things to appear in print, it's also getting certain things not to appear in print. I mean, the first -- the first thing I would say as a way of explanation is the incredibly powerful effect of disinformation over a long period of time that I mentioned before. For 30 years the official line has been that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King and he did it all by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing like the short period when the line was that the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for 30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King, did it all by himself. And when that is imprinted in the minds of the general public for 30 years, if somebody stood up and confessed and said: I did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99 percent of the people wouldn't believe him because it just -- it just wouldn't click in the mind. It would just go right to -- it couldn't be. It's just a powerful psychological effect over 30 years of disinformation that's been imprinted on the brains of the -- the public. Something to the country couldn't -- couldn't be. I ran for congress in my district in 1996 telling voters how the criminal government tortured and murdered innocent people in a church in WACO. I think I know the stakes. Your call. Joe
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 9th, 2016 11:09 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Karen, I saw no where in your publications any mention of my unique perspective, not with my name, and not without my name, and it matters not to me if my name is connected to the perspective offered. What matters is the truth gaining power over deception. Not knowing is dangerous and exemplified in our exchange. I have no way of actually knowing if you are, in fact, misguided or guiding yourself as one of the deceivers. You publish, or link, a form of media (book) by a Grandfather, offering a unique world view, and as I read, I find almost immediately a false reference concerning the Revolutionary War period. This is alarming because the truth is found in the law of the land, known as legem terrae, which is trial by jury, NOT the fraudulent constitution of 1789, put in place by none other than George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and the rest of the (false) Federalist Party. Four references may suffice to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the law of the land is not the National (not federal, thereby proving the fraud to be one) Constitution, rather the law of the land is due process, or Rule of Law, or once known (before the name was "state captured") common law. Common law is what is commonly understood as "innocent until proven guilty," "speedy trial," "trial by jurists in the local area (peers)," "no double jeopardy," "we are all under the law, none are above it," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "remedy, redemption, restitution is offered, voluntarily, to all," and "those refusing voluntary duty are outside the law, unprotected by the law," and we the people are polite to each other, but we the people are armed in cooperative, voluntary, defense of each innocent victim (powerless in their own defense) constituting posterity. 1. From Lysander Spooner's work titled Trial by Jury. Quote: __________ In this corrupt and lawless manner, Congress, instead of taking care to preserve the trial by jury, so far as they might, by providing for the appointment of legal juries incomparably the most important of all our judicial tribunals, and the only ones on which the least reliance can be placed for the preservation of liberty have given the selection of them over entirely to the control of an indefinite number of state legislatures, and thus authorized each state legislature to adapt the juries of the United States to the maintenance of any and every system of tyranny that may prevail in such state. Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hand of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States. There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution. These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people. If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced. ALSO: “Per legem terrae.” One other phrase remains to be explained, viz., “per legem terrae,” “by the law of the land.” All writers agree that this means the common law. Thus, Sir Matthew Hale says: “The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence,lex terrae, as in the statute of Magna Carta, chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words,aut per legem terrae; as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III.” chap. 3 which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae, as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9,“Nolumus leges Angliae mutari,” &c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni (the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. --, and de quo warranto, and divers others. But most [*35] commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas, cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes.” --- 1 Hale’s History of the Common Law , 128. End Quote:___________________ 2. Thomas Jefferson notes on Virginia Law Quote:_________________________ The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. End Quote:_____________________ 3. RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788) Quote:__________________________ It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. End Quote:________________________ 4. Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts Quote:____________________________ Arthur Jackson Haynes, Jr Page 804 “I have considered in my thirty-five-year career a jury is the best lie detector there is.” End Quote:_________________________ The false reference from the Grandfather with his uniquely competitive perspective: Quote:____________________ You are surrounded today by a high wall of false reality that was very, very gradually and carefully constructed after the American Revolution ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1784 and after the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land in 1789. End Quote:_________________ Also: Quote:____________________ And against that colossal wealth and power, you had the tiny, rebellious, breakaway United States of America (population 2.8 million) with no accumulated wealth whatever. It was a miracle that General George Washington was able to scrape enough money together from the thirteen colonies to fend off the British Army. As it was, he may not have won the final battle at Yorktown, Virginia without an emergency loan arranged by one Haym Solomon, who represented a mysterious power you will be introduced to shortly. End Quote:_________________ In my research (ongoing) the industrious people on the land was the source of wealth and it was the prize sought after by both criminals and victims in that time period. So on two counts this "perspective" is already off the mark in the opposite direction. Count 1: The law of the land is a voluntary duty charged to all potential defenders of all innocent victims from all guilty criminals through a voluntary defensive association (federation) formed for that purpose, and founded upon that principle of voluntary mutual defense of all innocent victims from all guilty criminals if facts can be found by some reasonable process such as common law trial by jury which is