38 votes

Jury nullifcation: powerful new video from Josie the Outlaw


http://youtu.be/l7nqdV7wV2k

Most of us here know all about jury nullification already -- this video would be a good one to send to friends and family who don't already know.

The thing to keep in mind, if you're ever called to jury duty, is that the judge will disqualify you if you refuse to swear to apply the law as he/she gives it to you. If you hope to get onto a jury, you need to be prepared to LIE. And I do mean "prepare." Wrap your head around the idea that someone's life, liberty or property, not to mention "justice," will suffer unless you are flat-out willing and eager to perjure yourself, to get on that jury.

Not that I'm advising you to lie under oath, you understand. Why, that would be illegal! "Illegal" meaning, of course, that tyrants politicians say you can't do it.

Comment viewing options

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

I've been called for jury duty

several times in California, but have never made it to a jury.

A couple of times, the defense counsel or prosecutor simply got a bad vibe about me. Once, however, it was more serious than that. I was once part of the jury pool for a capital murder case, and, God forgive me for not doing my "duty," but I told the truth. I spent three hours detailing in writing, my world view on politics, legal ethics, even religious beliefs. I made it clear that I could not vote to convict if I believed the defendant could be sentenced to death.

As I look back, it was, after all, convenient for me to tell the truth, as I was not looking forward to a two week trial. That is why I said, "God forgive me." Should I be called into a similar situation in the future, I might have the courage to decide differently (but my writings are all over the Internet, and I know the judge can Google).

Sound Familiar?

ding

fries are done

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

Has anyone here EVER served on a jury?

-- Since you became a fan of Ron Paul (or turned libertarian/ancap/constitutionalist)?

Tell us about it please? How did you do it?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Once

Once each, so far, for my son and I, both trying cases as jurors, and I can confirm to anyone who cares to know that the orders of judges are tested and found to be somewhat powerless once the members of the jury begin to exercise their own, individual, will power.

Joe

unh hunh

yeh sure

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

Monkey on my back?

Does the author of the response intend to challenge something published on this forum?

"unh hunh yea sure"

The concept of a jury randomly picked from a pool of potential jurors, so as then to have a representative sample of the whole country, which is then the only way someone can be punished lawfully, includes the concept of filling the jury pool with people who will reasonably judge right from wrong if asked to do so politely.

Filling the jury pool with infants may not work.

Filling the jury pool with the insane may not work.

Filling the jury pool with criminals may not work.

Who defines the meaning of government as it will work by that definition?

Joe

In response to the fantasies of your prior post

I was expressing, sarcastically, my false agreement with them.

you don't "try" cases as a juror. But aside from that latent jealousy towards the bar, I HAVE tried cases to a jury and know that jurors don't go freeform once they get the case.

And I dare say that most of hte time there is not even any reason for nullification to be an issue. Why? Well, if you're on a civil trial, no unanimous jury will be needed. If you're on a criminal trial, what if the person did it? And it happens to be a crime? Not just a silly statutory thing (those should be off the books, I totally agree) but an old-fashioned crime like robbery or murder or rape. Are you going to exercise your ability to be a crappy citizen - oops - I mean to not vote your conscience based on the facts and the law?

I would hope the answer is no. No, you would vote your conscience based on the facts and law in that circumstance.

Now for something like a marijuana offense or a crime of gun possession with no intent element, that I can understand. What are the chances that both you and your son got on jury trials over issues like that in two out of two trials? Hmmm?

Sometimes cases that shouldn't be brought in the first place are losers due to the explicit jury instructions. No nullification needed. I refer you to the zimmerman trial for example, or even Casey Anthony.

And if the case is truly a travesty of justice and hsouldn't be brought in the first place, you're not going to be the lone ranger on this issue. Hate to say it but we (humans) aren;t all that different from one another, certain personality disorders aside. You'll likely have several others doing the same thing.

But the odds of both you and your son in two out of two trial jury experiences, getting to practice nullification, are tiny.

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

Union

The Unionization of the false Law Profession?

You are an authority?

How is it that you become an authority over my experiences in jury duty?

Legal Fiction?

