37 votes

Bruce Fein on government lawlessness

Bruce Fein on government lawlessness


http://youtu.be/4A67El2-9wM

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jan Helfeld's picture

Lanny Davis' rejoinder to Bruce Fein.

See Lanny Davis' rejoinder to Bruce Fein.

Jan Helfeld

We have had continuos lawlessness ever since the creature from

Jekyll Island came into existance! The Monster was responsible for World war I and World War II, and the great depression.

Now we are heading for the greatest distruction of weath of all time, and no one sees it!

Most think FRN's are real money! What fools! The PTB have done a real good job hiding behind the curtain of Emerald City, creating lots of smoke to blind the sheep.

Latest master creation was Obamacare, which is not about health care at all!

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

Jan Helfeld's picture

Fein: A brilliant constitutional scholar.

Fein: A brilliant constitutional scholar.

Jan Helfeld

Falsehood from the start?

The first lie:

"When the government does not follow law..."

That is the often repeated lie repeated by all criminals as criminals misdirect accountability away from the criminal and onto things.

That is easily fixed when the idea is the opposite idea.

When the idea of misdirection of accountability those who care to know better can avoid misdirection of accountability and those who care to know better can employ the opposite idea of holding PEOPLE accountable for the actions of PEOPLE, not things.

Criminal (misdirection) claims include:

1.
The gun did it.

2.
Society made me do it.

3.
My dog Sam told me to murder those people and eat them.

4.
"When the government does not follow law..."

When criminals are exposed as criminals the criminals, as a criminal rule, will reach for misdirection away from accurate accountability focused upon that criminal and the crimes perpetrated upon the victims.

Why are these people paraded around as Constitutional Scholars, or Professors?

Before Magna Carta (a so called Charter, or "constitution") there was this:

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

Quote____________________________
The Saxons, who subdued Britain, as they enjoyed great liberty in their own country, obstinately retained that invaluable possession in their new settlement; and they imported into this island the same principles of independence, which they had inherited from their ancestors. The chieftains, ( for such they were, more than kings or princes,) who commanded them in those military expeditions, still possessed a very limited authority; and as the Saxons exterminated, rather than subdued the ancient inhabitants, they were, indeed, transplanted into a new territory, but preserved unaltered all their civil and military insfitutions. The language was pure Saxon; even the names of places, which often remain while the tongue entirely changes, were almost all affixed by the conquerors; the manners and customs were wholly German; and the same picture of a fierce and bold liberty, which is drawn by the masterly pen of Tacitus, will suit those founders of the English government. The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community." - 1 Hume, Appendix, l.
_____________________________________

From that context (trial by jury before, during, and some time after Magna Carta) is this:

"The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community."

In context to the idea of government, lawfulness, the people commanded nullification, or veto, on any laws proposed by any current King.

"...that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer..."

What do you think the following current news means?

http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-assassination-market-anarchist-983/

"The highest bounty is currently on the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. 124 bitcoins translates to nearly $90,000. Bounties can come entirely from one person or be crowdfunded."

From the days well before Magna Carta up to today, and on into the future, people write things down, for many reasons.

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

Summary: It is the duty of free people to resist criminals who claim to be the government.

From such ideas, as Liberty, or such ideas, as Independence FROM criminals who claim to be the government, are such ideas as 13, or so, competitive constitutions working within a free market government VOLUNTARY Union, between 1776 and 1787.

Not one MONOPOLY "Constitution," but 13, or so, Free Market Competitive (non-aggression competition) Constitutions joined into a Voluntary Association, for mutual defense, then known as a Continental Congress (representatives) under Articles of Confederation (Voluntary Union).

Then the criminals took over in 1787.

And these "scholars" profess to know something worth knowing?

If a King was murdered, then that is lawlessness done by the murderer. Why would someone murder a King? What was the penalty according to any known, enforceable, law?

How can the King be the thing that is the law, if there was, then, a law that accounted for a fine to be paid by the murderer of the King?

A King decrees the amount of the bounty on his own head?

When no one ever has any more power over anyone else, according to law, the obvious result is law-full-ness. No more criminals volunteering any more victims in fact.

Then a criminal volunteers a victim to be a victim.

Then what?