still written in the record as the Bill of Rights, which was a battle of words won by the so called Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, Luther Martin, John Lansing, and Robert Yates.: the law of the land cannot be based upon the fraud known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which became known as The Dirty Compromise, whereby the slave traders in the north and south sold out the true "law of the land" and instituted summary justice (also known as Admiralty, Equity, Exchequer, Nisi Prius, Maritime, Summary Justice, Might makes Right, Rule by Criminals, Tyranny, Despotism, and other true, half true, and false names. This is classic bait and switch, as rule of law (the ideal is in view) and instead a false version, a counterfeit version is put in place instead of true rule of law: said Constitution (without the Bill of Rights) of 1789. Count 2: The true value, the prize, the source of power, the financing, of any human endeavor was not a mysterious power having "money," the true power was, is, and always will be honest people doing productive work, on the land where the resources are, under the sanctuary of effective, voluntary, mutual defense, whereby no one gains at the expense of anyone else by criminal means such as deception, threat of aggressive violence, or aggressive violence. Joe
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 11th, 2016 12:22 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GePwiGCNzHQ Facebook comments: Time 5:31 is a reference to Article 3 Courts. Does anyone know the meaning of the Br'er Fox and the Tar Baby fable? Before the criminals took over America the concept of a federal court was strictly limited to dealing only with disputes between states, there was no direct power taken (by the criminals) over the people of America. At that time any accusation against anyone, with any pretense of authority, was valid and validated according to the true meaning of Rule of Law. Written right into the first American Federal Constitution were words addressing this liability (due process applies to all, or it isn't due process) charged to federal congressmen, including the president of the American federal congress. When the criminals took over in 1787 through 1789 they created a Tar Baby in the form of the current Article 3 courts, which then opened the door for the Judicary Act of 1789, which as enforced before the Bill of Rights supposedly amended the fraudulent 1789 "Constitution," so Karen Hudes may be accurately offering information concerning the fact that the current (false) Federal Judges are not following their own rules that they claim as their source of authority, which is a crime known as treason, but the unreported whole truth is that even if they did follow their (false) federal rules, they would still be guilty of treason if the truth means anything to anyone. Place those treasonous criminals back into power in their Article 3 Courts and you return the people of America back to the moment we are thrown into the tar pit; without our means to get out, which is the true rule of law, which was then understood as trial by jury according to the common law; which remains on the official record in the Bill of Rights. Why would you choose to jump back into the tar pit, stick yourself back into the tar baby, if you actually do find the power to remove yourself from that Network of Corporate Global Control? See: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1191&forum_id=2 I think the accurate (whole truth) answer to this question concerning who is in control of the global assets is every moral person on this planet. What has happened to people during the brain washing, mind control, that has been going on for thousands of years, is the bait and switch job (parlor trick) done to the concept of ownership. The original meaning of ownership has to do with individual responsibility or the meaning still contained (generally) in the word stewardship. Now the meaning of ownership has a criminal connotation to it, whereby an "owner" is akin to someone who criminally gains control of other people (slave owner) and said "owner" can criminally do whatever he, or she, pleases with the people owned by the "owner." So the answer to this question from a bent mind (where the brain is washed and is infected with criminal thoughts) is an answer that offers a name of a criminal who "owns" (has criminal power over) everyone: he, or she, or their little cabal, "owns" (has control of) the global assets. To understand why the real answer is every moral person on this planet, you must start thinking in terms of individual responsibility, stewardship, and the limits placed, voluntarily, by moral people on ourselves. This is why Karen is right about what must be done with the worst criminals currently perpetrating the worst crimes under the color of law: they must be offered remedy, redemption, restitution, rehabilitation, and if they refuse, then their own kind (criminals) will have free access to them, as these rats act like rats on a siking ship, and they throw each other under the bus, and moral people, true moral people, choose not to participate in such pogroms: reference to the ill fated French Revolution is a shinning example.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2016 06:07 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Time 25:14 is where the information offered by Karen Hudes turns to the election of the President. Here is where it may be possible to fit some pieces of the puzzle into the big (accurately accounting) picture. If it appears to be correct to claim that the people running the Network of Global Corporate Control are criminals, and therefore they act under the color of law, which in a word is treason, then the concept of a claim of interregnum serves to accurately account for the time in between Rule by Criminal means, and the time when the revolutionary concept of Rule of Law returns. Interregnum marks the end of blind belief in falsehood without question (rule by criminal means) and the time before a return to the revolutionary idea of Rule of Law where no one is truly above the law (criminals falsely claim they are above the law), and so there are 3 time periods as such: Belief in Criminals as the authorities of moral right and moral wrong, which is the time period that ended just recently. Next is the time period called interregnum, which is acknowledgment of the false belief in criminal authority, and the acknowledgment of the need to return to the revolutionary idea of Rule of Law, and that time is now, and in the near future (with predicted 90% certainty) there will be, by our moral industry, a time when Rule of Law returns as a voluntary mutual defense investment of our time, effort, and power. That is a pattern. The same pattern plays out with the Global Currency Reset, as false belief in counterfeit money, or false belief - without question - in the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve Extortoin Racket (which includes the IRS part of that scam), ends by design, as the criminlas implode their own counterfeit money, and as with the false belief in criminals as the authorities of moral right, that time ends and a new time begins, and the new time beginning is the formation of replacement currencies, which include Pay Pay, Bitcoin, Local Currencies, States returning to Gold standard currencies, and an offer to return counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for