33 votes

Is GOODE any GOOD? Requesting Opinions on Voting Constitution Party

I absolutely cannot vote for Romney or Obama. I have considered writing in Dr. Paul’s name. I have considered not voting at all. I am also considering the Constitution Party.

I just found Dr. Paul last year and was quite devastated over the way he and our delegates were treated at the RNC. I also realize Dr. Paul has asked us to retake the GOP. I am floundering on what to do next.

That being said, I am still looking for a presidential candidate with whom I can agree this year. If my Friends of Liberty would be so kind, I would appreciate your thoughts on the Constitution Party. I have heard they are Pro-War, but I just looked today and did not see that. I think a lot of you all out there are a lot smarter than I when it comes to Liberty principles so I would appreciate your help.

If you could take the time, please see the CP platform: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php and let me know what you think regarding how that party lines up with Liberty.

The 2012 Presidential Candidate is Virgil Goode: http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html

Any time you can provide is much appreciated!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Half truths

The Federalist Papers were Campaign Promises along the lines of "Read my lips, no new taxes.", and many other examples too numerous to refute out of hand, it is a long standing tradition to say anything that the voters want to hear, so as to get elected, and then do the opposite once elected.

That has to be understood if being victim to it again is to be avoided.

The Campaign at the time of the Ratification of a National Government by people seeking Absolute Power gained over everyone falling victim to the lies, and there was no shortage of people blowing the whistle on the fraud in progress, so the idea, the LIE, that The Founding Fathers were some homogenous group of good guys with minor differences is patently absurd.

Liberty was at stake, Trial by Jury was at stake, and we lost in 1788.

Liberty lost.

Just look up The Dirty Compromise, The Whiskey Proclamation, Alien and Sedition Acts, The Jay Treaty, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and even The Civil War if there is any doubt in anyone's mind concerning the loss of Liberty orchestrated by well paid Liars during that False Advertizement Campaign called Ratification, if you dare.

Joe

fraud, bait and switch, false advertising

"...it is a long standing tradition to say anything that the voters want to hear, so as to get elected, and then do the opposite once elected."

That sounds like fraud, bait and switch, false advertising...aren't those things against the law?

Which law?

Crime made legal is the law we have from The National level down, like a pyramid scheme, so these things aught to sink in sooner rather than too late, as those in Legal Crime do, in fact, make what they do legal, happily, and without consequence other than their happiness, they punish their victims for doing exactly what they do so well.

If competitors at fraud are good at not getting caught, fine, good for them, so the story goes, but Legal Criminals make their frauds legal, top that!

Joe

Will Trial by Jury fix the

Will Trial by Jury fix the problem with legal criminals making their frauds legal? Or is the answer tied to the need for a Democratic Federated Republic?

Carts can't drive horses.

Carts can drive horses downhill, when the cart is very heavy, and the horse is being dragged faster, and faster, down the hill as gravity accelerates the ungoverned mass.

Common Sense:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

That is very instructive.

That was written before that time period between 1776 and 1788 when government was not a necessary evil, it was a Democratic Federated Republic, and if there was evil it was not necessary, it was evil in the form of very well paid liars and assassins hiding behind Red Coats or Blue Coats, and false fronts.

If The Friends of Liberty have enough power, now, to STOP providing the means by which we suffer, then why wait another second, and if we wait longer, while we continue to provide the means by which we suffer, then we grow weaker, and The Friends of Legal Crime grow stronger, and that path leads to a point at which The Friends of Liberty no longer have enough power to STOP providing the means by which we suffer WITHOUT suffering even more than we are already suffering.

Who is suffering?

A Drone may now be causing horrible, and terrifying damage upon life and limb, and are those people, if they are innocent of any wrong doing, Friends of Liberty?

Why resort to lies?

Why resort to threats of violence?

Why resort to violence?

What is the point?

1.
Power employed to make power abundant.

2.
Power employed to take more power.

Joe

If we have enough power, how

If we have enough power, how then do we exercise it?

We don't

But what is missing?

Common Sense?

Don't provide the means by which we suffer, and we stop suffering so much, why is that difficult to understand?

Joe

Strong words...

but points well made. One question (sorry for my ignorance), how was Trial by Jury lost?

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Lost authority

The lost individual authority each Juror was afforded in the original Trial by Jury is well documented by Lysander Spooner in his Essay called Trial by Jury.

I'll get that link, but first it may be more on topic, and in direct support of the angle in current view to link Patrick Henry and the specific part of one of his speeches in opposition to RATification:

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

That link earmarks specific points:

3.16

"How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone—not sufficiently secured in criminal—this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands."

For more precise language concerning what Patrick Henry was concerned about there are good sources such as this:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/virginiatime...

Here is a very good explanation of Trial by Jury, how it is designed to work, and how it becomes corrupt:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

We the remaining remnants of Friends of Liberty, it seems to me at least, must understand these principles if the idea is to be a Friend OF Liberty so as to be Friends IN Liberty (borrowed from Bear).

Due Process, due everyone, without exception, or as few exceptions as possible (as few outlaws as possible), isn't foreign to the concept of Anarchism, or Liberty, it is THE concept due everyone and the result is equity or the opposite of iniquity, the opposite of the State of Chaos so often wrongly attributed to anarchism, and in particular the individualist anarchism that was flourishing in Spooners time, with such notable examples provided by Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Benjamin Tucker, and even foreigners like Mikhail Bakunin.

When both left and right hate someone, it may be a good idea to find out what they have to say.

OH, and to be more specific on How Trial by Jury was lost, in my own opinion I can say that a deal was made to enslave the honest people who produce all those things of value that constitute human treasures, and to accomplish that task the criminals who did this in 1788, had to move toward monopolizing the various systems of finance that existed from State to State within the Federation, and once that was done, the people in all those Separate and Sovereign States would then be sending their wealth to the Consolidated Government, then the Consolidated Government subsidizes everything that benefits the Consolidated Government and taxes everything that does not benefit the Consolidated Government, including Judges and Jurors.

The Consolidated Government takes whatever form of TAX they can invent, and get passed into law, such as a Tax on Whiskey, payable in Gold, and then as that pile of money grows the criminals with badges then hire their own Judges to judge those laws, that supposed Supreme Court, which supposedly "checks" the other 2 Branches of government does no such thing, it is part of the same National (not Federal) power grab.

Once that is done the State judicial systems are rendered power LESS, or subjected to, the more power FULL Nation State Monopoly Power.

If that were not true there would be some form of Due Process due to any Federal employee who injures any citizen of any State in the Federation.

Here is where Shays's Rebellion provides the president in which the validity of the National Government can be gauged, and found unwanted.