Ask the professor who professes to know how lawful those criminals in 1787 were in volunteering everyone to pay the extortion fee with the fraud money they alone create out of paper?

Joe

Thank you for your support, and comment.

Thanks for the following, without which the lies would have been covered up completely by the, ahhh, scholars?

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdo...

What then are we to think of the motives and designs of those men who are urging the implicit and immediate adoption of the proposed government; are they fearful, that if you exercise your good sense and discernment, you will discover the masqued aristocracy, that they are attempting to smuggle upon you under the suspicious garb of republicanism? When we find that the principal agents in this business are the very men who fabricated the form of government, it certainly ought to be conclusive evidence of their invidious design to deprive us of our liberties. The circumstances attending this matter, are such as should in a peculiar manner excite your suspicion; it might not be useless to take a review of some of them. In many of the states, particularly in this [Pennsylvania] and the northern states, there are aristocratic juntos of the well-horn few, who have been zealously endeavoring since the establishment of their constitutions, to humble that offensive upstart, equal liberty; but all their efforts were unavailing, the ill-bred churl obstinately kept his assumed station. . . .

A comparison of the authority under which the convention acted, and their form of government, will show that they have despised their delegated power, and assumed sovereignty; that they have entirely annihilated the old confederation, and the particular governments of the several States, and instead thereof have established one general government that is to pervade the union; constituted on the most unequal principles, destitute of accountability to its constituents, and as despotic in its nature, as the Venetian aristocracy; a government that will give full scope to the magnificent designs of the well-horn, a government where tyranny may glut its vengeance on the low-born, unchecked by an odious bill of rights. . . ; and yet as a blind upon the understandings of the people, they have continued the forms of the particular governments, and termed the whole a confederation of the United States, pursuant to the sentiments of that profound, but corrupt politician Machiavel, who advises any one who would change the constitution of a state to keep as much as possible to the old forms; for then the people seeing the same officers, the same formalities, courts of justice and other outward appearances, are insensible of the alteration, and believe themselves in possession of their old government. Thus Caesar, when he seized the Roman liberties, caused himself to be chosen dictator (which was an ancient office), continued the senate, the consuls, the tribunes, the censors, and all other offices and forms of the commonwealth; and yet changed Rome from the most free, to the most tyrannical government in the world. . . .

The late convention, in the majesty of its assumed omnipotence, have not even condescended to submit the plan of the new government to the confederation of the people, the true source of authority; but have called upon them by their several constitutions, to 'assent to and ratify' in toto, what they have been pleased to decree; just as the grand monarch of France requires the parliament of Paris to register his edicts without revision or alteration, which is necessary previous to their execution. . . .
If you are in doubt about the nature and principles of the proposed government, view the conduct of its authors and patrons: that affords the best explanation, the most striking comment. The evil genius of darkness presided at its birth, it came forth under the veil of mystery, its true features being carefully concealed, and every deceptive art has been and is practicing to have this spurious brat received as the genuine offspring of heaven-born liberty. So fearful are its patrons that you should discern the imposition, that they have hurried on its adoption, with the greatest precipitation. . .
After so recent a triumph over British despots, after such torrents of blood and treasure have been spent, after involving ourselves in the distresses of an arduous war, and incurring such a debt for the express purpose of asserting the rights of humanity; it is truly astonishing that a set of men among ourselves should have the effrontery to attempt the destruction of our liberties. But in this enlightened age to hope to dupe the people by the arts they are practicing is still more extraordinary. . .
The advocates of this plan have artfully attempted to veil over the true nature and principles of it with the names of those respectable characters that by consummate cunning and address they have prevailed upon to sign it; and what ought to convince the people of the deception and excite their apprehensions, is that with every advantage which education, the science of government and of law, the knowledge of history and superior talents and endowments, furnish the authors and advocates of this plan with, they have from its publication exerted all their power and influence to prevent all discussion of the subject, and when this could not be prevented they have constantly avoided the ground of argument and recurred to declamation, sophistry and personal abuse, but principally relied upon the magic of names. . . . Emboldened by the sanction of the august name of a Washington, that they have prostituted to their purpose, they have presumed to overleap the usual gradations to absolute power, and have attempted to seize at once upon the supremacy of dominion.