Treasury Notes, during the interregnum time period, which is before the time period when Rule of Law returns in general use. The patern is then established as 3 parts in 2 areas. Area 1 is out with criminal Rule, followed by interregnum, followed by Rule of Law. Area 2 is financial, out with counterfeit (fraudulent) Federal Reserve Notes, in with interregnum currencies called Treasury Notes, and finally a return to Rule of Law where local currencies, no false "legal tender laws," which impair competition, and a return to accurate money/currency (serving as storage and transfer medium) in the form of actual gold aurum. What then, if you follow these patterns, and you understand the significance of the current realities, what is the form by which Rule of Law takes, after the interregnum, and what is a true President of a true Federation as was the actual Revolutionary example offered by American history between 1776 and 1787? The true president is merely a member of congress, elected by congress as the president of congress, and the powers of the president are limited by the representatives elected as governors, and congressmen, in independent (competitive) states. There is no direct control over the people in the states given to (or taken fraudulently by) a President of a Consolidated Nation State. The only direct control people in the states have of who is the president, or what the president does, is similarly limited. Just as the president has no direct control over the business of the people in each independent state, those people in those states have no business, and no control, over the president of a true federal congress. If people want to control their country, their nation, their elected representative of their state, they are limited within the jurisdiction of their state, which is in most cases a governor, and a congress of their state, which is a republic in form, and which works democratically, which are principles of the true common law; where all things are voluntary and all things are for all the people and all things work for mutual defense of all, and there is no one believed (falsely) to be above the law, as such a (false) claim constitutes, as inculpatory evidence, a confession of a criminal mind, with or without malice aforethought, whenever someone enforces their power to injury innocent people with impunity. So it can be seen, as it is perceptible that Treasure Notes offer a brief period of adjustment in values and principles, leading toward local currencies and global aurum, that a return to the (fraudulent) Constitution of 1787, where a dictator is claimed to be above the law, having false legal power to gain direct access to everyone's natural wealth, is but a momentary, brief, period of adjustment, before the facts are found, and before an accurate accounting follows the due course of true law, and ultimately the many countries of people (independent states) reform the original voluntary mutual defense association, or federation, whereby the federal congress elects their president of the federal congress. If people want a dictator in their independent state, then they can find one of the independent states that works more like a dictatorship, and those who prefer freedom in liberty can find sanctuary in independent states where the people prefer freedom in liberty instead of dictatorship. Let the people decide which type of free market government they want to inveset into, and let those chips fall as they may, which was the revolutionary idea called Rule of Law. That is explained here: http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037/ref=pd_sxp_redirect Quote:________________ Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely. Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. _____________________________________________
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Mar 26th, 2016 11:50 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://www.facebook.com/karen.hudes.10/?fref=nf This news is not a blow to the Network of Global Corporate Control. They are trying to crash the system. But it is not going to crash, because people know that the coalition for the rule of law on the Board of Governors of the World Bank and IMF is in charge, and is embarking on a Global Currency Reset." My comment: If no one is in charge of defending against collapse, currency war, world war, and a new global dark ages, then we - like it or not - the people will get what we are paying for, through fraud, extortion, under the color of law (treason), we the people pay for, with our stolen earnings, and are stolen defensive investments. So the idea that someone, some where, or some group, some how, is, in demonstrable fact, working for our voluntary, mutual, defense, is what it is to whoever connects to this information in time and place. So what is the knee jerk reaction to this information from a viewpoint that is ignorant, or even willfully ignorant? The knee jerk reaction might be such that those people claiming to be "in charge" are the bad guys: more wolves in sheeps clothing? I think that is actually funny, like comic relief. A very nice, courageous individual, takes on the powers that be, like David and Goliath, fighting against world war III investors, and that individual - knees jerking - looks like the enemy? Enemy of what? Those who are investing in World War III, through ignorance, may want to stop jerking their knees on cue, like Pavlov's Dogs, and those who are willfully ignorant about their investments in "winning" world war III, are the enemy, so what does their opinion matter?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Mar 26th, 2016 12:30 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Comments on National Liberty Alliance: "I don't see anything about Federal judges breaking their oaths of office by not sitting in the courts under Article III of the Constitution of 1789. Maybe I missed it. "I don't see anything about the Constitution of 1789 not being in force. "I don't see anything about the return to Constitutionality via an Article V Constitutional Convention. In short, this seems to be waving a red flag at a bull. No incentive to get from here to there. "Why is that?" Karen Hudes (commenting NLA) Why is it that many people are misdirected and failing to effectively defend against harm done by the worst people perpetrating the worst crimes under the color of law? The problem is the false color of law. An Article III court is possibly a transitional step during interregnum, whereby a return to Rule of Law (common law) is a possible goal. If the idea is to return ONLY to the (fraudulent) Constitution of 1787/89, then interregnum will be followed by Rule by Criminal Means, not Rule of Law. In order to understand this it is vitally important to understand the true account of what happened to the true voluntary mutual defense federation known as The Untied States of America in Congress Assembled. If the true federation was usurped (which it was) in 1787/89, then returning to the Constitution of 1789 is returning to a crime scene, and returning to an Article III court is handing back the power of mutual defense to the offenders. Giving the power to defend the innocent to the guilty. So...the idea here is to inspire the guilty to turn themselves in, in their own court, and then what? Let them keep their fraudulently gained authority to perpetrate whatever crime pleases them from then