| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   1 2 |
|
|||||||||||||
| Karen Hudes | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12th, 2016 02:59 pm |
|
21st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://www.facebook.com/karen.hudes.10/?fref=nf As per the understanding confirmed with Tokyo Embassies and New York Missions, any country not in agreement with these arrangements is to indicate this fact." In simple terms that anyone can understand - anyone with the capacity for moral understanding - the accurate account (factual) is the power that works like the tide that lifts all boats. Is there such a thing as purchasing power? Where is this purchasing power, and what will be done with this purchasing power after the interregnum period is over. Will this purchasing power be invested in ways that work like the tide, to lift all boats? Will the people who are best able to work like the tide, to lift all boats, receive this purchasing power, use it, and the result will be more purchasing power or less purchasing power? That is the fork in the road in simple terms. World War III, a new dark ages, is an obvious misuse of this purchasing power as the worst people decide to use the purchasing power to destroy, to usher in (to purchase) a new dark age of mankind where this is no more purchasing power save for only the purchasing power remaining in the hands of the few powerful survivors of that hell on earth known as World War. On the other path, other than the path where the few evil among us spend this purchasing power on World War III, is the path where good people purchase better ways to increase our productive power, and there are clear examples of this happening right now. Does anyone actually recognize, acknowledge, accurately account for, those among us who are best able to purchase those purchases where those purchases work like the tide, lifting all boats? If not, then your voluntary admission of that ignorance accounts for something to those who do know the truth.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 12th, 2016 03:05 pm |
|
22nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Where is the discussion? https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/Twitter4.11.16.pdf Thank you for your email. This is the conversation that I am having with the 188 Ministers of Finance attending the spring meetings of the World Bank and IMF this weekend (which is now viral on the internet ) Should you be prepared to proceed peacefully with the Global Currency Reset at this time, the Global Debt Facility would include provisions for amnesty from criminal prosecution as a condition for release of the monetary gold reserves. This refers to the letters sent to you by the National Liberty Alliance http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/filedocs/16-0321%20Information%20to%20Governors.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/Alternative+to+WWIII.pdf When Congressional Judiciary Committees refuse to acknowledge that US citizens are shunted off to administrative hearings presided over by employees of a US Corporation instead of real judges sitting in the Article III courts under the Constitution, there is no reason to wait further. Who has the power, and what are they going to do with that power? If the power is criminal power, then what will those who have criminal power do with their criminal power? There are 3 obvious criminal powers. 1. Deception targeting innocent victims. 2. Threats of violence targeting innocent victims. 3. Aggressive violence targeting innocent victims. Criminal power is used for one reason. Criminal power is used parasitically, like a tic sucking blood from a host. Criminal power is used to transfer power from the innocent victim and criminal power is used to transfer power to the parasitic criminal. Criminals also feed on each other, so that fact can complicate any attempt by anyone whereby the goal is to accurately account for those who are the criminals and those who are the innocent victims in any case.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 12th, 2016 09:26 pm |
|
23rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Mike offered a link to information (on Facebook) and that link is here: https://geopolitics.co/2015/10/26/karen-hudes-wolfgang-struck-using-myths-to-muddle-global-financial-reset/ That is a lot of information, and I want to look into that information with greater care; soon.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 13th, 2016 02:21 pm |
|
24th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awIEkU5DaZE References to Sovereignty: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/antifederalist/theantifederalistpapers.pdf Antifederalist No. 39 APPEARANCE AND REALITY-THE FORM IS FEDERAL; THE EFFECT IS NATIONAL The exercise of sovereignty does not consist in choosing masters, such as the senators would be, who, when chosen, would be beyond control, but in the power of dismissing, impeaching, or the like, those to whom authority is delegated. References to Tax Man: http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Constitution%20-%20George%20Washington%20Jailer%20And%20Tax%20Collector..htm The old Union was a confederacy, a kind of government of States, where each State retains its "sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right." The implicit purpose of the United States of America, with respect to the people of the states, was to preserve, protect and defend the sovereignty, freedom, independence and God given rights of the people in the states. The Articles of Confederation were good enough to beat Great Britain, but in the opinion of George Washington and his cronies, known as the Founding Fathers, they had to be repealed or replaced by a constitution that would allow the government to tax ordinary people. The Articles of Confederation confirmed the sovereignty of the States to be States and the inhabitants of the state to remain free. The United States, in Congress assembled could not possibly have the power to legislate for the People of the State or the inhabitants within the state, because such power would destroy the "sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right" of the States of the United States of America. All Presidents since George Washington have held the statutory office of president found in Title 3 of the United States Code. That Presidential statutory authority is represented by the official residence of the President—The White House. The legislative branch has created an "executive mansion" for its legislative/chief executive and President of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation. The Office of President of the United States is a true dictatorship. There are no qualifications for that Office and there is no definite term of Office. Residence in the White House is the accepted notice of retirement from the Office of President of the United States. The old one leaves just as a new one moves in. Title 3 Section 20 of the United States Code requires a written resignation delivered to the Office of the Secretary of State, so without a written resignation a President of the United States never really leaves office. Reference to Jesuits in (Anti) Federalist Papers: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp41-43A No. 40 – On The Motivations And Authority Of The Founding Fathers Discrepancy in the words published, and attributed to PHILADELPHIENSIS: http://americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/constitution/text4/antifedphil.pdf Philadelphiensis III. December 5, 1787___ Crime of the millennium exposed: No. 71 – The Presidential Term Of Office Part 1:Luther Martin, The Genuine Information , 1788 Part 2:An excerpt from the 18th letter of AGRIPPA appearing in The Massachusetts Gazette on February 5, 1788. Part 3: From by A CUSTOMER in the Maine Cumberland Gazette, March 13, 1788. By our original articles of confederation any alterations proposed, are in the first place to be approved by Congress. - Accordingly as the resolutions were originally adopted by the convention, and as they were reported by the committee of detail, it was proposed that this system should be laid before Congress for their approbation; but, Sir, the warm advocates of this system fearing it would not meet with the approbation of Congress, and determined, even though Congress and the respective State legislatures should disapprove the same, to force it upon them, if possible, through the intervention of the people at large, moved to strike out the words "for their approbation" and succeeded in their motion; to which, it being directly in violation of the mode prescribed by the articles of confederation for the alteration of our federal government, a part of the convention, and myself in the number, thought it a duty to give a decided negative.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2016 12:58 pm |