CENTINEL

. . . Another thing they tell us, that the constitution must be good, from the characters which composed the Convention that framed it. It is graced with the names of a Washington and a Franklin. Illustrious names, we know-worthy characters in civil society. Yet we cannot suppose them to be infallible guides; neither yet that a man must necessarily incur guilt to himself merely by dissenting from them in opinion. We cannot think the noble general has the same ideas with ourselves, with regard to the rules of right and wrong. We cannot think he acts a very consistent part, or did through the whole of the contest with Great Britain. Notwithstanding he wielded the sword in defense of American liberty, yet at the same time was, and is to this day, living upon the labors of several hundreds of miserable Africans, as free born as himself; and some of them very likely, descended from parents who, in point of property and dignity in their own country, might cope with any man in America. We do not conceive we are to be overborne by the weight of any names, however revered.

"ALL MEN ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL;......

THE YEOMANRY OF MASSACHUSETTS

Joe

Nice interview!! Shared...

"If the American people are not willing to fight and yield some of their comfort time to being vigilant against government wrongdoing, the whole system will collapse." ―Bruce Fein

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” ~Mark Twain

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and comment

Thank you for your support and comment.

Jan Helfeld

Lawless is right!

If you don't honor the highest law of the land, what do you honor?

Thank you, Jan Helfeld.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and comment.

Thank you for your support and comment.

Jan Helfeld

So what’s the solution, Jan?

Your assessment of the problem as given here and many times elsewhere:

“If the citizens are not conscious of their rights and they’re not educated, and don’t care if other peoples individual rights are violated, then the system will deteriorate and it will crumble.”

You complain that politicians (America’s most finest educated of predominantly legal scholars) ignore the constitution and then blame it on citizens for their lack of education. I find that funny.

So Jan, exactly how would you implement and enforce the kind of education required to ensure your brand of "limited government" now and into the foreseeable future?

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Jan Helfeld's picture

The politicians bear the primary responsibility

The politicians bear the primary responsibility, then the journalists and then the citizens. See my documentary A Failure of Leadership. Part 1 on you tube and PART 6 for the solutions. I have worked to reveal the contradictions in our politician's and journalist's minds to the citizens for all to see. Please join me.

Jan Helfeld

Why can't you just give me a straight answer?

Hey, thanks for sending me away to watch your videos and STILL NOT GET THE SOLUTION ANSWER TO WHAT YOU CONTINUOUSLY STATE IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM!

All your video did was try to make a case for limited government. The only time you mention education was regarding distribution of wealth. Therefore, I'm led to believe your "solution" to ensure limited government through education is that we "need a [limited] government". Circular logic!

Look, I'm not putting words in your mouth. You have consistently and repeatedly blamed the failure of the US experiment of limited government squarely on the citizens lack of understanding and education. You say politicians bear the primary responsibility but your primary go-to reason for the problem has been to blame the citizens lack of education.

If that is your standard response for the problem then certainly you must have given some thought to the solution. So I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask:

Exactly how would you implement and enforce the kind of education required to ensure your brand of "limited government" now and into the foreseeable future?

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Jan Helfeld's picture

You and other citizens need to be vigilante

You and other citizens need to be vigilante of their freedom if they want to keep it and do what I do - I have worked to reveal the contradictions in our politician's and journalist's minds for all to see. Please join me. Go out and persuade people it is their self interest to respect other people's rights. I don't believe in enforced education, I believe in accepting your responsibility as a citizen.

Jan Helfeld

Necessary education through vigilant unenforced education?

BTW - I think you unwittingly supported my position and meant to say "vigilant".

I agree that vigilance is perhaps the most critical factor in maintaining a set order. Of course however, vigilance is not self-sustaining and by its very nature requires constant effort with no guarantees. It's also nothing new. Benjamin Franklin offered his warning of vigilance when he said, "A republic, if you can keep it" and just look what happened.

Thereby even if proper limited government existed today there is nothing to guarantee the future will not devolve back into what we have now. In fact we should count on it failing because nothing will have fundamentally changed -- just the same reliance on vigilance that has always existed. Thus it would be downright selfish, irresponsible and borderline sadistic of us if all we did was offer the same warning of vigilance Benjamin Franklin gave us, especially knowing what we know.

Not me. I believe we owe it to future generations to offer them something fundamentally different.

