| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Lawful Money Trust | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18th, 2017 07:14 pm |
|
21st Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
It is not. Simply because there is no courtroom large enough to keep the whole nation in to deliberate. So I will describe the common law process by attachment. Notice that the county court judges can practice law. Any attorney protecting the courts as collections process will tell you this means any district court judge is forbidden from hanging his attorney shingle. But that is not what it says. It says that district court judges are forbidden from practicing law. Now consider that if the charge is a felony (over one year in prison) the defendant is passed out of county court to district court. The defendant is safe from the error of the county court judge practicing law from the bench. However the matter has become serious enough that rule by Authority prevails. The district court judge will advise the jury, they are not to take the law into consideration. - That they will be given specific instructions from the judge before deliberation of the matters tendered for the jury to rule upon. The judge will be deciding matters of law. The jury will be ruling only on findings of fact. The judge must do this, because as you see, the appellate judges up the appeals ladder are also bound by Authority. They can all rule only upon precedent. Case law is also stare decisis. I think that this might be the crux of your complaint. And in a way this is my complaint too; at least at the Olympus Ordeal level. My holding the judges and district attorneys to certain standards regarding their oaths of office complicated things to the level where one "pioneered" a conspiracy of criminal syndicalism so in depth, I have to admire my work. If I may summarize your complaint then, it is that when hearing "the nation" the People only establish what factually happened. The Bar Association is speaking for the nation about application of statute. - Whether it is the current district court judge, or the appeals judges above his court with authority to overturn his decision. Am I getting there? Attachment: practice law from bench.jpg (Downloaded 30 times)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 18th, 2017 08:23 pm |
|
22nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
OK David, I think we are done. Your apparent tactic here is to ignore what was offered, to counterfeit what was offered, and then to discredit your counterfeit version of what was offered (Straw Man) so as to win some battle you have (exclusively) in your own mind. I see no point in continuing that game, other than exposing it. How about answering simple questions?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 18th, 2017 08:25 pm |
|
23rd Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/ I just viewed the opening quote on LMT - the blog. We should consider my $20M lien for a moment. When I billed the court I had not discovered the deviant oaths of office. But I knew something had gone awry. And this may be what your complaint about the 1789 Judiciary Act is about. Requiring "judges" to be Learned in the Law has since construed to be licensed by, in Colorado, the State Supreme Court.   A suitor dropped by the Secretary of State's office for a copy of the newly seated Attorney General's oath, about five months into his alleged term. There was none so he requested a Certificate of Fact that SUTHERS had not filed it. They were a little alarmed, "We don't give those out any more. We get in too much trouble." Wow! They promised him to get the Certificate in the mail but called him on his way home and said they had SUTHERS' oath there for him to pick up in the morning. That is it. The statute calls for "the ever-living God" to be on there. So we have the chief justice of the Bar Association, aka the State of Colorado Supreme Court in collusion with the criminal syndicalism. I have the opening post there and you still direct some kind of accusation toward the Judiciary Act of 1789. I might pick through Page 1 again and see if there is any reconciling our views. I have the 1789 Act attached here through and you will find in it the Form of Oath for federal judges - So help me God. SO HELP ME GOD. Is an alteration. Even putting it in italics is an alteration but it still holds the same grammatical meaning. Look on StSC:   What you have though is a slight alteration. Italics mean to me, this part is optional. So we refine the deviation - however this oath is still deviant from form and any other "judge" will rule for his Brethren... Attachment: $20M lien.jpg (Downloaded 29 times)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 18th, 2017 08:27 pm |
|
24th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:OK David, I think we are done. I think maybe I missed your point in inviting me here. Do you have a simple question to ask? I got to looking around. And reviewing our email conversation too. You and I are very much alike in that we will look at something briefly, find something faulty in foundation and just move along. For myself, it is that I spend too much time reading, and regret when I have to consider dumping hours of reading time as worthless. Thank you for the excursion Joe. It was very nice.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 19th, 2017 09:43 am |
|
25th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I see things similarly, but not the same. Where we part are now two accurately measurable things (actually processes): 1. Common Law according to your definition of it is the counterfeit version of common law when the actual process described in history (Trial by Jury described it well enough for practical purposes, but there are more descriptions elsewhere) is compared to your amoral (which usually helps hide the immorality) description of "what is" in history after the counterfeiting was done. That is one place were my study and your study parts ways, and that is very significant because you move on, as if the original, organic, moral, common law did not exist, dose not exist, and will not exist, as you hold fast to your counterfeit version of common law, as if you have a use for fraudulent processes. 