Joe

wha what?

the unionization of the false law profession? To my knowledge, we don't have a union. I have to say I wish we did. Then lawyers would be earning more and would have some protection from ridiculous attempts to interfere with the atty-client relationship, etc. Heck, podiatrists have a union. Why not lawyers? The bar s not a union. It is a dominatrix.

Am i an authority? Yes.

How is it I became an authority on your experiences in jury duty? I don't know about your experience or if you even had one. I can say, based on my experience, the odds of both you and your son getting to exercise jury nullification in two out of two jury experiences (which correct me if I'm wrong, is what you're implying here) is infinitesimally small. Jury nullification happens, but very rarely. I read maybe one story a year where it seems that jury nullification is a possible explanation. In 2 decades in the legal field I've yet to see a jury nullify, or hear of a friend or colleague who experienced it.

So, yeah, you;re probably full of it. But if not, please explain how.

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

Confessions of a lawful criminal?

"The bar s not a union. It is a dominatrix."

Those who took over moral government of, for, and by the people who consent to moral government number those who gave themselves license to perpetrate the fraud of a legal money monopoly power.

They call themselves The Federal Reserve and or the Treasury of their Legal Fiction.

Their victims are led to believe that their crimes are legitimate because they say so.

There are other criminals who took over moral government and that group perpetrates extortion behind the false front known as The Internal Revenue Service.

These criminals are a happy lot?

I don't think that they are, as their lies appear to be infecting their own brains.

Then there are those fellows who claim to be the law professionals.

A legal monopoly such as The Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, and The Bar, are easy to recognize, measure, and understand.

In order to be one of them, to then have access to the victims, so as to share the booty, a potential member of the Union must follow orders without question.

As soon as the potential member, or current member, stops following orders without question is, as far as my understanding goes, the moment that member is no longer a member of the Union.

To those who prefer not to pay for such nonsense, to those who prefer not to feed into it, for those who prefer not to be victims of it, there is a curious connection between the departments required to pull off such a devious scheme.

In order to pull off such a devious scheme the criminals bond themselves with oaths and insurance policies.

No member of the Union who costs the rest of the membership too much will remain for long in the Union.

In other words, a member of the Union that is so overtly criminal as to threaten the false front cover of the whole Union will be one member that all the other members descend upon with a single minded focus of concern.

The fabric of lies must be maintained or the Union unravels.

The point at which the fabric can unravel is that point at which each individual member is bonded to an insurance policy.

When the member is no longer a benefit to the Union, because they are a high risk, that member will be removed by the Union.

That is the self-governing power within the Union itself.

If that self-governing power within the Union itself no longer works, the thin veil of legitimacy evaporates, and the criminals are exposed as being nothing but criminals.

I hope that that helps any potential jurists who may be afraid of being a moral human being.

Joe

un hunh, yeah, sure

so what exactly is it you do for a living? Pick lint out of your navel?

In my experience those who criticize "all" of a certain group and hold black and white animosities towards all lawyers, doctors, persons who have done something with their lives, etc., are compensating, or over-compensating, for something. And that's the real motivation, not your gibberish reasoning.

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

"gibberish"

"gibberish"

A recurring chant?

Joe

a recurring problem

it is.

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

almost did.

The judge asked if I had any 'issues' with what I had heard so far. I told him I could not vote to convict someone when the alleged victim had no desire for the defendant to be prosecuted for his alleged crime.
The judge said, "You are excused."

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

"Almost"

only counts in playing horseshoes and grenade tosses. But you didn't reach the level of "almost." If the judge is the one to excuse you, you screwed up bigtime. If you didn't even make the prosecutor use up one of his preemptive challenges to keep you off the jury, you can't claim "almost."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

I Can Save Her Lots of Time and Error

Not voting doesn't work. It's been tried and is part of the problem.

Not voting, especially from principle, simply means that politicians don't have to care about what you think anymore, and it tells your friends and allies that you can't be counted on to defend them.

I have no problem not voting when there is no candidate that is not a statist. I happily voted for Gary Johnson, for example, even though most people would see that as the equivalent of not voting.