|
25th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/Twitter4.14.16.pdf The pot calling the kettle black is at work once again. Rather than finding agreement in voluntary cooperation to hold the guilty to account for their injuries done to innocent victims, both sides are pots calling kettles black. That is classic divide and conquer evidence and therefore a need to offer an olive branch, or take each other's temperature, or agree to find a common cause. If the common cause is vengeance, punishment, revenge, including a desire for cruel and unusual punishment, then who (which color, which temperature) is that form of lawful, voluntary, agreement? How can vengeance, revenge, getting even, settling the score, punishment, involve anyone accused of any wrong doing, when said desire for vengeance, revenge, etc., must assume that that accused is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, by some method, process, routine, thoughtful, reasonable, moral, action of some kind, in some place? If the desire for revenge is inspired by this willful, agreeable, voluntary, processes of determining guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, then who shares, voluntarily, this desire for revenge, and among those sharing this desire for revenge are there any, in that number, in that vengeful group, themselves guilty, and themselves generating more, and more, and more desire for more, and more, revenge, punishment, violence, as a result of their own guilt among them in that group whose desire is vengeance? If the goal is rule of law, accurate currency, accurate accounting, accurate knowledge, accurate wisdom, then the common denominator is called the truth, or the accurate account of what is, and what is not factual. If Karen Hudes claims that the leadership at National Liberty Alliance is guilty of failing to acknowledge the fact that the federal government is a fraud, then she is by that color, by that temperature, black like the pot, where she claims that the National Liberty Alliance leadership is black like the kettle. That is factual because Karen Hudes claims that the 1789 Constitution (not the Bill of Rights per se), with Article V (so called) courts, and an Article V (so called) convention, is not black itself. In other words Karen Hudes is guilty of doing the same thing Karen Hudes claims that National Liberty Alliance (leadership) is guilty of doing; which is failing to disclose the vital facts that matter, if the idea is to volunteer, join, participate in, become, moralize, defend, produce, maintain, rule of law, accurate currency (Global Currency Reset), where the guilty are no longer paid so well for their injuries done to the innocent among us. The Constitution of 1787/89 is the document (not the Bill of Rights) that inculpates the Network of Global Corporate Control for their crimes against nature itself, as that document "legalized" slavery, among other less obvious crimes. So the olive branch is to agree that A. The criminals are knowable by name. B. Accurate accounting deters (takes the pay, and therefore the power from) those criminals named in a process that accurately identifies those criminals. C. We will be inspired to fight among ourselves because we are also threatened with cruel and unusual punishment if we fail to find the first two agreements by some agreeable process that is NOT "legal" vengeance. In other words; if we are inspired by the false form of rule of law (such as the Constitution of 1787/89 where slavery was made "legal" by the slave traders), whereby the idea is to pay a premium to those who offer a method that accomplishes the goal of vengeance, then we will get vengeance at a high price. If, on the other hand, we agree to actually find, and agree upon, the actual accurate account, which accurately accounts for the actual process knowable as rule of law, then we may find, once again, what is the law of the land, which is the process that calls upon moral people to volunteer as individual representatives of the whole local group of defenders, whereby their moral conscience is their guiding power, in courts of conscience, where trial by jury is trial by the country, and no one, meaning no, where no means no, and one means one, and no one is harmed without unanimity, and any one, meaning any one, can stop the innocent from being harmed by anyone, or any group out for vengeance.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 16th, 2016 01:38 pm |
|
26th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
My comment on facebook, where someone linked a report claiming that Karen Hudes, National Liberty Alliance, and Oath Keepers, are examples of Controlled Opposition: I was in National Liberty Alliance for one year. The claims made about Controlled Opposition only go as far as the claims made concerning who has the power to indict (charge with a crime) and who then has the power to enforce that charge. It makes absolutely no sense to construct Controlled Opposition that gives that power to the opposition. The same thing applies to this Global Currency Reset claim of Controlled Opposition. If those in command of criminal power (fraud or counterfeit "legal" money scams, extortion or false federal tax known as National Interest or National Debt, torture or cruel and usual punishment, slavery or human trafficking, murder or lone gunmen, and mass murder or war of aggression and false flag terrorist attacks) - if those in command of criminal power - give away their power over money and their power over rule of law, as is the case with the Global Currency Reset and National Liberty Alliance/Oath Keepers/etc., receiving this power from the criminal organizations at the "top," and those who receive this "controlled opposition" power use that power to return to common law (see Bill of Rights), and return to free market competition in money markets (no legal tender laws) then it is game over for those criminals as they give away their power. They then have no way to finance their criminal organizations, and they have no way to enforce them. Who takes the power once it is given away? Please consider the possibility that is it past time to dictate your viewpoint, expecting people to believe your viewpoint is true beyond question, and consider instead the idea that reasonable, moral, logical, discussion concerning the facts may work toward mutual defense of everyone and a means to pay for it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 23rd, 2016 01:52 pm |
|
27th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
