| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/The Judiciary Act of 1789 has a description of admiralty process on Page 77 including, “…saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it,” |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
"My opinion (your opinion expressed to me) is that existing evidence proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was a criminal act: a counterfeit version of law." This stirs my curiosity. Before I make any assumptions... What are you saying? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I am taking information that works like puzzle pieces into consideration so as to build a crime scene knowable as Usurpation. To be more specific the crime scene was the 1787 through 1789 usurpation of the American common law, which was an American version of the English common law, both were known as the law of the land. Here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ This: 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.” End of Quote Before that are pieces of the puzzle that are offered by Lysander Spooner in his Essay titled Trial by Jury and then references to Trial by Jury by Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia, but for now the above establishes the law of the land at the time the organic (grass roots) formation of American (expressly not British) government was formed. In the same reference linked above is the following (Elliot's Debates: Congressional Records): This: That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn: End of Quote I am skipping past the important facts concerning Slavery and the treatment of pacifists such as Quakers: which can be referenced later, along with Lysander Spooner and Thomas Jefferson. Before the American Revolution (return to rule of law, not usurpation of law) a system known as summary justice was in force so as to fraudulently extort wealth from Americans (and all Colonies of the criminal British) and in so doing enslave Americans. Those Courts claims (usurpation) absolute authority over any fact, including moral questions asking for facts. 2 Examples, proof beyond reasonable doubt, if there ever was a true application of the common law due process (the law of the land) which was trial by the country, is the following: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/ Note the date: Respublica v. Abraham Carlisle Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia September Sessions, 1778 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/ Note the very important distinction between Grand Jury jurisdiction (responsibility) and Petty Jury jurisdiction (responsibility), and keep in mind, please, that trial by jury according to the common law was the working method of removing individual power of deciding what is or is not a fact in a lawful matter (this is known as dictatorship when taking to the logical extreme: individual decision power over law) and instead of dictatorship of an individual the whole country (as in trial by the country) is represented by the petty jurors and their decisions must be unanimous and without unanimity (of the whole country) the presumed to be innocent accused is acquitted by whoever is present in the jury to represent the whole country on the side of acquittal in that case. 1 U.S. 236 (Dall.) Respublica v. Shaffer Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia February Sessions, 1788: Here: Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. End of Quote The first major usurpation that occurred in America was the usurpation that occurred in Massachusetts whereby that usurpation was claimed (by the victors of the usurpation) to be Shays's Rebellion. Explained in fewest words possible (in my opinion) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY From this work in book form: https://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701 In other words (fewer words yet, but not as much detail used to help convince someone unaware, or ignorant, but smart enough, or willing enough, to see the facts as they exist in the matter) the people in Massachusetts allowed the usurpation in Massachusetts to happen in their countries courts, and when the criminals took over they took over by taking over the courts, by removing, nullifying, or ignoring common law jurisdiction, and placing above common law jurisdiction the criminals place their summary justice courts. Example: http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539282.pdf I won't quote from that, not now, but there is a very important history lesson offered by the accused in the Appendix. An explanation offered by the 6th President of the United States of American in Congress Assembled Richard Henry Lee is found here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp41-43B This: 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. . . . End of Quote Now please understand the situation in Massachusetts at the time of the events that are now falsely known as Shays's Rebellion in our false government run school systems, even if said events were mentioned at all to posterity. The people in Massachusetts failed to take the steps that were failed to be taken before the Revolutionary War and these same steps are our failures now. Those having too much propensity to resort to violence do so, and they inspire others to do so, too quickly. In Massachusetts (and later in Pennsylvania after the usurpation of 1789) the people failed to maintain their own people's courts, as exemplified in the Respublica cases referenced above, and instead of employing common law due process, in any case (including false debt cases), and instead of maintaining the law of the land, the Solution agreed upon by the people (representing the rebels is the American Revolution, the Massachusetts rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion) was to ask the usurpers to judge their own actions according to the authority stolen by the usurpers, to go through the common law process of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. What do the criminals who take over government always do when asked of they (the criminals) will stop being criminals? The criminals, with almost no exceptions, attack the messengers, censor, and crush those who question the criminal authority. What was missing in the Revolution that started in 1775, in Massachusetts in 1787, in Pennsylvania in 1794, and now, is understandable from the following context: From here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp QUOTE: Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. End of Quote At the time of the effort to return to rule of law (Rebellion so called) in Massachusetts in 1787 the Federation was a Federation as explained in the First Congress by the representatives forming the First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, which was an authority UNDER rule of law: common law adapted by Americans. Also in the First Congress is this: QUOTE: Congress proceeded, the same day, to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported, and laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. 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. The debates, having taken up the greater parts of the 2d, 3d, and 4th days of July, were, on the evening of the last, closed; the Declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson. End of Quote Also from Thomas Jefferson is this: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Coriginal-rough-draught%E2%80%9D-declaration-independence-0 QUOTE: he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. End Quote Much more is understandable with the information concerning the Rebel (so called) forces in the South in battle with the aggressors (British) concerning the Slave population. The inculpatory evidence proving (beyond reasonable doubt) the criminal elements (individual criminals perpetrating a crime known as conspiracy treason) infiltrating the process of reforming rule of law, due process, trial by the country, known as the common law, is right there in the Congressional record confessed by Thomas Jefferson himself. During the usurpation are the following notes offered in the actual historical record: http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up Here: 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. End of Quote Explained here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp03 QUOTE: There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. End of Quote Soon after the Massachusetts effort to return to rule of law (failed in part for failing to maintain common law court jurisdiction) the self (false) labelled "Federalist Party" seized the crisis as another opportunity to criminally usurp common law, so as to place summary justice above the common law, so as then to subsidize slave labor by taxing the slaves, which was everyone, including the criminals themselves, because Rule by Criminal Means (deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence) enslaves everyone, which is a lesson offered by Christians following their religion. http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1102&forum_id=24 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." End of Quote That is enough for now, to answer the question with information offered and sourced above: The question again: "My opinion is that existing evidence proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was a criminal act: a counterfeit version of law." [me quoted by David Merrill] QUOTE: This stirs my curiosity. Before I make any assumptions... What are you saying? End of Quote It is not a coincidence (in my opinion) that the Judiciary ACT of 1789 was entered into the process of usurpation (a criminal ACT) before Amending the criminal (usurpation) Constitution of 1789 with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was, is, a record to set the record straight, to return to rule of law, and to turn away from Rule by Criminal Means. Independent Corroboration: A. http://unionstatesassembly.info/index.html B. http://freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Constitution%20-%20George%20Washington%20Jailer%20And%20Tax%20Collector..htm C. https://www.amazon.com/Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Epilogue-Revolution/dp/0195051912/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TMN41NCBVN7D2ANPYXWD D. https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037 E. http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033 F. http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm G. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Thomas-Jefferson-Notes-On-The-State-Of-Virginia.pdf H. http://www.robgagnon.net/JeffersonOnJudicialTyranny.htm I. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp QUOTE: The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal. End of Quote Summary Answer Attempt: The worst criminals are the worst because they do the most damage. Had rule of law worked as intended, a magistrate in a county would have all lawful power required to set in motion an accusation against a George Washington type criminal, or a Alexander Hamilton type criminal, or a George Bush type criminal, or a Hilary Clinton type criminal, meaning one of the worst criminals because failure to hold them to an accurate accounting (trial by the country) enables them to continue their evil work, no different then failing to hold a local con man to an accurate accounting, the range of destruction from local con man to treasonous conspirator is obvious with the body count of tortured dead people, and the number of slaves enslaved by the criminal in any case. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:I am taking information that works like puzzle pieces into consideration so as to build a crime scene knowable as Usurpation. To be more specific the crime scene was the 1787 through 1789 usurpation of the American common law, which was an American version of the English common law, both were known as the law of the land. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
[user=1] Summary Answer Attempt: The worst criminals are the worst because they do the most damage. Had rule of law worked as intended, a magistrate in a county would have all lawful power required to set in motion an accusation against a George Washington type criminal, or a Alexander Hamilton type criminal, or a George Bush type criminal, or a Hilary Clinton type criminal, meaning one of the worst criminals because failure to hold them to an accurate accounting (trial by the country) enables them to continue their evil work, no different then failing to hold a local con man to an accurate accounting, the range of destruction from local con man to treasonous conspirator is obvious with the body count of tortured dead people, and the number of slaves enslaved by the criminal in any case. Thank you. It is rare to cross paths with somebody who can articulate all that coherently. I found this symbol of Levi, being custodianship of the record, within Freemasonry, at the Mason Museum.  The Pope's (Bishop of Rome) has been there since 1213 - The Treaty of 1213. But you will already know that canon law has usurped divine law since the canon of (around) 326 AD. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/medieval.asp Curiously the Treaty of 1213 is no longer available on the Avalon Project? This always makes me so glad I grabbed it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYkU2eW1fNTVPSWs/view?usp=sharing I am not telling you to believe that the Pope owns everything. If you believe that my apparent assertions are nothing but an imagination disorder, then also believe that I hope you will sit back and read, and enjoy this as entertainment you will find nowhere else indeed! Looking around here, since 2006 there are only a couple hands full of registered users. Apparently there is a low adoption rate? There are readers though, and this is explosive in mental mind bomb form, through proper detonation. Melchizedek replaces Levi as the EMF (torroid) becomes unified. That is to say, as the Israelite and Gentile become blury, the law boundary gets fuzzy and the immediate problem is that usury (interest) becomes illegal by divine law - the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. So watch this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImSG9yTExab2JnU1E/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImalBQWHNUa1hsNk0/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImdUdjemZtckxwZm8/view?usp=sharing And try wrapping your mind around this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImb0lfRF9CdldvOTA/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImN00wbG14S1pzUHM/view?usp=sharing That is just some reading that I feel may prepare you for comprehending the construction of 1789. What I want you to ponder though, is the definition of common law. It is case law - stare decisis. The wisdom of the cases - their orders, judgments decrees and opinions were adopted from England. One could form and appeal and cite "authority" and appellate courts are forbidden to practice law. You allude to a petite jury and grand jury convolution in percieved authority. The county court can practice law but that trained attorney does not like his practice of law to be overturned and retried upon review (appeal). So he contemplates his utterances from this lower court, where he is allowed to practice law (oxymoron?) being appealed and compared by trained shepardizers of opinions before circuit justices - whose hands are bound. So who is higher? The clerk, keeper of the record is the "highest". A court of record has authority. A court not of record is a voluntary equity forum. This website and Thread is on my Favorites so I will be back here to develop this. Meanwhile consider that the Masons are Levi - the custodians and they were quite excited that I, Melchizedek had finally arrived to hear the truth about history, fact and law. Attachment: Treaty of 1213 clause.jpg (Downloaded 39 times) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I think that more than a few people, and more than a few groups of people, have endeavored to uncover some of the false, forgotten, and true history, including the employment of original documents (which is not easy to determine factually) and useful offers of subjective (but educated) opinions concerning those documents. Before I begin to follow the links offered in the previous post, I think it might be a good idea for me to offer up a possible piece of the puzzle that I found when I was contacting, and studying the work offered by, Frank O'Collins. Puzzle Piece: The SOURCE link is now broken, as Frank O'Collins and his work is now restricted access information. QUOTE: The deliberate modification of English to being not only a commercial language but the primary language of occult knowledge and usage was confirmed by the massive undertaking in the creation of the “Authorized Version” of the Bible also known as the King James Version and the KJB or KJV. A further one thousand (1,000) words were introduced into the English language out of approximately eight thousand (8,000) word forms used in the text. Most significantly, the use of the Persian word God / Gad as the public name for Sabaoth, also known as Satan was introduced to replace Yehovah (YHVH) of the Catholic Church since the 8th Century as the primary deity worshipped, making the Church of England the reformed Aryan (Persian) religion of Menes, later known as Judaism. End Quote The willful employment of deception is not news, but the scope or scale of deception from least destructive to most destructive deception is a matter of concern, and the above is entered into the public record as a puzzle piece to help when the goal is to accurately identify those examples of deception that move closer to the most destructive productions of deception produced by living, breathing - evil - people. If targeted victim's minds, targeted by evil people, can be controlled, so as to make otherwise independent, free, liberated, moral people think otherwise, to think in terms of blind obedience to falsehood without question, then said control, by whatever means, is an obvious motivator: thought set into action. Control (Rule) by Criminal Means fall into 3 categories: 1. Deception (targeting victims to gain power from victims, whereby power flows to criminals in tangible, accurately measureable ways) 2. Threat of aggressive violence 3. Aggressive violence (all measurable as transfers of power flowing in measurable ways from victim to criminal) There is also an intimate link between 1, 2, and 3 above, as understood, and vocalized, by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn SOURCE: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenitsyn-lecture.html QUOTE: We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. End of Quote The example worthy of note in the context of American Law (common law must also be defined accurately and I want to offer a competitive version of the original, organic, definition) of obvious, measurable, employment of deception, so as to accomplish criminal goals, is the change of meaning from Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense for Federation, turning that word up-side-down, to now mean the opposite meaning, whereby the new meaning of the word is blind obedience to falsehood without question for the victims, and absolute dictatorial power for the criminals. Moving to common law (and I do want to dive into the information offered, to then comment on that information), the source I find useful is Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner. SOURCE: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial02.html QUOTE: All writers agree that this means the common law.Thus, Sir Matthew Hale says: "The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terrae,as in the statute of Magna Carta,chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terrae;as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III., chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae,as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, "Nolurnus leqes Angliae mutari,"&c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni(the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. -, and de quo