Before the POWER grab there was a Final Battle in The Revolutionary War, and it was fought between Revolutionary War Veterans who still wore the Blue Coat of Abolishing Criminal Governments, and those Rebels fought against the Turn Coats who took on the Red Coat of Despotism in Massachusetts.

That was done under The Articles of Confederation.

A man called Daniel Shays exemplified the Rebel Soldier still Rebelling against Criminal Governments, but The Friends of Liberty lost that last battle in The Revolution, so Daniel Shays and the other Rebels were deemed to be criminals by the Red Coats who stole the Massachusetts State Government. The Criminals Running The Massachusetts State Government considered their subjects to be slaves, to be slaves that had to pay Taxes without Representation, it was dastardly what those Criminals did, and it is well documented.

Massachusetts Criminals hiding behind badges, raised taxes, or fraudulently funded, aggressive wars for profit, invading parts of Canada, to sequester land, and people, to expand their territory, and they LOST those aggressive wars for profit, so they went in debt, having failed to plunder parts of Canada, and so those Massachusetts Criminals demanded payment in Gold, which was no longer in use on the Frontier, and so the Farmers distilled Whiskey as a form of commodity money, and the final nail in the coffin was when the Legal Criminals running the Despotic State of Massachusetts, within The Articles of Confederation, demanded a Tax on Whiskey payable in Gold. The Rebels of The Revolutionary War knew very well what that meant, it was the same tune played by The British, so they gathered up their small arms, and marched on the Massachusetts Militia Armory. The Rebels were not going to be Slaves to the British and they certainly were not going to be Slaves to the Massachusetts Governors turned bad.

They lost the battle at the Armory and then they became runaway slaves running away from Tax Slavery in Massachusetts.

Where did they run?

They didn't have to run Out of the Country, since it was a working Democratic Federated Republic, working under those Articles of Confederation, so they ran to Vermont.

The Slavers wanting their Slaves back told the Governors of Vermont to hand back their Slaves, but the Governors of Vermont did no such thing.

That was the president in our history that proves the validity of a Voluntary Government, such as it was possible even then, it was possible to work at a Voluntary Government as far back as 1776, up until 1788, when the Despots took over the whole Country.

Later the First Monarch of the new Monarchy, a guy named George, crushed the still smoldering Whiskey Rebellion at it's weakest point in Pennsylvania.

Why does Trial by Jury not work now?

Because one State can't work to improve it, so that other States can copy, or use, the improvements, because anyone guilty of not paying National Taxes, paid with the ONE NATIONAL LEGAL MONEY, is made to pay, one way or the other, without trial.

Daniel Shays, and the Rebels, didn't stick around to be tried in a kangaroo court in the already despotic Massachusetts State, so as a Slave, he ran out of that Slave Trading State, and he went to Vermont, which was proving to be a much less Despotic Competitive Government within the then Voluntary Union, no need to even consider a Trial by Jury for failing to pay fraudulent Massachusetts State Taxes, while life is much better among Friends of Liberty in Vermont, and there wasn't a damn thing the Federal Government could do to return the runaway slaves who ran from Massachusetts into Vermont.

That understanding puts a whole new light on The Dirty Compromise, and if you don't know what that was, then I can bring you up to speed on it, at least up to my pathetic speed, which is only "up to speed" in a relative sense.

Gone with Trial by Jury, it seems, is the likes of people like Patrick Henry, unless we are counting people like Ron Paul.

Joe

Wow

Really fascinating info. You are obviously very advanced in your understanding of Liberty and the history of it. Please would you read this essay I just uploaded: rutlischwur.wordpress.com. Pretty sure it will be somewhat tame for you as it upholds the constitution as a safeguard, TO A GREAT EXTENT, of a good deal of Liberty in the US, even if it was not perfect! But would love to hear your thoughts on it. I am thinking of continuing to write this blog as an explanation of how Liberty SHOULD and CAN be safeguarded from now on, using the lessons we have learned from the past and present. Should I? Thanks

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Honorable request

http://rutlischwur.wordpress.com/

You do me great service in asking for my opinion, and so I can put my power to good work in helping someone review their work.

But, you did ask me, so shooting the messenger you ask to give you messages won't be very good form, if that be the case.

"Historical revisionists have long argued that the American Civil war was not just a heroic crusade to liberate black Americans from slavery to evil Southern landowners. There were legal causes concerning interpretation of the Declaration of US Independence and the Constitution of the USA, its sovereign document. These are complex and hard to understand."

I don't know how much of the HOOK above (which is well written in my estimate) is pandering to the misinformed, but I don't do that, and so my criticism of it (using the word pandering) can be set aside as irrelevant if the idea is to reach a larger audience: The HOOK.

The American Civil War was not in any way Civil, it was not in any way Heroic, and it was not intended to free anyone, not by the people who invented it, produced it, financed it, and executed it on the Aggressive side.

I like this sentence in particular:

"These are complex and hard to understand."

So the HOOK, or introductory paragraph, ends with a well written ending that leads the reader into a sense of hope, an expectation of soon to be realized understanding. I like that, if that was intended that way, or if that was just flowing from your power of skill in writing like free flowing art, I don't know, but it works for me in that way. I want to read more of this work, despite the fact that I do not appreciate being pandered to, on things that I know better about, this Crusade called The Civil War was Legal Crime, so what do you think about it?

What is your angle of view on it?

Can you make better sense of it?

I'm on the edge of my seat.

Second paragraph employs the word inconsistencies. That may be a word that does bridge the gap between brain washed dupes, victims, and someone who may know better, and a word choice such as fraud, may "run off" some readers. The Constitution was written to be Constructively Interpreted, which means that it was inconsistent on purpose, and since those people, like Hamilton, who held deceptive power over the author of The Constitution, the person known as James Madison, those inconsistencies were purposefully written into The Constitution, so as to facilitate Constructive interpretation, despite James Madison's careful judgement? The frauds like Hamilton may have even pulled the wool over the eyes of James Madison, at the time, but later James Madison realized the error, and this is proven by the events that became known as The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

But your paragraph does work to inform, without being too wordy, and it does hold my interest, so it may be well written enough to hold other readers interests.

The third paragraph commits a cardinal sin among the Conservative Republicans (so called) when the word "democracy" is used, it has been the case, the Conservative Republicans see Red, they Foam at the Mouth, and they drop the message like dropping a chocolate bar that they just found out to be a turd, and they then set about to shoot the messenger, so as to make sure that the messenger can no longer sell counterfeit chocolate to unsuspecting Fellow Conservative Republicans who abhor Mob Rule - unless they want it for some special work to suit their exclusive purpose.