E-Mail 4-23-2016 Karen, I understand that you are busy and my offer of information is almost insignificant compared to the significance of moving the Global Currency Reset in defense against currency war, trade war, world war, and a return to dark ages. I am not attempting to impede Global Currency Reset. If I may be of service then I serve to supply any demand for accurate accounting concerning the actual law of the land in America, so as to then inform anyone seeking that information for their individual defensive needs; and collectively the individual defensive needs add up to a power that deters collective threats of injury to those individuals by those who will resort to crime if the pay is good. National Liberty Alliance is potentially a collective power that can move Americans back to rule of law after interregnum passes from the present into the past in America. National Liberty Alliance is also potentially a misled collective power that can prevent Americans from moving back to rule of law after interregnum passes from the present into the past in America. 1. I see John Darash running a Christian religion based, for profit, organization where information is sold, and buyers are led to believe that they are investing in defense of liberty through common law due process. I see those people be led toward summary justice instead of common law due process. 2. John Darash continues to publish common law documents, with his signature claimed to be on those documents, while claiming that said documents are Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury documents. If John Darash is one of many grand jurors in a common law county, then John Darash would command both civil and criminal jurisdiction in that county, and that grand jury would have the power to validate accusations of wrongdoing, so as to then offer the accused (presumed to be innocent) a trial by common law jury. As a common law magistrate, justice of the peace, and grand juror on a case, said John Darash would be a representative of the people, not a representative of the county, state, or federal government: one is one thing, the other is not the same thing. 3. Contradiction is not indicative of accurate accounting of the facts in any matter: the opposite is demonstrably true. Many people, including me, benefited while connected to, or associated with, the people (including John Darash) at National Liberty Alliance as a direct result of gaining access to information pertaining to common law due process, which is knowable as the law of the land, knowable as the common law, and knowable as legem terrae: one and the same due process. Common law, of the people, by the people, and for the people, organically, naturally, morally, from grass roots, is not, specifically not, the county, state, or federal government: one is one thing, the other is not the same thing. Individuals who become aware of the common law constitute a potential collective power of deterrence by their collective knowledge of common law processes. The end result of trial by common law jury is a reduction in the pay rate paid to guilty criminals and paid by innocent victims. When crime no longer pays well, through application of the law of the land in America (common law), crime ends to the practical limits mankind can muster. Contradiction: 1. The Constitution of 1787/89 was not, is not, and cannot be the same law of the land as is the common law. A common law court, or court of record, of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot be an Article III court, an Admiralty court, a Maritime court, a "Supreme" court, an Equity court, at the same time. One is one (common law) and the other is the other (summary justice), and common law, the law of the land, legem terrae, is a court of conscience, where trial by the country, through random selection (by lot, sortition) of representatives of the country are selected, which are called peers, which undergo a vetting process known as voir dire, and in between trial by the country, and any individual accuser of an alleged crime, is a grand jury made up of magistrates, or justices of the peace, and their duty is to validate accusations, write presentments, which serve the people as honest, trustworthy, judicial tribunals for that purpose of validating accusations made by any individual members of the whole people against any other individual member of the whole people whereby said people are members of that county, in that state, in that federation where the law of the land is the common law. When common law is allowed to work, crime no longer pays, the cost for perpetrating crimes is historically a fine; there are no prisons, and those refusing to abide by the law of the land are outlaws, by their own choice, and they are, again by their own choice, no longer (by their own choice) secure, defended, protected, in the law of the land sanctuary, covered by common law due process. <---not easy to communicate, but certainly true by demonstration in time and place. A "State" (which is not an individual) cannot accuse; people accuse, those who claim otherwise are promoting fraudulent versions of so called legal fiction. 2. Christian religion, relying upon The Bible as the word of God, is a unique form of religion. The common law, with trial by jury, known as the law of the land, legem terrae, trial by the country, etc., is not the same thing as the Christian religion, one is one thing, the other is something else. It is contradictory to claim one to be the other, they are separate things: hence the term separation of Church and State. 3. Finance, or equitable commerce, or trade, barter, economy, business, making a living, productive earnings, production, marketing, markets, free markets, are not subject to the law of the land, "for profit" is for individual gain (at no expense to victims by criminal means), so private individual property, consumption, control, investment, saving, is private, and no one else's business. Private is individual and the law of the land, or the state, or government, is something else: hence the contradiction of legal tender laws. A free, private, individual, with property, in liberty can choose any store of value, any exchange medium, any money, which works best for the individual, and it is up to another individual (absent criminal means) to choose the same, or offer something better: no legal tender laws, because that is a fraud perpetrated by individuals upon individuals. Someone investing their time and energy, their private property, into preserving, protecting, upholding, maintaining, securing, defending, a document known as The Constitution of 1787/89 is involved in that endeavor privately, at their own cost. Someone claiming that said investment of private capital is a duty to be enforced by threat of cruel and unusual punishment for failing to join said investment of private capital is not - is contradictory to - individual willful choice to make said investment individually, as a free person in liberty. On the other hand, someone investing time and energy into defending innocent people from guilty people through common law due process, such as jury duty, voluntarily doing so, while also encouraging other people to volunteer for common law jury duty, because said common law jury duty is the law of the land, is not expressing contradictory information, far from it, the information is potentially leadership by example. At the time of the forming of the true, grass roots, organic, federation in America there were religious sects, such as Quakers, who refused military service, based upon their individual application of human conscience. In the true federation, with common law as the law of the land, those people were not punished by law - they may have been injured by outlaws - but they were allowed to live and let live, in voluntary