on? That makes no sense. A return to Rule of Law, if that is the goal, must actually do so, and what is Rule of Law? Rule of Law, in the American example, was, is, and can be in our future, the common law, not a fraudulent Article III court. So this sounds more of the Pot calling the Kettle black to me, if National Liberty Alliance is wrong, then so is the effort by Karen Hudes, and those in charge of the Global Currency Reset, if they think (falsely) that a return to an Article III court, and an Article V Constitutional Convention is the goal. It may be a step, but it may also be the same waving a red flag at a bull, or it may be a Tar Baby. It is better than doing nothing. What is the goal? If the goal is rule of law, then the Constitution of 1787/89 must be understood in the context of Rule of Law. No lawful authority is ever gained through fraud, only rule by criminal means is gained through fraud. The step after interregnum must be a return to the Articles of Confederation, a return to voluntary, mutual, moral, defense of all, with an actual federal (not "national") power in conjunction with independent (nation) states, which are now 50 in number not 13, whereby any effort to hold a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) has to actually follow the original federal (organic) laws. A misstep at that crucial junction of offering the current (criminal) powers their incentive to do the right thing is the WRONG thing, and that misstep leads right back to the same our criminal business cycle. Why would anyone want to postpone World War III, giving those investors in it another chance at it? How many steps ahead of the game will the winner of the game be required to know in advance? Does the fencer, or the chess player, or the military airman, solider, fall into a trap ever? Is it a good idea to avoid falling into traps? The defining moment when America turned from Rule of Law to Rule by Criminal means (dictatorship) was the move from federation (voluntary mutual defense association of free people in liberty) to nationalization (tyranny by another false name) in 1787/89, a well documented fact. If the plan is to follow interregnum with Rule of Law, by offering the criminals at large (article III courts, article V con con), a way - during interregnum - to return to Rule of Law (offering remedy, redemption, restitution, salvation, restoration, sanctuary in liberty, mutual, voluntary, defense against all criminals including the criminals themselves), then it makes absolutely no sense to claim that the criminals keep their false authority. The common law IS the voluntary, mutual defense, sanctuary, in liberty, rule of law, due process, law of the land, legem terrae, point of view, that offers remedy, restitution, redemption, by a process offered, given, to all by all. How absurd is it to get past interregnum and instead of returning to rule of law (federation of free people in competitive nation states in liberty) the game is won by the criminals themselves (under the color of law) with a return to their fraudulent criminal version of law, that required the actual founders to amend the criminal constitution with the Bill of Rights, in the vain, weak, and powerless effort to defend Rule of Law? How soon do you think the criminals ignored the Bill of Rights (common law due process) when they stole the American version of federation? Have you read the criminal Judiciary Act of 1789, a criminal at perpetrated before acknowledgement of the Bill of Rights? How about the criminal Naturalization Act of 1790? How about the first fraudulent Bank of the United States? How about the criminal extortion fee on money competition known as the whiskey tax? How about the criminal Whiskey rebellion Proclamation of 1794? How about the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798? You want to start at the start again and allow the criminals to restart the same rule by criminal means, the same way, just a new day, a fresh start, and a return to business as usual, the criminal business cycle phase III. At least we avoided the dark ages after world war III? Is that the plan?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Mar 26th, 2016 08:36 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"You are a tyrant imposing a death sentence on humanity." Case in point. The wording just quoted is offered as if the one offering, authoring, the message is offering a statement of fact. Rather than presumption of innocence, and rather than offering wording of suspicion of possible culpability in wrong doing, the wording is public condemnation of wronging stated as a fact. My reputation is ruined, as the mud was slung, and if it sticks on anyone's mind, then I am now a tyrant in their mind, having been convicted, without offering me any opportunity to defend myself, of this heinous crime against humanity. How does that work for anyone? The alternative has been known for centuries. The alternative has been called legem terrae, or the law of the land, or common law, or due process, or rule of law, and one principle known by mankind for centuries is the principle by which individual human beings are subject to individual human error, and therefore the idea of affording one juror the power to acquit works against the requirement of unanimity (of the whole country represented by 12 jurors) in order to convict. On the one hand is a despot with the power to punish on his or her say so alone, as he or she pleases, and on the other hand nothing is ever done to anyone without the whole country (or representatives of the whole country) agreeing upon the facts that determine guilt, the punishment if any is due, and the meaning of law in any case, in any time, and in any place. How does my offering of that information, well documented for thousands of years, constitute me being a tyrant? I don't get it. I can ask. How does that constitute me being a tyrant? Is that a false accusation. Is a a false accusation inspired out of ignorance? Is that a willfully false, deceptive, accusation done with malice aforethought? I don't know, so I ask. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6s0y8H-vHU
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 27th, 2016 02:03 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
" However, I think it is essential as a sign that the elites are moving over plus we will eventually need to know our true history to make sense of our present and future." That is my cue to once again offer the moment in time when America turned from rule of law to rule by criminal means. Failing to understand what happened then almost guarantees that it will happen again, after interregnum. Before interregnum people believe in, invest in, support, aid, abet, a criminal version of government (which is crime, not government), then interregnum is the time period where that flow of power (from the deceived to the deceivers) ends, as the former believers in the deception realize the deception, and these former victims disconnect the lie that binds them to the criminals, and then these former victims seek true government, not counterfeit government, and true economic trade (facilitated by accurate currency), rejecting (presumably) counterfeit trade (facilitated by deceptive currency), whereby choices, such as local currencies in competitive localities, State currencies, in independent states, such as Monaco, Massachusetts, Spain, California, on and on, and finally a number of competitive choices for Global Trade done by independent producers in Global Markets. The best (most accurate) currency, in free markets, are logically, and reasonably, selected by those wanting the most accurate currency in free markets, those who seek, find, and invest in deceptive currency, are those shopping in a different market other than a free market, if the word free means free from crime, and if the word free DOES NOT MEAN, free from liabilities associated with those who perpetrate crimes. So...how about a little history concerning that time and place where the American rule of law process was usurped and in place of the true rule of law process was placed, fraudulently, a counterfeit version? https://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn https://www.facebook.com/karen.hudes.10/?fref=nf