Here:

"‘Want’ as in formally, as guaged [sic] by democratic poll." TYPO?

Here is where the report about things being complex and hard to understand, written into the first paragraph in this essay, is true, the subject matter is complex and hard to understand, and here is where you may be falling flat in reference to roughly half of the targeted audience, those leaning to the Right, are finding the document to be pure fiction, whenever the word democracy is pandered about like some snake oil being sold as the Miracle Cure.

Again here:

"This was a group of people who opted to take their terrritory [sic] out from under the authority of an institution (the British Crown), and make itself independent of that authority; to rule themselves (again, meaning democratically)." TYPO?

What do you know?

Do you actually think that a Democratic Federated Republic gives any POWER or Authority to individuals hired to Punish People who don't obey without question?

I don't know.

It sounds as if you think Democracy equals Mob Rule, but I can get past the "sounds" I hear so far, so I keep reading.

What POWER has any one person ever given, irrevocably, to any other individual, as if We The People, as a group, a MOB, can do so, in any case whatsoever, such as We The People handing over the keys to The Government?

That is fraud, if that is what you think. I don't know what you think, but I want to know, so I read on.

I could go into greater detail concerning the diametric opposites of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, with quotes from each, and that may be where you have had the wool pulled over your eyes, but again, you may be pandering to the dupes, trying to meet them half way, as you know better yourself, and this is a trap being set, to lead the reader into a realization?

I can move onto the next paragraph.

"But, the Constitution never explicitly allowed for universal suffrage, or even for the manumission of black slaves."

The Constitution made slavery legal, and that realization may be too harsh for sensitive ears?

Mob Power, if that is what you think is the Power behind Democracy, in a "legal" sense, this polling stuff, this method of choosing employees, or this method of choosing dictators, misses the vital point.

1.
Are We The People "given" the "right" to choose our Masters, supposedly?

2.
Are We The People refusing to allow Masters to Enslave anyone, and we find ways to hire people to help us secure our Liberty, by voting?

If you do not get that question resolved before I'm done reading this work, then I think you may be in for a realization of your own.

Legal Criminals, so named because they make their crimes legal for them to perpetrate upon their targeted victims while the victims are not allowed to perpetrate those same Legal Crimes, are apt to solidify their power when they can convince their targeted victims of the LIE that THINGS are RESPONSIBLE and therefore ACCOUNTABLE, while the Legal Criminals themselves are both responsible and accountable, yet hidden behind that convenient LIE.

Do you fall victim to that LIE?

Did The Government commit any wrongdoing, ever, in your humble estimate?

Did The Mob, ever, do anything wrong?

Lies go deep.

Next Paragraph:

"The South argued the right of secession as a sine qua non of real Liberty was intended. The North argued the right of universal suffrage for the democratic accountability on which all the rights of Liberty rested, was intended.

Among those in the North and South were many people who knew better than to blame anything on "The North" or "The South" and among those rational people there was, and still are, a few people who know better, and when bad things are being done, bad things are being done by individuals, not "groups", so name names, find the culprits, and if there is any value in Liberty, then it is found in knowing who to avoid, and why it is important to avoid those people.

For every person in The North claiming that Mobs Rule, or whatever LIE they were telling at that time, there was a person or two in The North declaring their POWER to secede from any Involuntary Union when the Dues are no longer affordable.

For every person in The South declaring their own independence, black or white, retaining the right to secede from any Involuntary "Union", there were Masters claiming ownership of their slaves.

Name names, and avoid prejudice, avoid the repeated mistake of blaming everyone for the crimes of a few, and then, as happens, often, people are set on the path of punishment, to punish collectively, and to punish only the innocent, while, as happens again, the guilty go free, or worse, the guilty are handsomely rewarded for doing such a fine job in making crime legal.

When the hired help tells the employer that they are raising their own pay rate, it may be time to do some house cleaning?

Ask Daniel Shays?

Paragraph 6 starts out with a false statement, and I don't know why anyone would repeat this false statement, but you can clue me in, or leave me in the dark, as you please.

Sentence:

"It has to be said though, from the legal point of view of the original Constitution, the former is more likely than the latter. The authors cannot have intended to justify states being coerced by military force to remain under the authority of a central Government, as that would defeat the entire objective of the Constitution."

That is demonstrably false as demonstrated by George Washington in his own Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, which may have been penned by his Secretary of the Treasury, with Georgie Boy merely signing at the bottom, who knows?

Who knows the meaning of English?

Paragraph 6 ends with a demonstrably half true statement:

"The hypocrisy of this is breathtaking, and means the Constitution is not really a Christian document, as Christianity is not compatible with slavery. Nevertheless this seems to have been the intention of the founding fathers of the United States."

Roughly half of the so called Founding Fathers were "Federalists", so named, as that half was actually a bunch of criminals, frauds, and Nationalists, who were hiding behind a false front of Federalism, and roughly the other half of the Founding Fathers were working to maintain Liberty, knowing the value of Voluntary Association, such as that example of Voluntary Association in the form of a Democratic Federated Republic, under The Articles of Confederation, during that time period between 1776 and 1788, and those people where mislabeled as "Anti-Federalists", which including the one named Patrick Henry.

Patrick Henry was not against a working Federation, he was Anti-Rat.

He smelled rats, and said as much?

Paragraph 7:

"For that reason, the Constitution was bypassed, ignored, and made fundamentally redundant by the Civil War."

In my study it became very clear to me that The Civil War was prescribed by The Constitution because of The Dirty Compromise, or Three Fifths Clause, and the "Federalists" knew it when they did it, and The Civil War was wanted by those "Federalists" because it served their purpose, which is to Consolidate all Power into their hands.

The Constitution is not being bypassed, it is being Constructively Interpreted, so that IS can mean anything the people commanding National, Consolidated, POWER want IS to mean on any given day of the week, and IS can mean the opposite meaning next week, if they say so, and you, and everyone else, has to pay your Union Dues, no matter what IS means this week, or next week, without question.

You think I'm going over the top, perhaps, so it is quote time.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

_________________________________________________________
AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
__________________________________________________________

Don't bother reading another word in English, you will get your meanings handed to you, so shut up and keep working harder, pay more, and shut up - slaves.

What does IS mean today boss?

"The South was legally right, but the North was morally right."

Sherman and Grant, I suppose, were morally right?

North is a compass heading, it is amoral.

Your words may reach more people, reaching those who refuse to see the facts, and you may open their eyes and minds a miniscule amount, and that may be enough.

I don't know.