association, for mutual defense: they , the Quakers, simply chose to defend themselves without violence of any kind, including defensive violence. This is one of those factual accounts that is ignored by those whose claims of power rely upon aggressive (involuntary) violence in order to gain said collective power over individuals. Above are my contentions concerning National Liberty Alliance as a collective power that is potentially defensive, voluntary, and mutually beneficial for all people everywhere. Contradictions, as far as I can tell, originate from the individual who is responsible, and therefore accountable, for the creation and maintenance of that for profit business venture. If common law is to return (after interregnum) to America then, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "the most discrete and honest" people in each common law county (where common law is the jurisdiction not summary justice usurping common law jurisdiction), said magistrates, said justices of the peace, are elected by the people in the county, and those magistrates, those justices of the peace, constitute the pool from which a common law grand jury forms. Those magistrates, those justices of the peace, those grand jury members, validate accusations. People (not the government) validate accusations by people (not the government) for voluntary mutual defense of the people (not the government) against harm done by anyone including criminals who claim to be the government. That is the function of common law grand juries: to validate accusations. That makes common law sense, and there are examples that serve the purpose of exemplifying that common sense in the federal history from 1776 to 1789, before the criminals took over with the fraudulent Constitution of 1787/89. National Liberty Alliance, or only John Darash himself, validating accusations, based upon the facts discovered in the case, serves, at least, to inspire people to demand common law trial by jury where facts are found during said common law trial by jury. U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788) M'Kean, Chief Justice. "Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. 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. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no biass from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury." If people running businesses decide to hire other people as arbitrators, judges who summarily make summary judgements, and all parties agreeing to said summary justice, then it is agreement that is governing those people in those businesses. Fabricating false agreement is a crime called fraud. Fabricating false agreements under the color of law is also a crime, those who perpetrate said crime call it government, and those perpetrating said crime call their opposition traitors, treasonous insurgents, heretics, seditious libelers, rabble, rebels, while those who offer an accurate account of said crime are those who actually constitute the pool from which common law is constituted. Joe Kelley
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 26th, 2016 06:36 pm |
|
28th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
YouTube/Google publishes my comments on Karen Hudes YouTube Channel when I am signed in, NOT when I am not signed in. That works to censor my comments of course. General observations: 1. Rule of law is voluntary, mutual defense, association as exemplified in the concept known as federation expressed in the words of the American federal congress here: 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 was a defining moment when clearly the subjects of thousands of years of despotic (criminal = involuntary = subjection to servitude = slavery) existence voice their rejection of said slavery. Slavery was, is, and will continue to be a simple criminal act or a very complex criminal act - involving deception - whereby involuntary association is created - perpetrated - out of natural freedom in liberty. The former slaves, at that point in time and place - 1775 America - voiced their accurate account of the facts. When a voluntary association ends is when a volunteer perpetrates the crime of aggression upon other volunteers. That is a fundamental basis of fact, an accurate accounting, and it is not something one lone keyboard operator on the internet invented as a meme. The link happens to be a link to the first American federal Congress records of how the decision was made to publish a Declaration of Independence. The words offer meaning. The Declartion of Independence offers similar meaning as the former slaves enumerate precisely which crimes of aggression were perpetrated by the former voluntary - federated - mutual defenders (The British) which constituted the end of the federal - voluntary - association. 1. Freedom in Liberty exists naturally as people volunteer to work effectively for mutual defense against all enemies (perpetrators) foreign and domestic. That is a federal - voliuntary - association working that way: voluntary association. 2. Slavery, despotism, tyranny, organized crime, fraud, extortion, torture (cruel and unusual punishment), murder, and mass murder is involuntary association by definition, as the aggressors define the meaning of crime when they perpetrate their crimes upon their victims. 3. The criminals work most effectively at organizing their crime when the criminals agree to employ effective deception. 4. The FORMER victims typically re-establish freedom in liberty through federation - voluntary association for mutual defense - ending the reign of terror with information - indictment - declaring that uncovering of that deception that works to enslave everyone including those who claim to be the masters of slaves. So you have before you the Americn example of the announcement - to the world - of the end of The British version of tyranny over the people of America, in the words that lead to the Declaration of Independence, and then, in the words published as the first draft of the Declaration of Independence written as follows: 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, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. Those words above were removed from the official record, censored, taken out, and for "reasons" explained by Thomas Jefferson in his own published words on the official record for the first American federal Congress: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ 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. There it is in your face, all you need to know, in order for you, or anyone else, to get a handle on any question of law anywhere anytime in America. The criminals will infiltrate, take-over, government and they will effectively work at reaching for, taking, and maintaining, involuntary servitude, which is involuntary association, which is slavery, and they even have those crimes recorded in their own official paperwork. The power of deception works in at least two ways: 1. Produce and disseminate false information. 2. Censor accurate accounting of the facts. Next is crucial. The following is a counterfeit common law court case transcript. The court case is the official record according to the criminals who continue to control the counterfeit government. This is crucial because this serves to report the accurate account on the official record while at the same time that official, accurate, account serves as a confession, just as the confession by Thomas Jefferson concerning "crimes against nature itself" as those who formed the American federation were being taken over by those who profit from "crimes against nature itself". The reason why the next - crucial - evidence on the official record is counterfeit is the reasons enumerated: 1. The trial was delayed (by criminal means) so as to allow the perpetrators to "get away" with the crime that was proven to be a crime in the trial by jury case, which almost proceeded according to the common law. 2. The judge in the case perpetrated a crime called jury tampering when the judge in the case misinformed the jury concerning the common law procedures concerning the duties of the volunteer jurists. The jury in a common law trial by jury try the law, they try the facts, they find facts, they find guilt or innocence, and they find a just remedy, restitution, fine, or punishment according to their conscience, as the jury represents the whole country in trial by the country, which is trial by jury, which is the law of the land, which is legem terrae. 