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 30th, 2016 11:17 am |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
+Karen Hudes, I was National Liberty Alliance California State Coordinator for one year. I was asked to censor myself, as the accusations against me was that the information I bring to the table discourages people and closes the gate for people joining and participating in returning to Rule of Law through National Liberty Alliance. I took the requtest to censor myself as a demand for me to leave. If people don't want accurate accounts, the truth if you will, then they won't see it no matter what the source. If people at National Liberty Alliance are moving toward individual responsibility at local levels, despite those who may or may not be effective gatekeepers in the alliance, then which side are those people on as they move, step, by step, toward individual responsibility at local levels? Had those people, at the National Liberty Alliance, listened to the accurate accounts offered to them, they might have taken a different course 2 years ago, but that does not mean that specific people within the alliance did not get something out of the accurate accounts offeed to them, so that their individual paths were not fully turned in a wrong, wasteful, or worse, direction. How will people find, and then employ, the tool known as Rule of law if there are no accurate accounts of it? Without accurate accounts of what is, or is not, true, accurate (based upon facts), Rule of Law, then are people demanding something that they have to invent from scratch? Moving step by step past interregnum, the idea is to move from a single control by criminal means (Network of Global Corporate Control) to individual responsibility and individual accounablily at local levels; which ends up with indiviudals looking in the mirror and making the right decisions instead of individuals being led down the wrong path. Where once there was (criminally led) Dollar (Federal Reserve note, not actual U.S. dollar) Hegemony, or World Reserve Currency (Federal Reserve as world reserve currency controller), so where once there was Dollar Hegemony, there is now the first step from single, dictatorial, criminal, control, from monopoly Dollar Hegemony toward 2 market competitors when adding the currency issue of BRICS. No longer is there a single criminal monopoly power, said Dollar Hegemony, as now there is a greater power known as BRICS. Out with criminal power, and in with individual responsibility on the individual local level with BRICS? The answer is clearly no. To finish the job the next step, as information offered by you suggests, is individual Nation State currencies, and that is already happening with such Nation States as Nevada and Arizona moving to gold backed currencies. Your information, as far as I know, includes the very good idea of working the United States on a Federal Level (not national level) whereby those who have (fraudulent) Federal Reserve Notes in their accounts are inspired to choose to peacefully transition first to U.S. Treasury notes, on par (or at the current exchange rate of 1 to 1), so as then to freeze the value (which is plummeting toward less than zero) of that Federal (not national) currency issue in these United States, so as then to be able to manage an exchange rate from Treasury Notes to Aurum, for those engaged in International Trade. At the same time a change from Rule by Criminal means (an example of rule by criminal means is the French Revolution turning into a pogrom) to the better, accurate accounting, Rule of Law actually helps the financial moves from false to true accounting. How are you going to inspire people to move toward Rule of Law (individual responsibility at the local level) and how are you, or how is anyone, going to inspire people to move away from institutionalized (legalized) crime by criminal means (injustice in the counterfeit courts) if there is no accurate information by which people can actually see how Rule of Law actually works? National Liberty Alliance was, is, and can be a stepping stone in that direction from Rule by Criminal Means, to Rule of Law, but there must be accurate accounting on an individual responsibility level locally, if that is going to happen. If coalitions form, then what will those coalitions look like in their formative states? What will the counterfeit coalitions look like in their formative states? It might be a good idea for individuals to take the responsibility of rolling up their sleaves, and start discussing these vital topics, in local groups, sooner, rather than later, yes, no, maybe? Anyone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhgTYrQYmUM
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 30th, 2016 12:05 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Alongside Financial Responsibility and Financial Accountability will be Lawful (Rule of Law) Responsibility and Lawful Accountability, or one, or the other, does not follow the peaceful transition. What does Lawful Responsibility and Lawful Accountability look like if someone were to look at it happening in real time? If someone looks at a future time when they actually turn their (fraudulent) Federal Reserve Notes in, and in exchange they get Treasury Notes, then someone has a look at something actually happening in the future time and place: reality. What about Lawful Responsibility and Lawful Accountability? An example could be an accusation made by anyone, anywhere, anytime, anyplace where Rule of Law has returned. An example could be John Doe is accused of treason. An accusation is understood by the accuser as a fact, or the accuser would not take on the Lawful Responsibility and Lawful Accountability associated with a Lawful Accusation. Why? It is a well known point of law that false accusations are criminal acts. Facing possible accurate accountability for being someone responsible for false accusations is called deterrence. If someone makes an accusation then someone stands on lawful principle, which is individual responsibility, and which is individual accountability; if the accusation proves to be false, then what is supposed to happen to the accuser making the false claim? That brings up, once again, the need to actually see how due process (rule of law) actually works. If no one knows how it works, then people are without it. If there is no rule of law, then everyone is free to do whatever pleases them, to their targeted victims, no matter how immoral those injuries done by people to people are in fact. If there is rule of law then someone entertaining the idea of perpetrating a crime, an injury, upon an innocent victim is facing a future where rule of law is used to accurately account for that criminal act done to that innocent victim. So an accuser accuses John Doe of treason, and then that accusation, which happens in time, and in place, by an individual who is the accuser, and the accusation follows lawful procedure in some way? Which way? Is it a good idea to know the facts or not?