| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Here are relevant links: San Bernardino County Charter Note: Moving the goal post is common for those who willfully break their own claims of authority as the saying goes "Do as I say, not as I do." The rule today might be that it is perfectly fine to enslave someone. The rule tomorrow might be it is not perfectly fine to enslave someone. Who enslaves who, why, when, and where? Who invents, produces, and maintains victims? Who deliberately finds effective ways to defend victims? When, where, and how are victims defended effectively in the past, now, and in the future? If the enforcers are enforcing something other than defense of the innocent, then what are they enforcing? Statutes? Voluntary agreements? If it is a voluntary agreement then volunteers can voluntarily disagree in time and place. If it is not voluntary agreements then how is it anything other than crime, or enslavement, or involuntary association in time and place? The obvious grey area exists in falsehood, ignorance, apathy, as manufactured consent, false advertizement, response conditioning, behavioral modification, also known as brainwashing. Statutes Statutes can be understood as offers made by any number of people seeking voluntary agreement, and voluntary association, to be offered to any number of other people. Statutes can be understood as tools, like a hammer is a tool, and a hammer can be used to drive in a nail, and a hammer can be used to crush the skulls of anyone who does not obey every order without question. As soon as someone questions the people who enforce the order to obey without question the Dictator (false authority) picks up the hammer and crushes the skull of anyone who dares to question the authority of the order. Now is where the reader should reconsider the concept of agreement in finding like minded, free, Liberated, people, who are not suffering from abject belief in falsehood without question, whereby each of these free people share the need to challenge authority, to trace authority back to the source of authority, so as not to fall victim to false authority ever again. If the authority claiming to be an authority in any place and at any time does not know how to trace their authority back to the source then that is a confession of fact, or that could be a lie, and who would know? Who has the power to know if someone is lying? If Magna Carte acknowledges where the source of authority exists, tracing authority from the lowest level up to the highest level, then that ought to be understood. Magna Carte is Statute or the invention of man for man. In that place and time it was Barons defending all the free people in England from a Despotic King named John, and in that document are references to common law (not the English words because English was not yet a language) and trial by jury. Clearly Magna Carte was inferior authority under the people who created it. People who create Statutes are above the things, the tools, they create, to be used, or abused, by people. Trial by Jury was a process, created by people, and it was considered to be a process due to everyone, a process based upon the golden rule, a process based upon the concept of Rule of Law, and these are all English words describing events that existed before English was a language. The common law, in many forms, appears to involve Natural Law, or God's Law, or any concept of an authority that is above individual people. A creator of all things creates all things including stars, planets, lower life forms, and higher life forms such as people. A rock on a planet has no authority over the planet that created the rock. Life on a planet has no authority over the sun that supplies the power to maintain the life on the planet, at least not yet, which life form will crate stars, or destroy them? The life on the planet could, conceivably, gain the authority to move to other planets where other solar systems support life. Intelligent life of that level of authority would have to work effectively toward that goal or fail to reach that goal as a point of demonstrable fact in time and place. The idea of life surviving is an idea the includes the recognition of an authority that exists above the individual life where the idea is currently working in that life form. Life must accept the fact that natural law, not man-made law, is the higher authority, or failure to do so leads, inevitably, to obvious cases of extreme human error, including the obvious examples falling under the English term Dictatorship. If dictatorship is deemed to be unfavorable to survival of life, what then exists instead, as if the idea is to fill the vacuum that will exist once all the Dictators have killed each of their number down to the last one. Here are all the survivors of Dictatorship, and here, on the other part of the planet Earth is the last Dictator. How do the rest of human kind proceed with a process that is due to every survivor of Dictatorship so as to live and let live without Dictatorship? Is it a good idea to send every last accurate measure of earnings to the one remaining Dictator and expect that the one remaining Dictator will not use those accurate measures of earnings, that POWER, to buy fellow dictators and recreate Dictatorship on Earth? With that idea in mind, I will begin looking for things in the San Bernardino County Statutes; which are under the California Constitution in Authority, under The Constitution for the United States in authority, under The Articles of Confederation, under The Declaration of Independence, under Magna Carte, under common law with trial by jury, and under the people, and