3. According to common sense, reason, and natural laws acknowledged by free people in liberty who volunteer to defend voluntary association, the discovery of significant threats to life, liberty, and property found by people - found through fact finding in trial by jury no less - constitutes cause for acting in defense against those clear and present dangers found in that due process called trial by jury according to the common law. In other words the official result of this trial by jury case is such that other people were found guilty of capital murder and NOTHING was done about that fact. That is not common law applied by free people in Liberty, that is in a term - COVER-UP. http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. The absurdity of asking the criminals to police themselves is at hand here, as it was over 200 years ago, and to suggest that the criminals - under the color of law - will do as asked, when asked politely, is tantamount to suicide by slow and painful, torturous, murderous, death. Two more bits of information offered to help piece together this puzzle picture into something people can employ themselves are as follows, with quotes: 1. Bonding Code (those who are bond are chained) chaining down the government, chaining down the government by the laws that chain down the government, and the people volunteer to maintain these chains that chain down the government. http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm 9.2 - Escalation 2. THE COMMERCIAL LIEN RIGHT AND THE MILITARY LIEN RIGHT THE COMMERCIAL LIEN RIGHT AND THE MILITARY LIEN RIGHT NOTE: It is beyond doubt that the criminals took over in 1787/89 by their own confessions such as the original confession by Thomas Jefferson concerning the huge profits of criminal slave traders infesting the original federal government. They (the criminals) set in motion their counterfeit laws where they (not the juries that represent the whole country of people in common law trial by jury due process - the law of the land - known in latin as legem terrae) and BY THEIR LAWS they confess that they are criminals deserving death as their punishment for their crimes. Will they volunteer to walk to the hangman's noose? Who do they say is in charge of validating accusations, which are then official accusations, which are then cause for action causing a trial by jury to proceed according to the common law? This is vital, and all you are told to do is sit back and wait your turn in line, as the line moves closer and closer to hell on earth. What did THEY say about who validates accusations against anyone - equal protection - within the jurisdiction of the law of the land? Evidence 1 is found again in the original federal congress: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.” Evidence 2: From an American who studied trial by jury and published his findings around the time of the Civil War. Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws. Evidence 3 is the first federal constitution known as The Articles of Confederation. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Evidence 4 is a trial by the country of free Americans in Liberty, which is not a British (criminal) run counterfeit court, it is a voluntary mutual defense - federated - court trial by jury according to the common law. The same common law that applies to everyone, including members of the federal congress, which includes the president of the federal congress, accordin to the original federal constitution. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/ Put on your thinking cap at this point please. Had the people in America won freedom in Liberty (for all) they would have afforded every single slave OWNER a trial by jury, and that includes OWNERS of Irish slaves, British soldiers enslaving American defenders, Mercinaries such as the Hessians working for pay to enslave Americans, and those infiltrators (traitors) in the original, organic, grass-roots, American federation who were gaining huge political and economic profits from their African Slave Trade, and these trials would be afforded to these Slave Owners (crimes against nature itself), because the victims would be protected equally as well as congressmen, and presidents of congress, governors, lawyers, judges, magistrates, and justices of the peace. An accusation by a slave, would have as much political power, and as much economic power, as any other accusation. Evidence 5 again from Thomas Jefferson himself describing the law of the land in Virginia well before The British became openly beligerant with aggressive war. 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. If the criminal be a slave the trial by the county court is final. All slaves (of any kind of slavery, such as the modern version known euphemistically as human trafficking, and including debt slavery) are equally protected according to the common laws of free people in liberty through trial by the country, which is trial by the moral conscience of the whole country, AND, according to the laws reported by the criminal slave traders themselves; which they must do (even if they don't obey the laws) in order to keep up the color of law. So...the laws are on the books, and in the moral conscience of free people in liberty. Evidence 6. On the books, even according to stare decisis rules, which do not govern the conscience of free people in liberty, but which serve to govern, by precident, anyone failing to have command of moral conscience, or accurate judicial memory. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/ 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. There it is, generally, the problem and the solution before you, based upon the actual law of the land, which is the moral conscience of all the people all the time (such as it may or may not be in actual fact) and the counterfeit laws put in place by the criminals themselves as they take over the government under the color of law. They - the criminal slave traders - must admit that law applies to themselves too, for if they do not the color of law vanishes, and the criminals are known as criminals as was the case when the Americans called out The British with that Declaration of Independence. When criminals begin to perpetrate crimes it is too late in law to prevent - by deterrence - that specific crime in that place at that time, but that does not prevent the rest of humanity from gaining the power to reinstate rule of law which does the best that mankind can do to produce and maintain that required power of deterrence where crime no longer pays so well as to inspire more, and more, and more, criminals to seek that line of business because there are so many willing slaves to rape, rob, torture, and murder. If we wait until there are no victims left, then there are no victims left, including the mirror image.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2016 12:02 pm |
|