Your last 2 paragraphs continue along the lines of failing to know that The Constitution was intended to make slavery legal, which it did, in black and white, in English, in practice by its employers, with George Washington and his crushing of the money competitors in Pennsylvania, and with Adams and his Alien and Sedition Acts, and your work misses a whole lot of history concerning efforts to secede from the Involuntary Union, by States in the North, immediately after the Slave Document (The Constitution) began to be used by Despots as Despots began enslaving their targeted victims.

Missing from modern day historical knowledge, apparently, measurably, is the OTHER FOUNDERS, such as Patrick Henry, who went so far, expending his own costs, to warn us, without ambiguity, clearly, precisely, and irrefutably TRUE.

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

"I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government."

Run slaves run.

Joe

Great stuff, thanks

So you're saying that while the Revolution and Declaration of Independence were authentic acts for true Liberty, the Constitution was itself a corruption of that Liberty and a return to tyranny? It's a great point, hard to argue against in light of Whiskey rebellion. Wouldn't you say though that there is legal text ('English') in the document that cannot be constructed OTHER than to check against consolidation (such as that all powers not defined in it were to remain with the states)?

Such that, only actual military invasion by the Federal executive so as to coerce states physically into submission could have actually broken those checks as completely as we see today?

My point was basically that the invasion was 'illegal' according to the constitution, hence the war. You yourself acknowledged that Madison did INTEND to limit federal power, even if he was unsuccessful and possibly manipulated by Hamilton. So that in contrast to your characterizing the war as a 'legal crime' I'm saying it was an illegal crusade (with crusade as in a military expedition that the organisers claim is justified by Christian morality, whether or not that is the case).

The democracy thing. I'm talking about the legal rationale (e.g. that the rights of the Government come from the people, and the rights of the people come from God). The mechanism of democracy, that was supposed (again, whether you want to accept that mechanism, voting, etc as legitimate, damaging or otherwise and regardless of conservative reaction to the term) to justify and underpin the US federal Administration. The legal justification for its powers as representatives of democratic will. You say it misses the point but that is the point I'm trying to make. The status of the two sides of the war argument according to the law of the Constitution.

North and South is intended as shorthand for these two sides/ arguments, not geographically! Guess I should have made that clearer.

Its a great point about the 'demonstrably false' statement though. Perhaps I meant instead of Constitution, (objective of the) Revolution or Declaration. Although still struggle with the idea that the Constitution and Declaration are incompatible.

Cannot agree that the Constitution made slavery legal as it was legal beforehand.

So what you're saying is that the present-day US only actually enjoyed 12 years of true liberty?

Patrick Henry sounds like a good guy, will have to learn more about him!

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

The other half is true

"Wouldn't you say though that there is legal text ('English') in the document that cannot be constructed OTHER than to check against consolidation (such as that all powers not defined in it were to remain with the states)?"

No different than "read my lips no new taxes" The Federalist Papers and The Constitution were Campaign Promises to be broken, there had to be the False Front of legitimacy in order for there to be a Confidence Scheme or FRAUD working.

The Legal Criminals don't advertize their true Color of Law, that would not work, it would be naked aggression, a naked Emperor openly throttling your throat, and giving you fair warning in advance.

No such thing can happen, since victims don't want to be victims, by definition. Words fail to BE reality, because IS is what it IS, not what it is said to be, IS just IS.

Yes, The Constitution can be interpreted as a Limit of POWER, but why then were there Bills of Rights added even before the thing was accepted as a Limit of POWER?

If it was truly a Limit of POWER, then why was it immediately Limited with The Bill of Rights?

Someone smelled a rat?

"Such that, only actual military invasion by the Federal executive so as to coerce states physically into submission could have actually broken those checks as completely as we see today?"

How about pretending to be a Central Banker wannabe, such as Hamilton or his mentor Morris, and you see what happens in Massachusetts during Shays's Rebellion under The Articles of Confederation?

You see your gravy train evaporating before your eyes as the Subjects, the targets, of your Interest, fight back, and then flee to Vermont. You demand your runaway slaves from Vermont, expecting those Governors to be Central Bankers themselves, and they ignore you.

You can't get your slaves back, and that all happens INSIDE the Federation.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, you cry all the way back to your Central Bank and hatch a plan to keep those slaves enslaved and where do you find any help?

Down South?

They have a runaway slave problem too?

Talk about making deals with the Devils, how about a Secret Meeting in Philadelphia to iron out the Dirty Compromise and we can all be happily enslaving our pieces of the action?

You think I'm Joe King?

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

The doors were closed and there was a Gag order placed upon the attendees. You read that book and you get to be a fly on the wall, but that doesn't count up the deeper closed door meetings between the really Centrist Central Players in North and South, you know, the real serious slavers, the dirty dealers, hush, hush, and what, a secret hand shake?

Gag order?

Friends of Liberty?

What has this country already become, since 1776, and it isn't even 1788 yet?

"So that in contrast to your characterizing the war as a 'legal crime' I'm saying it was an illegal crusade (with crusade as in a military expedition that the organisers claim is justified by Christian morality, whether or not that is the case)."

OK, so jumping ahead to the ObamaNation called The Civil War, which wasn't anything close to Civility, you seem to miss the legal precedent provided by Shays's Rebellion.

You seem to be missing the progress into despotism.

Start out with English despotism returning back to the days of King John, overruling Trial by Jury, and now extreme Spiritual Repression, driving Liberty minded people into extreme sacrifice, as many of those runaway slaves run away to a land populated by very strange, different colored Natives, across the ocean to the west.

Add that up to a move toward Liberty, at a very high cost, and it was part of the cycle still, because Trial by Jury in Magna Carte was an earlier victory turned bad, again, like some evil hamster wheel, the victims appear to jump from pan to fire, with little reprieve in between.

But the victories are sweet and could instruct those who prefer Liberty over Despotism.

So, we lost Trial by Jury, but now we have a fresh start in America and that is despite our own home grown Despots who dress up like Indians, Slaughtering the Settlers, blaming the Slaughter of Settlers on the Indians, and then pushing the MOB into thinking it is a good idea to go Slaughter the Indians, and then pay taxes on the land that somehow becomes owned by the same people who hired the people who Slaughtered the Settlers while being dressed up as Indians.

Despite all that, there is Liberty, more or less, at least Liberty FROM the well paid liars in England.

So the well paid Liars in England demand Union Dues, and Americans say no, no thanks, we can't afford those dues, and so Liberty wins again, despite the fact that someone wanted WAR, and those same people happened to Loan out a lot of things, and a lot of fraudulent things, at high prices, at "market prices", profiting from WAR, but despite all that, Friends of Liberty get Liberty FROM those well paid Liars in England with their very expensive Union Dues, that can't be refused, so say the Army and the King who pays the Army with your Union Dues that you pay to The King.