2. Contacting other people, in your view, can be a waste of time. I get that from this: "For myself, it is that I spend too much time reading, and regret when I have to consider dumping hours of reading time as worthless." My viewpoint is not that viewpoint. At the very least there is worth in knowing how people are turned from morality to immorality in time and place, even if the same path was taken by each one each time, there is worth in something called reinforcement. If only 1 person takes that path from morality to immorality, a path they were targeted into, a path like a mouse trap with deception like cheese luring people into it, then that is a reinforcement of 1, where one example of the process is worth knowing. A second example adds reinforcement to the understanding, knowledge, of the process, as each path is slightly different, adding more evidence, more information, so as to build a comprehensive perspective of the process by which deception is used to lure innocent people along a path from morality to immorality. I read much (but not all) of the information you posted, and linked, on this public access forum, and I appreciate that effort on your part. The problem here is spelled out to you, offered to you, for you to either understand, to know, or to find fault with it, and then offer back to me a reason why my perspective is flawed. Common law was, is, and can always be merely the process by which people reach for their voluntary mutual defense, a power so great as to deter all crimes that can be deterred by a human process. To claim that it was not done the way it was done, if that is your claim, is lacking any evidence that works to counter the existing evidence already offered just in this forum topic alone, let alone the volumes of evidence I've uncovered so far, and let alone the volumes of evidence other people have uncovered on their independent efforts to study the subject matter. Common law is not, was not, and does not have to be a dictatorial edict issued by a select few of disturbed, criminal, gangs, whereby said gangs of criminals determine whatever they wish to do to everyone else, whenever it pleases them to do so, because they have managed to gain that power by criminal means: which is the common law you describe, which was moved from the original, organic, moral common law, to the counterfeit, criminal, immoral common law over a long period of time, as documented in the examples offered in both English History and American History. Magna Carta offers an example of incuplatory evidence proving the fact that the criminal version of law existed separate from something called the common law, all of which is well explained in the Essay Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner, but the inculpatory evidence is right there in the "official" (criminal) document called Magna Carta. Common law (the organic, grassroots, original, as described in Magna Carta, Jefferson's notes on Virginia, the first Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, court cases in between 1775 and 1789 such as the 2 Respublica cases already cited, and the Bill of Rights which were supposed to have been Amendments to the fraudulent - criminal - Constitution of 1789), that common law, is a power commanded by all the people all the time for mutual defense of all the people all the time wherever, and whenever, people volunteer to use that process by which anyone is subject to accusation and trial by jury, which was, is, and can be, trial by the country. You offer: "It is not. Simply because there is no courtroom large enough to keep the whole nation in to deliberate." What is that above? That above appears to be an answer followed by evidence proving (beyond reasonable doubt?) the answer offered by you, and I am, or the next guy is, or the next lady is, and we all are, supposed to be convinced by your evidence? Is your refutation supposed to refute the following? It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. At the time (1852) the above was written the place known as America was moving from a time when the Central Banking (criminal) Power was at a low point after Jackson pulled the plug on the Second Bank of the United States, and an age of Wild Cat Banking (competition in money markets) began, and began to work as (moral) competition works, to increase the quality of goods offered by competitors, and decrease the price of goods offered by competitors. At that time, when Lysander Spooner wrote Trial by Jury, the same author was writing the work known as A New System of Paper Currency. https://archive.org/details/newsystemofpaper01spoo The same author also wrote No Treason: http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm At that time, in America, Josiah Warren wrote Equitable Commerce: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/equcom.pdf And the same author wrote True Civilization: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/truecivtoc.html At around the same time Stephen Pearl Andrews wrote The Science of Society: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/andrews/scienceofsociety.pdf And at about the same time Benjamin Tucker wrote the following: 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. The so called Civil War followed the age in America where Liberty was gaining power as people were able to fight back against the large volume of falsehood caused by the 1789 USURPATION of the federation under the common law that was started in 1775, to be usurped in 1789. So, all that above, all that information that contributes to my understanding of the comprehensive picture of what is now, and what was then, is refuted by your claim of authority of the truth? This: It is not. Simply because there is no courtroom large enough to keep the whole nation in to deliberate. How does that, above, address the following? It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. In practical modern terms follows a scenario offered for consideration to anyone, anywhere, on Earth. Accuser Jane Doe accuses accused John Smith of a crime against Jane Doe. If the accusation is false, willfully false, with malice aforethought, then Jane Doe is the criminal, and John Smith is innocent, until proven guilty, and common law, if it is moral, does not allow John Smith to be injured by Jane Doe, as Jane Doe gains access to common law. In common law, if common law were to return to America, the accuser has as much access to Rule of Law (common law) as everyone else, and the point of contact most necessary, in this and every other case, is the one individual that Jane Doe has free access to contact, and deliver the official accusation at common law to this one individual working, volunteering, in common law. Who is that individual contacted by Jane Doe and what authority, what power, what jurisdiction does this individual who receives the official accusation command? The answer is none, or all, depending upon who the individual is, in fact. Now is a good time to quote Thomas Jefferson for some clue as to how common law works when common law works for all, for the defense of all, against any harm done by an individual, or harm done by an individual conspiring with other individuals: a group conspiring to threaten harm to individuals. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp 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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 19th, 2017 10:08 am |