29th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCGZ7vfXU5o&feature=youtu.be My comments on that page above are here: In simple term these criminals (fraud at a minimum) in what is identified by many ways, and in what is identified by many names, such as the Power Transition Model, and the Network of Global Corporate Control need people who are the targets of these crimes that include at least fraud. So...when there is an argument over who has jurisdiction over wealth that argument is an argument over who has access to the people who are the targets of these crimes. Yes, if there is a lot of gold, silver, and other wealth, that is good for humanity if that gold, silver, and other wealth works as a global standard of stored value (money in vaults) and a global standard of currency such as arum. The real battle is over the minds of the targeted people who constitute the actual wealth of humankind. If all the people all over the world regain their jurisdiction to live freely in liberty by volunteering to defend each other with common laws shared by all the worlds people, such as the common law of willfully deciding not to perpetrate fraud (at least) upon each other, then that concept of rule of law returns, and jurisdiction returns to the people themselves. That was the American Revolutionary promise to mankind, which was to expose (at that time) The British version of the Network of Global Corporate Control, and the exposing of that criminal organization (The British) at that time was published as the first federal American document known as a Declaration of Independence. Who but the people of America had jurisdiction then, during the publication of the Declaration of Independence? Did you know that Tomas Jefferson, in the original Declaration of Independence, condemned African Slavery as a crime against "nature itself" in the Declaration of Independence, and Thomas Jefferson explains, in the Congressional Record of the first American federation, who censored (cut out) that indictment against African Slavery. Why are those who fight over jurisdiction OVER the people of America censoring this vital information concerning the facts on the record concerning which criminals were responsible for taking over the American federation of free people in Liberty, by taking over their common law jurisdiction of the people, by the people, and for the people? Do you know the meaning of the term conflict of interest? My comments above are not published on that web page when I am not signed into the Google/YouTube system. That is a demonstrable form of censorship.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2016 01:07 pm |
|
30th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/Twitter4.27.16.2.pdf "Karen is working to stop the corruption with the BAR and wants our Constitution of 1789 back." That is cut and pasted from the "Provocateurs outed:" Twitter PDF from Karen Hudes. The reason I am being censored has to do with my efforts at Whistle Blowing. So...the shoe is on the other foot, and the pot is calling the kettle black in this case. Word magic worked very well in 1778/89 well before current Mind Control Patents were pending on current Mind Control crimes that constitute criminal fraud at least, if not criminal treason, and worse, such as crimes against humanity such as aggressive war for profit under the color of law: which was the crime perpetrated by the British when America became a voluntary, moral, mutual defense, federation of free people in liberty in independent states, which were former "plantations" and "colonies" of the British criminals. So another message worth censoring here (worth censoring for those who have an interest in preserving their criminal jurisdiction over people in independent states in America) has to do with the word magic in the quote above. Who claims that that Constitution of 1787/89 is "ours"? Said Constitution of 1787/89, among other things, "legalized" (promoted, funded, protected, secured, defending, financed, expanded, and perpetuated) African Slavery, Fraudulent National Debt (Karen calls it "country debt") Slavery, and he same said Constitution of 1787/89 took away (by criminal fraud, and by criminal force) our common law trial by jury. So if someone is claiming that the Constitution of 1787/89 is theirs, then they are aiding, abetting, lending moral support, and lending material support to the slave traders whose crimes, in the words of the original Declaration of Independence, are crimes against nature itself, and if you serve that master (criminal versions of counterfeit law) then you certainly can't serve another master without their permission, and you are going against the prophetic advice of George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the organic, original, grass-roots, federation known as The United States of America in Congress Assembled between 1776 and 1789), Robert Yates, and many other founders of the original NON SLAVE TRADING federation. You can't have common law with trial by jury, which is of the people, by the people, and for the people against the criminals when you aid, abet, lend moral support, and lend material support to the usurpers, the criminals, who make their slavery crimes legal for them to do at your expense.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 3rd, 2016 12:01 pm |
|
31st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In response to this: https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/dctvteleprompt5.3.pdf Here: https://www.facebook.com/karen.hudes.10/?fref=nf Substance: " In the comments section of my YouTube channel, where I archive these DCTV programs, there is an ongoing debate about whether or not to jail the bankers. If we insist on jailing the bankers, we can kiss humanity good-bye. It is as simple as that." On that YouTube Channel, on the side of true rule of law, are messengers delivering the facts about true rule of law, where jail is not a solution, where remedy, restitution, and redemption is a solution, or a fine. Those messages AGAINST jailing are CENSORED on that YouTube Channel, so...where is the on-going debate when the only side debating is the wrong side? Substance: "That is an actor who tries to create chaos and disorder by pretending that they are working to fix things when they are really working to destroy things. I have been exposing provocateurs." In true rule of law facts are found through due process. Due process applies to everyone, not an exclusive sub-set of "elite" people. That means that anyone, such as a BLM agent caught red handed perpetrating the crime of arson, where the target of the arson is the Hammond family. Said BLM agent is accused in true rule of law, just like anyone else who may be accused of wrongdoing, and said accusation is validated by the same due process due everyone else. In rule of law, typically, those who end up factually guilty (found guilty through trial by the country) are offered (voluntarily) to pay a fine. The fine is not meant to "punish" it is meant to restore, redeem, and reinstate the guilty OUTLAW back into the sanctuary of mutual, moral, voluntary, defensive law powers. This is the information that is being censored by the agent provocateurs. Without true rule of law everyone is subjected to rule by criminal means, including the agent provocateurs, the so called "elite," and anyone who produces anything worth stealing. True rule of law deters as crime no longer pays well. Had the BLM agent been indicted properly, for the charge of arson, the next step would be to indict whoever ordered that BLM agent to perpetrate that case of arson. True rule of law is the process of blowing the whistle, naming the outlaws, naming their victims, and offering those found guilty (through trial by the country) a moral means by which those convicted are offered a way to return to the sanctuary of rule of law. If they refuse, if anyone refuses to return to rule of law, then by your own power of will (not coerced by fraud or aggressive violence) you choose to be outside the true moral law, and you are then, by your own choice, suffering anything done to you by another fellow outlaw, because you are thereby, by your own choice, ruled by criminal means.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 6th, 2016 11:24 am |
