| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Here is the National Liberty Alliance County Organizer page: California County Organizers There are 4 phone numbers and names for Los Angeles County What is the best time to call? |
|||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
For Amelia in Los Angeles County California. Friend of Liberty or Enemy foreign and Domestic? Voluntary Association or Involuntary Association? Every criminal creates an Involuntary Association even if the criminal has created a very large army of criminals whereby the most powerful criminal calls himself King among the criminals. Every criminal association works the same way, as a pyramid structure, whereby the most powerful criminal keeps the leaser criminals in line by simple, easy to recognize, easy to understand methods as follows: 1. Deception (you have no choice, you must obey, and you must obey without question, and the first order is to work harder and pay more of your earnings to the criminals who make their Involuntary Association) 2. Threat of violence (You can't follow the order to obey without question so you will be made an example of what happens to those who do not obey) 3. Aggressive violence upon the innocent (The best examples of what happens to those who do not obey are those who are too weak and innocent to fight back so having their bodies burned alive sends the best message that inspires the other slaves to greater effort as they work themselves to death to make the criminals more and more powerful) So... Friends of Liberty know better, we band together in defense when the criminals take over our power of defense. Example: Trial by Jury Quote: 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. Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed. But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them. That method of voluntary association (trial by jury and common law) was corrupted to a point at which the victims of criminals taking over government fled England (and Europe) to America. Those who ran away from criminals who took over government (crushing trial by jury, crushing common law, and crushing government by the consent of the governed, and crushing Voluntary Association) settled in America and there was again a time whereby trail by jury and government by consent of the government regained common practice among regular people, or common people, in common law. Example: Declaration of Independence Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. Consent of the governed means, literally, government by voluntary association. Those who work to take from you your voluntary consent resort to obvious tactics that every single criminal ever to have existed use. 1. Deception 2. Threat of violence 3. Aggressive Violence upon the innocent (they always find best criminal effect by targeting the innocent AS A RULE) This march back to Liberty (consent made legal) is a march going in the opposite direction of the march to Despotism (crime made legal). You will find, on this march back to Liberty, people who WILL employ deception aimed at you. Deception aimed at you MAY cause you to suffer from that attack upon you. Please be very careful, and please understand that I offer my help on this march. What is the next step? A lot of confusion can occur when there are very good people showing each other a good way to defend against criminals, and those natural born leaders are seen as Kings among men (and women) or Queens because they earn their place among every other King and every other Queen ever to exist in human time. We are all equal according to voluntary law, some are better at showing the rest of us how to accurately identify the criminals who volunteer to be UNDER the law. So the confusion is to see common law, natural law, structures whereby some people appear to be much better than other people at defense, as those who prove to be much better at defense appear to be on top of a Pyramid structure, as the leaders who earn their place as leaders appear to be dictating who must do this, and who must do that, without fail. The appearance is illusory. Much deception has been invented and effectively employed by criminals (below the law by their own power of will) whereby a false defensive structure IS a pyramid structure whereby each criminal is placed into this structure by force of violence, or by threat of violence, or by force of deception. So how is a true leader known to be one so as not to be led onto a path whereby the followers are following a false leader? You have to be one. Once you begin on the path of leading WITHIN a voluntary association, it becomes very obvious, quickly, who is, and who is not, volunteering to be WITHIN a voluntary association, as those who volunteer to go OUTSIDE of a voluntary association are WILLING and able to resort to deception, threats, and violence as a means of creating, and maintaining, Involuntary Association. You have to lead. You have to take command. You have to see the enemy for what the enemy is, in fact, within your own mind. Rejecting the concept of dependency upon false leaders, if there is any of those deceptions remaining in your mind, and from that point on, PERHAPS, the world will no longer be confusing, and you can easily see friend from foe. With practice, leading yourself, in defense against those who seek to destroy life, Liberty, and every good thing in life and liberty, including innocence, the concept of helping each other see their own remaining DEPENDENCE upon falsehoods, threats, and violence becomes more and more natural. Have you ever heard someone say: "See how you are?" If it works, then the answer to that question may be: "Thanks, now I see, so now I will not longer be my own worst enemy." I hope that those words above help, and I hope that you can find those words useful, and I hope that my words offered voluntarily are not taken by you as any effort