|
26th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Moving to another POST for the sake of order as I see it. So Jane Doe contacts a common law Justice of the Peace, also knowable as a Magistrate, who is one of the most honest, and one of the most discrete individuals working for free (no conflict of interest) as an official member of the people of that county who commands all jurisdiction criminal and civil in that county. Call that individual Jack Peoples. So Jane Doe finds Jack Peoples and hands over the official accusation concerning John Smith. Jack Peoples says, hey, lady, John Smith is the Governor of this independent State in this county in this Federation of Independent States. Jane Doe says yea, what of it? Jack Peoples says, nothing, nothing, I'll take this to the next step just like every other accusation is done, which is, I need to ask for some evidence. Jane Doe ushers in her daughter, who is in a basket, having been chopped up by John Smith, according to Jane Doe, and here is a video tape, which is a Pedophile Stuff Film, staring John Smith and company, sold in the Dark Web, if you know where to find it. Jack Peoples says, OK, good enough, but I must be discrete about this, and I'll contact the Sheriff to help protect you from many potential dangers, and I must advise you to keep this quiet until the evidence can be examined thoroughly by the Grand Jury formed from all 100 of us volunteer Justices of the Peace here in this county, is that OK Mrs. Doe? We also want to avoid a trial in the press, as you may know in history the criminals in government are often using the power they steal and command - under the color of law - to usurp the fact finding process known as the press, so we want to avoid poisoning the pool of petty jurors with lies, OK, is that OK Mrs. Doe? Mrs. Doe asks if the Sherriff can be trusted. Jack Peoples replies with yes, and she - the lady Sherriff - has a lot of potential helpers as she is fully aware of what Posse Commitatus actually means, she can deputize everyone, including the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, and all the police forces, and Highway Patrol in this county. She can also ask for help from the Sherriff in the neighboring counties, and we can also ask for help from Sheriffs in other independent States volunteering to join this Federation. We can ask for help from U.S. Marshalls too. All who are familiar with the true common law can help, all those suffering from deception, like, perhaps, the governor John Smith, well, you get out of what you nourish don't you Mrs. Doe? I'm very sorry for your loss, Mrs. Doe, and before this can happen again, we will move along swiftly. Keep in MIND please: 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 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: These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. Jane Doe takes a common law lawful accusation to another member of the people at large NOT TO ONE OF THE CRIMINALS HIRED TO PROTECT THE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION. The criminal organization USURPED the federation in 1789, and they did so first with the Judiciary Act of 1789. In place of common law was placed a counterfeit version of law, so as to deceive, based upon a common legal fiction. http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp41-43B The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . . Those are the words of Richard Henry Lee (according to some sources) who was the 6th President of The United States of American in Congress Assembled BEFORE the usurpation of 1787/89.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 19th, 2017 10:59 am |
|
27th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The purpose of offering the modern day fictional scenario of how Jane Doe gains access to true common law due process in America was to highlight a goal by which tools are employed by people to reach for, and gain, use, employ, and then work toward their goal, using the tool, and do so expediently. If a hammer is needed to hammer a nail into a board, someone is then going to look for a hammer, get one, and then the nail can be hammered into the board. If someone is told a lie, and someone believes the lie, that a hammer is a hand grenade, then someone wanting to hammer a nail into a board is someone looking for, finding, and then employing a hand grenade to hammer the nail into the board. What is going to happen in that scenario whereby the tool has been counterfeited?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 19th, 2017 11:42 am |
|
28th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Common law is stare decisis - case law. That is the way that it is. Therefore it is the common law. Usage and custom, usage and custom... The Credit River Money Decision is a sample of real life 1968 Minnesota jury formation like you say. There is a big drama around it too recently with the clerk of the township. You describe it in a fictional scenario because nobody actually does that. Attachment: Credit River Money Decision.pdf (Downloaded 21 times)
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 19th, 2017 03:50 pm |
|