|
32nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Substance: " Was the Constitution of 1789 replaced in 1871 by a second, secret Constitution? Is the US Congress declaring a state of emergency behind closed doors, using war powers against the people, taking their property, and refusing them access to the courts guaranteed under Article III of the Constitution of 1789?" You Karen continue to cover-up the serious flaw in your claims of authority over the substance/facts/truth and therefore true authority about the law of the land in America. Sure, yes, affirmative, the criminals who operate the false federal government no longer abide by their 1789 Constitution, nor do they abide by their Article III courts, as they (because they are criminals) abide by criminal authority acquired, and maintained, by criminal means. The true authority is factual acknowledgment of the facts, through due process, which is still on the official record in the Bill of Rights in America. So...the trial of Martin Luther King Jr,, exemplifies this human run, human process, by which human beings volunteer to defend each other from criminals who take over governments and it was determined (case law) in that trial that "our" government is guilty of conspiracy murder. Sure, Karen, it is a very good idea to use the criminal constitution to return to the criminal rule established in 1787/89 instead of the criminal rule called Martial Law, sure, that is a good idea to expose that Martial Law fraud. Sure, it is a good idea to account for the crimes now perpetrated by those people in the Network of Global Corporate Control, and sure it is a good idea to offer those criminals a means by which those criminals can return back to lawful social interaction through applications of true law: redemption and restitution NOT punishment. So... you are dead wrong with this idea of falsely claiming that the Constitution of 1787/89 is the way to avoid punishing those Network of Global Corporate Control criminals, allowing them to help bring about the Global Currency Reset. The common law (genuine not counterfeit) is trial by the country, so as to remove trial by criminal means, and typically the so called punishment is a fine, as demonstrated in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, which stands as an example of what is supposed to happen in trial by jury according to the common law. Choosing to throw people into the meat grinder ("extraordinary rendition, and enhanced interrogation techniques") is that choice you are making to give (false) authority back to the (false) Constitution of 1789, that Judiciary Act of 1789, and those so called Article III courts.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 6th, 2016 11:30 am |
|
33rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The evidence proving the facts of when, where, why, and how the criminals took over American justice, law, voluntary mutual defense, federation, etc.,. includes this: http://unionstatesassembly.info/index.html Article III courts (so called) were put into place to replace the British Country Debt Collection Agency then known as Admiralty Courts. The criminals pardon those in their criminal organization that the criminals prefer to remain in power, and the criminals perpetrate cruel and unusual punishment on anyone who dares to question the criminal authority. Trial by Jury according to the common law, has been, is, and will continue (perpetually) to be true authority based upon the shared, voluntary, mutual defense, process of trying any case through trial by the country, so as to remove that exclusive, elite, power to pardon criminals, keep criminals in power, and punish anyone who dares to question the criminal authority. If you don't get that straight then you, yourself, are in no position to be claiming authority over the facts, let along authority over the stored wealth of the entire world of people.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 6th, 2016 11:37 am |
|
34th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
This is the criminal (in this case the so called British) version of justice: http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html "Obey without question or suffer cruel and unusual punishment." http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king : The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war—a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their , success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry. That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old. Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry. The American version of justice includes much in the American Revolutionary history, such as the treatment of the British Soldiers as they surrendered, and here is a quote that ought to be understood in context: "To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king : The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war—a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their , success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry. That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old. Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry." That is from the American (true) federal record, from before the criminal take-over in 1787/89. So...play by criminal rules and you must obey without question or suffer cruel and unusual punishment in order for criminals to stay power as masters over slaves, on the one hand, and on the other hand is sanctuary, redemption, restitution, through due process, where volunteers volunteer to invest in voluntary mutual defense of everyone, as individuals adding their voluntary defensive power to a collective whole WHICH is the wealth of the world.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 7th, 2016 01:13 pm |
|
35th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Substance: "I have already made it clear that the Executive function of the government has been usurped by the military. President Obama is a figurehead and so is the US Congress, (except when the US Congress continues to declare a state of emergency justifying the military rule.)" I may be the only one on facebook who is responding to the substance: so why is Karen Hudes threatening to turn my comments (twist my comments) into a personal attack upon me personally? The above quote from the latest news from The Global Debt Facility (versus The Network of Global Corporate Control) is another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Look carefully at the words quoted: please. It was well known at the time of the original founding of the original federal government in America that "you cannot serve two masters." and that boils down to either a moral power (God if you will) or a flesh and blood human being, or group of human beings led by a false version of a moral power (God if you will), and only then is it a competition among groups of people fighting for power over other people. The Revolution was not a war, it was the power of the moral idea winning, in time and place (American 1775 through 1787) against the false moral idea (criminal rule), so the power (the law of the land) when the moral idea won over the false moral idea was a power commanded by each individual in time and place, and each individual had no more power (the moral idea applied in time and place) than any other individual. No one gave Congress absolute power between 1775 and 1787, no majority of people, no individual dictators, no corporations, no cults, no religion, no political party, no one, no group, gave no one, and gave no group, dictatorial power. That has been, is, and always will be the core of the deception. No President has absolute power, no Congress has absolute power, and those against the Constitution of 1787/89 (fraudulent "constitution") ensured that the true law of the land would still be on the official books in the form of those Amendments called The Bill of Rights. Common law trial by the country (trial by jury) ensures (in practical terms in time and place) that the whole country of people must speak unanimously as one, in order for anyone else to ever have so called legal authority to punish (or fine) anyone for anything anyone is accused of doing wrong.,