But perhaps the most interesting thing about vigilance is that it doesn't discriminate, it works equally under any system and anti-system alike. So the question becomes, are people more or less likely to be vigilant of their freedom under government or no-government? I will argue that people are more vigilant of their freedom without the false sense of security that government provides.

I too have worked to reveal contradictions. Now, if only people were educated and vigilant about anarchism. ;)

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Jan Helfeld's picture

We agree on vigilance

Thanks for the correction. We agree on vigilance but disagree on anarchism which is why I have the debates.

Jan Helfeld

Well, you're not putting up much of a debate here

Getting a straight answer from you is a challenge. Once an answer is provided you appear unwilling or unable to support your position or refute my claims, choosing instead to restate your position. In other words, you're acting like one of your interviewees. That's unfortunate.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Bugging me

Since I am so bugged by the failure to answer a simple question with a simple answer, I will offer the simple answer to the simple question.

"Exactly how would you implement and enforce the kind of education required to ensure your brand of "limited government" now and into the foreseeable future?"

My exact thoughts and actions (how would I) implement and enforce the kind of education required to ensure my brand of "limited government" now and into the foreseeable future is voluntary offers in a free market of ideas including the voluntary offer of free market government.

Free market government offered by people to people in a free market government network offers a means by which all problems caused by criminals upon victims can be solved if solutions are possible.

In other words the limit placed on people in government is that none of the people in government are allowed to enforce anything on anyone at any time since each member who volunteers is afforded a way out of the membership.

If that is too simple, or too complicated, or if that sounds wrong, in any way, then the volunteer who volunteered to ask the question can ask for clarification, and the volunteer who volunteers to answer the question can be afforded the opportunity to clarify the answer.

As to what happens when the criminals take over government and then the criminals "educate" the victims: here is a good source of information on that accurate account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8

If the final solution is false, then explaining the final solution is probably a false explanation too. In other words one lie inspires two to cover up the first, and then four to cover up each of those new lies, as an exponential growth rate; akin to violence begetting violence also an exponential growth rate.

So... Involuntary association, as a solution to a problem, works when the problem is accurately understood to be life.

The final solution to the life problem is to end it as quickly as possible. In that context, those who work for involuntary association are those who work to end life as soon as possible, and so, why not start with your own, if that is your problem, your solution, why must those who seek involuntary association work so diligently to end the lives of other people first?

The obvious answer is that they are lying to themselves. Their own lies blew back and consume them. They claim that the solution to their problem is to end the lives of everyone else but themselves. And if they had a Red Button to push to get straight away to their finial solution as they see it, then they have no one left to kill but themselves, and no one to help them with that last task.

This is not news by the way. In the introduction to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli are these words:

Quote______________________
Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual.
________________________________________

So...they may be (hypothesis) looking in the mirror as they rationalize their solution to their life problem, as they reach for involuntary association (crime) as their final solution.

They say to their own image that men are bad, so bad as to require one courageous individual God among men, who can solve the problem with the final solution.

Kill them all, and then there is no more problem?

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

citizens need to be vigilante of their freedom

You and other citizens need to be vigilante of their freedom if they want to keep it and do what I do - I have worked to reveal the contradictions in our politician's and journalist's minds for all to see. Please join me. Go out and persuade people it is their self interest to respect other people's rights. I don't believe in enforced education, I believe in accepting your responsibility as a citizen.

Jan Helfeld

Spamming now?

I like some spam.

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/monday-conference-cal...

Before the first minute is over there is a quote from George Washington.

As it happens I was studying the falsely labeled "Anti" Federalist papers and I found this:

From here:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/anti-federalist-papers

The number of this paper is 40 (a compilation of papers)

Quote______________________
What then are we to think of the motives and designs of those men who are urging the implicit and immediate adoption of the proposed government; are they fearful, that if you exercise your good sense and discernment, you will discover the masqued aristocracy, that they are attempting to smuggle upon you under the suspicious garb of republicanism? When we find that the principal agents in this business are the very men who fabricated the form of government, it certainly ought to be conclusive evidence of their invidious design to deprive us of our liberties. The circumstances attending this matter, are such as should in a peculiar manner excite your suspicion; it might not be useless to take a review of some of them. In many of the states, particularly in this [Pennsylvania] and the northern states, there are aristocratic juntos of the well-horn few, who have been zealously endeavoring since the establishment of their constitutions, to humble that offensive upstart, equal liberty; but all their efforts were unavailing, the ill-bred churl obstinately kept his assumed station. . . .