29th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The following appears to be a dictatorial edict: "Common law is stare decisis - case law. That is the way that it is." That, again, is absent any moral value, quality, worth, measure, and it explains nothing other than an unclear reference to record keeping, and a possible employment of records kept, for an ambiguous, unstated, goal. Then, seemingly contrary to the expression of ambiguous fact, in edict form as far as I can tell, is a contrary statement, contrary to the previous edict like statement. "The Credit River Money Decision is a sample of real life 1968 Minnesota jury formation like you say." Thanks for that, I'll look into it. I have volunteered for Jury Duty twice. One case went to trial. The other case involved a Judge overruling the demand by the prosecutor during voir dire proceedings to censor me. Then apparently both "lawyers" (BAR members: foreign corporate agents) wanted me censored, removed, which was the case in that case: I was asked to leave, the judge caved in on the requests of both foreign corporate agents. Common law, the moral process where volunteers volunteer for mutual defense of all, is not what it once was, so the claim of stare decisis doesn't pass muster very well, as the case law of cases that exemplify efficient, expedient, effective, defense of all appears to have vanished, while the remaining "history" in records kept, and used now, are examples of failures to defend all. How about the much too late trial of the conspiracy murder of Martin Luther King Jr? Can that case serve when employing stare decisis and case law? Don't wait 60 years for trial by the country to determine that the government is guilty of conspiracy murder, good lesson learned well? Where are the indictments, presentments, and true bills for whoever was (and is) conspiring to murder innocent people while the conspiring murderers are occupying so called government office and wielding so called government power now that it has been officially determined that the government is, in fact, guilty of conspiracy murder? That is a very interesting finding of fact in that Credit River Money Decision. So now, having that established as fact, can we return to real (accurately valuable) money in this (former) Federation of independent states? Also, where are the indictments, presentments, and true bills issued from common law justices of the peace, having formed grand juries, to hold the money frauds - under the color of law no less - to account for their crimes?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 19th, 2017 11:09 pm |
|
30th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
It is called precedent. The district and appellate judges can only rule on precedent.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jan 20th, 2017 11:34 am |
|
31st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In theory the concept fails to account for the natural facts of life, and in practice the theory is proven false, so the idea, in reality, is called summary justice, which is just another word for crime, which is again crime perpetrated under the color of law. I've offered the American adaptation (which could be considered - theoretically - a ruling by all the moral people themselves based on the precedent set by all the moral English people themselves, and the precedent set by all the moral Saxon people themselves, with their adaptive version of common law in English language, and legem terrae in Latin, and who knows which term was use by the Saxons, or whoever set the original precedent before the Saxons) clearly documented (now a precedent itself) in the First Congressional Record here: 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.” All the (moral) people defending themselves with the common law in England was a precedent set by all the (moral) people defending themselves with the common law in America too: copy cats, adding local concerns so as to adapt to new realities on planet Earth. Of course some of the people in America, and therefore some of the representatives in Congress, were criminals working their crime scenes - working their victims by victimizing their targeted victims: injuring them - so what they (the criminals) claim to agree to - with their deceptive words - is one thing, and what they actually plan on perpetrating - with malice aforethought - is typically the opposite thing: process not static thing. Instead of maintaining voluntary association among equals, securing sanctuary from crimes perpetrated by individuals or groups, including groups perpetrating crimes under the color of law, by finding facts through trial by jury, according to the common law as it was in England, and at is was then in America too, instead of doing the right, moral, thing, the criminals, as a RULE, lie, so as to cheat, so as to steal, so as to rob, so as to rape, so as to maim, so as to plunder, so as to torture, so as to enslave, and so as to murder, and even so as to mass murder, and they won't stop there either, they insist, again as a rule, and a rule of nature, they insist upon destroying all life, wherever, and whenever, life can be murdered out of existence, and when they take over moral governments, with moral processes of all holding all to an accurate accounting with trial by jury, in courts of moral conscience, those criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law claim that whatever they do is legal because they say so. An offer repeated: It is called precedent. The district and appellate judges can only rule on precedent. What is it? This message, this offer of meaning, with this offer of words, is intended to accomplish a goal - theoretically, or presumably - and that goal appears to be such that power is transferred from all the moral people to a select group of criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law whereby the criminal group claims to offer all the moral people the one, and only, method of voluntary mutual defense possible, a gift perhaps, given by the criminal group to all the moral people, because the criminal group promises to be benevolent about their criminal group power to control, to enslave (and remove morality from) all the people all the time. Out goes voluntary association of all the moral people for mutual defense, and in place is placed a counterfeit version whereby rule by criminal means is enforced absolutely because that is the natural course of rule by criminal means. That proof was offered by Thomas Jefferson, that poof of the enemies of morality, the enemies therefore of rule of law (common law with trial by jury), that proof of the enemies being among us, in the original, grass-roots, moral founding of a voluntary mutual defense association, known as a federation of independent states UNDER common law trial by jury, and proof of the enemies among us after the forming of the voluntary mutual defense association, was the USURPATION of the original voluntary mutual defense association, UNDER common law with trial by jury, was the USURPATION known as The Dirty Compromise, also known as Monarchy, also known as Despotism, also known as Consolidation, also known as Monopoly, also known as Tyranny, also known as Nationalism, also known as Secret Proceedings of the Federal Convention: http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up Page 13 Luther Martin "One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished." The Nationalists, the "One party," is described by Thomas Jefferson here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ "The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. 