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 30th, 2016 06:15 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Again, block as you see fit. If you want other's to know what you mean by "lobby" then it might be a good idea for you to be precise with what you consider to be an example of "lobby." Where does "grass roots" discussion concerning these vital topics start? Do they not start with a relevant question? If you get rid of me, then anyone else considering open discussion concerning the actual subject matter of Network Global Corporate Control, which is in the past, then interregnum, which is now, then Rule of Law, in the near future, as points worthy of discussion, but seen as "lobby" instead, then you send the message that you don't want people to discuss the actual topic. I can discuss the topic on Facebook, in e-mail, at home, at work, at other people's houses, and a whole lot of other places other than your turf that you are guarding against "lobby," as you see fit. What is an example of "lobby"? How about an answer to the questions concerning the steps involved in employing Rule of Law, so as to peacefully transition from the Network of Global Corporate Control, through interregnum, and onward into the future? What, for example, is the next step after someone is accused of treason? If that question an example of me expressing "lobby" at this time? Can I wait for asking that question at a more appropriate time? It is your audience that is offered an accusation, by you, of treason, against someone with a name. Some people want to know what the next step is, so the question is not out of place for those reasons.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 30th, 2016 06:24 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
While I was at National Liberty Alliance for a year I told everyone who would listen these similar things you are saying now. My messages were not censored, they are still published on the National Liberty Alliance web page. http://nationallibertyalliance.org/state-federation The association as a whole cannot be responsible, be at fault, but individuals can be responsible, and held accountable if people employ rule of law. Many people involved with your efforts, with other whistle blower efforts, with oath keepers, and many other associations could find a common goal or two, despite the divisions, differences, ignorance, and prejudices shared among these groups. So, you have identified 2 common goals: 1. End fraudulent money issues, return to sound money, step, by step, by step, and 2. End the Global Corporate Control, which is already happening during interregnum, and move toward, step, by step, rule of law. How is that not a common goal shared by most people, including, in my experience, most people in the association that has yet to acknowledge the common bonds shared with you and your audience members?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 31st, 2016 10:39 am |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
This is not something I can't figure out, this is the grass roots, local, thinking that people will be working on during the transition. You are working with people at a Global Level, you call them elites. How are people at the local level going to understand how they need to deal with powerful local people? I'm not the one saying anyone is guilty of something. I'm saying that rule of law, when it works, it is strictly voluntary; whereby people give each other remedy, restitution, redemption, as a means of sanctuary in defense against harm done to innocent people by guilty people. Punishment is not the true rule of law that has worked, and it might be a good idea to help people see how it works. The counterfeit version of rule of law is dictatorial punishment, or revenge, as everyone is thereby divided and at each other's throats due to the nature of mankind. If you assume wrong about me, which I see clearly as daylight, then that only proves the need for presumption of innocence, and rule of law due process instead of the opposite routine. You mean no harm to me, and you speak honestly, freely, but your words condemn in a world where rule of law is absent during this transition?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 31st, 2016 10:51 am |
|
15th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Put in a different light, you are exemplifying rule of law as you hold individual people to account, and you are giving them a means by which they can restore their place in civil society. That is rule of law. Accusation is followed by as accurate an account as is humanly possible, and then if someone is found guilty, then a voluntary means by which we restore each other, such as a method of ensuring no continued crime is possible, and the victims are restored as well as the criminal, who is himself, or herself, a victim for having chosen to destroy his, or herself, by turning to crime. Here is what you did, we now all know it, here is the way to redeem yourself, and don't ever, even think about, doing that again, because that specific crime is now out in the open for all to see. Who cares, really, about the people you deal with on that Global level? People must start thinking locally, and get out of that false reality in their minds. A good start is you setting the example of what people need to do, courageously, thoughtfully, on the local level. I'm trying to tell you that it is the right thing to avoid falling into false law which is nothing but revenge (a crime) hidden behind a false version of JUST US. Are we not all culpable for our parts in this recent rule by criminal means, which is now interregnum? Going back to false rule of law, which I call rule by criminal means, is what I am suggesting, reinforcing, as a bad idea, but I am offering information that is step, by step, local level, mapping out the process, in order to help people see exactly how it works along side the financial Global Currency Reset. If you think about it, if law isn't revenge, and law is the peaceful, voluntary solution, then it is merely an accurate accounting, and that is the deterrence required to stop crime because crime no longer pays so well.