by me to incorporate you into an involuntary association. Each step of the way you take in the right direction can become your testimony to others, as you inform other people about how you were once here, and now you are no longer there, now you are here, as if to say: "See how I was?" I was once caught in the mire of falsehood. Now I see better. Words to the wise (offered) Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it. How to tell friend from foe? Summary? Those who lie to you are hardest to see. They are not your friends. Those who threaten you, you must do this, you must do that, or else: are not your friends. Those who violently attack innocent people, obviously, are not friends. The most confusing part of this is the confusion generated by people who are misled with false notions. When they lie they themselves believe the lie. Voluntary association is the answer. Here is more proof: In peace From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! Note: "We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you." That is an offer. That is voluntary association in the face of a horrible army of criminal invaders running amok throughout this country perpetrating horrible crimes upon the innocent, and yet the individual remains convinced of the power of Voluntary Association. That is starkly contrasted against the opposite message whereby someone demands blind obedience to falsehood without question, which is my way of describing the essence of an Involuntary Association. |
|||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
For anyone on Los Angeles County: California Constitution 1849 Compromise of 1850 California Constitution of 1880 pdf California Constitution ca.gov Extremely useful MINDSET: 1st source: GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950-54963 ca.gov
2nd source: GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11120-11132 ca.gov
In preparation for the first meeting I will go to in person as California State common law grand jury Coordinator my intention is to look for the links that connect the chain of authority from The Creator, to each individual human being (the people), through The Declaration of Independence, then The Articles of Confederation, then The Constitution of the states being united, then the Constitution of California, and then the above mentioned codes. Without knowing the standing on which we stand firm, we won't. This may take awhile. I found The Compromise of 1850 which is the Act that establishes the constitutionally limited Republic of California. So where is the California Constitution of 1850? At the top of this reply there is a .pdf version of the California Constitution of 1880. What happened in 30 years time between the First day when California became a constitutionally limited Republic and the California Constitution of 1880? I am not chasing a conspiracy theory, if that idea pops into someone's head other than mind. The idea is to know by what authority we stand today, as we stand, as we prevent political and economic collapse if possible. <----notes made before finding the Original California Constitution = California Constitution 1849 Sec. 3. The right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waved by the parties, in all civil cases, in the manner to be prescribed by law. Note: A huge mistake can be made in one's own mind, where one individual person stands firm, and that can be such that rights were granted by a human being for the benefit of another human being, and that is the only authority. The problem with that type of thinking, where a human being is the only authority, is such that the same human being can just as easily take away a right given. The competitive idea is such that an authority above mankind, such as God, or The Creator, or the Natural physical make up of reality (Natural Law), exists within the boundaries of that authority, and mankind is a part of that authority, but that authority, God's law, Natural Law, the Law of Creation, whatever, is above any one man, and in that way each of us will, or will not, by our own choice, recognize that authority by human reason, and human agreement. How better to tell the difference between friend or enemy than by asking if they agree with the concept of no man being above Natural Law, or God's Law, like asking someone if they are superman. Friend asking a potential friend: "Are you superman, able to rise above all other men and woman, to be the owner of other men and woman by your force of might?" Possible competitive answers illustrating the intended point to ponder: 1. Yes, and for now I am going to grant you a right, which I may take away on my own prerogative, on my say so alone, at my pleasure, because it is my exclusive legal privilege to do so, because I say so, and I, and my army, will back up my law as I enforce my law upon whomever I wish, whenever I wish. 2. No, I'm no superman, is this a trick question? 3. Hold on let me check my papers. Back to the 1849 Constitution of California is section 1: Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. I read that as a recognition of a well established factual perception that all human beings exist with inalienable rights, bla, bla, bla The devil is only in the details when some human beings decide to crawl around under Natural Law as if by doing so they can somehow get something for nothing. So, to me, as soon as one human being claims to be above the law, they are confessing their capacity to resort to deception, threat, or violence as a means of crawling around under the law in a vain attempt to gain something for nothing at the expense of targeted, innocent, victims. The victims are inevitably going to be those human beings who have something worth stealing in the eyes of the criminal mind. Look up Mens rea Criminal intent. It is vitally important to understand the difference between a criminal intending to commit a crime and a