warranto,and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas,cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes." - 1 Hale's History of the Common Law, 128. Meaning: Everyone, without exception, where the exception to the rule are those who voluntarily except themselves (become outlaws by willful - with malice aforethought - independent choice) must agree unanimously to harm anyone else for any claimed wrongdoing by due process of law, in trials in courts of conscience, where representatives of the whole country must agree unanimously, so as to render the power of special interest groups, render the power of the majority, render the power of the minority, and render the power of the individual criminal, dictator, powerless at law, where said unanimity of the whole moral conscience (whatever that may be in any age of time) of the whole body of people are afforded that lawful power to set in motion redemption, remedy, or punishment = legem terrae = law of the land = trial by jury according to the common law = the common law = not a government separate from, divided from, the whole group of people in any jurisdiction anywhere. When did the common law knowable in those terms offered above (and offered extensively in the Essay by Lysander Spooner) turn up-side-down? The battle (I can re-find source material) to counterfeit the term Common Law, to turn the meaning up-side-down, has been a battle documented well enough. The first skirmishes in England were battles between the people's own common law on one side, and on the other side was a competitor known as Exchequer, Equity, Admiralty, Nisi Prius, Maritime, and other variations on the same Summary Justice theme. If the only working definition for Common Law is the up-side-down Summary Justice definition, perpetrated by criminal usurpers wearing Black Robes that potentially are traditional attire traceable to devil worshiping pedophile cannibals, then a new word for due process, trial by the country, in courts of conscience is demanded: for that process is not new, it is an ancient process handed down for many generations, and it is an adaptable process, meaning that it is competitive in the true sense of the word, not the false, aggressively violent, sense of the word: competition. Competition: better is found and employed until something better is found, and worse is acknowledged as such, and not employed until conditions may change and what was worse is now better. While on that subject of words having genuine, useful, organic, moral, accurate, agreed upon, meanings, on one hand, and on the other hand are the same original words employed so as to fool people into false belief in opposite meanings: good turned into evil - while on that subject - the word democracy ought to be added sooner, rather than allowing these words to confuse the transfer of information any further. So the list so far: Common Law a. Voluntary agreement of the whole number of people in cases of dispute concerning questions of law. b. Blind obedience to falsehood without question: dictatorship hidden under a fancy black robe. Federation a. Voluntary association of units of government, or states, for the mutual defense of independent people UNDER Rule of Law (common law or any other word meaning the same thing) b. Blind obedience to falsehood without question: Dictatorship Democracy For the record: SOURCE: http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html QUOTE: The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy. Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats. That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority. End of Quote The original meaning of the word democracy appears to have undergone similar treatment at the hands of people who willfully (and with malice aforethought) intend to subjugate victims under criminal rule by criminal means. Where once democracy meant rule by the whole number of people (a goal if not an actual accomplishment) has turned into so called Majority Rule. Knowing how that is done (turning rule by the whole number of people into rule by special interest criminals) is a step toward knowing how that is defended against expediently. I have work to do, so I'll need time (power is time and energy) to get that work done: before returning here again. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Thank you Joe.Common Law More simply - case law. The process calls the citation of cases "authority" and the justices of the appeals process are bound to "authority". The 'saving to suitors' clause' says - ...saving to suitors in all cases the right to a common law judgment, where the common law is competent to give it, Competence depends on bonding. One needs to be party to the contract, or Constitution. That is to say, to be a statesman. I am bonded - my Life, Estate and Sacred Honor. Attachment: approbation clause.jpg (Downloaded 38 times) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
My subjective opinion on authority of law is that truth (accurate perception, awareness, cognizance, understanding, recognition, knowledge, and employment of facts) is the authority if living organisms can find it, and then use it for defense, or making life worth living, and thereby ensuring survival of life. The obvious opposite of authority of law is falsehood, or the willful (with malice aforethought) employment of truth (accurate perception and employment of facts) to destroy life, to make life not worth living, and thereby ensure the end of life. If someone, Jesus for example, figures out a better way to reach closer toward the ideal of perfect knowledge, or absolute truth, or highest possible authority of law, then that example of life is worth something. Such as: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." I call that the law of agreement. Is it true, or is it false, that agreement is required in order to know a fact and therefore separate the fact from fiction whereby fiction hides the fact? If, as I've tried to explain, that the common law was, is, and always will be a method by which everyone agrees to acknowledge a fact, which means that no one disagrees with that acknowledgement of a fact, then so long will people have within their power a method of reaching the goal of acknowledging facts, at least to the extent that people are able to do so. Everyone agrees, and no on disagrees, and until someone disagrees, the fact is acknowledged as a fact within the power of awareness of people as a whole. Try that out with Matthew 7:12 please. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." I acknowledge a fact in those words, but I also acknowledge that those words can be misunderstood, by me, or by anyone, since I am unable to contact, question, and confirm my acknowledgement of what those words mean according to whoever acknowledges those words as factual words. I can try. I cannot ask Jesus; certainly not in person. Latin is useful at this point: When I say "in person" I mean that I am an individual perceptive being living in time and space, and I am not suggesting any other form of entity, such as a legal fiction, or separate entity standing in place of me, myself, and I. Not 3, just 1, just me, a living, individual, and therefore responsible, and therefore accountable, being of one. Speaking of Bonding (before returning to my need to find agreement with the words known as Matthew 7:12): SOURCE: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm QUOTE:_____________________________________ 9.2 - Escalation Further: A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment). When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists. "I found this insight on the UBC to be very perspicuous and most useful to the Patriot movement, but like all laws, it is useful only to the one(s) who use it and enforce it." Remember the etymon at the tine of law's creation and The Federalist Papers. (Read and discern until it's perspicuous.) "Prior law governs always." "Prior etymons govern always." "To act in pro se fashion in a court of law or equity is to profess in law, thus, casting yourself to drift away from logic and into the arms of a fool." _______________________________ End of Quote The term used in Latin for someone representing themselves as a free, independent, living being, in liberty, as far as I can understand, known, agree to use as fact, is propria persona. So returning to a less than perfect meeting with Jesus, is a meeting with someone other than Jesus, someone other than me (propria persona me) to seek agreement as to the meaning of the words offered in Matthew 7:12. To me it is the law as I understand the law of connections between living beings known as humans. The way we are constructed as cooperative beings, as beings constructed in such a way as to be very powerful beings when we cooperate, by finding agreement, by avoiding wasting power on disagreement, is a way in which there is a right way that aught to be our agreed upon way to treat each other, and there is a demonstrably wrong way that we ought to agree to deal with each other. A. Right way, where we all agree, and there is no disagreement. B. Some of us agree, such as wolves agreeing to eat the sheep, where we are not wolves or sheep, we are all human beings, but the twisting of words tends to water down, or disguise, or hide, or falsify, the actual willful intent, with malice aforethought, for some of us to conspire to destroy, or consume the others of us. In A there is the principle of agreement at work, for all of us, all the time, where we employ A. In B there is the principle of agreement only at work with group B, where group B is historically known as criminals, or outlaws, and why use 2 words when 1 word keeps things simple? So the how to of how to actually connect more than 1 individual to another individual, and maintain law power, is a process that is worth labelling with an agreeable label. If Common Law (still on the books in the Bill of Rights in America) is not agreeable, then what is? Interesting things worth connecting to find any truth (agreement) in the five seemingly unrelated processes (not static things, rather dynamic processes) listed: SOURCE: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html Process 1 (1 thing to connect by agreement to other things, potentially): QUOTE: 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. End of Quote Process 2 Same Source Quote: Even when laws were made at the time of a parliament, they were made in the name of the king alone. Sometimes it was inserted in the laws, that they were made with the consent or advice of the bishops, barons, and others assembled; but often this was omitted. Their consent or advice was evidently a matter of no legal importance to the enactment or validity of the laws, but only inserted, when inserted at all, with a view of obtaining a more willing submission to them on the part of the people. The style of enactment generally was, either "The King wills and commands," or some other form significant of the sole legislative authority of the king. The king could pass laws at any time when it pleased him. The presence of a parliament was wholly unnecessary. Hume says, "It is asserted by Sir Harry Spelman, as an undoubted fact, that, during the reigns of the Norman princes, every order of the king, issued with the consent of his privy council, had the full force of law."