| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | 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 |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. _____________________________________________ |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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:" |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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." |
|||||||||||
|
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. ” |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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., |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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:" |
|||||||||||