human being who is mislead into perpetrating crimes because of their own failure to know the difference between right and wrong. The victim may be as injured in either case, but the source of the criminal intent can be discovered if those intending to discover the source of the criminal intent are wise enough, diligent enough, persistent enough, to establish evidence proving "criminal intent" in any specific case whatsoever beyond a reasonable doubt. Example: "Did you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you intended to injure that innocent person for your own gain at their expense?" Example answer: "No, as far as I knew, I was just following orders." Diligent effort to establish the source of criminal intent: "Who gave you those orders?" Example answer A: "A little voice in my head, a dog named Uncle Sam, and if I did not obey, Sam was going to burn me alive." Example answer B: "Here is the order, it is notarized, witnessed, and sealed with the official stamp of authority right there sir, or mam, or right there fellow jurist." I am not on a witch hunt here, and I don't think my offer of help to anyone would be any help at all if I were on a witch hunt. The fact is that much too many of us are led by false ideas, false authority, and we are becoming like rats in a cage if we the people do not turn this thing around. Here it is for our own good: Sec. 8. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land naval forces in time of war, or which this State may keep with the consent of Congress in time of peace, and in cases of petit larceny under the regulation of the Legislature) unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury; and in any trial in any court whatever, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel, as in civil actions. No person shall be subject to be twice put jeopardy for the same offence; nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. on presentment or indictment of a grand jury There it is in red. The concept of human argument being used to usurp voluntary authority is at stake here, so we must be competent in avoiding such traps. We the people volunteer as jurists and we thereby create grand juries on our own authority because it is the peaceful, reasonable, harmless, solution that has worked for centuries if not for much longer going past the recorded history of trial by jury in England. In England trial by jury was imported from Germany according to more than one source, and that importation of trial by jury may have merely been volunteers volunteering in defense of the innocent against criminals in England meeting volunteers volunteering in defense of the innocent against criminals in Germany; whereby an agreement was made to perfect the methods that result in reaching the goal of Liberty, which is to stand in between the criminals and the innocent victims and PREVENT crime, prevent further crime, and if at all possible, by agreement, restore whatever can be restored so as to make the victim return to an uninjured state. There is no reference so far in that original California Constitution of 1849 concerning Magna Carte, but the language so far used is a direct reference, if not precise copy, of the Bill of Rights being part of The Constitution of the states united (my phrase here intends to discriminate between a Monopoly Nation State and a true Federation - see Quoting on this forum). This may be important: Sec. 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions on indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. An Oath taker (someone bonded as a public employee) who speaks in an official capacity and their speech is contradictory to well establish facts, constituting LIBEL in fact, is an abuse of "free speech" on the level of malfeasance (not merely a crime perpetrated by a free member of the people, but a crime perpetrated by a free member of the people who promises by SACRED oath to NOT perpetrate the crime of LIBEL) and according to Sec.9 of that California Constitution of 1849 a Libeler is understood as a member of the people who is "responsible for the abuse of that right." Example jurist question to oath taking employee of government by consent of the governed: "Where you capable of understanding what the oath meant in reference to the abuse of your powers to employ authority in reference to enforcing the law of the land, which includes trial by jury?" Then: "Here are your commands made by you, in writing, whereby you somehow take it upon yourself to destroy the law of the land in reference to trial by jury?" Note: A claim of there being no law, other than Marshal Law, would be a possible answer in defense of a public employee who willfully disobeys their oath as they destroy trial by jury. That is a victory for us in my opinion. That would be a legal precedent. That type of defense offered by an employee working for the people in defense of the people would then need to identify the reasoning behind someone, somewhere, ordering into being the state of emergency that constitutes the destruction of trial by jury. The lower level judges (only a criminal organization exists with "levels" of authority and this must be understood) would NOT be in a position to make this defense on their own; it would be "political suicide" for a lower level judge to do so, on the record, in a Court of Record, in my opinion. Sec. 20. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless the evidence of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court. Note: It may not be wise to banter about any accusations of treason. Sec. 21. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people. Again there are words that reinforce the idea of voluntary government by consent of the governed whereby rights are inalienable in fact, and therefore those people who claim to raise themselves above the law are in fact confessing that they are criminals: as criminals will, by their own guilty minds, seek to destroy rights, alienate rights, by their guilty minds and then by their guilty acts, including all forms of deceit, threat, and violence upon targeted victims, enslavement, entrapment, fraud, extortion, on and on and on. How did we the people allow the criminals to take over when we are by our creation authorized to defend ourselves against such abominations? We have the tools required to defend ourselves peacefully, and these tools are written down, witnessed, sealed, and delivered to us by our ancestors. The criminals, each deceitful step of the way, have covered up the methods by which the people defend their Liberty. It is past time to uncover those devices of peaceful defense of the innocent against the criminals who will (falsely) alienate everyone's (without exception) well established rights to live peacefully. EDIT [This sentence was confusing to me when I re-read the intended message, and it is instructive to look back from time to time at such things whereby words tend to parrot the lie that rights can be, in any way, destroyed, they cannot, what happens is not that rights are destroyed, what happens, in point of fact, is that crimes are perpetrated by criminals, and one crime is a claim by which a right can be given, and a right can be taken away, when in the naked light of all demonstrable evidence, all that has actually transpired is that a mere criminal has perpetrated a crime upon a victim = there are no Gods among men as some men may claim to be Gods, whereby they, as Gods, are in any way capable of giving or taking away rights] The mere fact of existing establishes the right to live peacefully. Who is alienating (something not even possible so it is a lie on its face) those rights? Why are they alienating those rights? How can those people among us who are alienating those rights be defended against PEACEFULLY? [Don't believe the lie first?] Is that not the goal in so many words? [Don't be fooled into blind belief in falsehood without question?] Contempt before investigation? In one word, alone, is our goal not Liberty in our time? Do you know the history of the Liberty pole? I don't want to waste anyone's time, but this may be important. When it becomes a crime, according to some people, to stand upon the idea of Liberty, then those people making those accusations are confessing something worth knowing. They are the real criminals and they are the ones "casting the first stone" and they are the ones willfully resorting to violence as a means of accomplishing their own exclusive goals. Criminal enforcer of crime made legal: "Hey you, it is against the law to stand a Liberty Pole up in this country." Defender of Liberty: "On whose authority? I can honor your offer to keep the peace by lowering this wooden pole, for now, but failure on your part to accurately identify the authority by which you accuse me of wrongdoing, Liberty will stand firm at that point whereby you fail to offer any authority of any kind other than the false authority every single criminal who ever disgraced the earth has ever falsely claimed to be their authority. Since your authority is thereby understood to be nothing but aggressive violence upon the innocent for your exclusive fun (happiness) or profit (property) this pole will stand firmly planted in this country on my watch." Moving down the list of messages offered in the original constitution (remember that government by the consent of the governed is always an offer offered in the hope of finding agreement, so as to avoid violence) there is much to object to in the section titled Article VI Judicial Department. Here, please, consider my take on this, and here too we may be fortunate enough to get much help from John, Gerard, and the other National Liberty Alliance members. My take: 1. The Creator (anything disagreeing with Natural Law is not law) 2. People (agree as to what is or is not law, disagreements are settled peacefully by those who agree to do so, and those who don't agree to do so are obviously criminals in mind, spirit, and by their actions that confess their criminality as they create victims one right after the other in point of fact) 3. The Declaration of Independence (agrees with Natural Law, agreeable to people standing firm in defense against criminals, and that is a record of the idea that government is voluntary, or, in other words government is instituted by people who consent, and who may not consent, to government when government becomes crime commanded by criminals hiding behind the color of law) EDIT [Note the use of word magic or just plain old lies when "Rebels/Insurgents" are use to label those who agree to defend voluntary government while "Loyalists/Tories" are labels used to describe those who lend moral and material support, if not their own bodies in violent "suppression of rebellion" on the side of those who resort to lies, threats, and violence as a means of gaining advantage upon innocent people = INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION] 4. The Articles of Confederation (This record of agreement agrees with 1, 2, and 3 above, as the States were voluntarily joined into a voluntary union of constitutionally limited Republics or States) 5. The Constitution (Much of that record was an obvious intent by criminals to make slavery legal, in point of fact, including the creation of a legal money monopoly power, however that record includes The Bill of Rights, so parts of that OFFER are agreeable while parts are most certainly repugnant to 1, 2, 3, and 4 PRECEDING this new document which was created in secret) 6. The Compromise of 1850 by which California is part of the Union (which may yet be a legal VOLUNTARY union because "The Civil War" has not yet occurred in 1850, whereby that so called "Civil War" is more word magic or just plain fraud since there was nothing civil about that war, as that war ended any notions of