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." Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h33t.html "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: 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 had 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." That is a confession. Crimes against nature itself are perpetrated by some of the so called founders as the true Federation was founded in response to British criminal War of Aggression. Here in the first congress again: 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: A previous precedent was the Roman War of Aggression perpetrated upon the people of England, whereupon the Saxon's moved into England and brought with them trial by jury according to the established (established by precedent?) process of processing accusations of wrongdoing, fact finding through discovery of inculpatory or exculpatory, evidence, and trial by the country in courts of conscience. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/ That is not an English Summary Justice court, not an English Admiralty Court, not an English Exchequer Court, not an English Equity Court, not one of the King's Courts. 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. Why is that naturally understandable as facts pertinent to the matter? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp 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. If it were determined as factual, in something remotely similar to a court of conscience, according to the common law in America, that the criminal government run central banking monopoly syndicate is creating POWER TO PURCHASE out of nothing but their imaginations - legal fictions - and therefore that fact becomes, by that process, a lawful fact, according to you, or me, or the whole country of moral people, then, reasonably, logically, understandably, the next step is to accuse the worst offenders of that crime before more victims of that crime are victimized by those - worst - criminals who are perpetrating crimes (like conspiracy murder) under the color of law. But this has happened (precedent) before, whereby the criminals have taken over (moral) government. http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm 9.2 - Escalation http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033 In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right. 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: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/ That is not an English common law court, that is not an English Summary Justice Court, that is not a voluntary defender of the moral right to exist in peaceful liberty on trial, that is an accused member of a gang of criminal aggressors on trial in something other than an English court run as you say: It is called precedent. The district and appellate judges can only rule on precedent. Who judges what? Who judges if an accusation against a (criminal or false) government official is a valid (moral) reason to offer the accused their trial by the country in a court of conscience? 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. What is supposed to happen (according to precedent) when the government is found guilty of forgery, treason, fraud, and conspiracy murder, and there is plenty of inculpatory evidence in the public record no less, that the government is guilty of slavery, including pedophile slavery? http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. Why is there no trial by jury case involving an accused member of (so called) government involving pedophile murder, or the wanton, willful, and with malice aforethought, consuming of children for fun or profit? If there was one, would the charge be watered down to something like "minor endangerment"? On the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight, and at divers days and times, as well before as after, at the city of Philadelphia, in the county aforesaid, with force and arms, did falsely and traiterously take a commission or commissions from the king of Great Britain, and then and there, with force and arms did falsely and treacherously also take a commission or commissions from general Sir William Howe, then and there acting under the said king of Great Britain, and under the authority of the same king, to wit, a commission to watch over and guard the gates of the city of Philadelphia, by the said Sir William Howe, erected and set up for the purpose of keeping and maintaing the possession of the said city, and of shutting and excluding the faithful and liege inhabitants and subjects of this State and of the United States from the said city: And then and there also maliciously and traiterously, with a great multitude of traitors and rebels, against the said Commonwealth, (whose names are as yet unkown to the jurors) being armed and arrayed in a hostile manner, with force and arms did falsely and traiterously assemble and join himself against this Commonwealth, and then and there, with force and arms, did falsely and traiterously, and in a warlike and hostile manner, array and dispole himself against this Commonwealth; and then and there, in pursuance and execution of such his wicked and traiterous intentions and purposes aforesaid, did falsely and traiterously prepare, order, wage and levy a public and cruel war against this Commonwealth; then and there committing and perpetrating a miserable and cruel slaughter of and amongst the faithful and liege inhabitants thereof; and then and there did, with force and arms, falsely and traiterously aid and assist the king of Great Britian, being an enemy at open war against this State, by joining his armies, to wit, his army under the command of general Sir William Howe, then actually invading this State; and then and there maliciously and traiterously, (with divers other Traitors to the jurors aforesaid unknown,) with force and arms, did combine, plot and conspire to betray this State and the United States of America into the hands and power of the king of Great Britian, being a foreign enemy to this State and to the United States of America, at open war against the same; and then and there did, with force and arms, maliciously and traiterously give and send intelligence to the same enemies for that purpose, against the duty of his allegiance, against the form of the act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.'