But I think that we would have re-instated libertarian principles much sooner if all those who want government off our backs had simply voted that way instead of leaving the country either literally or figuratively.

I joined the Libertarian Party so I could do more than vote; I joined it to make sure that voters have a non-statist option. I also focus on educational efforts and have started a business to promote liberty.

Voting is not enough, but not voting is a slap in the face of your allies who believe in using the only non-violent method of revolution we have. It's all very well to change minds and then what? Use violence to remove the offenders?

The first bloody revolution came about because the colonists did not have a vote. I can't support anyone who does not use communication methods, first. Voting is the most effective method of communication we have--to quote Ron Paul, "politicians always have their fingers to the wind" (to see which way it's blowing). All it takes is a trend to get them to change their actions.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

What's the point of voting...

when election fraud is rampant? It's all for show that people actually have a choice.

Debbie's picture

It's not all fraud or we wouldn't have gotten Justin Amash,

Rand Paul and a few others in the last election cycle. And Ron wouldn't have been elected 12 times to Congress. Not saying it doesn't exist, but it's not across the boards.

Debbie

The lady says:

"...going back hundreds of years..."

The evidence available suggests that trial by the country goes back thousands of years, going even farther back than human language finding ways to exist on public records.

That may be an important, MISSING, tidbit of information.

That may be an important bit of information that did not get recorded on paper, in books, sold to the public by the few criminals who took over the power of defensive government.

If that bit of information, concerning how ancient, how tried and true, the concept of government by the country, or government by the people, of the people, and for the people, is...

Government is...

If that bit of information was taught from parents to children, instead of that information NOT being taught from parents to children, then that bit of information would be understood by each successive generation.

Government is...competitive...

Government is...that which defends the innocent best...

Government is...that which defends the innocent with the least expense to the innocent...

Government is...trial by the people who volunteer to try those people who are accused but those same people who are presumed to be innocent...

No member of this country, no member of the body of people who are called the people, can be punished lawfully by anyone, unless there is a process due...

A process due to all...

A due process of law...

No punishment goes out to anyone, ever, in a legal sense, without due process...

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

_________________________________________________________
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
_______________________________________________________________

The reasoning for having such words printed on such papers is...

What?

You don't know? You have not been told yet?

The reasoning for having those words written on that paper were such that the people who knew better at the time knew that the Criminals were taking over again, and so the only way that the people hired as representatives in their Constitutionally Limited Republics would ratify that paper would be by documenting the EXISTENCE of trial by jury as being already in existence.

Trial by Jury is ancient.

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/trial_...

Trial by Jury is a means by which any number of people anywhere on any planet can reject the notion that any one person has any authority over any other person without consent.

The concept is based upon a statistical sampling of the whole number of people and then utilizing that power to know what the whole number of people think as to what may or may not have been a crime perpetrated by one criminal person upon an innocent person.

No single group gains the power of lawful judgment when this process is utilized by the people who utilize this process because the RULE by which the jurists are selected is "by lot" or by random selection among a pool of people who represent the whole number of people.

The pool is not made up of infants.

The pool is not made up of insane people.

The pool is not made up of known robbers.

The pool is not made up of known frauds.

The pool is not made up of known human traffickers.

The pool is not made up of known rapists.

The pool is not made up of known child molesters.

The pool is not made up of known torturers.

The pool is not made up of known murderers.

The pool is not made up of known mass murderers.

The pool is not made up of known legal money frauds and extortionists.

So when those who prove to be all those types of criminals listed above become the LAW SYSTEM IN FACT, it may be a good time to think twice about sending them any more authority than the authority they already stole.

Where is the pool of good people who could be sampled for advice concerning who is guilty of perpetrating a crime upon which innocent victims?

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/default.html

If the pool does not speak up, what happens?

The lady says:

"...judges lie..."

It may be a good idea to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in every case.

Why?

The judges who tell the jurists to try only the evidence are not necessarily guilty of lying, they may be telling the truth as they see it. That means that the verdict of willful falsification of the truth, a lie, is not a crime perpetrated by that individual judge who speaks the truth as far as that judge knows the truth.