Sweet deal?

Pay me, or I'll break your legs.

You and what army?

That brings us to Shays's Rebellion, which is knowable as the Last Battle in The Revolutionary War, and the slaves lost, but they ran to Vermont.

Massachusetts was heavily invested in Despotism within the Voluntary Union, and some States, like Vermont, were challenging the Union Dues, shopping around for a better deal, because it was, after all, Liberty, Under the Articles of Confederation.

Vermont did not (yet) consider the Union to be an offer that can't be refused. They were shopping around, to say the least.

Runaway slaves ran to Vermont, they tried to love it in Massachusetts, and not leave it, they tried the ballot box, and they tried the cartridge box, and they lost in Massachusetts, heavily invested in Despotism Massachusetts, so they, running away, ran to Vermont.

Score card?

Friends of Liberty versus Friends of Legal Crime?
1.
Magna Carte with Trial by Jury wins over King John with absolute and getting more absolute despotism?

2.
Trial by Jury is nullified by the knuckle heads and their devils whispering in their ears so King trumps Subjects again?

3.
Runaway Slaves run to America, where it isn't a cake walk by any means, but Liberty is sweeter than burning at the stake?

4.
The King rears his ugly head once again, the crime of what? Taxation without representation? War, no cake walk again, but Liberty prevails again?

5.
The concept of Voluntary Union is tested as one State experiments in Despotism and the slaves fight back but are defeated and they run to a better State in the Competitive Voluntary Union, such being the Designed IN feature of a Democratic Federated Republic, modeled after the Holland example, the Swiss example, and perhaps even the Athens example of centuries gone by, so Liberty wins again, as Federal Troops are not assembled to force Vermont to give back the slaves who ran from Despotism in Massachusetts?

6.
Central Bankers hold a Secret Meeting with Southern Slavers and they then conduct a False Advertisement Campaign to enforce their Dirty Compromise on the Targeted Victims North and South, East and West, on into the Frontier where all those Rebels went to get away from Central Bankers and Despotism LOOMING inside the Infant Republic?

You can't see the Check Mate yet?

7.
George Washington Crushes the last of The Spirit of Liberty by assembling a Conscripted National Army the size of the Army he abused in the Fight For Liberty, and now he orders those Troops against moral principle to go into a Formerly Sovereign State, Pennsylvanian, where the Rebels are weakest, and the Order is to make an example of what happens when someone dares to invent, produce, and maintain a competitive form of money?

Your words again:

"My point was basically that the invasion was 'illegal' according to the constitution, hence the war."

The Civil War?

You are jumping past The Whiskey Rebellion, or not, so what about the other things on the list of things won by the forces of Despotism, or Legal Crime, or whatever word is in fashion according to the Official Dictionary?

Alien and Sedition Acts?

Trade Wars?

Excise Taxes?

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?

Old Hickory threatening to invade with Federal Troops while States assemble their State Militias in response?

Suddenly the Civil War just happens and it is "illegal"?

Seriously?

"My point was basically that the invasion was 'illegal' according to the constitution, hence the war. "

The war was conducted so as to slaughter people.

Black, white, young, old, babies, pregnant women, teenagers, workers, slaves, tax payers, Indians, good guys, bad guys, who cares, you?

You care?

I get that, but why is it hard to see, if it is hard to see, that the WAR was "hence" because actual people, putting their pants on in the morning, WANTED DEAD PEOPLE on poles, heads cut off, heads stuck on poles, torture chambers, victims strapped down, death, torture, death, torture, and they can't get away with it unless it is covered up somehow.

What better way than to make it lawful for them to do it?

Is that really that hard to see?

Really?

"You yourself acknowledged that Madison did INTEND to limit federal power, even if he was unsuccessful and possibly manipulated by Hamilton. So that in contrast to your characterizing the war as a 'legal crime' I'm saying it was an illegal crusade (with crusade as in a military expedition that the organisers claim is justified by Christian morality, whether or not that is the case)."

Jurors, individuals, get to decide what IS legal, or what IS not legal, or even what legal is, when Trial by Jury works as it is designed to work by Jurors, not by me waking up in the morning, putting my pants on, and then reading what the Official Paper says I am supposed to think without question.

That can be preserved, that hard won privilege, under Voluntary Unions, as proven in history, but that cannot be preserved when the subject are convinced that they have to provide the means by which we suffer, that is a no go, or, alternatively: yes lets have Liberty, yes - or no - not maybe.

BREAK

"The legal justification for its powers as representatives of democratic will. You say it misses the point but that is the point I'm trying to make. The status of the two sides of the war argument according to the law of the Constitution."

I say that the point is to point out the diametric opposite of Voluntary Association and Involuntary Association as those who seek Involuntary Association GET IT in the way that they do GET IT, and if you say that Involuntary Association is "legal", or whatever word you slap onto it, I say that THE POINT IS that it is LEGAL CRIME.

No, of course, the criminals are apt to say that it is legal, sure, I get that, but the victims, each one, wakes up some morning and says, hmmmmmmmmm, paying for my own demise, and working harder to die more miserably, and faster, is not actually what I prefer, and what, exactly, am I leaving the kids?

or

They never wake up, they keep working harder, they keep getting more miserable, and they die faster as they keep sending more and more of the provisions that provide for their own demise.

or

They wake up and say fine, I have no problem with it, take me wherever you want me to go, torture chambers, gas chambers, meat grinders, wars for your exclusive profit, how fast do you want me to run, how high do you want me to jump, and by the way there is some brain matter splattered on the boot you have placed on my neck, is it mine, sorry; if you want, if it pleases you, let me lick that jack boot clean.

Which is it?

Something new, something different this time around?

"North and South is intended as shorthand for these two sides/ arguments, not geographically! Guess I should have made that clearer."

If that is what you mean then that is what you mean, and you don't then mean to say, or think, that a thing can be responsible, but the point was pointed out, and it is valid, that there are people who are suckered into thinking that The Gun did it, or The Government did it, or the Pointed Stick did it, while the actual criminals, with or without the badges, perpetuates what the guns, governments, and pointed sticks keep on doing to all those poor innocent people who have piled up, are piling up, and will pile up so long as that LIE remains believable.

Is that worth pointing out, even if you don't, ever, fall victim to it?

"Although still struggle with the idea that the Constitution and Declaration are incompatible."

How about evidence?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

A.
Duty IS insurrection against usurping people running governments

B.
Law IS usurpation will be suppressed

One is one thing the other is the opposite thing.