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 21st, 2017 01:09 am |
|
32nd Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
In theory the concept fails to account for the natural facts of life, and in practice the theory is proven false, so the idea, in reality, is called summary justice, which is just another word for crime, which is again crime perpetrated under the color of law. I am not sure where you are going with that. The image I showed you from the Colorado constitution describes how district judges cannot practice law. That is to say, they cannot create opinions on their own. They must conform to the common law as it is laid down by precedent. If they wander from the conformity with common law, or start practicing law from the bench, then it can be overturned on appeal. This gives the judge a bad reputation so it is best to stay disciplined. You seem to be involved in a war. I said that the war has ended with taking the Trading with the Enemy Act out of the Bankers' Code.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 21st, 2017 10:13 am |
|
33rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Thank you for explaining in greater detail the intended meaning of your message. The intended meaning of my message (not war with deception, threat, and aggressive violence but certainly a form of competition with words) still follows. Example A: "That is to say, they cannot create opinions on their own. They must conform to the common law as it is laid down by precedent." That is a message. My reply to that message: "In theory the concept fails to account for the natural facts of life, and in practice the theory is proven false, so the idea, in reality, is called summary justice, which is just another word for crime, which is again crime perpetrated under the color of law." There is, in your message, no reason, no morality, no understanding, no value, no leadership other than naked dictatorship. People A in history act a specific way for specific reasons, and these reasons may be good or evil, and these actions may be nurturing, defensive, and productive, or these actions may be poisonous, cancerous, offensive, and destructive, but the fact of the matter is that these people in history (who can be called People A) acted in a demonstrable, on record, manner. That is precedent. People B, now alive, while People A are now deceased, issue an edict of absolute enforcement, whereby injury, punishment, banishment, and other consequences enumerated, will be set in motion targeting anyone caught stepping out of the lines drawn by People A in the recorded precedent. That is a second precedent. What happens if the first precedent is the use of children for food and a form of entertainment such as pedophilia, or other tortures, which is entertaining to some people in history, now, and most likely in the future: food and entertainment are forms of profit, gaining profit from children is enslavement? What happens if the first precedent is effective, expedient, voluntary, moral, mutual defense against all people in every place, and every time, within the boundaries of human inefficiency and error, but the record was falsified during the process of preserving the record of the precedent set, and instead of following the example that worked to voluntarily preserve and nurture life on earth, the record being followed is the opposite actions that lead to hell on earth and the extinction of all life? That is why my message in response to your message is intended to be conveyed to you. The record of what is, or is not, precedent is demonstrably counterfeited, a few examples may suffice to illustrate the point. Magna Carte (claims of ownership of people by a special interest group, while mentioning under duress that the law maintained by the people themselves is the common law) Declaration of Independence (doctored, edited from the first draft, removing the indictment against slavery as a crime against nature itself) Constitution of 1787 (making slavery legal, usurping by deception a voluntary federation for mutual defense under the common law) Judiciary Act (creating a criminal power known as summary justice to overrule voluntary mutual defense in courts of conscience in trial by the country also known as the common law) Naturalization Act (enforcing a criminal accounting process by which the newly made slaves are enumerated) Alien and Sedition Act (dictating the thoughts and words tolerated by the slave masters and punishing anyone daring to think or say otherwise: destroying moral conscience) People A, in that case were people who volunteered to defend each other against British criminal invaders perpetrating war of aggression upon the defenders, and they set a precedent (that was already set in England before Magna Carta) in America whereby the common law (trial by jury in courts of conscience as the law of the land, where trial by the country is the process by which law is enforced) is above law acted out by individual men in individual groups, including the precedent of organizing 13 separate, independent, states voluntarily joined into one voluntary mutual defense association or federation. People B, in that case, are the falsely named "federalist" party members, who altered the record by counterfeiting the voluntary record and put in place the involuntary, dictatorial, record, so as to enable dictatorship above common law. That is why your message is replied to with my message, and my message is not just my message, because I say so, it is a message backed up by the messages offered by Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Lysander