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 6th, 2016 12:03 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-GQeK3YIGA Time 20:13 is reported the phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats." and that works in both finance and law (currency reset and return to rule of law after interregnum) in similar ways that can be understood is simple terms whereby there is no absolute necessity to seek, find, and utilize a professional whose specialty is finance and/or law. In simple terms the tide can be understood as economic wealth production through freedom in liberty. The tide rises as less economic productivity is spent on deterrence against crime, and more economic productivity is thereby invested toward increasing the ability to increase the production of economic wealth, as fewer and fewer potential producers turn to crime, resulting in fewer and fewer victims - because deterrence actually works - and as crime no longer pays well, and as the high pay rate of crime no longer lures - otherwise good people - into crime, and as their chosen way of life turns to economic wealth production instead of crime, then former criminals are adding to, not taking from, that rising tide. So the rising tide is an increase in the ability to increase wealth production resulting in more economic wealth over time. The tide rises because there are fewer crimes, fewer criminals, fewer victims, and more people set free, in liberty, to produce wealth because wealth production - not crime - now pays well due to the rising tide of rule of law, which is deterrence. The rising tide of deterrence (rule of law) lifts up all boats including the boats that would have be pirate ships, as those former pirate ships would sail as free traders in liberty instead of choosing to sail as pirate ships, so even the pirates, the criminals, are lifted with the tide of rule of law: deterrence. One might argue that the increase in economic wealth production affords criminals greater opportunity, with greater amounts of loot to be stolen, and therefore the rising tide increases the lure - and the pay rate - of crime, which then inspires more (not less) people to turn to crime, because it is easier with an abundance of wealth ripe for the plucking. That argument falls when the idea is to combine the rising tide of finance (economy invested into increasing - not stealing - economic wealth production) with the rising tide of deterrence. This can be seen when looking at the counterfeit versions of both finance and rule of (color of) law. First a link on counterfeit finance, and then imagine what might happen if the criminals took over rule of law and turned rule of law into their method of protecting themselves at the expense of everyone else, instead of rule of law existing as the method of protected everyone including the criminals from any crime, any place, anytime. The link is a way to find an explanation called The Parasite City: http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm#4 Time 23:00 is another case of the Pot calling the Kettle Black from my view. You Karen Hudes could take my temperature on this subject and find cause to know - beyond any doubt - that I am willing to explain to you exactly why you are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, despite the fact that you are being mislead by false versions of history. I can take you to the sources of the information that confirm, again beyond reasonable doubt, how the criminals (Network of Global Corporate Control) took over the working, democratic, federation, as it was organically - grass roots - formed as a voluntary mutual defense association under known principles of rule of law, in between 1775 and 1787, and those criminals took over in 1787/89, those criminals took over with an illegal Constitutional Convention. A key point to ponder as you attempt to fence with your enemies is the concept of adaptation in real time, to get ahead of the attacks perpetrated against you, attacking what you stand for, and against your goals of Global Currency Reset and return to Rule of Law after interregnum. Earlier in this report mention was made of National Liberty Alliance and charges brought forward indicting the Governors of the Nation States (which are independent mutual defense associations formed into a federation according to the original founding under rule of law0, where these free people, defending their public liberty, in these independent Nation States were operating the process knowable as the common law. The people commanded common law as their process for their voluntary mutual defense. I've told you in the past that the people at the National Liberty Alliance are knowledgeable about the process known as the common law. Among those people - as with any group - there are those who are mislead, and there are those who are willfully deceiving, polluting, the process and the people whose true intention is to return to common law, with processes such as grand jury indictment, which is one step on the way to trial by jury according to the common law. Again, and without confusion, trial by jury according to the common law, was, is, and can be sanctuary for free people in liberty, offered to everyone, including those who are presumed to be innocent, but placed on their trial by the country, and including the criminals who are found guilty. The whole country (not the federation, but the free people defending their public liberty in independent Nation States) decides the facts, the law, and any punishment in each individual case. That is how people adapt, to get ahead of the attacking criminals, as with fencing, or with any other duel. This is not just me running at the mouth. http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial10.html#p189 " "The consequence is, that jurors must have the whole case in their hands, and judge of law, evidence, and sentence, or they incur the moral responsibility of accomplices in any injustice which they have reason to believe will be done by the government on the authority of their verdict." Yes, if a second (unlawful) Constitutional Convention can be risked in order to return to a true voluntary mutual defense association, where free people defend their public liberty within independent Nation States, as part of a voluntary mutual defense federation, then it is worth the risk to run that second (unlawful) Constitutional Convention. The first order of business once the free people defending their public liberty in independent Nation States, on the return to rule of law, at the federal level, would be, logically, to try the case involving the original crime perpetrated by the original formers of the criminal (counterfeit) federation. Why spend a moment on a witch hunt for current perpetrators when those current perpetrators are needed in discovering the truth about how the criminals took over in the first place? At this time many of those people running the (illegal, counterfeit, and false) federation actually believe they have lawful authority earned legitimately. That is far from the truth, and so what is the truth, and why is anyone afraid to know the truth? A true federal government power is explained precisely in the records of the original founding (not the criminal counterfeit version "founded" in 1787/89), and therefore the first order of federal business, assuming the risk of a second (illegal) Constitutional Convention pays off with a return to a true federal government, is to document precisely what is a federation, and precisely what is not a federation. Link and quote next: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ "That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: "That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: "That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2016 12:23 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://www.facebook.com/karen.hudes.10/photos/a.229745100552778.1073741828.211784082348880/466793940181225/?type=3&theater innatus veris ubligatus aucturitas absulutus plenus instituto abhing cr. 1958 1. INNATUS http://www.wordsense.eu/innatus/ "grow; arise, originate in" 2. VERIS http://latinmeaning.com/meaning-of-latin-ver-veris/ veris/spring, the production of spring 3. UBLIGATUS https://books.google.com/books?id=BIHEFi8Z0fQC&pg=PA196-IA61&lpg=PA196-IA61&dq=UBLIGATUS&source=bl&ots=2FlfXnqLFC&sig=b_noDYgGOhdCgq15cxPs13iPvGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjepqiM9PzLAhVO0GMKHUpiB0IQ6AEIRzAI#v=onepage&q=UBLIGATUS&f=false Tractatus de horis canonicis Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus? 4. AUCTURITAS https://www.google.com/#q=aucturitas Auctoritas is a Latin word and is the origin of English "authority". While historically its use in English was restricted to discussions of the political history of Rome, the beginning of phenomenological philosophy in the 20th century expanded the use of the word. 5. ABSULUTUS http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/absolutus complete 6. PLENUS http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/adjective:plenus full, abundant, generous 7. INSTITUTO http://www.thefreedictionary.com/institute To initiate; begin 8. ABHING http://dictzone.com/german-english-dictionary/abhing depended