[7] And other authorities abundantly corroborate this assertion.[8] The king was, therefore, constitutionally the government; and the only legal limitation upon his power seems to have been simply the Common Law, usually called "the law of the land," which he was bound by oath to maintain; (which oath had about the same practical value as similar oaths have always had.) This "law of the land" seems not to have been regarded at all by many of the kings, except so far as they found it convenient to do so, or were constrained to observe it by the fear of arousing resistance. But as all people are slow in making resistance, oppression and usurpation often reached a great height; and, in the case of John, they had become so intolerable as to enlist the nation almost universally against him; and he was reduced to the necessity of complying with any terms the barons saw fit to dictate to him. End of Quote Process 3 Same Source Quote: Under the Saxon laws, fines, payable to the injured party, seem to have been the common punishments for all offences. Even murder was punishable by a fine payable to the relatives of the deceased. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. When a criminal was unable to pay his One, his relatives often paid it for him. But if it were not paid, he was put out of the protection of the law, and the injured parties, (or, in the case of murder, the kindred of the deceased,)were allowed to inflict such punishment as they pleased. And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. Afterwards the custom grew up of exacting fines also to the king as a punishment for offences. [26] And this latter was, doubtless, the usual punishment at the time of Magna Carta, as is evidenced by the fact that for many years immediately following Magna Carta, nearly or quite all statutes that prescribed any punishment at all, prescribed that the offender should "be grievously amerced," or "pay a great fine to the king," or a "grievous ransom," - - with the alternative in some cases (perhaps understood in all) of imprisonment, banishment, or outlawry, in case of non-payment. End of Quote Process 4 SOURCE: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm QUOTE: A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on the question of whether an organization could be set up to legally announce that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital cash. I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have no information that could help the authorities find the person responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death. It was not my intention to provide such a "tough nut to crack" by arguing the general case, claiming that a person who hires a hit man is not guilty of murder under libertarian principles. Obviously, the problem with the general case is that the victim may be totally innocent under libertarian principles, which would make the killing a crime, leading to the question of whether the person offering the money was himself guilty. On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under libertarian principles. The organization set up to manage such a system could, presumably, make up a list of people who had seriously violated the NAP, but who would not see justice in our courts due to the fact that their actions were done at the behest of the government. Associated with each name would be a dollar figure, the total amount of money the organization has received as a contribution, which is the amount they would give for correctly "predicting" the person's death, presumably naming the exact date. "Guessers" would formulate their "guess" into a file, encrypt it with the organization's public key, then transmit it to the organization, possibly using methods as untraceable as putting a floppy disk in an envelope and tossing it into a mailbox, but more likely either a cascade of encrypted anonymous remailers, or possibly public-access Internet locations, such as terminals at a local library, etc. End of Quote Process 5 SOURCE https://www.rt.com/news/bitcoin-assassination-market-anarchist-983/ QUOTE: ‘Assassination market’: Bernanke tops ‘kill-list’ in crowd-sourced bitcoin fundraiser for wannabe hitmen End of Quote Comments: The law is such that the law remains the law even when people fail to agree with it. If all the people agree to blindly believe in falsehood without question, living lives of desperation under Rule by Criminal Means, then trial by jury, or trial in courts of no-conscience, or trial by the country, is immoral, and everyone agrees to seek, and obtain, revenge, or other goals other than redemption, restitution, and offers of sanctuary, protection, defense, against Rule by Criminal Means, and blind obedience to falsehood without question. If everyone but one (King John for example) agrees to abide by law, and this one King John inspires one other, now there are two outlaws, to murder King John, then was it agreed upon, in common law due process, that the murderer could return to sanctuary by paying the fine, because King John was unredeemable, an out-law by choice, an out-law by nature, as a Mad Dog would be unable to agree to abide by law, as would a hurricane, as would be any natural disaster including sociopaths, psychopaths, or other living things that have no capacity to choose to agree to remain inside the law, within their power to do so, as they have no power to do so? What happens in case law when the jury (the country as a whole) agrees to murder each other for fun and profit? So much for case law? |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
A portion of history to understand about the 'saving to suitors' clause' is found in the Footnotes about consular authority. So upon my signing the Declaration (above) for the Bond - Life, Estate and Sacred Honor - I move in statecraft as the statesman.  Look how the chief "judge" (no oath) published it from chambers without saying anything. You do not need to follow in my footsteps though. I simply hope you will believe that FDR's War on the Great Depression was always illusion. Now the Government is no longer deluding you into thinking there is war. TRUMP is a businessman, not a politician. Attachment: saving to suitors state embassy.JPG (Downloaded 36 times) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
When I had, and still have, agreed with the information you offer, it is done so with an expressible understanding that when I find disagreement, I can offer that disagreement with a willful effort to convey accurate meaning concerning why I disagree. If, for example, there was written into some document (an offer from someone, or some group, to someone else, or some other group), such as The Judiciary Act of 1789, where the offer, in writing, gives, affords, allows, accepts, agrees to POWER retained by the others, such as a POWER to hold anyone, anytime, to account for charges against them, as if everyone were under this POWER, and everyone commanded this POWER equally, then said offer, in writing, ought to be understood clearly by more than one individual. The problem I have with the Judiciary Act of 1789 is that it was fraudulently acted upon by the creators of it, and then the deception in it enabled crimes to be perpetrated under the color of law, despite the half truth of the document containing a clause, or two, that could be interpreted as a POWER commanded by everyone equally: the common law, all are under it, and all command it, with equal power. I don't know if we are on the same page at this point. EDIT: I see that I "spoke too soon," and you have added to the most recent response. I have an opportunity at this time to cook my Cajun Seafood Gumbo today, and I'm on it: and looking forward to more of this process. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I can smell it from here!! I will simply attach the pdf so you can expound. My presumption by illegal is the formation of the districts and in 1790 that formation was designated for paying the debts and obligations of the United States. Something like that. Otherwise we are not on the same page yet. We probably need to hash out some law boundaries and I mean between local and global municipal jurisdictions.  