Another very important point on this process by which judges in courts today are instructing jurists to do as the judge says, such as the judge instructing the jurists to try only the facts, is that those courts are not courts assembled and conducted of the people, by the people, and for the people. Those courts are courts assembled of a Corporate Legal Fiction, by a Corporate Legal Fiction, and of a Corporate Legal Fiction, whereby the Authority of that court is traced back (where the buck stops) at the Central Bank.

In essence the counts all over this country are Central Bank courts that are there to protect the Central Bank Corporation. All those courts tied to that ONE Central Bank Corporation are no different, by their own laws, than a court run by WalMart, or a court run by General Motors, or a court run by Pizza Hut.

When anyone, in any way, is perceived by those Judges, and those Lawyers, and those Politicians, who belong to that One Central Bank Corporation think, when anyone of those employees of that One Central Bank Corporation thinks that anyone else consents to their "jurisdiction" then they proceed with their due process according to that assumption of authority based upon that assumption of consent.

If a human being says no, then any further actions done by those Central Bank employees (Union judges, lawyers, and politicians) based upon a claim that the targeted victim says yes is a crime in progress whereby the Union Judge, or the Union Lawyer, or the Union Politician proceeds with the process of injuring the targeted victim despite the expressed rejection of consent made by the targeted victim.

In other words, the criminals have taken over, and they did so in 1787.

The criminals took over by creating a Legal Fiction which is a Corporation and now they are running a Monopoly Corporation that does not have a Corporate Name such as Wal-Mart at the top of their corporate ladder. The name they put on their Corporation is The United States of America.

The criminals capture all their victims by way of Birth Certificate, and from the point of birth the human being inspires the criminals to create a Bank Account whereby that new born bank account is sold, like a slave, on their Corporate financial markets.

When The Federal Reserve Central Bank Corporation claims to borrow money on The Good Faith and Credit of The American People,they mean, precisely, that they have already claimed ownership of those people at birth, and they will then take from those accounts as they please, without any resistance whatsoever.

The information can be harsh to ears that are innocent. Innocent children growing up in a world of lies are apt to pull the covers over their heads.

The information is like sunlight to vampires when the information finds its way to the criminals who have their hands firmly stuck in the cookie jar.

Some people try to offer the information with humorous, but vulgar, effect.

Some people are murdered for offering the information when the source of the information comes from within the Corporation.

It is well past time to wake up.

So...

It is a misdirection to claim that it is the duty of moral people to serve on the existing Corporate Trials by Kangaroo Courts. If you do get on one it will be because the Union Judges, Union Lawyers, and Union Politicians want you on that jury for some reason that they may or may not let you know.

I know, because I go to the so called Jury Duty, and when I mention the fact that I know my job as a moral human being is to NOT convict an innocent member of the people, and NOT abandon a victim to be further victimized, then I have been dismissed as being unfit for their jury duty according to those Corporate Union Employees.

If the court is not produced at the grass roots level, such as was common practice, in common law, then what is the court?

If the court is of the people, by the people, and for the people, then what would that court look like, if one existed?

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/default.html

If there was a trial started as a presentment whereby one of those Union Politicians working for that One Central Bank Corporation was tried for fraud, upon any one of the victims, and you were on the jury, what would you demand as information you require in order to judge the case.

Example:

Ben Bernanke is presented with a paper detailing all the crimes Ben Bernanke is presumed innocent of perpetrating but suspected according to this evidence documented on this paper.

What would such a presentment look like?

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

Joe

Liars love destruction?

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/default.html

Those claiming that "government" is crime and therefore government (according to them) will always be crime, are those who promote crime, yes?

Since they claim that there is no power on earth that can work in defense of the innocent against the criminals, or they say there is no such thing as government, so long as they alone get to dictate what government means.

Joe

There IS power on earth that can come to the defense of innocent

PEOPLE power! Jury Nullification!

No victim, no crime

Disobeying politicians (who call their orders and threats "laws" is what constitutes "crime," in the courts.

Morally, hurting another person or their property is what constitutes "crime." And only that.

When you sit in the jury box, you will need to decide whether it is right (i.e. moral) to deprive a person of life, liberty or property if his only "crime" is to disobey a politician.