Who judges the case, for example, those people whose duty is was to fight both the British and Massachusetts despots, such as the example provided by Daniel Shays?

Daniel Shays was a Revolutionary War veteran doing his duty in The Revolutionary War, and again doing his duty in Shay's Rebellion, and he, and his army, won the first round, and he, and his army, lost the second round, and in both cases he was operating under The Articles of Confederation, and it was possible to run to Vermont, where the people running Vermont welcomed Revolutionary War Veterans.

The people running Massachusetts wanted to make an example of what happens when Revolutionary War Veterans dare to continue their duty described in The Declaration if Independence.

Who was the judge at the Federal Level then?

Danial Shays voted with his feet, which is how a Democratic Federated Republic is designed to work - voluntarily and competitively despite the often machinations of criminals with badges.

When the same Central Bankers tried the same routine Taxation without Representation under The Constitution, what happens, who is the judge?

Washington pulls Section 8 out of his back pocket?

Conscripts an National Army?

Invades a formerly Sovereign State known as Pennsylvania?

Crushes a few money competitors who dare to make their own usable commodity money while the Central Bankers have managed to make Gold so scarce as to be non-existent, and Hamilton has the unmitigated gall to demand Whiskey Tax payments IN GOLD no less?

Are you kidding me?

"Cannot agree that the Constitution made slavery legal as it was legal beforehand."

Whatever.

It was not legal in Vermont in a specific legal precedent, and at least one Slave ran from Massachusetts where tax slavery was being made legal, as you say: (it was legal beforehand), and then what could the Slave Traders at Nation State Center do about it under The Articles of Confederation?

Pound sand?

Congress wrung their hands, pounding sand, and wishing they could go get those slaves back from Vermont, so as to make examples out of them?

That was a legal precedent.

"Cannot agree that the Constitution made slavery legal as it was legal beforehand."

You are deceived, obviously, and measurably, or it is me. So what do I care about that?

"So what you're saying is that the present-day US only actually enjoyed 12 years of true liberty?"

A Legal Fiction (US) is incapable of enjoyment, so I'm not saying the words you appear to think I am saying, if, and this is a long shot, if I understand what you are saying in English.

"Patrick Henry sounds like a good guy, will have to learn more about him!"

Troubled times were upon them, and I think there are things to know - better.

Joe

Hmmm

Very interesting rhetorical epic, again. I am going to have to disagree with you though on some things, with respect

1) Legal crime, as I'm sure you are aware, is a contradiction in terms, and so doesn't really mean much.
2) There is such a thing as law, generally understood, which, whether you like it or not, exists even in involuntary associations as long as it is supposed to be equally applied to all (equality before the law, also in Magna Carta), which is a requirement for law to be law. Whereas, lawa does not depend on its being accepted or adopted by voluntary association for it to be law. And...
3) That voluntary association and approval of law which you speak of, is NOT what is generally meant by the term 'Trial by Jury'. That's a huge over-construction of that legal term. As explained, the right to trial by jury in Magna Carta, and indeed in the Bill of Rights 1688 and I believe the US Constitution does NOT give the jurors the right to legislate law, only to judge facts. Much as you may WANT it to mean something else, and believe it 'truly' does according to 'natural law', that is not actually what the written and generally understood term was intended to mean and does mean, legally. It has a specific meaning, and it is not that.

I take your points about the early 'consolidation' of power even before the Constitution, it certainly seems that by precedent the war was not breaking new ground, but I still say that according to interpretation of the specific, legal structure that was the constitution, it was illegal.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Legal Crime? Legal Criminals? What?

Excuse me for butting in here but I would like to talk a little on the disputed term of Legal Crime.

Legal Criminals commit Legal Crime because Legal Criminals make their crime legal by writing their own laws; i.e., what we see here in our land are criminals who write laws to benefit themselves.

What would you call it every time congress passes an unconstitutional law?

What would you call it when the supreme court rules against the constitutional rights of the people?

Criminal acts made legal?

NDAA & Patriot Act...what was against the constitution has now been made legal?
_________________________________
Legal crime as opposed to those who commit illegal crimes.

Illegal Criminal - a bank robber

Legal Criminal - Ben Bernanke

Both are robbing the people, one is doing it under a Federal Reserve charter.

How about when the gold was confiscated from the people? The people's gold coinage was stolen and replaced with what? Where is that gold now? I hear it is not in Fort Knox. What about when Ron Paul says the people’s money has been devalued over 90% since the Federal Reserve was given Charter?

It was all "legal"

Question: Was Crime was made legal with the Federal Reserve Charter?
Question: Are legal criminals committing legal crime authorized by the Federal Reserve Charter?
_________________________

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html
had much to say about the demise of liberty upon ratification of the constitution.

3.16 “How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone—not sufficiently secured in criminal—this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands.”

__________________________

How about this thought...removal of true Trial by Jury as promoted in Magna Carta was made legal by the constitution.

Trial by Jury was stolen by Legal Criminals who made their Crime Legal thus instituting Legal Crime.
_________________________

Legal Crime/Legal Criminals is a phrase that carries much power. Legal Criminals are in control of our country and when we start calling them that people perk up and listen.

Shall we call them: "Elected Officials" or "Legal Criminals?"

There are crimes committed against the law...and there are laws that have made crime legal ...for some people.

Sorry can't agree

Am in complete agreement as to their criminality, but a term like 'legal crime' is not helpful in explaining the case to people imho. Its like saying 'black white'. It doesn't make any sense within its own terms and so doesn't really convey much meaning and ultimately leads to confusion. Why not just call them crimimals? That's what they are.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

More on Legal Crime

I think the difference between Legal Criminals and Illegal Criminals is that Legal Criminals have written the laws that make their crime legal. It is legal for congress to participate in insider trading: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/insider-trading-is...

I don't know anything about that site, I just did a quick search because it was an issue I remember hearing about.

Yes, they are criminals, but the are "legal" criminals because their criminal acts have been made legal by themselves.

Someone outside of congress participating in insider trading is commiting a crime against the law....like....Martha Stewart. If she had been in congress, her crime would have been legal...no jail. Not a member of congress...off to jail you go.

The term Legal Crime differentiates an act from that of one of Unlawful Crime.

President sends a drone and kills innocent victims…Legal because President says so. Is it still a crime? What kind?

You send a drone that kills innocent victims…Illegal because Law says so. Is it still a crime? What kind?

Despots think alike?

"1) Legal crime, as I'm sure you are aware, is a contradiction in terms, and so doesn't really mean much."