Spooner, court cases during the voluntary federation, and the record of the first congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled. Your message is backed up with a history of two opposing forces recording their deeds in many forms: Group A: moral people defending each other voluntarily in time and place according to their power to do so which includes their own power of moral conscience. Group B: immoral people agreeing to cooperate with anyone who will reach the goal of enslaving weaker people in time and place within their power to do so, and this group claims, falsely, that they are the law, which means specifically that these people claim that the law agreed upon by the people who are targeted for enslavement IS NOT THE LAW. If it was a precedent in common law that justices of the peace, known as magistrates, constituted the pool from which a common law grand jury was formed, as Thomas Jefferson claims in his notes on the state of Virginia, and these people are the most honest and discrete people that can be found and encouraged to volunteer in the common law county, and these justices command jurisdiction civil and criminal, and these volunteers work without compensation (interest), then that precedent may actually reason out as a moral method of voluntary mutual defense of innocent people who are routinely injured by criminals who fraudulently command criminal public office, or the criminals defended effectively against might not be in any public office. The war (so called) with words is the moral power that is morally above the war perpetrated by criminal aggressors whose type of war is demonstrably - aggressively - violent, destructive, and leads to hell on earth: but it pays well (supposedly) in the short term. Is that not a message worth acknowledging? I said that the war has ended with taking the Trading with the Enemy Act out of the Bankers' Code. Is that something done, by you, in time and place, according to precedent set by someone else, some other time, and some other place, or is it not according to precedent A, or precedent B, and what is likely to be the precedent followed by those people who prefer to keep their power to enslave innocent people with their false precedents that include the falsification of the federation that turned the federation into a criminal organization (syndicate?)? What is the next step to reach the goal you have in mind? If the war has ended what are some of the forms of money that are replacing the fraudulent money? The power of falsehood is powerless now in money markets? Where can I get a loan and what is the interest rate?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 21st, 2017 03:43 pm |
|
34th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
You cannot fight your way off the battlefield.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 21st, 2017 04:56 pm |
|
35th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Code? What is the meaning of that coded message? Is the meaning of that coded message (if it is a coded message, not just ambiguous: it can mean anything) such that aggressive violence, aggressive deception, is "fighting," in that context? As in: You cannot aggressively attack targeted innocent victims in the effort to avoid aggressively attacking targeted innocent victims? Is the message: might does not make right? I can guess a few more possible meanings. The Credit River Money Decision (a demonstrable fact of a demonstrable matter written as if the fact requires an official "decision" on the matter) is worth something to me, thanks. Do you mind if I link the download link for that Credit River Money Decision file?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 22nd, 2017 12:42 am |
|
36th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
If you try it you just move the battlefield. The Constitution is suspended in an actual theater of war. The War is over. Please explore my claim in the five-minute video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_hixqP24lE People on http://www.nextdoor.com are saying some great things about Lawful Money Trust: Denise E. from Alta Vista; "They have the most advanced knowledge of "real" law and truth about what is actually going on in the financial world WITH SOLUTIONS too." keith-dolan from Nolan Hills; "This is a great way to protect you assets and I highly recommend..." Michael R. from Fairhope; "Lawful Money Trust is a "how to" education for all who are interested in retaining the full value and use of labor and heritage as well as defending the liberty of future generations." Russ W. from Reynolds Corners; "Lawful Money Trust is the most complete information about truth concerning a host of realities for folks who want to be responsible for their own lives and the correct interactions with all others." What is really amazing about Nextdoor dot COM is how these Recommendations amplify visibility of Lawful Money Trust dot COM across America. From just nine Recommends LMT has reached 175 neighborhoods and a steadily growing 22,175 homes. So please click this Recommend link to get started knowing who your neighbors are and joining in the fun of a private network that is geographically centered around your home. Yard sale items, security alerts, shopping local for repairs, remodeling etc... https://nextdoor.com/pages/lawful-money-trust-raleigh-nc/recommend/ I do not mind. Mi CRMD is su CRMD. That was overturned by the attorneys in their forums. But the truth is true.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 25th, 2017 09:59 am |
|
37th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Question: Is it true what is said in the following quote? "8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 25th, 2017 10:13 am |
|
38th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I am sure it is true, because it is found in the Bible, is it not? That sure sounds biblical. Let me hear your interpretation and why you present it here.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 26th, 2017 11:24 am |
|
39th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Source: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1102&forum_id=24 Proverbs 1:8-19 "8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors." My interpretation: Life is worth living when life is good, fulfilling, moral, happy, rewarding, satisfying, and prosperous. People, as living organisms know this intuitively, as part of their genetic construction, and genetics is stored history of life forms: how they are built, how they must act in order to survive (God's will, of you will). When living things think and act in ways that preserve life (moral thoughts and actions) and when living things think and act in ways that make life better, more valuable, improving the reason to live, those thought and actions tend to add positive memories, experience, knowledge, wisdom, to the whole of living memory, even adding to the genetic make-up in a positive, improved, process: adaptive. When, on the other hand, thoughts and actions cause life to turn from good, moral, productive, life sustaining, life improving, reproductive, results, and when thoughts and actions turn toward destruction, the individual life form caught on that path becomes self-destructive in mind and body while destroying other life forms. The natural course of life, to live, to reproduce, to prosper, to produce happy life, to give life value, to make life more, and more, and more valuable and therefore worth living, is turned into an unnatural desire, even an unnatural greed for death, destruction, misery, and extinction for the individual, and for all life. The reason I ask that question in this forum topic has to do with the growth of nihilism, necrophilia, and crime organizations as a phenomenon that can be accurately measured, understood, and defended against effectively, efficiently, and expediently in time and place. Do not nurture the criminal organizations, meaning do not add to them, to not give them false credit, do not give them power, do not contact them, to not transfer good, moral, productive, prosperous purchasing power - earned morally - to them, because that purchasing power is then employed by them to maintain their machines of destruction, and because bits and pieces of the power to improve life (the knowledge pieces) are destroyed little by little or all at once: rendering the participants in organized crime powerless to defend themselves without that power of moral knowledge. Adding to the evil powers (giving them moral and material support: power) destroys everyone, because the natural order (God's will) is such that crime (immoral actions) destroy everyone eventually, including the criminals whose criminal minds believe that they (the criminals) are gaining (improving life) by their actions, otherwise they would not, as a rule, perpetrate those actions, in other words they are fooled into a belief in falsehood without question, and their criminal actions end up taking away from them their capacity (their power) to know better. Those are the people who may yet turn back from evil, while purely evil people, on the other hand, have no capacity (power) to improve life, at all, their thoughts and actions are immoral to the core, and they are not even human, they think and act so as to destroy, including thoughts and actions designed to destroy themselves, which is the result of either genetic mutation at birth, or the end result of a life spent nurturing the evil path. If, as the record proves beyond reasonable doubt (confessions confessed by the perpetrators themselves), that the so called government of the United States, including the parts of the government claimed as the (false claim) law of the land, and including the criminal government power over money (purchasing power), is criminal, then dealing with it, as if it were not criminal, is aiding it, abetting it, lending it moral support (claiming it is legitimate), and lending it material support (economic power - purchasing power), then doing so, is a choice that places the individual on the evil path of self destruction, and the destruction of other people, and the destruction of life as a whole. If there is any error in my thinking on this subject matter then I can appreciate clear, concise, information that exposes that error in my thinking.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jan 26th, 2017 04:05 pm |
|
40th Post |
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:Source: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1102&forum_id=24 I would not call it error; more like momentum. I have been unresponsive because it feels like you express a premise, and then expect me to respond but only after acknowledging that your premise is correct. So here is my Presumption: The War is over.  It began on April 15, 1861 and ended in 2016. The Constitution is suspended in the actual theater of war so please enjoy the restoration of balance of powers as intended. They do not make life perfect. But that is the way America is supposed to function and now you have the opportunity to try it out in your own life.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 11:07 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Lawful Money Trust | Top |