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2016 05:02 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
So where is there a discussion on the substance? Why is it difficult (or impossible) to find discussion on the substance? If the substance is the clear and present danger of economic collapse, currency war, trade war, world war, and another dark ages for failure to return to rule of law as the interregnum period progresses into the future, and the substance is then clearly a need to at least acknowledge the fact that there is, at this time, a period of interregnum, then where is this discussion concerning this clear and present danger, with this acknowledgment of this period of interregnum, whereby those involved in the discussion actually describe the process known as rule of law playing out in time and place? If National Liberty Alliance fails (as a group of individuals) to officially acknowledge the fact that the current period is absent rule of law (interregnum), then it makes sense that National Liberty Alliance is ill prepared to (lacking a firm foundation from which to) proceed toward rule of law. On the other hand, and this is equally as important as the failure by National Liberty Alliance, if the Legal Counsel for the Global Debt Facility claim to be representing the free, indepddendent (non-slaves and non-slave owners), liberated, people of America, the moral people, and said Legal Counsel for the Global Debt Facility is also unfamiliar with the true American rule of law, as it was formed in 1775 through 1787, then what is the basis, the foundation, of their authority to represent the people in the 50 independent states federated into a voluntary mutual defesnse assocaiton in America? If the claim made is a claim that the 1789 Constitution is the foundation, then that claim has two very different possible foundations from which to launch a defense against any harm being done to anyone in America by anyone in, or out of, America. 1. Articles claimed as authority in the body of the Constitution of 1787. 2. Common law due process, which is the original basis of American due process, which includes presumption of innocence, trial by jury, and the Bill of Rights which amended that (fraudulent) Slave Trading Constitution of 1787/89. Where can someone find a discussion on the actual substance of these vital issues occurring now? If all that is going to be done is claim, and counter claim, without a tried and true method of finding the lawful facts in this, or any, case, then which way forward from this fork in the road will that type of exchange (discussion) logically proceed: 1. Dark ages 2. Rule of law, prosperity, liberty, freedom, effective deterrence against crime. Is such a discussion possible during a future (second) Con Con? http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up "But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2016 05:57 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Here is the problem: People have their economic productivity stolen, horded, and employed by criminals in the maintenance of the process by which people have their economic productively stolen and hoarded. Here is the solution to the problem: Return to the people their economic productivity. So supposing that the stolen productivity that has not been already wasted, consumed, on the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war to perpetuate war, is this store of Gold, Silver, Platinum, and other treasures, and supposing that this store of value (wealth) is back in circulation instead of being kept out of circulation, then people have their economic productivity returned to people in that obvious way. How can people know when they have their economic productivity returned to them? Is it possible to understand at least 2 obvious indicators that indicate that people have their economic productivity, prosperity for themselves and posterity, returned to them as such: 1. Prices move toward the practical minimum. 2. Laborers become scarce as employers become abundant, which then shifts demand and market forces in favor of laborers. Example: http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm "First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly. ”
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 9th, 2016 01:52 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
No discussion anywhere? The world is capture by dictatorial orders that must be obeyed without question or else cruel and unusual punishment ensues routinely? The authority claimed by the Legal Counsel for the Global Debt Facility involves defendable claims of control over a large amount of purchasing power. The claim of having defendable control over this large amount of purchasing power is more precise when the information is reported accurately, as is contained in the word audit, concerning such and such metric tons of gold, and other powerful stores of wealth in demonstrable fact. So here then is a point of discussion that may be worthy of thoughtful, meaningful, discussion among those who may be positively, or negatively, affected by a recirculating power, whereby this immense purchasing power begins, and then proceeds, to circulate in global markets other than those global markets of mass destruction, such as institutionalized deceptions, institutionalized threats of aggressive violence (saber rattling?), and institutionalized torturous, mass murderous, cruel and unusual punishments, known as aggressive war for profit. Those formerly commanding the power to invest in, and profit from, institutionalized human trafficking, monopolized drug trafficking, and war for profit, have currently spent their last remaining stores of wealth, their last units of power to purchase, their remaining political and economic capital - acquired by criminal means - and now the world is at the fork in the road whereby rule of law is a real, tangible, future investment, with all the prosperity for posterity that goes with rule of law, and on the other hand the people of the world can follow the dictatorial commands to destroy each other first, or be destroyed first, as they are told, and as they are told they must obey these dictatorial orders without question. So, who - what army - is securing this vast store of value, this Global Debt Facility, against physical seizure by criminal means? Is that not a valid question?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 02:31 pm | Page: 1 2 |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Karen Hudes | Top |