Attachment: Judiciary Act of 1789.pdf (Downloaded 1 time) |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I suppose that my method is to simplify. I apologize if that is what I am trying to do with our discussion. The most common problem I encounter is that common law is case law; stare decisis. That is what is going on in the courtrooms in America. I have certainly encountered intentional lack of bonding, which makes for everything to be the path of must and necessity. I suppose that with the image above from 1790 you simply have to pick apart the finding of fact back to 1666 and 1213 to grasp why if we won the Revolutionary War, were we required to start paying reparations? This might be at the heart of what seems to be complicating common law. Before the American Revolution (return to rule of law, not usurpation of law) a system known as summary justice was in force so as to fraudulently extort wealth from Americans (and all Colonies of the criminal British) and in so doing enslave Americans. That is the nature of a colony. We are still under the Crown. The Crown is under the Pope - Treaty of 1213. This is why we find the Pope kissing the ground on the tarmac when he got off his plane in Britain. This is fascinating but to summarize, we were set to fealty on a plantation after the Revolutionary War. Paying rent instead of excise. This is the nature of 501(C)(3) government homage and tribute. You do not have to be Roman Catholic to conjoin in the separation by commercial priestcraft. To reconcile you must be the church. Attachment: Doc 31 - Notice of Void Judgments published EPCO & Custer.pdf (Downloaded 0 times) |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I am going to run the story by from my gdrive rather than one attachment per post. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImSG9yTExab2JnU1E/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImalBQWHNUa1hsNk0/view?usp=sharing Proof of Service on the Triumvirate. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImdUdjemZtckxwZm8/view?usp=sharing The church owns it all. The Pope - BISHOP of ROME - is in a breach of trust, causing the resulting trust and I am First Trustee. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImb0lfRF9CdldvOTA/view?usp=sharing Proof of Service on Israel and China. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImN00wbG14S1pzUHM/view?usp=sharing Attachment: Doc 1 Page 1.jpg (Downloaded 35 times) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I got to this: "I suppose that with the image above from 1790 you simply have to pick apart the finding of fact back to 1666 and 1213 to grasp why if we won the Revolutionary War, were we required to start paying reparations?" Common Law, like Federation, like every other term used for voluntary mutual defense, has be usurped, falsified, and turned up-side-down since at least Magna Carta. The Cycles from Rule of Law to Rule by Criminal Means, if information from Frank O'Collins is to be employed as fact, have been going on for some time, more than anyone living today (other than Frank O'Collins perhaps) is willing to acknowledge. I was sent, by mail, a package, independent from Frank O'Collins (it was many years later than I found Frank O'Collins) whereby the study done by this man put the cycle at 208 years, going back to Babylonian times (or before: my memory is not well, and I do not have the copy of the work at hand right now: but I can get it.) During the bottom of the Rule by Criminal Means part of the cycle the world is consumed by human beings at each other's throats like rats on a sinking ship. During the up side of Rule of Law people get off this planet and move (so as to survive, and so as to survive well) to other planets, hedging the inevitability of an Earth that no longer supports life. Who is we in the following? "I suppose that with the image above from 1790 you simply have to pick apart the finding of fact back to 1666 and 1213 to grasp why if we won the Revolutionary War, were we required to start paying reparations?" I know me. I can be someone who is not going to accept involuntary association AS A RULE that I abide by strictly. I don't know you well enough to say the same thing. Who is we? http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I don't think that I am missing anything but I will read through your posts again. It seems we differ defining "common law" from the opening post definition you imported from http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com.  Abraham LINCOLN was very tall, and did not like walking sticks. This gift was a temporary scepter for display during his inauguration. Then it was returned to the Masons. I inadvertently caught the reflection of a religious leader's face.  |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I think the term, or word, is a tool to be employed in the work required to achieve a goal. If we have different tools, perhaps we have different goals. The tool (word: common law) is, in my case, a tool to be employed in the work of conveying accurate meaning concerning a process called defense of life in time and place. Tool: a term, and the term is "common law," unless another term is agreeable, I will use this term. Meaning of the tool (the term common law, or some other term other than common law) is the goal, and the goal is to convey a process from me to you, so as to "get on the same page," and the page is the meaning conveyed with the tool. The meaning of the tool (common law) is a process by which people defend each other expediently (pragmatically?), in time and place, whereby people are thereby defended. The same page thereby is the accurate identification of a process by which people defend people in time and place, and if said "same page" is agreed upon first, then perhaps it is possible to then agree upon an agreeable name for that process. SOURCE: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html QUOTE: 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. End of Quote Above are words that describe to the reader a process, and the process being described was called the common law, and so that is why I call the process the common law now. Is there disagreement concerning what is the process in view? Is there disagreement concerning what the process in view (if we agree on it) is called? I am not, and I will not, give power to the false process that is in place to counterfeit the true process. The true process is described well enough in the quote above, as far as I am concerned, when my concern is to point at, to offer up, to accurately identify, to placed on the table for discussion, and for employment in defense of all, a process. Is the process that I place on the table clearly in view, and if not, then why not? |
|||||||||||
|
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) |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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) |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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) |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
It is called precedent. The district and appellate judges can only rule on precedent. |
|||||||||||
|
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.' |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
You cannot fight your way off the battlefield. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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." |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I do not produce surplus wealth to an extent that I need to find ways to protect excess surplus wealth from false government thieves. Once upon a time I did, and the power of knowledge you offer now would have been useful knowledge for me then. The fact remains that the so called constitution (1787/89) was a battle in the war that was won by the evil, slave trading, fraudulent banking, aggressive war profiteers, and drug pushers. So a claim now that the war is over, while at the same time claiming that the constitution (so called) was suspended, is a contradictory claim if the battle is truth versus lies, morality versus immorality, good versus evil, and happy productive life versus miserably destructive extinction. Trading with the enemy works two ways. 1. Those on the side of evil trade with those on the side of evil, so as to cooperate in dividing and conquering (enslaving, consuming, and destroying) moral good people, turning moral good people into evil people in the process. 2. Those defending themselves against evil who, for whatever reason imaginable, decide, with clear minds, and willful actions, to empower evil people, enable evil people, arm evil people, aid evil people, abet evil people, encourage evil people, embolden evil people, by trading with evil people. I am assuming that you are not evil. Is there another category of trading with the enemy that I fail to see? The war is over because the evil people won as the deceptions of 1787, so as to subsidize (a euphemism) slave trading (now called human trafficking), subsidize aggressive war for profit, subsidize central banking fraud, and subsidize drug pushing, is re-established as the (false) law of the land? |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:I do not produce surplus wealth to an extent that I need to find ways to protect excess surplus wealth from false government thieves. I have made some presumptions that you are fluent about the history.  I am privileged to have the Golden Rectangle as a resource.  In the opposite corner from the Lincoln Room is the Mason Library and Museum. On April 15, 1861 LINCOLN declared war. That war ended and when it came time to end the 'extraordinary occasion' and reconvene a de jure Congress LINCOLN was shot. So the War continued. Around that time Canada began the shock testing for the Federal Reserve note in 1913. Look at the footnotes in the Attachment. In 1913 the Fed Act began a twenty-year charter. In 1933 that charter expired. There was a run on the Fed and to prevent that FDR declared War on the Great Depression in his inauguration speech. He implemented the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act by changing the German national into US citizen and declaring the belligerent enemy anybody who "hoarded" gold. The Trading with the Enemy Act was "Omitted" from the Bankers' Code late last year. The War is over. Attachment: gold-requirements.pdf (Downloaded 1 time) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