No victim, no crime. Unless you're a slave, and your master's word is holy to you.

Lying to get onto a jury can and should be done to protect justice from the tyrants and their lickspittle courts. "If this be treason, make the most of it."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Legal Union of Criminals

It may be very difficult at first.

The information is shocking at first.

The country was taken over by criminals in 1787.

Since then the people in this country have lost their power by which the people defend themselves against criminals who take over government.

This may be impossible for some people to realize as some people have their hands firmly stuck in the cookie jar themselves.

The people have the power of government by consent, so all that is needed for the people to regain moral government is to reject the false versions of consent.

When the criminals took over in 1787 the criminals created a method by which the people in this country could be made to believe that the criminals are good people and worthy of authority.

The method involves the use of something called Legal Fiction.

The criminals created a Legal Fiction known as The United States of America.

This may be very difficult to understand for those who have just begun to read about this information. This information can easily be confirmed as being accurate information.

The United States of America becomes, by this Legal Fiction Fraud Tactic, a single entity of absolute, monopolistic, dictatorial, authority, or POWER. The False Front of a Voluntary Union of a number of Constitutionally Limited Republics forming a Mutual Defense Association, as a sound investment, HIDES the truth behind that false front. Gone is the Voluntary Association and in place is placed a Dictatorial Regime or Union of Legal Criminals whose Authority is believed (by the victims) to be consensual, when in fact the Association is Fraudulent, Extortive, and the Authority is invented out of thin air, as if a Thing, a Corporation, is the source of Authority, and the fraud goes even further to claim that the Corporate Authority cannot be held responsible or accountable (limited liability), which means, in real terms, that the actual corporate office holders can commit any crime with impunity.

All Power to Purchase, legally, is captured by this method.

All Power to Dictate Punishment is captured by this method.

All Power to Seize all economic wealth is captured by this method.

All Power to Invest all economic wealth into consumption (war for the sake of war) or further production (stolen loot used to produce more effective methods by which loot is stolen) is captured by this method.

All that is needed to defeat this capture of this power by this method is for each individual human being to remove their consent and that solution to this problem becomes a function of numbers focused into a collective power to be exercised as one, at one time, in one place.

The place is this country called America.

The time can be any time in the future whereupon the NEWS of the fix to this problem spreads, reaches, and is realized by a sufficient number of people in this country.

The actual date of the regaining of control over moral government in this country by the moral people in defense against the criminals who took over government could be July 4th, 2014.

Why not?

The nuts and bolts of how people employ trial by jury to effectively prevent crime in their country is already well recorded in many records.

Example:

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/trial_...

If the historical record of how people in a country effectively defend themselves against criminals who take over government is not something you know, then you can know, and the reasons why the people in this country are now suffering at the hands of criminals who took over this country would no longer be a complete mystery.

The reason why the so called judges in this country wear black robes, for example, is due to their long history of their profession as Devil Worshipers.

Those Union Judges from their Bar Association, along with those Union Lawyers, from the same "guild" come from a history of organized evil.

What do you expect from that type of people?

Salvation?

Joe

so, if you hate the idea of our Constitution

my first thought is why are you here? But beyond that, you ascribe all these ills to Constitutional government, even at its infancy. But are you saying the Articles of Confederation had none of these ills? Is that your point? How so?

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

Liars club?

Who said that anyone hates anything?

Why does an individual jump to a false conclusion, or why does an individual fabricate a lie, such as the claim that someone hates "the idea of our Constitution"?

Why resort to deception?

Why, if not deception, be so ready to jerk your knee?

Each government based upon a Constitution is as competitive as any other government based upon a Constitution.

Which government based upon a Constitution worked in defense of Liberty so as to defeat the largest criminal army of aggression on the planet Earth?

There were at least 13 Competitive Free Market Governments based upon 13 Competitive Constitutions in America between 1776 and 1787. Which one was a sanctuary for Revolutionary War Veterans who fled the criminals who took over which other government in 1787?