Your ability to be sure of something is being tested right now as I see absolutely no contradiction. A Despot, as in a human being, not God, makes crime legal, that is what they do, and it is undeniable that that is what they do, unless you are a despot too, and then you can say anything one day, and that is law for that day, and then you can say the opposite thing the next day, and then the opposite thing is law the next day, there is no contradiction according to the Dictator.

Dictators very often have no cause to excuse a law that they can do something, torture for example, at will, on anyone, and that is lawful, not crime, because they do it, and when someone else does it, that is a crime, and there is no contradiction, they can do it, that is the law, they can torture anyone, that is the law, not a crime, and when someone else spits on the side walk, that can be a crime worthy of torture, because that is what Dictators do, and you can argue the point, sure, while you are being tortured, but according to Dictators the law is that they make the laws, and you don't, so crime is lawful, crime is made legal, by dictators, they do it all the time, why should I "believe" otherwise, because a dictator may say that Legal Crime is a contradiction in terms?

You and what army says so?

When torture is legal, which happens, not news, not new, it happens, a lot, and when it happens, then as far as the accurate meanings of words go, torture (which is a crime) is made legal, therefore dictators are Legal Criminals, because they commit crimes, and they enforce their laws upon their victims.

Legal Crime. I see no contradiction. It happens all the time. It is very destructive, sure, but it is not a contradiction.

Fraud is a contradiction?

To who is Legal Crime a contradiction? To who is fraud a contradiction? Not the frauds, they know exactly what is IS, while the victims are mired up on contradictions?

"2) There is such a thing as law, generally understood, which, whether you like it or not, exists even in involuntary associations as long as it is supposed to be equally applied to all (equality before the law, also in Magna Carta), which is a requirement for law to be law. Whereas, lawa does not depend on its being accepted or adopted by voluntary association for it to be law. And..."

So those are facts?

Involuntary associations are crimes made legal, from the victims point of view, but perhaps, as you are now confessing, from a Legal Criminal's point of view, it is lawful to enslave people, there is no crime, Masters create Slaves, that is, weather the slaves like it or not, JUST the way it is, so you can stuff it?

Provisos, excuses, rationalizations, fine print, apologies, such beautiful clothing covering up the Emperor: "so long as it is supposed to be equally applied to all", or not, depending upon what, exactly?

or

Is the concept of accuracy not on the list?

So, sure, you now say that equality before Man's law, upon man, is the demarcation line, according to you, and an Army?

If it is not equal it is crime. If it is equal it is law.

That is law according to you, now.

So torture applied to everyone, equally, is law.

Mass murder, applied to everyone, equally, is law.

That is THE requirement, supposed to be applied to everyone equally, and yet, as it happens, some people just LOVE to torture, so they are happy about that law, and other people, well, their hearts are not in it, law is, perhaps, tough to get exactly as equal as ONE might dictate?

"Whereas, lawa does not depend on its being accepted or adopted by voluntary association for it to be law. And..."

How convenient, now I can't wait for the rest of my education in what I am equally put the the whip for.

"That voluntary association and approval of law which you speak of, is NOT what is generally meant by the term 'Trial by Jury'. That's a huge over-construction of that legal term."

Since we two appear to be in two different universes I think it may be prudent of us to depend less on what we think the other person knows, and it may be as good an idea to read less between the lines of each others offerings of English Text.

Trial by Jury, in my opinion, is definitely not a Voluntary Association when dealing with criminals or legal criminals, since criminals don't like having their victims taken from them.

Trial by Jury, it seems to me, is the Dogs of Defensive War unleashed upon the ready supply of criminals AND criminals with badges.

Voluntary Associations, on the other hand, are what they are IN Liberty.

Trial by Jury steps across the demarcation line often, depending upon the roll of the dice, or the flip of the coin, as may or may not happen, all 12 Dogs in that War may agree upon who knows what, a public hanging, or even torture. I'm not the authority on what any Juror might do, in any case, and neither was King John, and that was the point.

Trial by Jury may very well be voluntary among The Friends of Liberty, but what happens if 12 Friends of Legal Crime happen to be picked out of the hat?

"That's a huge over-construction of that legal term."

How about using quotes, in cases where your words claim to trump my words, as if my words are in need of your translation?

"As explained, the right to trial by jury in Magna Carta, and indeed in the Bill of Rights 1688 and I believe the US Constitution does NOT give the jurors the right to legislate law, only to judge facts."

Your words are directly opposite Lysander Spooner's words, in reference to Trial by Jury in England after the invention, production, and employment of Magna Carte, so why is your words authomatically better than Lysander Spooner's, in your mind - exclusively?

As to "The Constitution" as explained by Patrick Henry: Trial by Jury was gone.

You wrote:

"the US Constitution does NOT give the jurors the right to legislate law, only to judge facts."

Patrick Henry was right, again, as proven by your belief in fraud?

Have you been on a Jury?

"Much as you may WANT it to mean something else, and believe it 'truly' does according to 'natural law', that is not actually what the written and generally understood term was intended to mean and does mean, legally. It has a specific meaning, and it is not that."

That sounds like the final word, and I'm not surprised. This is not news, dictators have their ways.

It is not news.

"I take your points about the early 'consolidation' of power even before the Constitution, it certainly seems that by precedent the war was not breaking new ground, but I still say that according to interpretation of the specific, legal structure that was the constitution, it was illegal."

There is hope? You doubt your authority on the subject slightly?

Law is equal, according to you, and that may be true, or it may not be true?

Joe

Well its been fun debating with you Joe

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You have educated me on some American history and thanks for that. But I don't think your arguments are helped by the subjective way you use terminology.

'Law' has a certain specific meaning, so does 'Trial by Jury'. If you insist on your own meanings for them its hard for people you are communicating with to know what you are trying to say!

For instance:
"Your words are directly opposite Lysander Spooner's words, in reference to Trial by Jury in England after the invention, production, and employment of Magna Carte, so why is your words authomatically better than Lysander Spooner's..."

They're not. Am not talking about my words, was talking about the actual text of Magna Carta itself. As quoted to you above. That was a complete and exhaustive verbatim transcription of what that document says regarding Trial by Jury. It simply does not say anything else about it. There is no mention of the right to judge law, as you can see. That's an objective fact. Not my words, but those of the Barons and John Angevin. That is where the authority comes from, the words themselves.

Anyway, all the best.

In Liberty, Will

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Time out?

"They're not. Am not talking about my words, was talking about the actual text of Magna Carta itself. As quoted to you above."

Can I call a time out?

Suppose there was no debate going on since one of us does not argue?

Suppose that happens, and then we both decide to accurately measure the facts?