David, The image files loaded in the last few replies are not showing up on my end. The history I am familiar with is not the history of the group known as the Masons. I knew 2 people who were said to have been Masons, both are now dead. There is a Mason building in town. If the Masons are a secret society, then my interest in the history of that secret society is like my interest in the Jesuits, the so called Illuminati, the Neocons, or how about UCADIA? Discussions by anyone, including members, weakens the power of deception: hidden secrets. Lies told about secret societies can be expected so as to maintain the secrets? http://www.resist.com/Onlinebooks/Pike-MoralsAndDogma.pdf Is that an authorized Mason publication publicized for a specific purpose? I'm curious. As to the war between secret society A and secret society B, my guess is that actual human beings were thinking and acting in positions of power over other people in those societies in that (or those) wars. So far the war in question here in this informal inquest is specified as a war that is over now according to you. That war is a secret kept from me so far, and what does that war have to do with voluntary mutual defense of all people in time and place, such as the process that is recorded on the public record as the common law? |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
It can be very confusing. Funding came out of the Crown, for both sides. PIKE was a southern general but he coordinated the banking. King James of 1611 was formerly King James VI of Scotland and imported to Britain Scottish Rite as the formal religion. The KJV is encoded. If you have a Strong's in paper, find BRANCH all upper case. That was the coronation name for King David. But Jesus CHRIST of Nazareth... NETZAR is BRANCH. But you might choose the encryption; that Joseph would pack a late-term pregnant woman on a donkey 100 miles just to get to a Holiday festival... What slows down most people is believing that evil has a face at all; or that it even exists. Stop judging and more keys will unlock more mysteries... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbTlZVjBCM081dFE/view?usp=sharing |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I read through some of the messages (coded or otherwise) in Albert Pikes Morals and Dogma. Much is agreeable as far as my understanding (power of judgment concerning true facts and fabricated falsehoods) is concerned. Trial by jury is mentioned (common law according to Lysander Spooner's work on the subject), and the concept of justice is the version I understand (my ability to judge again), not the counterfeit just-us version. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I found a copy long ago at a garage sale.Thales and Pythagoras learned in the Sanctuaries of This was presented to me originally by a 32nd Degree Freemason and investment broker who co-authored Are You Lost at C? Don't worry, he died of cancer years ago. Attachment: Morals and Dogma Magi and Qabbalah.pdf (Downloaded 1 time) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
https://freedom-school.com/reading-room/lost-at-sea.pdf The false courts were created so as to enslave everyone, including the creators of the false courts. Playing by their rules is a serious business called extortion and fraud under the color of law, therefore treason. Why accept fraud as law? Is it part of natural law, those who accept fraud are agreeing to (principle of agreement) enslavement as a matter of demonstrable fact? |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
That is a good pdf rendition.  This chart may be unique. I think Jim and I worked this out.  The Libel of Review has evolved quite a bit. I filed mine the eve of the first 31-Day Government Shutdown. The success stories really flowed when I implemented the demand for lawful money. I think you are stuck in conflict. The purpose is to create a record. That is all. Attachment: Libel in Review.pdf (Downloaded 2 times) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The image files are not loading properly on my end. As to the condition of being stuck in conflict I can use information that identifies (accurately measures) that condition. Having accurate measures of the condition of being stuck in conflict afford me the means by which I too can know, understand, realize, acknowledge, and defend against the condition of being stuck in conflict. As far aback as I can remember I looked at my paycheck (for examples of documented evidence showing what is, or is not, someone stuck in conflict) and I ignored the messages that did not let me know what my employer paid me in Purchasing Power for my ability to create wealth (value) according to my employer. The numbers claiming to have "taxed" me were (and are) to me numbers that document the conflict between honesty free people in liberty (who tend to create wealth and trade wealth equitably) and those who employ the system of extortion and fraud that happens to be called the law (under the color of law). As soon as I was able to stop collecting a pay check, whereby the criminals were then no longer making these claims about how much wealth I created for them to steal, I did so with good conscience. So...I am unfortunately still (alive) in conflict with the people who employ falsehood to cover up their crimes where these criminals claim to be the government and these criminals conflict with the free and equitable trade among free people in liberty, but I am finding ways to minimize the purchasing power that is claimed to be taken from me. I no longer work independently as a free trader in liberty, I got sick. I am no longer useful as a slave in that capacity. I am probably on the list of people who are in conflict with the established death cults for my turn burning at the stake, which can be modernized as cancer treatment. I don't have cancer, but I would like to know why the sky is so often full of artificial clouds. Is that the conflict I am stuck in? Did I miss something? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In Libel in Review I found this (so far): "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." The United States of America began as a legitimate (lawful = not fraudulent) association of voluntary defenders whose common enemy at the time was British criminals perpetrating fraudulent forms of (thereby false) government. The United States of America was then turned from a legitimate government into a criminal government the moment the fraud known as The Constitution of 1787 was (fraudulently) acted upon, as if The Constitution of 1787 was not a fraud. 1. Expose the fraud perpetrated in 1787 under the (false) name The Constitution of 1787/89, in an official, legal, manner. 2. Do not act in defense against the most damaging fraud in American history for whatever reason is imagined by those who do not, or even refuse to, act in defense against the most damaging fraud in American history. I read in the works attributed to Pike that failure to act is as much a crime as any other crime involving willful actions that result in injury to innocent people. What makes anyone (confessions?) think that Admiralty "court" is legitimate, legal, lawful, moral, or in any way useful to free people in liberty whose common need is voluntary mutual defense against all who willfully destroy innocent people: including fraudulent authorities of science, religion, industry, and law? I'm curious. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
It would probably help if you could see the images. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:The image files are not loading properly on my end. If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis. http://bishopcastle.us/forum/main-forum/pragmatism?filter_sort=title&filter_order=asc The other night a couple visited who had moved to California to be close to Ken WAPNICK in his final days (2013). He too was dying of cancer. I wanted to tell him the truth about the source of Helen's displacement hysteria. Maybe I should have. I ran across a lady in the reading group outside class. She asked why I missed last week. "I have been through the entire book, so now it is 'voluntary'." She replied, "Me too; and I still don't get it!" I wanted to tell her that I got it the first week in. By discovering the truth about why Helen was "haunted" by a Voice calling itself Jesus... Maybe I should have. I have discussed this with Dr. Rick STRASSMAN so that he has encouraged to share my findings with everybody... Maybe I should have. Attachment: Subprojects connected by LSD.pdf (Downloaded 2 times) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I posted the Pragmatism Forum Link here: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1226&forum_id=2 I don't know why communication is so difficult, as if we must communicate to each other in code. If you think my viewpoint is evidence of mental illness, then I'd like to know (without having to get out a decoder) why you think my viewpoint is evidence of mental illness. My viewpoint is plainly offered to you. If you do not acknowledge the fact that the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787/89 is a criminal organization, and therefore not a lawful organization, then that failure to acknowledge that fact is, by your power of will, a crime accountable to you. That is - in that way - evidence of either mental illness on your part, or criminal behavior is not a mental illness, rather than criminal behavior being a mental illness said criminal behavior is right as rain, natural, and good for life: moral. So here are two people exchanging viewpoints and as far as I know my cards are all out on the table in plain view. What inspires you to give the fraudulent United States of America (under the fraudulent Constitution of 1787/89) any credit of having any lawful authority, assuming that is what you are doing? What inspires you to willfully choose not to acknowledge the fact that lawful authority for anyone claiming the Constitution of 1787/89 as their just, moral, source of authority is false, a fraud, and the opposite of lawful authority? The slave traders guilty of crimes against nature itself (according to, at least, Thomas Jefferson in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence) made slavery legal when they perpetrated the fraud known as The Constitution of 1787/89, and the Latin (code) term for that is prima facie evidence: caught red handed. Who in this world needs to be taught that enslaving innocent people (and all that must go with enslaving, including torture and murder) is a crime? Only the criminals themselves need to know this fact that slavery is a crime? That brings to light the unnatural, immoral, genetic defects, whereby a living organism is incapable of understanding moral right from moral wrong, and is therefore not guilty of choosing to do wrong, but the point here is to point out that it is wrong to give such mutations power required to enslave mankind with such things as the example provided by the fraud known as The Constitution of 1787/89. Trading with the enemy. So now, with my cards again on the table, in other words, I am inspired to look further into the coded messages, to find, perhaps once again, more evidence proving that my viewpoint is sound. As was the case when looking into the work of Albert Pike, whereby it was acknowledged that trial by jury was, in some way, useful to him. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I would guess that since the War is over, the President is turning his attention through Title 50 on the War Against Terror. Executive Orders 2/2/17 You have misconstrued the first sentence. I am not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In the effort to communicate I will attempt to explain a portion of the past communication in a way that may (or may not) work as effective communication. I read: "If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis." I can read from that, and I can understand from that, that you are expressly not a trained psychologist. I got that, and I get that, you are offering to me information that identifies you as someone who is not a trained psychologist. Then I read this: "You have misconstrued the first sentence. I am not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist." I understood then, and I understand now, that I am not connected to, and I am not exchanging information with, a trained psychologist. I get that. I got that. Why are you now claiming that I did not get that, as if I can't read plain English and comprehend plain English? The viewpoint was expressed: "If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis." Why does the subject of "symptom" and "diagnosis" enter into the stream of information transferring between two individuals? Was it this: Me: "I am no longer useful as a slave in that capacity." Did that inspire you to write this: "If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis." I'd like to know, as I offered already, I am curious. A war, as you inform me, and you inform anyone else who may want to know, is over, as far as you know. I got that. I get that. A war, as far as you know, is over. The fact that the United States of America was a voluntary association for mutual defense before criminals perpetrated an obvious fraud remains to be a fact. The war that you understand to be over, according to you, started much later than the war that was started with the fraud in which a voluntary mutual defense association was turned into a criminal organization under the same name: United States of America. This may help (or not): http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp07 The title of that offer of information dated December 6, 1787 is: Adoption Of The Constitution Will Lead To Civil War The war that you say has ended is a war predicted (or at least coinciding in time and place with a different war other than the war you understand to be over) almost 100 years before the war (that may be the same war you say now has ended) that actually happened: predictably. Why did the author of the information (simple reason based upon simple facts) offer a warning about a pending (inevitable?) war? Quote: The new constitution in its present form is calculated to produce despotism, thralldom and confusion, and if the United States do swallow it, they will find it a bolus, that will create convulsions to their utmost extremities. Were they mine enemies, the worst imprecation I could devise would be, may they adopt it. For tyranny, where it has been chained (as for a few years past) is always more cursed, and sticks its teeth in deeper than before. Calculations are made so as to turn from something and to turn toward despotism. Our enemies - uncontrolled as they are in their ambitious schemes, fretted with losses, and perplexed with disappointments – will exert their whole power and policy to increase and continue our confusion. And while we are destroying one another, they will be repairing their losses, and ruining our trade. The calculation is specifically geared to divide so as to conquer. Why are you and I seemingly divided, even now? |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
The "conversation" so far consists of you trying to assert that the Constitution is a criminal action. The law, and corpus of that trust, is described in metaphor at Books of Samuel and Kings in the Bible. The Law is for individuals. The only escape from law is love and unity. David; http://bishopcastle.us/forum/main-forum/pragmatism?filter_sort=title&filter_order=asc Here are some examples; the calm Master is unified and the attacker is an individual who has given up his free will, subjecting himself to law - the idea of the Master's will upon muscle motor function. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRaPfxVkag&t=74s Stop judging. P.S. About 1:00 into the video pause and study "Pony Tail". The Master projects an idea toward other attackers while Pony Tail is touching his ankle, causing chaotic muscle cramping. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Somehow peaceable reentry is possible. The Alien Property Custodian has all the delusions of property seizure since 1933? https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/131.html |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Again I am being judged by someone who then offers a commanding sentence (I've been sentenced):Stop judging. Is that hypocrisy? I ask because I am curious about this present part of this ongoing exchange of information that is - to me - a voluntary mutual association for benefit. How can I know if there is benefit, and therefore reason, cause, to continue? How can I know if there is the opposite of benefit, and therefore reason, and cause, to discontinue? I see a clear requirement for accurate judgment of accurately perceived measures of demonstrable fact; without which I will not know anything. Am I to rely upon instinct alone? Stop judging. Perhaps your definition of the word judging is not the same as mine. Your definition of the word law appears to be to be a similar definition for the term organized crime under the color of law, as far as I can tell. My definition of law: Common law due process by which volunteers volunteer to hold each other to an accurate accounting and the process by which that is done includes trial by jury. An example is the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trail, however that example was run - in part - according to rules that are not voluntary, therefore not lawful, and therefore the trial by jury case was - in that way - not lawful, not voluntary, not according to due process, not according to the common law. It was, for example, much too late, and it was, for another example, a crime scene when someone claiming to be a judge misinforms the jury as to what powers the jurors command as representatives of the whole (moral) people in the whole country in trial by the country, which is a court of conscience. So my working definition of law is specific, not ambiguous, and not in code, so there is no need to decode, decipher, or confuse the definition offered through me, through Lysander Spooner, through many other sources already quoted, and through many other sources not quoted here, and your working definition of law, as far as I can tell, is the same definition that applies to organized crime under the color of law. Example: The "conversation" so far consists of you trying to assert that the Constitution is a criminal action. The law, and corpus of that trust, is described in metaphor at Books of Samuel and Kings in the Bible. The Law is for individuals. The only escape from law is love and unity. Specifically this: The only escape from law is love and unity Love and unity is law, so why would anyone choose to escape (step out-side) law, and become, thereby, an outlaw? Part of the confusion might be discoverable in this: The Law is for individuals. What is not for individuals? I'd like to know. I can offer this: Link: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp03 Title: New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism Quote: There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. Apparently there is a lot of confusion going on when words and terms begin (grass roots, adaptation, invention, creation) as meaning one thing, and then an individual (and then more than one individual agreeing) changes the meaning from the original meaning whereby the new meaning is opposite the original meaning. Case in point: Federalism started as: Link: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ Title: Elliot’s Debates: Volume 1 Gradual Approaches Towards Independence Quote: 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: And now Federation - as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents in Waco Texas, and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents conspiring to murder Martin Luther King Jr., and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents enforcing the Judiciary Act of 1789, and as demonstrated by so called Federal Agents subsidizing the African slave trade since 1789 - means rule by criminal means: also known as organized crime under the color of law. Is that what you mean when you work with, use, employ, communicate with, the term "Law"? When you use the term "Law" do you mean rule by criminal means, and do you mean organized crime? What exactly do you mean, when you refer to that which is law, as far as you are concerned, as far as you know? Law, to me, is this: ...love and unity Also expressed here: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Also expressed here: Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/ Title: U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788) 1 U.S. 236 (Dall.) Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia February Sessions, 1788 at Philadelphia September Sessions, 1778 Quote: It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. And: This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. The definition of law is also offered in the following work: Link: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html Title: TRIAL BY JURY Quote: This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes. Law, as explained, is a voluntary association among volunteers for their mutual defense, and the volunteers who agree to employ law agree to hold each other accountable for whatever each individual is responsible. That is my working definition of law in so many words, and how can anyone confuse that voluntary association for mutual defense with anything other than a voluntary association for mutual defense, and what is the motive for creating such confusion if such confusion is created by an individual in time and place? Above is my working definition of law in a nutshell, and it is not, apparently, the same definition of law that you are working here and now. If you can, please, let me know, without code, what your definition of law is as far as you require when you employ the term law: please. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Agreed. Self determination is what I meant by "escape" from law. We seem back on point. This is common law: Case law; also known as stare decisis. In Colorado only county court judges can practice law (from the bench). But they do not want to do that a lot because their reputation may be smudged by a few cases being overturned on appeal. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Back on point or going around in circles? Common law began, and continues to be, not as you say it is, and the facts are offered to you. Your insistence upon claiming that common law is only what you say it is confesses something about you that is worth knowing. You dictate what is, or is not, real despite ample evidence that proves otherwise. If all you want to do here is to dictate information as you alone see it, and ignore ample evidence that contradicts your dictated information, then the circle you create in that way will spin around and around until one of us decides (with clear judgment) to waste no more time going around in that circle. The circle where you make a demonstrably false claim about common law (as if common law is only what you say it is and common law is nothing but what you say it is) and I offer more, and more, and more, evidence contradicting your false claim about common law, is a circle that expands as more, and more, and more, evidence contradicting your false claims is added to the merry go round. The terms that you use to enclose common law into a box are these: 1.stare decisis 2.Case law Within the meaning of the terms above are many trials by jury cases involving many errors that are entered into the record of cases along with many successful examples of voluntary mutual defense. Who in your limited (dictatorial) version of common law (counterfeit version) has the power to decide what is, or is not, a just punishment, and what criteria is employed by the authority in any case? Your answer, if your words can be deciphered, is going to be a judge, as if a judge has the power to punish on his say so alone, as the judge pulls whichever case he may want to pull out of his dictatorial box of failed cases that fail to voluntarily defend the innocent from the guilty. Someone I met during my time at National Liberty Alliance (I was the California State Coordinator) had 500 or so pages of documentation proving beyond doubt (confessions or prima facie evidence) that all the judges in California are criminals according to the laws they claim to be the source of their authority as they broke those laws in order to get seated on those legal fiction benches. So, with your false claims concerning common law, those criminals in those positions of criminal power (under the color of law) are within the boundaries of common law, so long as they have no case law in the stare decisis process from which to convict themselves? Isn't that the jist of your false claims about common law, as you insist upon supporting the counterfeit version of common law? |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
The common law (case law) of England was adopted. Even in 1861 as Colorado became BUCHANNAN's War Chest we find that my assertion is correct.  Maybe because it has always been this way, it is easy to misinterpret the reflections off your projections? Attachment: Thirteenth Amendment.pdf (Downloaded 0 times) |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Regardless of the differences between our 2 viewpoints, the fact remains that people volunteer to defend themselves. What do you think is an effective way to accomplish the goal of voluntary mutual defense? I think that trial by jury according to the common law researched by Lysander Spooner is the reasonable method of reaching the goal of voluntary mutual defense. You can steal, counterfeit, cover-up, hide, abuse, destroy, fake, and fraud voluntary mutual defense known as the common law with trial by jury all you want, within your power to do so, meanwhile I will continue my efforts to set the record straighter. Example: This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes. That is not (as far as I can decode your messages) what you consider to be the common law. I think that many people share (agree with) what I think is your working version of the common law (the counterfeit version) including many people who agree with the counterfeit interpretation of what is written in The Bill of Rights as those Amendments attempted to amend the fraudulent Constitution of 1787. There is no cause for me, at this point, to ask again for simple answers to simple questions, as the routine of evasion on your part is clearly established. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I have heard some of those theories about fraudulent Constitution. I account it to more projection, like your feeling you have established I am evasive. I would call you paranoid but that is just plain nonproductive. I think the best defense is to recuse the judge. Look at his oath. Even if his oath is in order ask him to describe the appeals process; he will anyway. All the federal judges have altered their oaths too. So there is no way for you to understand the nature and cause of the accusation if the judge is lying about your remedy. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"I have heard some of those theories about fraudulent Constitution." Theory? The criminals claimed that slavery was legal, so your version of the facts is now such that slavery is a theoretical crime and not a prima facie (inculpatory) cause to hold said criminals to an accurate accounting of the fact that their enslavement of innocent people constitutes a self-evident perpetration of a crime against nature itself. As to the particulars (less inculpatory than the principles such as so called "legal" enslavement): LINK: http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/Identity%20Theft%20of%20the%20perpetual%20Union.pdf Sept. 27, 1787 So... you claim that there are "theories" somewhere in time and place that you are aware of with measured ambiguity. That measured ambiguity faces clear demonstrations of criminal acts in time and place, such as the enforcement of slavery under the color of law, and the organic, grass-roots, voluntary mutual defense association rule book broken in time and place proven by the actual records kept by the perpetrators of the crime while they perpetrated the crime. Now there is a claim of feelings; as if that has anything to do with the facts concerning what is, or is not, law. I account it to more projection, like your feeling you have established I am evasive. I would call you paranoid but that is just plain nonproductive. I can restart with the first question you dodged: "Why accept fraud as law?" That question works in either case, where your claims concerning what is law are defendable, or not, and my claims of what is law, or not, is tested in like manner. So far as I can tell (code) you have a claim concerning the legitimacy of Admiralty Law recorded here and there, while my opposition to such a claim includes these same demonstrations of fact in time and space concerning enforced slavery by people claiming to be law enforcers. So far as I can tell the reason why you dodge the question is due to the unreasonable act of enforcing slavery upon innocent people. Your claims are morally indefensible, therefore you dodge that which you cannot do. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I feel like the last guy in the world to accept fraud as law. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbmV1RVFTUlVNM2c/view?usp=sharing That is twice you have hit the "Edit" key, instead of the "Reply" key. That makes it look as though I am speaking your comment - very confusing! |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
That is very confusing. Who hit the "Edit" key, instead of the "Reply key", twice? What does "I am speaking your comment..." mean? I responded with a response earlier, and that response is gone, which is fine, and cause for me to be more careful when responding. I can back-up my responses when I do not want my responses lost. My response that was lost had to do with the accurate accounting of those responsible for willfully choosing to injure innocent people. There are ways to reach that goal. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
Your response was in a post that said, "David Merrill". So I edited it. I saved it in the buffer but overwrote it by accident, sorry. Your inability to communicate is becoming nonproductive for us. |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
I wrote a LinkedIn Article this morning. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/presidential-directive-served-january-30-last-order-david-merrill?trk=pulse_spock-articles |
|||||||||||
|
David Merrill Guest
|
The saga of shaky publication of Executive Orders continues. http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1232&forum_id=4 |
|||||||||||