Joe

not trying to mis-state

but here are your words from the last post:

"The United States of America becomes, by this Legal Fiction Fraud Tactic, a single entity of absolute, monopolistic, dictatorial, authority, or POWER. The False Front of a Voluntary Union of a number of Constitutionally Limited Republics forming a Mutual Defense Association, as a sound investment, HIDES the truth behind that false front. Gone is the Voluntary Association and in place is placed a Dictatorial Regime or Union of Legal Criminals whose Authority is believed (by the victims) to be consensual, when in fact the Association is Fraudulent, Extortive, and the Authority is invented out of thin air, as if a Thing, a Corporation, is the source of Authority, and the fraud goes even further to claim that the Corporate Authority cannot be held responsible or accountable (limited liability), which means, in real terms, that the actual corporate office holders can commit any crime with impunity."

It seems to me from reading this that you hate the Constitution. Can you explain how this is not expressing hate for the Constitution? I could have misunderstood your intent.

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

Misplaced blame?

How about this idea:

If you see someone perpetrate a crime upon an innocent victim, do you blame the victim?

If you see someone perpetrate a crime, such as murder, whereby a criminal willfully stabs an innocent victim multiple times until the victim is finally dead, do you blame the knife?

Do you hate the victim for being a victim?

Do you hate the knife for being a knife?

If you do such things, then I can see how you might jerk your knee and blame me for hating the constitution.

Does that make any sense to you?

If that makes no sense to you, then you can explain to me how you find my words to mean, in any way, that I hate The Constitution, because I don't hate The Constitution, I have no reason to hate a piece of paper, there is no inspiration I see, for me to hate a piece of paper.

When I see a fraud in progress, I don't blame the victims, and I don't blame the method used by the frauds, and I don't hate the victims, and I don't hate the method used by the frauds.

"Can you explain how this is not expressing hate for the Constitution?"

Can you explain how you express hate, and in that way I might know what hate means to you?

Joe

just trying to understand you

you make reference to 1787, roughly the time the us went from the Articles to the Constitution (I believe it was 1789 but it's close enough, and you are referencing a change in the form of US govt). You then use words like "fraud" and "Criminal" to describe what happens as a result. That hardly, to me at least, reads like a "love note" to the Constitution. It hardly reads like an "I don't care for it" note. It expresses very strong dislike, or hate.

(I'm not at all addressing your factual errors and the sov cit based mythology they come from - I'll let you believe that part)

So, how is this incorrect? Was 1787 an error or were you referring to a different event entirely?

Assuming you're referring to the process of enacting the Constitution, I dare say, I am accurately describing what you wrote.

In your last post, you seem to be making an attempt to half-sidestep the issue by implying you hate all the persons who are performing their functions as indicated under the Constitution. But I think thaat's what we call a "Distinction without a difference." Sort of like saying "I don't hate capitalisim, I hate the way it makes people act." I think I've got you pegged, and you just don't like it.

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

Facts?

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

_______________________________________________________
One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.
_______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________
The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.
______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________
But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.
___________________________________________________________

(I'm not at all addressing your factual errors and the sov cit based mythology they come from - I'll let you believe that part)

Until such time as the person offers an opinion as to what the person considers to be "hate" there will remain ambiguity as to what the person considers to be "hate".

"It expresses very strong dislike, or hate."

The words I published express that which I intend to express combined with that which someone, anyone, might infer from the arrangements of symbols published in fact.

If the opinion is that the words I publish express strong dislike, or hate, then the object of hatred could be accurately identified by someone.

If I hate something, for example, then I could be asked, and then it could be found out, if I hate something.

Someone else claiming that I hate something, on the other hand, is a claim. If I offer arrangements of symbols that intend to refute the claim, so as to inform anyone caring to know, that I do not hate what the person claims I hate, then that can happen that way in fact.

If the person making the false claim concerning the words I wrote continues to make false claims concerning the words I write, then that can happen, in fact. Over time it becomes obvious as to the source of the error in communication.

I can say that the sun is bright, and the person making false claims can claim that I said that the sun is dark.

"I don't hate capitalisim, I hate the way it makes people act."

Note: The claim now is such that the actual author of the sentence above is by some method connecting those words to someone who did not write those words. The author of those words is the author of those words, even if the author of those words claims otherwise.

Joe