Voluntary Association of constitutionally limited republics formed into a voluntary Union for mutual defense of Liberty, the innocent, or taxes WITH representation, or freeing any slaves, or anything but more lies, more threats, and more aggressive violence upon the innocent AND GUILTY alike.) EDIT: The original Con Con in 1787 was falsely advertized as a Continental Congress Meeting to discuss agreeable solutions to the Debt payment schedule (and other things such as the significance of Shays's Rebellion) and instead of a Continental Congress the Central Banking Criminals turned (by falsehood and threat) the voluntary meeting into an involuntary meeting know known as Constitutional Convention which "threw out" the Voluntary Association which was instituted among the people, for the people, and by the people, and instead of that Voluntary Association what was instituted among criminals was something called (at that time) The Dirty Compromise, whereby the Central Banker Criminals in the North and the Slave Trader Criminals in the South agreed to divide up the Continent into 2 sections; those being the North (Central Banker Slavery) and the South (Agriculturally based Slavery) and therefore it was that first Con Con Con Job (The Dirty Compromise/Three Fifths Clause/National Monarchy by Fraud and Extortion) that created the Division that would become open War (for profit of the Banker Criminals who made the "better" deal as the Slave Trader Corporate Farmers lost out big time) whereby the Corporate Banker Frauds (Hamilton being one so called "founding father" of National Debt in particular) invaded, captured, plundered, the Southern Division that was Divided up initially by that Con Con Con Job in 1787. If you don't get this straight you may be powerless against the criminal lies of criminal authority. 7. The Constitution of California (whereby any claims by some people supposedly owning other people is, in point of fact, a false claim, and repugnant to all voluntary agreements that overpower such claims at this level of the record of authority up to that date in 1849) So challenges of authority aimed at common law grand jurors, who are volunteers from the number of people alive in California, can be made on that specific record of that specific authority going all the way back through history right up to The Creator, or God, or Natural Law (agreement is the natural, peaceful, solution to any controversy, also known as government by the consent of the governed, and also knowable as voluntary association). Like this: Volunteer jurists, elected, and commencing common law grand jury organization meets clerk at a Court of Record whereby the Court of Record office is occupied by a Clerk who is working as a Clerk for a Court of Record at the same time the same Clerk is working for a foreign corporation such as any corporation is merely a corporation such as WalMart is merely another corporation (a discoverable fact of there being a conflict of interest as the Clerk works for both the voluntary defensive government and a corporation at the same time) so the Clerk may choose to obey the foreign corporate law, or the Clerk may volunteer to defend Liberty as a Clerk of a common law Court of Record; whichever the Clerk chooses after being given the files needed for establishing a common law grand jury here in California: Clerk may act according to common law (the voluntary defensive government) and agree that the paperwork is to be filed accordingly or the Clerk may disagree and in so doing the Clerk is working "for profit" on behalf of a corporation and the Clerk will then destroy, mutilate, or otherwise impede, and obstruct the filing of the legal paperwork that is legally authorized according to specific authorities going back through history all the way back to the human recognition of Natural Law, or God, or The Creator, or at least recognizing that no man is above the law, so law is Voluntary Association among men and women who agree that agreement is as much authority afforded to anyone at anytime, or someone, somewhere does the opposite, in point of fact, and that someone resorts to lies, threats, and violence instead of agreement. Volunteer, elected, jurist (elected as an organizer of the common law grand jury, elected by the people after the people have been afforded public notice of an impending election) speaking to clerk: "Hi, I am here offering my help as a common law grand juror according to this specific record of authority, and here are all the relevant documents required of me to establish a common law grand jury in this place in this country where the law of the land is understood to be following this authority right here, here, here, and here, and here are our oaths, and here is the election records, and here are the notarized, witnessed, and sealed records that establish a common law grand jury, and you must file them or your disagreement to file them in a court of record must be as authoritative as our claim of authority going all the way back to The Creator. One of us is wrong, so we have to find which one, please help, and then the wrong ones can step down upon the discovery of who is wrong in fact." How well we present ourselves, competently, confidently, may well effect a clerk to open arms, open mind, and volunteer to defend the innocent from further injury by criminals running amok in our country as criminals are operating foreign corporations that are only corporations in name, as they are, in point of fact, criminal organizations by the obvious, discoverable, fact that innocent people are being injured on an hourly basis, each day, resulting from crimes perpetrated by these criminals running their crime organizations under the color of law. Example: Sec. 18. The style of all process shall be "The People of the State of California;" all the prosecutions shall be conducted in the name and by the authority of the same. That will be