You appear to be claiming that words are more important than deeds, and so I ask, kindly, as to my measure of the facts in English:

Are you claiming that words are more important than deeds.

I can understand your messages better if I can get an accurate answer to the question I ask in this request for a time out from whatever you think is a "debate".

Joe

Although

You have convinced me that the Constitution may have been maliciously designed as a menace to Liberty and not to safeguard it.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Now, if I understand

Now, if I understand correctly, when true trial by jury existed, the juror could ask any question and the juror could negate the charges against a defendant and the juror could negate the law by which the charges were brought. Additionally, if I have it correct the juror if finding the defendant guilty could also determine the punishment. And those jurors, were not hand selected by the prosecution and defense attorneys, but by blind drawing, or sortition. I haven’t read Spooner’s Trial by Jury yet, but do I have the basic tenants correct?

Trial by Jury was instituted by the Magna Carta?

Quote time

" FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them."

Some time ago, after I found that information, I went to The Fully Informed Jury Association, armed with that information, and I was quickly thrown off that Forum, my entire body of work was removed, and if the people in control of that forum could, my guess is that they would, have me sent in the memory hole along with that information.

How deep does our web of deceit go here in America?

You are beginning to excavate the deep wells.

Joe

Interesting

Have never heard this understanding of Trial by Jury before. Whose quotes are those? This does go a great deal further than Magna Carta (1215) though. That only says:

"No freeman shall be taken or [and] imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or [and] by the law of the land."

(Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae.)

In other words it does not give the Jurors ('peers' - equals) the authority to judge the 'law of the land' itself.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Lysander Spooner

"Whose quotes are those?"

Lysander Spooner was one of the few who became known as the individualist anarchists in the mid 19th Century and Spooner's work includes the three I've read:

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40

http://jim.com/treason.htm

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/35

"In other words it does not give the Jurors ('peers' - equals) the authority to judge the 'law of the land' itself."

Here is where I cannot agree with someone making such a claim as the above, in English, since I've been on a Jury and I figured it out myself. Human Beings authorize their own authority and it will either be equitable or it will be criminal.

Human beings can subject themselves to the authority of other human beings, against their own better judgement, and that, to me, is criminal.

Why would anyone ever volunteer to be a victim?

Setting aside my own thoughts on Trial by Jury I can answer the claim made with quotes from Spooner's work, which appears to be more than just on person's individual judgment.

"The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” 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. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?"

Polling the country, as We The People tend to do, begging the question?

And what does The well Brain Washed Country say in response, within their own, individual, power of accurate, moral, good, faithful, equitable, judgment?

Joe

Get the point you're making

My point was only that that right is not granted in Magna Carta as one of your quotes stated above.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Divergent Principles?

You have a point, and it is your point, and I can see your point, as you intend to convey it to someone else, like me.

What are the facts?

I was at a National Rifle Association Meeting where the people there were gathering in support of a competitor seeking the office of Congressman in my district. I was on the ballot as was the competitor being supported by "The NRA".

I was in the audience, a member of The NRA myself, and a question was raised, and I knew that my competitor was supporting The Assault Weapons Ban, and so I was confused as to these divergent principles, and so I raised my hand in answer to the question.

I wanted to state clearly to those assembled and I still see the same duty now, as it is not a POWER contained in a piece of paper that authorizes my defense of Liberty, in any way, the authority is mine.

Your interpretation of a document may be your point.

What does that have to do with me?

Joe

Only that you misquoted that document

and misrepresented its meaning. Am in agreement that your authority comes from no other but yourself and God. Rightly said. But please don't quote Magna Carta in support of your argument to say things that it doesn't actually say.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Stepping over the line?

Here we apparently have a divergence of perspective concerning which meaning IS intended and which meaning IS communicated.

Where has someone, me for example, quoted Magna Carte?

Who intends to argue anything, me for example, and if that meaning has been communicated to you, then can you quote the words I published where you arrive at this meaning that is supposedly attributable to me concerning an argument I supposedly mean to invent, produced, and maintain?

Trial by Jury is explained to my satisfaction, according to my understanding of how our human condition works, in the Essay written by Lysander Spooner where the title of the Essay is Trial by Jury and the actual Text is published in several places in several forms, and it is therefore possible to re-publish the actual text right here, if there are any disagreements concerning the actual text, or any disagreements concerning the actual meaning of the text intended or communicated to any two people who may offer competitive viewpoints concerning those divergent viewpoints.

My understanding of the meaning of a discussion is not the same thing as my understanding of the meaning of an argument, and as far as I am concerned my offerings here are intending to supply a supply of roughly half of an equitable discussion to meet roughly half of the demand for an equitable discussion.

I do not appreciate someone else making public claims concerning my intentions on this forum when those claims are, at best, half true.

Why invent, produce, and maintain the half false parts?

I don't get it, but I can guess.

Your intention here is to argue, so you project your intention unto me, transferring your perspective onto me, as if your fiat version of my intentions can become real because you say so, as if you could dictate to me the intentions that I am solely accountable for as my intentions are mine alone, unless I am somehow driven, like a mindless drone, by some external power other than my own response ability.

Where is this supposed misquote of that document as in:

"Only that you misquoted that document"

Were there another Friend of Liberty alive today I could ask for some help in this case of false accusations perpetrated publicly by one forum member UPON another.

There could then be a Trial by Jury of ONE peer in defense of the Liberty of another peer, to question the right or wrongness of the case, to render a judgement, and execute the public broadcasted verbal discredit as punishment.

Who is the "you" in "Only that you misquoted that document"?

"But please don't quote Magna Carta in support of your argument to say things that it doesn't actually say."

I could be failing in sound mind and body, but as far as I can recall I have not even read Magna Carte, as my understanding of Trial by Jury comes from personal experience and an Essay written by Lysander Spooner, whereby there may have been quotes republished from Magna Carte by Lysander Spooner and if in my efforts to discuss the topic, with anyone, I have taken from the Essay text that has been originally published in Magna Carte, then this fact could be well communicated without any room for misunderstanding on my part, merely by quoting the words I did, in fact, publish on this forum.

As to my intentions being to argue, couched as if there were no other possible intention on my part, well that is simply false, from my viewpoint, and who can know my intentions more competitively?

You or I?

Please consider seeking a second opinion concerning your estimate of my motives since your own opinion is demonstrably false.

My motive is to supply the substance of equitable discussion to anyone demanding equitable discussion, since it was a theory of mine that such a thing can become real until it has become real and is now no longer a theory.

Equitable discussion is not only possible it is demonstrable, in book form, in Modern Times.

Joe

Thomas Jefferson once said:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.'

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom