28 votes

Adam Kokesh To Be Released!: No Guns Allowed Until Trial - VIDEO

$5000 bond granted, probation period to last until October

Steve Watson | Infowars.com | July 15, 2013

Pro-Second Amendment activist Adam Kokesh has been released from jail following his arrest during a raid on his Virginia home last week.

Kokesh was granted bond Monday and is expected to be released this afternoon, according to a report by local ABC News affiliate WJLA.

Continue:

Read more: http://www.infowars.com/k...




Comment viewing options

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

I knew you'd discover

dragon naturally speaking

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You were my mentor

after all!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

yeah

"Luke, I am your father"

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You're just not very good at this are you?

Darth didn't mentor Luke!

C'mon, if you are going to play the game, at least try!

Pity your clients!!!

But I appreciate the compliment, I am a Jedi!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Blubber!

Blabber blabber!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

We will win

You can spill your bs out all you want. I see clearly how we can protect our laws and in turn protect ourselves from psychos like you.

DP watch out for this guy. He has openly admitted he has worked explicitly to subvert our laws and reinforce precedent of ADL dribble that further usurps the protection of our laws. That's why you will always see ego stroking and name calling coming from him but never detailed facts.

Boneless Chicken knows that if everyone were to truly realize the true nature of law then we can SHAPE LAW using Real Law. Real Law is inherent hierarchy of applicable law to applicable entities which are inherently consistent and all encompassing. If our only true understanding is that a valid cause of action requires allegations of actual injury through a consenting accusation of the governed then we can systematically begin to shape Common Law due to the unyielding Law of Nature called Time. Common Law changes over time and it has changed in the direction of tyranny because We the People have forgotten what exactly consent of the governed and a valid cause of actions actually means historically when it comes to courts having subject matter jurisdiction. We can simply rediscover this fact and then challenge jurisdiction on every pre-emptive unlawful action initiated by "government" without consent of the governed and the courts will yield to the UNYIELDING Law of Time and self-evident fact. We will remember the equitable nature of Common Law or we will lose it in exchange for tyranny.

Boneless Chicken is one of the tyrants who understands and seeks to further confuse people here so that We the People won't see clearly that codes do not claim applicability to the People for very explicit reasons in maintaining logically congruent laws that do not ever conflict with one another. Codes/statutes applies to person (a legal capacity) for the very specific reason that regulation applies to contractually created limited liability capacities where regulation defines the scope and duty of that legal personhood capacity which is NOT legally or lawfully equivalent to a full liability man or woman (People). Read all case law and codes very carefully and you will see what I am talking about here. It is obvious how we got to where we are once one realizes what happened with the applicability of legal personhood before and after the Civil War. Lysander Spooner nailed the whole thing perfectly clearly in No Treason but Boneless Chicken cannot debate on this level because BC knows very little history outside of case law since the Civil War and he clearly does not know hardly anything about the historical foundations of the Law of Agency.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Okay

One last time. I will spend a few minutes debunking your crap. Not because anyone cares, but what the heck, I just got to the office after court, I have a few minutes, and it gets me warmed up for more difficult challenges during the day. Kind of like a 25-yard dash or two before running a 10k. I also find it a little offensive that someone without any knowledge or understanding holds himself out to have that and give advice on such an important subject as the law or legal procedure.

But it does take some time, so don't expect this each time from me, k? See, your errors in logic and legal knowledge are often piled 3 or 4 deep on top of each other, and frankly not all of them could even be addressed without spending a couple of hours. But I'll spend a few minutes and kill it dead.

Here goes nothing:

The Judge Entering a Plea:

Judges enter pleas in criminal cases, that is what they do. It is not "practicing law from the bench" or else it would be impossible to arraign anyone. By him assuming that, in the absence of Kokesh vocalizing a plea, that he was "not guilty" is actually protective of Mr. Kokesh'es freedom. Your position is supposed outrage at this. It is a non-issue.

I'm not sure what to make of Kokesh playing silent. Sure, it'll get fans on the internet. But he is an experienced provocateur and while I can understand how someone new to the system might prefer to say nothing until their atty is present, in his case, he knows better and should have been aware that he wasn't giving up any rights by saying "not guilty." But for showboating it has some effect.

Your various other statements on the subject, e.g, "silence would be within common law" make no sense to anyone with a legal education.

Jurisdiction:

Ok, so "you" (source noted) "challenge jurisdiction" first thing. A frivolous challenge gets you nowhere and makes you look like a dipshit. Saying codes don't provide jurisdiction, is well, wrong. That is where jurisdiction is defined and delineated. And while you may disagree, that Court will look at the Code. So, if "Adam knows what he is doing" (as you put it) he won't argue nonsense.

Now, why is it that you believe this Court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction? It clearly does. You and I may dislike that certain laws exist, that Adam was arrested, or that there are any restrictions at all on the first and second amendments. In fact, we both do dislike those things, apparently. But this court clearly is the correct court to deal with it. If it weren't, some other court would have jurisdiction, as it isn't like there are criminal statutes without courts to enforce them; never seen that one. To me, your argument here falls into the "needless and ineffective babbling at the beginning of the case" type of strategy. Not a very wise one.

Informing Court Personnel of their Crimes:

To state the obvious, a mere finding of not guilty doesn't mean that everyone in the courthouse is corrupt or criminal or anything else (other than fellow carbon-based life forms). They are there doing a job. Whether you are guilty or not of a charge, that doesn't make the court clerk, the vice janitor, or the bailiff a "criminal" or give them any specific intent with regard to you. Surely you can understand that.

And even if that could be "criminal" that criminality would turn on the issue of whether or not you did the crime accused of. And at the point you first appear in court, none of that has been decided. It is really bad form to tick off the clerk, bailiff, judge, etc., especially if you are there on any kind of violence-related, or disturbance themed issue or if your sanity is at all in issue (and from your prior descriptions of your cases, that applies to most of your ventures into court).

Your speculation that "they never want to deal with it" because "they have already admitted the exact code defined felonies" is a real gas.

Consent vs. No Consent:

You don't have to consent to being charged with a crime. In fact, I think the presumption is that most aren't consenting, or they would just plead guilty and show up at the prison with their toothbrushes. Your statement that "consent is very tricky" is nonsensical.

As to Whether Adam Knows What He is Doing:

Well, if he does, I assume he'll make you plenty unhappy.

Your Personal Attacks/ Worked Explicitly to Subvert Our Laws:

No, I've studied and practiced law, including reading more case law from pre-and post-civil war cases, in more subjects, than you will ever read and I love liberty. In particular, I fancy Constitutional law, having scored second in my class on that subject and to this day have copies of current editions of leading Constitutional Law hornbooks which I read for enjoyment, and for brushing up on issues that are in the news. I hate fakes.

Legal Personhood After the Civil War:

Remained the same. No evidence for anything to the contrary. The civil war amendments did make state citizens national citizens, but it created no mumbo jumbo straw man nor did anything else create that, ever, nor do you have any reason to think such a thing exists.

What is Real Law:

Yes, Natural Law is a wonderful thing. However, when you are playing in their league, which Adam is, you can't pretend that there aren't codes and statutes that - though you may disagree with them - still are on the books and can be enforced. If you want to change the law, work to change the law. Breaking the laws that exist then showing up and arguing some form of "I disagree with the law" is a losing proposition, every single time. I've never seen any form of that argument prevail in a court, anywhere. So, if "Adam knows what he is doing" he will not argue that, at least not outside the realm of a Supreme Court appellate argument where high concepts can be decided.

What You Don't Even Realize

His case presents what could be something of an issue of first impression - does an act of free speech and protest, that happens to violate a gun ordinance, remain criminal or does the first amendment trump it? (Along with the obvious second, fourth, and fifth amendment due process issues here?). Is there even a case precedent on that? I do remember the "naked guy" case where a nude protestor was found not gulty of violating an anti-nudity ordinance because he was engaged in a protest by his nudity, and therefore it was considered protected political speech under first amendment jurisprudence. But I suspect the current court will apply a different test when it comes to violating a gun ordinance. I do not like that, but intellectually, it will be interesting.

Where You Would Go Wrong

If you were handling this case, instead of arguing the interesting meritorious reasons why this should not be a crime, you would instead focus on your idiotic fake world of fake legal procedures that don't exist in any law book anywhere. I rather assumed you'd do the following:

1. You would show up and angrily call all of the workers in the courthouse fascists/statists and conspirators in a criminal enterprise against you. Even the dude working on the vending machines is in on it. Not to mention the intern from the high school honors class, or the court reporter. Everyone is guilty at first blush to the man named Phreedom!

2. You would then tell the Court that it was an admiralty court, and look furtively around the room for some fringe on a flag or some illuminati symbolism to confirm your heartfelt suspicions. The Court would inform you of the code section which gives it jurisdiction. You will by now be well on your way to having the Court think you are just plain guilty and are here playing games.

3. You would continue with antics involving your imaginary friend, i.e. straw man/corporate personage. A few minutes of babbling and you will have now disposed the Court to believe you might be insane, or at least seriously stupid. And, you will have done nothing to either impress the Court with your demeanor, establish yourself as someone who is intelligent and worth listening to, or to controvert the charges against you.

4. It would just go downhill from there, as you miss arguing any of the actual salient issues, and instead focus on your fruitless attempt to impose your imaginary "sovereign citizen" (yeah, I know you don't like that term) views on the Court. It won't work.

5. Finally, like a fish on a wire, you'll either run out of steam, or get hauled into the "Boat" i.e., lock-up residential housing facility.

6. You'll have lost.

7. Your appellate attorney will realize that because you didn't say anything that made any sense during your trial, there is nothing he can do to help you on appeal. You had your chance, even could have had a free lawyer, but nooooo...., you're too smart for them. Or so you thought.

Then, when you got out a few months later, you'd post up here about how you had a multimillion dollar lawsuit against everyone in the courthouse, that you won but they "changed the rules" and that everyone was "corrupt" and "out to get you."

I will assume Kokesh isn't that stupid.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

See "In Common Law" above

Where most these issues are addressed.

And NO code does define and delineate jurisdiction if that jurisdiction is inherently unlawful i.e. if the codes conflict with Real Law then those codes are not valid and it is the Courts duty as a separate and equal branch of Government to provide the forum for We the People to demonstrate the invalidity of the Code and nullify such as never having any lawful application.

If the Courts have jurisdiction defined by the Legislature without review for validity then the Judicial branch would stand under (NOT equal to)the legislature. Boneless Chicken you seem to fail every time on every issue. I guess that is what "legal education" writing your neural nets results in; CONFUSION! Now your ego driven confusion works in the system and destroys the protections of Law in exchange for control freak terrorists levying war against We the People and extorting us to continue their all out tyranny over us.