problematic. That is not at all agreeable to me. That is in the California State Constitution of 1849. I can look ahead to see if that type of criminal conduct is sanctioned in the current version of the California State Constitution. EDIT: The law quoted as Sec. 18. could also be interpreted as The People are not under, and instead of being under The People are always over the corporation formed by the Constitution. What does "prosecutions" mean? What is meant by the words "The People of the State of California"? Can that be a claim of ownership being made by some people who raise themselves above common law, whereby their small group of criminals claim to own "The People of the State of California"? EDIT: Claims that "The People" exist as one thing, and therefore "The People" as a whole (one thing) can be responsible, and therefore accountable, is false, a very destructive falsehood, whereby the actual criminals among "The People" are not held to account for their responsibilities INDIVIDUALLY, and instead of holding those criminals to account the defenders are fooled into blaming "The People" for those crimes perpetrated upon individual victims, each one, by individual criminals, again each one. If so, then I cannot agree to such madness, and anyone who does agree to such madness can suffer the costs they may have to pay for such a poor decision to give up their inalienable rights. EDIT: Inalienable rights are individual rights that are only "collective" rights as each individual who agrees to resist "alienating" (perpetrating crime) rights of each other are, each individual is (we all are) members of the whole "collective" group. No such entity, or being, as "The People" (one thing) exists as a whole, as a "responsible" whole, as an "accountable collective," as if, by some magic wand, we all share one mind like worker ants directed by one dominant Queen ant. This lie, or this word magic, is also used to create a fictitious "victim" whereby "The People" are claimed to be "victimized" and therefore there must be some means by which "the collective" is defended in a trial. The People cannot be the victim, which is common sense, since that would mean that everyone somehow agrees, without actually asking everyone, if they are, in fact, victims. The obvious example here is my right to defend myself with weapons that are now against the false, or unnatural law because some criminal has in some magical way injured me (The People) when the demonstrable, discoverable, fact is that the criminal injured a single victim with a name, and another single victim with a name, and on and on, but not me in point of demonstrable fact. So the lie of "collective punishment" is the same thing as the lie of "collective protection" whereby, without my agreement, and despite my insistence of pointing out that the offer is false, the false authorities claim that they are protecting me by demanding from me my power to defend myself, and they offer to me to give up my power to defend the defenseless, in the name of defending "The People" whose only spokesperson happens to be a criminal fraud who inculpates his criminality by that lie? There is no "The People" to be responsible as one whole entity, and there is no "The People" to be held accountable as one whole entity, in point of demonstrable, discoverable, fact. "Hey you, do you want to alienate someone's right to defend themselves?" and the answer may be yes (yes I am a criminal ready to perpetrate a crime upon someone) or the answer may be no (why would I, there is no reason for me to do so, and if a criminal does so, then let the criminal find out how natural law works when the criminal meets someone responsible, and accountable, for defending himself, herself, or those who are helpless, innocent, and defenseless). If those words (offers within voluntary association) intend to raise up some few people as owners of the rest of the people then those words inculpate the criminals who have expressed that intention under the color of law, so some people may agree to be criminals too, agree to be so called master, or so called slaves, but others WILL not, since such lies are demonstrably false. Anyone following such criminal intentions under the color of law, out of ignorance, ought to be willing to listen to reason, and if they are not willing to listen to reason, then how will their willful conduct to enslave innocent people be judged from that point onward in point of accurately discoverable fact? "Hey, I know you are a criminal, your deeds confess your true intentions, even if you keep saying that "The People" must be defended, which are merely your words offering that claim, your actions are in disagreement to your words, as you are removing the power of those people to defend themselves." One more effort on this specific thing, as one person may say, or many people in a group may say the same thing, that "The People" must hand over their power of defense, their hammers, their pointed sticks, their accountability, their duty, their responsibility, their knives, their swords, their guns, their militia, their rights, their inalienable rights, while that same person, or that same group sharing, agreeing, demanding, claiming, that you had better agree with "The People," that "The People" must give up their arms, their defensive power, while, as it turns out, by accurate discovery of the demonstrable facts, that those same individuals, in that same group, are themselves arming themselves with the guns that they must have in order to make good on their threat to obey the offer to turn in your guns, because "The People" must be defended, in the name of "The People," since "The People" will be injured if you don't obey without question, or, in a phrase: Do as I say not as I do, because the orders I offer to you only apply to you, and these same orders offered to you are orders that do not apply to me. Which means, precisely, that "The People" are not in fact, by your confession, one thing, since your orders claim that the one thing, "The People," exist as one thing, according to you, while you demonstrate that "The People" are not one thing, but in fact at least two things, those being the liars, the criminals, one with one name, another with another name, and at least one other thing, another example of "The People" whereby those separate people, and that distinct group of individuals are willing, able, responsible, and accountable for defending the innocent against the criminals, each one, each in turn, each stepping in between each destructive criminal and each targeted, innocent, victim. There is no "The People" in demonstrable fact in each discoverable, recording, of each crime perpetrated by each individual criminal upon each individual victim, in each time, and in each place, whereby the criminal is accurately known as the one who is responsible for the injury to the innocent victim, and the individual criminal is held accountable for the individual crime upon the individual victim in the individual place at the individual time. No more power of lies such as "the gun did it," or "a dog named Sam made me do it," or "society made me do it," or "the pointed stick did it," or "the government did it," or "just following orders," or "the sun was in my eyes," or "the dog ate my homework," or any other lies, that no longer work, because common people, with common sense, regain common knowledge, of common law, and obvious, demonstrable, confessions of criminals who claim one offer of a voluntary agreement while their actions are directly opposite their lies, demonstrated by them as they alone define the meaning of each crime that they perpetrate on each victim each time in each place. Fellow volunteers in California, to me that constitution appears to be a legal fiction or corporation, something that any human being can join, and pay for, or not join and not pay for, at their own expense, much like working for Walmart. I think that the California Constitution is poorly written, or its willfully deceptive so as to appear to be a lawful record of an established voluntary association created so as to afford the people who are not criminals a effective, peaceful, deterrent against the criminals who willfully perpetrate crimes. It appears to be lawful, while it also appears to be criminal, so why would such a thing be constructed unless the intent was to cause confusion? In other words it appears to be a voluntary agreement worthy of agreement while it appears to also be inculpatory evidence recording the fact that criminals were intending to enslave the people of this country into a false version of government under the color of law. In other words the tool, the thing, can be like a knife used in defense, and the same knife can be used to perpetrate a crime upon an innocent victim by a criminal. That is why common law trial by jury was created way back in human history, perhaps even before recorded human history, as each successive generation passes on the knowledge, and the wisdom, of trial by jury as a voluntary, peaceful, method of avoiding any violence of any kind among those who agree to do so on their own, individual, sacred, honor. Trial by Jury, or knives, or guns, or constitutions, or contracts, or ideas, can be employed by people with guilty, criminal, minds as the find ways to use the tool for crime instead of using the tool to reach the goal of making crime pay less, so as to make crime unaffordable for anyone. The presumption of reason, is no longer as prone to error, when the person employed as a specialist in the work required to defend the innocent against criminals has managed to demonstrate honesty by answering a simple question with an accurate answer. How can you know, beyond reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty of perpetrating a crime upon an innocent victim? Well, as anyone who may read this can see, I am fully able to monopolize the flow of information, but not by my exclusive choice. To me there is an exponentially increasing advantage gained by non-antagonistic competition of viewpoints; whereby many viewpoints, from many viewers, add dimension to a shared viewpoint, so as to figuratively construct a deeper meaning of many dimensions compared to a one dimensional, flat, lifeless, single, closed minded monopoly view. Has anyone ever tried to play chess alone? Has anyone ever tried to play three way chess with 6 people using 3 chess boards? If you do not practice at non-antagonistic competition how can you expect to learn better from worse? |
|||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Here is a quote that may speak well to those who have gravitated toward the voluntary militia. "He who has strength to chain down the wolf is a madman if he let him loose without drawing his teeth and paring his nails." Our Legacy Those who speak of God but have no power to protect the innocent from torture and murder are to me an accurately measurable absence. What, precisely, and without any error in measure, is missing? Providence? Warmth of heart? Wisdom? Understanding? Generosity? Kindness? Can there be a meeting between wild beasts or insane people, and moral people, whereby reasonable solutions to the problem of having innocent people nailed to crosses and being willfully burned alive reaches for a condition of abundance, and solutions are offered to those wild beasts and those insane people, offered by moral people: what is the definition of insanity? When is too many known? Your last loved one? In front of you, nailed to some wood, then set ablaze, for your joy in joining the fun with the fellows who take from you everything including what comes next after your last love one is eaten by them? You pass the salt and pepper as quickly as the order reaches your ears? When do you reach the end of your rope? |
|||||||||||||