A comparison of the authority under which the convention acted, and their form of government, will show that they have despised their delegated power, and assumed sovereignty; that they have entirely annihilated the old confederation, and the particular governments of the several States, and instead thereof have established one general government that is to pervade the union; constituted on the most unequal principles, destitute of accountability to its constituents, and as despotic in its nature, as the Venetian aristocracy; a government that will give full scope to the magnificent designs of the well-horn, a government where tyranny may glut its vengeance on the low-born, unchecked by an odious bill of rights. . . ; and yet as a blind upon the understandings of the people, they have continued the forms of the particular governments, and termed the whole a confederation of the United States, pursuant to the sentiments of that profound, but corrupt politician Machiavel, who advises any one who would change the constitution of a state to keep as much as possible to the old forms; for then the people seeing the same officers, the same formalities, courts of justice and other outward appearances, are insensible of the alteration, and believe themselves in possession of their old government. Thus Caesar, when he seized the Roman liberties, caused himself to be chosen dictator (which was an ancient office), continued the senate, the consuls, the tribunes, the censors, and all other offices and forms of the commonwealth; and yet changed Rome from the most free, to the most tyrannical government in the world. . . .

The late convention, in the majesty of its assumed omnipotence, have not even condescended to submit the plan of the new government to the confederation of the people, the true source of authority; but have called upon them by their several constitutions, to 'assent to and ratify' in toto, what they have been pleased to decree; just as the grand monarch of France requires the parliament of Paris to register his edicts without revision or alteration, which is necessary previous to their execution. . . .

If you are in doubt about the nature and principles of the proposed government, view the conduct of its authors and patrons: that affords the best explanation, the most striking comment. The evil genius of darkness presided at its birth, it came forth under the veil of mystery, its true features being carefully concealed, and every deceptive art has been and is practicing to have this spurious brat received as the genuine offspring of heaven-born liberty. So fearful are its patrons that you should discern the imposition, that they have hurried on its adoption, with the greatest precipitation. . .

After so recent a triumph over British despots, after such torrents of blood and treasure have been spent, after involving ourselves in the distresses of an arduous war, and incurring such a debt for the express purpose of asserting the rights of humanity; it is truly astonishing that a set of men among ourselves should have the effrontery to attempt the destruction of our liberties. But in this enlightened age to hope to dupe the people by the arts they are practicing is still more extraordinary. . .

The advocates of this plan have artfully attempted to veil over the true nature and principles of it with the names of those respectable characters that by consummate cunning and address they have prevailed upon to sign it; and what ought to convince the people of the deception and excite their apprehensions, is that with every advantage which education, the science of government and of law, the knowledge of history and superior talents and endowments, furnish the authors and advocates of this plan with, they have from its publication exerted all their power and influence to prevent all discussion of the subject, and when this could not be prevented they have constantly avoided the ground of argument and recurred to declamation, sophistry and personal abuse, but principally relied upon the magic of names. . . . Emboldened by the sanction of the august name of a Washington, that they have prostituted to their purpose, they have presumed to overleap the usual gradations to absolute power, and have attempted to seize at once upon the supremacy of dominion.

CENTINEL

. . . Another thing they tell us, that the constitution must be good, from the characters which composed the Convention that framed it. It is graced with the names of a Washington and a Franklin. Illustrious names, we know-worthy characters in civil society. Yet we cannot suppose them to be infallible guides; neither yet that a man must necessarily incur guilt to himself merely by dissenting from them in opinion. We cannot think the noble general has the same ideas with ourselves, with regard to the rules of right and wrong. We cannot think he acts a very consistent part, or did through the whole of the contest with Great Britain. Notwithstanding he wielded the sword in defense of American liberty, yet at the same time was, and is to this day, living upon the labors of several hundreds of miserable Africans, as free born as himself; and some of them very likely, descended from parents who, in point of property and dignity in their own country, might cope with any man in America. We do not conceive we are to be overborne by the weight of any names, however revered.

"ALL MEN ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL;......