under natural laws, and under the creator of everything if anyone ever climbs that ladder of authority that far back to the source of authority anywhere on this planet. According to the Creator, Ancient Custom, Ancient common law, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution uniting States of America into voluntary union, The Bill of Rights, and According to the California Constitution San Bernardino Count Coordinator (one of many) California State Coordinator (temporary until unseated voluntarily) Joe Kelley 760-447-7139  760-447-7139760-447-7139760-447-7139josf.kelley@power-independence.com josf.kelley@hotmail.com My contribution to the concept of leadership in San Bernardino County California so far: 1. Attend the National Monday Meetups and begin to assemble the necessary mindset that can then be utilized to complete each step along the way that ends up with a number of elected jurists commanding a common law grand jury in San Bernardino County California. I am not an Attorney. So far my experience here at National Liberty Alliance has been a mixed bag of typical encouragement, enlightenment, discouraging vituperation, and down right libel. The net result, or score card, is decidedly positive whereby the standard of measure is relative to reaching the desired goal: defend the innocent from injury by criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law, do so peacefully, as is the shared, voluntary, intention of government by consent of the governed, which had been a cultural heritage handed down for centuries in the form of trial by jury. There is no way that I can sanction, or honor, or lend moral and material support to another criminal hiding behind a false badge of authority in any way, shape, or form, including me "leading" others who do not have their mindset in order on this path leading toward the reestablishment of common law grand juries in every county in California. There is no way that this can work in any county, in any state, anywhere, if the old criminals who are perpetrating crimes under the color of law are being replaced with new criminals who are perpetrating crimes under the color of law. No way. There must be a way of knowing who is on the right side and who is on the wrong side if there is going to be any chance of this present effort of establishing common law grand juries so as to defend the innocent from injury by criminals who are perpetrating crimes under the color of law. One possible offer of leadership in San Bernardino county, and in California, and in any state, as far as I am concerned, is the easy to know difference between someone firmly on my side, which I can safely say is the side of Liberty, and I can offer that this side is our side, is this: 1. A mindset that understands the absolute necessity to be an individual human being that is in no way connected to the existing order of government as it currently exists in the form that it exists; because it is a foreign government operating on American soil. 2. A mindset that fails to understand the above, and therefore the individual human being will take false steps that end up with the individual himself, or herself, being led falsely into a trap whereby the criminals running their foreign government apparatus on American soil entrap that individual into their spider web of lies, threats, and horrible, terrifying, violence. If you are with me, not against me, in San Bernardino county California, then please help me confirm what needs to be confirmed before we combine our collective efforts toward the necessary work required to make the next step that moves us from our current place as we then occupy a common law grand jury in San Bernardino County California. I will cut and paste this unto my own forum. CallSend SMSAdd to SkypeYou'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Inspiration to move step by step on this path seeking the effective defense of Liberty in this country brings me to the inspiration to offer the following link: How to Start a Jury Anyone in San Bernardino County California can pick up the offer in that link and proceed step by step. I have remaining concerns the most obvious one being that I can't do this alone. No on in San Bernardino has called me. I am both a San Bernardino County Organizer and THE California State Coordinator so calling myself is not an option if I am going to look upward for help. If God ever answers me in a loud voice, I'd be suspicious of such a command. So I look for inspiration from where I find it. I can look in the mirror, figuratively or literally, and the answer I get back while going through the "How to Start a Jury" information this second time, on this Sunday afternoon 1-5-2014 causes in me grave concerns. 1. Pledge of Allegiance I won't do such a thing. I found out where that flag came from. I can show the information I found to anyone who cares to listen, any other potential juror on any common law grand jury I'm on, who pledges allegiance to that flag may do so out of ignorance. I won't. All one has to do is search for information on how the Central Bankers who controlled The Bank of England ran their criminal operations through their control over The East India Company, as they pushed drugs onto the innocent victims in China for any rational human being to have enough information to question the validity of that flag, and any oath, or pledge, anyone may want to associate themselves toward. Google Search Results for East India Company Flag Google Search Opium Trade Wars Google Search Bank of England East India Company How far down this rabbit hole does the bad news go? You may not want to go as far as I have gone; but if I am at a meeting and I do not pledge allegiance to that Corporate Crime Flag then know why. Prejudging me for failure to do as you do would be a case of what exactly being done on your part? Blind Obedience to Falsehood Without Question is the problem, not the solution. If you see me failing to pledge allegiance to that Corporate Crime Flag and your knee jerks out of ignorance concerning why I don't pledge allegiance to that Corporate Crime Flag, then that is what you do for the reasons you do that in that case, if that ever happens that way. Moving onto concern number 2, 3, and 4, in this report by the PRESENT me to the PAST me, or to anyone else caring to know my opinion in my version of a court of record as I see it are those 3 videos offered in that "How to Start a Jury" link. Concern 2: Admiralty Law common law - 10 min That is the title of the first video offered as a source of information used as a Standard (of excellence?) for every common law grand jury being formed in this country? I think not. Immediately upon starting and listening to that video I am struck with an urgent inspiration to cry foul. Why do people refer to the present Cabal of Criminals as the government? Why do people refer to the present flow of Extortion Payments to the present Cabal of Criminals as taxes? Doing so, in my considered opinion, lends moral and material support, aiding and abetting, as inculpatory evidence, confessions by action, as accessories to their crime openly expose their willing participation in those crimes. The video is incuplatory evidence of someone who is infected with Blind Obedience to Falsehood Without Question because they have not yet questioned the PRINCIPLE ROOT LIE. The criminals have taken over, they did so in 1787, and calling them, in those offices, anything other than criminals, in criminal offices, is a failure to question the PRINCIPLE ROOT LIE at the source of it, which can be found in the mirror. So...if I am at a meeting while that video is being employed as a "learning tool" or any other purpose, then expect my objections. My objections will continue as to that specific source of "information." If I am at a meeting in my future, I can point here to this record. |
|||||||||||
|
Doug555 Guest
|
I also cannot pledge allegiance to a WAR flag, and for what IT stands. I know too much too, as Joe has provided ample evidence of. Glad I am not alone in that feeling. What I can do it solemnly affirm my intent to keep all of the Messiah's commandments in both the Old and New Testaments, relying on Him to give me to power to follow through on that intent. The Grand Jury is based on common law, which is based on Mosaic Law, so I see no conflict of interest in serving as a jurist, and no need to require said pledge of allegiance to add weight to my affirmation. I also object to any admiralty law. Again, I know too much about its source, and its "prizes" of WAR mindset. To mix the above mindsets with jury training is NOT a good idea, IMO. It will muddy the water that needs to be clear so we can see and absorb the Mosaic law behind common law without the burden of mentally filtering out the "mud". If other law forms are mentioned, they should only be used as contrasts to further distinguish the opposite principles and maxims of common law. Perhaps we should enlist Karl Lentz's assistance in training jurists in common law? See Karl's UK resource center for examples of his approach: http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/resource-centre.html |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Thanks for the help Doug. I can easily afford anyone the room to pledge allegiance to some flag they deem to be worthy of pledges, so long as my own estimate of the individual remains to be innocent until proven guilty. I prefer to root out all the falsehood myself. The problem here and now has to do with demand for uniformity in making due process efficient and at the same time a demand for uniformity in making due process expedient. So long as due process is processed by people seeking, and working toward, defense of the innocent, and so long as human reason is utilized, the superfluous thoughts an actions, and the counter-productive thoughts and actions, and the destructive thoughts and actions will be left by the way side in favor of that which does work in defense of the innocent. Those who insist upon pledging to that flag can, in my view, and if they appear to be open minded in my view, then I will take that opportunity to help them see the evidence I've found. If they don't appear to have an open mind, or if they shut out, willfully ignore, and refuse to acknowledge the information, then that is incuplatory evidence of the cause of the problem we face - to me. It is a tool, and the tool is incapable of willfully deciding to cause harm to innocent people, but at the same time it exists. Try this analogy please, anyone. If I decide to construct a road sign that I decide to place on a long straight, fast, road where cars often travel, whereby there is a blind hill on the road, and on the other side of the blind hill is a bridge, and I know that the bridge is out, and I hatch a plan to increase the value of my shares of stock in the local hospital, then I can place a sign on the road that says "Free Money, it won't last, Hurry up." I willfully place that sign in that place so as to cause injure, so as to allow me to profit at the expense of the injured. The sign will remain in place until someone does something about it. The flag did not willfully inspire people to rush to their doom. There is no reason for me to blame the flag. It is merely a flag. |
|||||||||||