The time has come for the people to begin the long systematic and asymmetric process of building vast intelligence networks and detailed dossier databases on every single criminal in the "courts" and "government" in order for We the People to bring justice and remedy to every single bureaucrat who injures anyone unjustly. With the right software tools we can enable vast asymmetric and ANONYMOUS intelligence gathering consolidation and sharing on all of these bureaucrats and every time they come into our life we can open dossiers on them and provide a central but mirrored and distributed database for adding to the dossier by anyone anonymously. This can enable We the People to let them know that we are not the prey and they are not our predators. For the really bad ones we can literally enable asymmetric intel ops that arise naturally out of the threat level they demonstrate with their own actions. These really dangerous criminal bureaucrats could have every single aspect of their pieced together from anonymous people who understand the need for such detailed intel on where they live, who they interact with, where they hangout at, time stamped and geographic recording, network maps and more along with vote generated threat levels based on corroboration of intel in the individuals dossier. We can publish this information for all the world to see and show these psychopaths how easy it would be bring them to justice thereby through induction demonstrate that they will operate in lawful agency or they will go to prison. The dossiers on them would essentially be the criminal case file to be taken to the jury for remedy and justice. This is how we can surgically remove them and move the timeless law of liberty into the 21 century and beyond. We can invert the technocratic control grid into a MUCH MORE POWERFUL asymmetric organic force that can not be infiltrated because it individuals operating on historical records and patterns of demonstrated behavior of the criminals. If they ever try to go full NAZI with their camps and mass roundups we can then have all the intel distributed necessary for enabling lawful militias to surgically remove the criminal tyrants who seek to reduce us to absolute despotism. We can publish everything so that they know EXACTLY what they are facing and think twice about injuring We the People through color of law claims. All of their bullshit in the world won't matter when the physical reality of their existence is dependent upon lawful behavior within the limited bounds of their agency to the People. All of this is totally lawful because it is our duty in Law to throw off such tyrants in exchange for new guards of our security. The revolution needs top be continuous eternally because it is corrupted criminal individual men/women who perform the criminal acts that usurp the Laws in exchange for their colorable claims.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

OK, you don;t like certain laws

and a lot of people don't like certain laws. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Pretending that laws don't exist, or pretending that other laws you would prefer do exist, is not a legal strategy that works.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

3rd party opinion

My comments intend to offer, voluntarily, a more accurate, a more powerful, and a more useful viewpoint.

Let the beholder judge the offer.

"I also find it a little offensive that someone without any knowledge or understanding holds himself out to have that and give advice on such an important subject as the law or legal procedure."

Note the use of the absolute wording, where the attacker, the libeler, used the phrase "without any knowledge," where the words "any" is chosen by the libeler.

"Judges enter pleas..."

Note the statement of fact, where there is an obvious cause to challenge the use of the word "Judges" as a point of fact.

Who claims authority in any case?

This is the fundamental question, and an answer that is false has no power unless there is a victim, whereby the victim is suffering from a belief in something false.

"Your various other statements on the subject, e.g, "silence would be within common law" make no sense to anyone with a legal education."

The color of law is one competitive example of "education," whereby the "educated" has earned something of value in that investment. Someone, on the other hand, who has earned something other than an education in the color of law, may have something to offer anyone, so long as the offer isn't offered to a criminal, where the criminal has a false badge, and false authority.

"Ok, so "you" (source noted) "challenge jurisdiction" first thing. A frivolous challenge gets you nowhere and makes you look like a dipshit."

Many "court" cases involve very evil criminals claiming false authority and there is one example I have in mind concerning the criminal injury done to the victims at Waco.

So...specific cases are what they are, and general statements that have no specific application, as a point of established fact, are what?

Plausibly deniable?

"You and I may dislike that certain laws exist, that Adam was arrested, or that there are any restrictions at all on the first and second amendments."

Where common law, as explained in Lysander Spooners Essay on Trial by Jury, in effect, here in America, and if I were on the Jury in a case where some criminal with a badge were claiming that Adam Kokesh was guilty of some injury to someone, I would acquit Adam Kokesh based upon what I know at this point, and I'd acquit Adam Kokesh, all by my self, unless my pertinent questions were answered to my personal satisfaction.

Were common law in effect during a counter claim, made by Adam Kokesh, concerning his injury by the criminals who assaulted him, kidnapped him, injured him, my current understanding is such that my 12th voice in a vote to find guilt is an obvious self-evident fact.

An injury was suffered by Adam Kokesh, and there were criminals who willfully perpetrated those crimes upon Adam Kokesh, beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon what I know at this time, and again my efforts would be geared toward finding facts, based upon questions I have, and unless those questions I have are answered to my satisfaction, the evidence I have currently is conclusive to the obvious injury done to Adam Kokesh by obvious criminals who may happen to have badges of false authority.

"To me, your argument here falls into the "needless and ineffective babbling at the beginning of the case" type of strategy. Not a very wise one."

The "me" in that offered viewpoint sounds to me like one of those idiots a Juror may find in a Jury, whereby the Juror is infected with this belief in false authority. So much for America, with those types of people running amok, but there is hope, yet, since the idea of having 12 people required for condemnation, and only 1 person required for acquittal, in common law, may yet carry the day, in any specific case, at least until the criminals take over completely.

" They are there doing a job. Whether you are guilty or not of a charge, that doesn't make the court clerk, the vice janitor, or the bailiff a "criminal" or give them any specific intent with regard to you. Surely you can understand that."

Again, having this type of person running amok, to me, is very bad for Liberty. But I am only one person. It took 12 in common law, during the times when common law worked as intended, to actually carry any force of law.

At least that is only one "believer" in the legitimacy of sociopaths running the false power of law.

"And at the point you first appear in court, none of that has been decided. It is really bad form to tick off the clerk, bailiff, judge, etc., especially if you are there on any kind of violence-related, or disturbance themed issue or if your sanity is at all in issue (and from your prior descriptions of your cases, that applies to most of your ventures into court)."

To me, again offering, the concept of licking the boots of the criminals as they kick your teeth in is abhorrent. Those who lick, lick, so lick away, and perhaps you may save a few back teeth, as my viewpoint is such that the licking actually inspires more kicking.

To each their own in Liberty.

When crime is legal, there are only criminals claiming authority, so have fun with that, as you may still, as yet, find it to be profitable, so long as the victims who produce anything worth stealing keep working. When the victims who produce anything worth stealing are no longer productive, then the rats have to feed on themselves.

Good luck with that, so long as it remains profitable, and then good luck when the LAWS of diminishing returns set in.

"Your statement that "consent is very tricky" is nonsensical."

The reasoning here, I suppose, is based on the POWER to JUDGE what is, or is not, nonsensical, as can be understood in a short example of exactly that POINT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

When the criminals take over, it is too bad for those less well practiced in the "art" of criminal fraud.

"No, I've studied and practiced law, including reading more case law from pre-and post-civil war cases, in more subjects, than you will ever read and I love liberty. In particular, I fancy Constitutional law, having scored second in my class on that subject and to this day have copies of current editions of leading Constitutional Law hornbooks which I read for enjoyment, and for brushing up on issues that are in the news. I hate fakes."

Me too.

http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

Fakes without power are easily avoided. Those who Usurp the Power of Free Market, Defensive, Law, are torturous, and mass murderous.

They love to feed on the innocent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1b-PHdFZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvl6kO1Vo8

They are psychopaths, sociopaths, and they have their army of "believers" ever ready to cover up their crimes.

Example:

_______________________________________________
Legal Personhood After the Civil War:

Remained the same. No evidence for anything to the contrary. The civil war amendments did make state citizens national citizens, but it created no mumbo jumbo straw man nor did anything else create that, ever, nor do you have any reason to think such a thing exists.
________________________________________________

What is the pay rate per cover-up attempt, while it lasts?

The criminals can be asked, but they are not often inspired to answer accurately.

"Breaking the laws that exist then showing up and arguing some form of "I disagree with the law" is a losing proposition, every single time."

This UNION LAWYER, who I suppose has a membership card, a paying member, UNION DUES, whatever, appears to side with the concept of Tyranny, as opposed to the simple understanding concerning the infringements of natural rights, such as the natural right of defense.

Ask a criminal if it is OK to defend yourself against being injured by the criminal, and see if the answer is yes, in any case.

"But I suspect the current court will apply a different test when it comes to violating a gun ordinance. I do not like that, but intellectually, it will be interesting."

What is meant by the word "court"?

Is it a Trial by Jury?

Does the UNION LAWYER assume authority and if so what is that assumption of authority based upon exactly, without plausible deniability?

"If you were handling this case, instead of arguing the interesting meritorious reasons why this should not be a crime, you would instead focus on your idiotic fake world of fake legal procedures that don't exist in any law book anywhere. I rather assumed you'd do the following:"

I may return to this later. I may not.

Here is the mentioned work by Lysander Spooner on the so called Constitution of No Authority:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treas...

Boneless chicken is an accurate appellation?

Joe

I give up

You guys can believe what you want.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Offer or dictate?

Having an offer rejected is no big deal to me. At one time in my life my thoughts and actions were dominated by the concept of winning arguments, as if one perspective had to win over another perspective in any case, and there had to be a winner and a loser.

During my life, and up until now, it appears as if there is a much better, higher quality, and lower cost alternative to the MONOPOLY of viewpoints dichotomy expressed above in my own words.

Rather than a winner, rather than a winner that wins at all costs, rather than a winner that wins at the expense of the loser, the competitive option is a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.

Rather than false authority gained by any means not limited to any constraints other than that which works in the moment, rather than false authority gained by the liberal use of deception, threats, and violence, rather than crime, or might, making "right," as THE ONE and only monopoly power in false mind, false spirit, and deadly action, there is a competitive alternative or two, or three, or 6 billion, or 12 billion, to the power of exponential increase.

Rather than dictate there is competitive offerings of viewpoints that may work better outside of the crime business of might making right, something for nothing, collective punishment, extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques, quantitative easing, austerity measures, majority rule, dictatorship, and other forms of crime made legal.

Each individual is as qualified as any other in the business of offering a perspective up for grabs, to be accepted, or rejected, by each other individual who is as qualified to judge any case whatsoever, including cases whereby a presumed to be innocent person is targeted by an individual who claims that the presumed to be innocent person is guilty of a crime.

Each individual, everywhere you look, in every home, in every store, in every place on earth, is as qualified as the next one, in judging any case of defensive measures to be taken to avoid any more crime anywhere.

Not children who are not yet fully developed, independent, self-sufficient, individual human beings, and not sociopaths, psychopaths, and not convicted criminals who prove their condition of criminal existence every chance they get, are qualified in a competitive, demonstrable, proven, factual, case, in each case.

So, there are choices, despite the claims made by those who invest in CRIME made LEGAL.

To each their own?

\

Joe

translation

"blabber blabber I have no legal education blabber I have no knowledge of the legal system blabber but despite that my opinions matter as much as anyone else's blabber blabber blabber. "

I disagree.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Liars routinely lie.

Some liars say I give up and prove the fact that their words are lies a short time later.

Joe

Ever talk to a wall?

Or to a crazy person who thinks he is Moses? My trying to reason with you about law is futile, so why do it? You already established that in your mind, knowledge of that subject means nothing because, well, we're all humans and therefore knew the law intuitively when we popped out of the womb. And yet, that is contrary to all experience.

Look, it (your ideas) sounds really groovy and neato and people who aren't old enough to be responsible for themselves might buy into it, but in the real world, if you are in court, and there is a judge, that guy is the judge. Get it? Reality becomes "real" real fast when you aren't just some dork on the net with a computer his mom bought him, clicking away in the basement. For sure, Adam K. isn't following your or phreedom's nonsense.

The founding fathers didn't outlaw courts or lawyers or judges or anything like what you think should happen. You need to go start your own little colony somewheres because the USA, even in its libertarian origins, is not what you desire. But its easy to criticize all when you're a part of nothing.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Happy to offer

Response to common place libel in modern times:

quote_______________________________
Ever talk to a wall?
Or to a crazy person who thinks he is Moses? My trying to reason with you about law is futile, so why do it? You already established that in your mind, knowledge of that subject means nothing because, well, we're all humans and therefore knew the law intuitively when we popped out of the womb. And yet, that is contrary to all experience.
end quote_______________________________

Authority can be demonstrated within a voluntary association.

As soon as a criminal divides a voluntary association there is in that act, by that criminal, a criminal authority made by that criminal upon the victim targeted by that criminal and the inculpatory evidence is produced by the criminal for all who care to see, and know, exactly who is the criminal, and know exactly who may be victim to that crime.

Who is being targeted with the libelous attack made by this person who is now offering a claim of some sort concerning competence of mind?

Who is demonstrating insanity, in fact?

quote__________________________________________
Look, it (your ideas) sounds really groovy and neato and people who aren't old enough to be responsible for themselves might buy into it, but in the real world, if you are in court, and there is a judge, that guy is the judge. Get it? Reality becomes "real" real fast when you aren't just some dork on the net with a computer his mom bought him, clicking away in the basement. For sure, Adam K. isn't following your or phreedom's nonsense.
end quote______________________________________

Note the use of the discrediting, libelous, words written by the aggressive attacker as the aggressive attacker attacks, with libel, the targeted victim. Who is being targeted?

If the target being targeted by this aggressive attacker, attacking with this invention, production, and maintenance of libel, is me, then my name is Joe Kelley.

I ran for Congress in 1996.

I was on the ballot.

I managed to earn the signatures, going door to door, required to bypass the heavy fine (so called filing fee) to get on the ballot.

So, as far as I am concerned, I am not "some dork on the net with a computer his mom bought him, clicking away in the basement".

Is there discredit also aimed at people in a basement?

1.
Libelous criminal attacker
2.
Someone in a basement

One demonstrates the actual reality of crime in fact.

One is known to be in a basement in fact.

Which is guilty of something specific?

As to what happens in court.

I went to 2 Jury Trial summonses.

One I was on the Jury, and I offered my viewpoints.

The second was a case where I was dismissed. I was dismissed, apparently, by both Union Lawyers, and the Union Judge voiced a command to have me stay, then retracted, after a time when, apparently, both Union Lawyers overpowered the Judges opinion.

I offered to the Prosecutor, during the interview of 12 people in the Jury Box, me being one of those prospective Jurors, my viewpoint on his impertinent questions.

I dismissed his twisting of words outright, which he did not like, obviously, and confirmed by his own words later, and I said to the assembled group that our job here, as Jurors, was difficult, as we had to accomplish two things that are contentious by definition.

1.
Do not convict an innocent person.
2.
Do not abandon a victim.

I spoke of my current condition of understanding as to the principles of trial by jury and I referred to the work done in Trial by Jury written by Lysander Spooner.

It was the name Lysander Spooner that was picked up by the Judge, and the Judge defeated the initial rejection by the prosecutor concerning my power to be a Juror in that Court, so called, as the Judge then said to me that among the Judges he knows few of them know of the name Lysander Spooner. I was, in those words, given credit by that Judge.

That is my experience, out of the basement.

My son also was on a Jury, and his offer of his opinion on Law carried the day in that case.

My son said something along the lines of having the requirement to produce the proof of guilt, not the proof of innocence.

Jurors in common law, from way back in our collective history, command the power of law.

In Union Law, or Uniform Commercial Code Law, the Criminals produce their lies, their threats, and their aggressive violent attacks upon their targets, as proven by them each day.

Here is one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4QMbTvj3H8

That is not the exception, that is the norm, that is the purpose behind Uniform Commercial Code.

The so called courts are private corporations now, so those who are targeted and "brought to court" need to understand that the Union Judges, the Union Lawyers, the Union Clerks, are all there to rape you, so long as you let them.

When I ran for congress I went to an NRA meeting. I was a candidate and a member of the NRA at that time. The meeting was intended to credit the Republican Candidate running at the time against the Republican Incumbent at the time. Both Republicans were supporters of Gun Control.

I said to the assembled criminals that no paper has the authority to remove my power to defend myself. I meant that, I know that, and my words were of no obvious importance in that group of fellow criminals, Union men.

The Union of Lawful Criminals have a weak spot, as their source of power is the power they steal from those who are honest and productive. Their weak spot can be found in the methods they employ to move that power from those who produce that power to them.

The Union Courts is one way that the Legal Union Criminals (Monopoly of Crime) accomplish that movement of surplus wealth from those who produce it to those who steal it in that Union System; now known as Uniform Commercial Code.

The Union of Uniform Commercial Code also insures their own fellow criminals against their own failures to follow their own rules and that is called Bonding, as far as I understand how that works.

Here is a taste of how that works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B3no...

That is only the tip of the iceberg.

If I understand how that Bonding works, then the concept of asking for proof of Authority includes asking for a name of the person claiming to be an authority, and then asking for a badge number, and then, having that information, after the supposed authority is done with what the supposed authority is going to do, the target of the supposed authority can then look into the Bond that is purchased as an investment in insurance upon wrongdoings done by that supposed authority.

That works on Union Lawyers, and Union Judges too, as far as I know at this time.

Having a known Bond on a known bad guy who abuses the supposition of authority is the possible Achilles Heel of these people who presume authority over their targeted victims who have anything worth stealing.

There may be a way to use their own rules against them, by making claims to the agency holding the Bond on those who are so readily able to abuse their supposed authority.

When a claim is made on a Bond then the real investigations that matter commence, and then it is possible that the Union of Supposed Authority begins to Police itself.

A completely fraudulent Bonding agency, if exposed as one, can't hold onto the POWER they steal, and if it is not a completely fraudulent Bonding agency then there will be payments paid out of the FUND to those who make those claims, and then the license is taken away from the Union Officers who abuse their supposed authority, and in that way that Union Officer is no longer in the Union and then that Union Officer is then just another target to fend for him, or her, self, outside of the Union of Legal Criminals.

That is how it works, as far as I understand how it works at this point.

I have little to do with the Union of Legal Criminals. I prefer it that way. Unfortunately the Union of Legal Criminals are growing less like true authorities and more like the criminals that pull the strings from deep down into that human hell on earth.

Examples of string pulling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1b-PHdFZU

Inculpatory evidence is destroyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvl6kO1Vo8

Iculpatory evidence is censored.

quote_____________________________________________
The founding fathers didn't outlaw courts or lawyers or judges or anything like what you think should happen. You need to go start your own little colony somewheres because the USA, even in its libertarian origins, is not what you desire. But its easy to criticize all when you're a part of nothing.
___________________________________________________

The person doing this, above, is inspired to do so by some reasoning, I suppose.

In fact there were two obvious groups of people working during the so called founding of this Legal Apparatus that is now in the form of Uniform Commercial Code.

1.
Criminals
2.
Potential Victims

An example of one of the criminals is Alexander Hamilton.

Example:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program."

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
From:
Reclaiming Revolution
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

An example of one of the Potential Victims is George Mason.

Example:
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

Here:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/george-m...

The criminals took over in 1788, a well established fact, unknown, misunderstood, by most of the current targeted victims.

The criminals invented National Debt, which is a fraud, since the actual Credit is earned by the good, honest, producers in this Country, something that they produce themselves, and something stolen by the Criminals in the form of that National Debt and that National Interest Fraud and Extortion made Legal by those criminals.

Like this:

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

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.

Any questions, or more of the lies told by Union Lawyers who cover up their crimes with their lies?

And...I get to read words from another person offering some sense to those who fail to see the facts as they exist, as another forum members rejoins this, ahhhh, discussion?

Libel is not discussion, it is libel.

Joe

oh dear king of gibberish

if you have such a great libel claim against me for voicing my opinion, then why are you not suing? And why wouldn't I have a claim against you? Heck, if there is no right or wrong answer to anything and everyone's "opinion" about how the system works is equally valid regardless of its accuracy, then why are your words not "libelous."?

You obviously have never studied libel, or procedure, or due process, or the Constitution, or much else other than how to log onto Mommy's computer.

Oh - and for the learning impaired - I don't know or care if you are actually using Mommy's computer. The point is that you're not one to be taken seriously. Waiting for your great big throbbing lawsuit against me for libel. I can assure you I am quaking in mah boots!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Confessions of Libel

The more the libeler publishes, to me, the more the grave of discredit for the libeler is dug by the libeler.

What does that have to do with me?

I am merely the target of the day, and I really don't have anything to lose, so what would be the point of resorting to any other defense against such libel?

Purple words?

"Heck, if there is no right or wrong answer to anything and everyone's "opinion" about how the system works is equally valid regardless of its accuracy, then why are your words not "libelous."?"

If the claimant can offer an accurate source of the claimants authority, and I won't hold my breath, then a start for a possible investigation of that claim of authority can commence. Until that pin pointing of the actual source of the supposed authority, there is none, obviously none, measurably none.

If there is such a thing as a Private Corporate Offer of authority offered by those who belong to the Corporation that runs the Uniform Commercial Code product of supposed authority, then that can be understood as the pin point source of that specific claim of that specific authority.

If there is such a thing as a claim of authority originating from the document called The Constitution of the United States, then there are problems associated with that claim of authority as well.

If the claimant is claiming authority based upon either/or, depending upon whichever the claimant cares to employ at any given moment, either Uniform Commercial Code, or The Constitution of the United States, then that is a specific, known, lack of authority since there is a specific lack of authority nailed down by that person employing such ambiguity.

"You obviously have never studied libel, or procedure, or due process, or the Constitution, or much else other than how to log onto Mommy's computer."

Mommy passed away, in my case.

Libel is a crime where the victim may have something to lose, I don't. So what is the point of targeting me for libel?

"Oh - and for the learning impaired - I don't know or care if you are actually using Mommy's computer. The point is that you're not one to be taken seriously. Waiting for your great big throbbing lawsuit against me for libel. I can assure you I am quaking in mah boots!"

Assurances from known libelers are like campaign promises from politicians, like promises of remedy from Union Lawyers, and like justice for just the Union members.

I can trust that liars will lie, and that is at least something proven, and not needing an expert opinion to realize once the liar gets going.

Joe

mommy

probably passed away due to hernia, from laughing real hard when she read one of the innerweb posts

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Not funny

Mommy stopped breathing oxygen, it took months for her to die.

When the criminals really get going, after they take over, the race to the bottom accelerates?

http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/07/19/felony-friday-officer-s...

Joe

wait

I think maybe it runs in the family! If your mom lived for months without oxygen it stands to reason that she probably wasn't thinking very straight near the end there. Similarly, you may be experiencing the same phenomenon. I suggest you get to a doctor and check out this oxygen stuff pronto!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

blibber!

blibbity-blibyblabber blobber. blubber blubber...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Actually Esquires of the BAR were outlawed

Remember the "missing" 13th amendment?? They did outlaw Esquires from being US Citizens and from holding public office. Why did they do that? Because the British BAR Esquires where attempting to use British corporate personhood concept in our courts and corrupting our precedent for code intended to be applied to Constitutionally derived entities to be applied to everyone. When America had 12 of the 13 states required for ratification the British started the War of 1812 explicitly to stop the 13th amendment and to ensure control of the banking. The British lost and then came back with Civil War and was able to delete the 13th Amendment from history through the fog of war and then magically the 14th amendment was inserted unlawfully into the Constitution which just so happened to solidify the British corporate personhood model of subjugation of the People to arbitrary whims of the legislature.

You seem to be missing that part of history.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

oh exalted worshipper of all urban myths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deleti...

I suspect you are vehemently opposed to gravity as well.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Fellow potential jurors

"You seem to be missing that part of history."

Much of the Common Sense that works to establish and maintain true authority remains within each moral person, so history is not needed.

History is either accurate or it is falsified and therefore counter productive if the goal is Liberty.

Joe

I see where you are coming from

but History is most definitely needed for protection of Liberty. If history were not needed then there would be no need for a Jury trial to examine and weigh facts presented as past events (history) in need of remedy.

History can also be sought for a high bar of corroboration to be considered as possible fact which can then gleam insight into the nature and tactics of immoral and corrupt men which can then when combined with Divine inspiration from the source of order to find truth and the protections of Law.

I agree that operating in Common Sense intuitive to the moral individual is key to protections; this intuition is what I call Divine Law, the divine source of order in existence, that enables its protections of Law through the intuitive divine inspirational insight combined with corroborated evidence within History and the present that stands guard against deception. Divine Law has demonstrated to me beyond all reasonable doubt that Real Law has a very explicit hierarchical order to the applicability of all Law that is as follows:

Divine Law- the source of the order of Nature
Natural Law- The Laws of Nature; Mathematics/Geometry, Logic, Physical Law
Common Law- Maxims derived procedure for interaction between men
Organic Law- strictly constructed interpretive understanding of the application of Common Law for a given geographical jurisdiction
Constitutional Law- A Contract derived from Common Law interpreted via Organic Law that establishes a contractually created bound legal capacity for men who voluntarily consent to serve within the bound capacity
Statutory Law- Applicable Regulations for Legal Fictional capacities lawfully created via voluntary valid contract under derivation from the Constitutional Contract
Regulatory Law- Inter and Intra organizational rules accepted for legal capacities within an established Legal Fiction

While the Divine inspiration of the present enables the moral natural state of understanding, what happens when the divine inspires a question to seek insight from history? One is required by Divine Law to pursue the inspiration through to its end in order to gain its protections in Law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Example

http://blog.ucadia.com/2012/11/the-organized-psuedo-legal-co...

_________________________________________
(iii) In 1719, King George I introduced a new concept within Admiralty Law through 6 Geo. I. c.19 whereby those persons in “sea service” who committed crimes mentioned under 13 Car c.9 (1661) upon the shore in foreign parts were to be tried and punished as if they had been committed on the “main sea”. This was the first application of Admiralty Law on the land, in defiance of its alleged original purpose; and

(iv) In 1740, King George II introduced through 13 Geo. II. c. 4 in Article II the concept of three commissioners being required to administer a properly constituted Admiralty court. The Act also introduced for the first time in legal history the concept that owners of ships taking commissions of letters of marque were to provide bail and security. Furthermore, in Article III, the requirement for security to prosecute a case in Admiralty was introduced making the entire administration of admiralty courts commercial; and

(v) In 1749, George II through 22 Geo. II c.33 introduced a modified Admiralty Law and modified thirty six articles of the Code of Admiralty , repealing the 1661 act of Charles II as well as 1919 Act. Most importantly, the revisions to Admiralty Law made clear that those administering it were to be officers under fiduciary obligations through formal oath and that no agent or privateer was to hold any position of authority or conduct proceedings within an admiralty court. Furthermore, the act made clear that a valid court of Admiralty for court-martial only existed when three commissioners were duly sworn and present; and
_________________________________________________

I know, from experience, that such wordings in English go way over many of the heads of our potential peers.

How about a theatrical way to explain how the Pirates Pirate the Pirates (Public become Private)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csv1wXOr5tY

_______________________________________________________________
(xxii) The application of admiralty law more widely to criminal matters greatly expanded with the Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848) whereby the traditional rules of common law such as original writs and right of reply and right to jury appeared to be “suspended” in preference to a faster, less rigorous form of justice or “summary justice” (itself an oxymoron). This act followed the act of Admiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 (1844) that placed common law and all previous statute law in the administration of justice in the lowers courts with the operation of admiralty law; and
________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Conclusion

As you can see by these canons, the size and breath of admiralty is extraordinary. It is hoped this information will assist those facing the pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds who persistently refuse to follow their own rules, their own laws and remain obsessed in destroying any last vestige of rule of law.
_________________________

Joe

blibber-blobber

blibbity blug-blub

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Accurate History

It occurs to me often to realize that as soon as a human being realizes a good, honest, productive, life sustaining, idea there are people who then have more ammo to be used to hide their crimes.

The criminals can't openly throttle the throat (paraphrasing Solzhenitsyn) because open, honest, criminals are then easy to spot, easy to avoid, and ease to defend against, compared to those criminals who do resort to deception. So deception requires the sheep costume, or whatever camouflage works to hide their true nature, their true intent, their true actions. The good ideas and actions by good people provide those costumes and those covers that are then half true.

A campaign promise, for example, has to look good, like "No new (involuntary) taxes." or "I will end the war, and bring the troops home," etc.

The Alexander Hamilton campaign promise is a shining example.

Yes, the truth is, the honest, productive, people in America earned enough Credit to inspire the French government people to help with the defeat of the English during the Revolutionary War, so that is the cover story, while the real intend behind the criminals in their FALSE Federal Cloak are bringing about the abomination called National Debt.

So, yes, I see accurate history as being essential, while the offer I offer is the idea that can be expressed as being wary of Greeks bearing gifts of such things as good debt, wonderful debt, or good history, wonderful history, like the Union Lawyers claiming what all those Union Founders did for us, etc.

Your complicated explanations of law remind me of Frank O'Collins.

Here:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=9...

I am relatively less complicated in thought and action, in my opinion.

In my opinion the Trial by Jury concept as reported by Lysander Spooner proves the point whereby any law that is too complicated for the pool of people who are peers (a jury of your peers) may not be enforced by those peers, so that is the check on complexity, which works well when much complexity (but not all) is the result of falsehood (each lie needs at least 2 to cover it up = exponential growth rates) and so all voluntary contracts between those who require complexity are thereby less able to subsidize the enforcement of their versions of right and wrong among all that complexity when they look for a Jury of Peers for judicial discernment.

At least that is my understanding.

"While the Divine inspiration of the present enables the moral natural state of understanding, what happens when the divine inspires a question to seek insight from history? One is required by Divine Law to pursue the inspiration through to its end in order to gain its protections in Law."

I could have said earlier, but will say now, that my discredit was aiming only at the false versions of history, and that was not intended to convey anything but credit for the accurate versions of history.

English, if you read the work done by Frank O'Collins has been somewhat distorted as a useful tool if the idea is to convey accurate information from one person to other people.

I can point to references if there is a demand expressed.

Joe

I would like to know a couple of things here

What do you claim as false history here? If you have more factual information that I am not aware of then I am always open to new information which may modify my own understanding of what is true. But from everything I have pieced together the 13th amendment did indeed target many foreign agents including Esquires from the British BAR and was a major problem for the British corporate personhood model of law being implemented in the US, which is why I believe, the amendment had to be removed. The British usurpers needed everyone to think that US Citizens was something other than a capacity for a Government agent. They needed everyone to be citizens so that they could apply regulatory code to everyone. The 13th amendment recognizes the US Citizen as a government capacity and this was a u turn away from what the British had first formulated with corporate governance in the 17th century.

As far as Frank Collins, I have never heard of the guy but your link sounds pretty boring and irrelevant.

As for your "example" I do not understand what this is an example of but I do not know anything about that particular reference so I cannot comment on whether or not it is true or false. I simply have not verified the information and have not seen it before.

Another thing, do you make claims that I am some kind of criminal? Your cryptic writing style has me befuddled as to what you mean.

As far as complicated explanations of law, what is complicated about each man being equally liable for their own actions? What is complicated about the right to face one's accuser? What is complicated about a valid cause of action requiring allegations of actual injury by an accuser willing to face the accused in court? What is complicated about an agent who works in agency to a principal accuser? What is complicated about a person being a legally created commercial capacity not equivalent to a Man?

You mention Spooner and I am sure that Mr. Spooner would be right at home with the line of logic I demonstrate. My words were no more or less complicated than his.

As far as the agendas during the revolution, yes there were many agendas as there always is. I do not disagree that some agendas were as you speak but some were not and some were much much deeper that just something good or bad.

My mention is one of the Organic Law that resulted. It was WAY beyond anything in law before it. It is a masterpiece of the lawful congruency within Real Law. Where else in the history of law does it recognize revolution and complete abolishment of government not only as a right but as duty? If this cannot be recognized for its beauty then I don't what beauty is and I do not know what Law is.

You said:
"It occurs to me often to realize that as soon as a human being realizes a good, honest, productive, life sustaining, idea there are people who then have more ammo to be used to hide their crimes."

What do you mean? I am curious to what you mean here. Why be so cryptic and open ended? Why not just say what you mean?

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...