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 8th, 2016 05:52 pm |
|
36th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"General Joseph Dunford, Jr. is not governing the United States under martial law. The people of the United States, acting through their state legislatures under Article V of their Constitution of 1789, have placed the United States in interregnum; state capture by the Network of Global Corporate Control..." Turn the toggle switch to false: if the idea is to return to rule of law. Karen Hudes is potentially carrying the this truth and liberty torch that was carried before Karen Hudes was born. Example: "Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen. But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national." That was Patrick Henry blowing the whistle on the false federal government take-over by the nationalists. The 1787/89 (false) Constitution is not rule of law. Rule of law, or due process, is the common law, trial by the country, or trial by jury. If the idea is to return to rule of law by working backwards to the time and place when the nationalists took over, when they made slavery legal for slave masters, then a current TRUE whistle blower would at least acknowledge the facts that prove that the Constitution of 1787/89 is as bad, or worse, than so called Martial Law. If it is "secret" Martial Law, then it is nothing but fraud, on a federal level, or fraud upon fraud with super secret martial law piled on top of a false federal government. When the criminals take over, they often shoot the messengers, like Martin Luther King Jr., and in that case trial by jury, despite jury tampering, worked, as trial by the country, to expose the facts in that case. No claims of "conspiracy theory" can stand as legitimate when that case was tried lawfully, with due process, where facts, not fiction, rule. So...what is so difficult about this specific fiction whereby so many people refuse, against painfully obvious inculpatory evidence providing the fcts, why do so many people refuse to acknowledge the facts here, just like Karen Hudes refusing to do so.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 10th, 2016 10:30 am |
|
37th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://www.facebook.com/karen.hudes.10/ "These different topics all have a common theme: that we are in dialogue with each other, attempting to distinguish truth from falsehood. We are going to do this peacefully, for there is no other way." If that were true then there would be evidence showing that we are in dialogue with each other. If that were true than someone like Haren Hudes would offer substance, such as the evidence that shows how the American federal government is no longer working according to rue of law. Then someone like me will respond with quotes from the 6th President of the United States of America when the American federal government was working under rule of law, and in his words he explains (dialogue) how the criminals will take over the federation with their legal fiction fraud. But then Karen Hudes censors me; which proves beyond reasonable doubt that Karen Hudes refuses to participate in dialogue: the same dialogue that she now claims to be her proof of her authority. I'd prefer that the world of people do not divide and destroy each other with (fraudulent) Currency War, (fraudulent) Trade War, and then another World War, where people running a former Network of Global Corporate Control divide among themselves, and become themselves antagonistic criminal gangs (under the color of law) fighting over who regains control over the worlds people (victims), with the help of Karen Hudes, and with the help of The Global Currency Reset, and with the help of any whistleblower past (Richard Henry Lee, Gieorge Mason, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, Thomas Jefferson, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Henry Ford, John Boyd, John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.) or present. But claims of participating in dialogue are missing, and it might be a good idea to find out why people willfully (or unwillingly) decide to censor the vital information that clearly proves - beyond reasonable doubt - that the criminals use their criminal Constitution of 1787/89, as a legal fiction, legal corporation, false front, false flag, cover-up, of their private, for their exclusive profit, extortion and fraud racket, where they are the racketeers and we the people no longer have rule of law, for the people, by the people, and of the people, as we did have between 1775 and 1789. And what about the concept of federation? If it is clear in the minds of most of the people (if not all the people) in America that their country (actually their states) are republican (for the people, by the people, and of the people), and not corporations for the "elite," by the "elite," and of the "elite," at the expense of the people the "elite" pray upon - if that is clear - then what compliments many republics such as many states may be united into one voluntary, mutual defense, federation? What is a federation? Look here: "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. " From here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp07 Claims are being made concerning the authenticity of those words that constitute (anti) federalist papers. Claims are also being made concerning the authenticity of papers assembled into a whole with a title of Elliot's Debates. From Elliot's Debates are words - in the original federal record - explaining the meaning of federation. Now that you see clearly - from the historical record - what a republic is (public good) and what a national government is (government control of the people by the government on an individual level) and so what - pray tell - is a federation? From Elliot's Debates - the American federal congress records - is the following useful description of what a federation is: "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:" Claims are being made concerning the authenticity of those words that constitute (anti) federalist papers. Claims are also being made concerning the authenticity of papers assembled into a whole with a title of Elliot's Debates. From Elliot's Debates are words - in the original federal record - explaining the meaning of federation. Now that you see clearly - from the historical record - what a republic is (public good) and what a national government is (government control of the people by the government on an individual level) and so what - pray tell - is a federation? From Elliot's Debates - the American federal congress records - is the following useful description of what a federation is: "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:"
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 03:58 pm | Page: 1 2 |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Karen Hudes | Top |