THE YEOMANRY OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________________________

So...I'm to take the word of, or trust, I am to trust the words of a slave trader, torturer, murderer, mass murder, traitor, criminal, to do what?

Do as I say, not as a I do?

I don't take this lightly. Why should I?

Again:
http://mises.org/daily/2885

Quote____________________
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation.
________________________

Again:
http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedRep......

Quote_______________________
Washington broke the government, so he could become the chief tax collector for the Congress of the United States and, also, so he could jail anyone who refused to consent to be taxed.
_____________________________

Again:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

Quote:_________________________
And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
________________________________

What is the Spirit that the Federalist (false) Party member Washington had to suppress?

This:
_________________________________
Antifederalist No. 15

RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!

This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-America Intelligencer?)

The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury.
________________________________________________

Back to the Monday Conference Call 7-29-2014:

Time: 09:50

On the subject of building Administration, or framework, and on the subject of not creating Grand Juries for cases.

My experience so far has been absolutely no interest from people at all when the subject of jury duty is offered in conversation unless there is an interest in some case.

So...

Tactic 1:
Harangue, insult, badger, push, push, push, people into volunteering to do their duty as jurists, or as administrators, or as coordinators, or organizers, or whatever word describes the same thing, which is jury duty.

Tactic 2:
Offer information that sparks an interest in someone who wants to volunteer as a jurist.

Often is the case that the first question asked is "How much do I get paid?," in so many words.

To me, and my way of thinking, Tactic 2 is far better than Tactic 1, because Tactic 1 is the problem, in so many words, and Tactic 2 is the solution to the problem.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If I am told that my duty is to listen to these Conference Calls, then my duty, as I see it, is to comment on the false knowledge when I see false knowledge.

Knowledge begins with an open mind that can see where false knowledge has made its way into the memory bank. Garbage in, and garbage out, happens. It is a good idea to open the mind to the real possibility that some garbage has made its way in.

The criminals have figured out how to counterfeit knowledge, and it works so well that the victims actually think that the counterfeit stuff is real, and the best counterfeit knowledge working for the criminals is the counterfeit knowledge that tells the victim to be willfully ignorant concerning the counterfeit knowledge infecting their minds.

That is a check mate move known by the counterfeiters.

That is a check mate move unknown by the victims of the counterfeiters.

The victims welcome the check mate move with open arms, like a Trojan Horse, so beware of Greeks bearing gifts, and Caveat Emptor.

So...

Yes, I agree, the framework exists, it is called common law by some people, and some people claim that Common Law (the counterfeit version) is the real stuff, so beware of that, and the frameworks exists as moral conscience embodied in the minds of people, and the framework exists as ancient, tried and true, trial by jury, from BEFORE Magna Carta, whereby due process of law is afforded to all, without exception, and those who claim to be excepted are the confessions of the counterfeiting criminals.

So...

I agree, so long as my agreements are not misunderstood to be my agreements with documents (The Constitution of 1787) that claimed that slavery was legal, piracy was legal, fraud was legal, extortion was legal, counterfeit monarchy was legal, on and on, right there in the actual document.

Build the framework.

How?

Tactic 1: Push on the string, or harangue, intimidate, threaten, push, push, push, people who may be thinking that they are being pushed off a cliff.

Tactic 2: Offer case examples that can be used to defend innocent people so that innocent people are then seeing, with their own eyes, how innocent people can be effectively defended in time and place.

Back to the Monday Conference Call:

Time: 9:55 or so

"Whenever the court calls for..."

Here is where I have a serious problem. Which court, which individual member of the people, which spoken word by which speaker, which hand using which pen on which paper, is the cause of action in any case?

What is not happening right now is one innocent victim is not yet being defending against a willful criminal according to the common law whereby the innocent victim is effectively defended by people in time and place.

No cases exist at the moment unless someone makes a reference to the case in New York against specific Judges who are guilty of crimes done to the people as a whole, which means every single member of the whole people is a victim, according to the accuser in that case.

"Whenever the court calls for..."

Which court?

Which court called for the Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury in that case?

Back to the Monday Conference Call:

Time: 11:45

"...abuse these people..."

That is in context to a "prosecutor" who may "take these people down a road" and National Liberty Alliance trained administrators are in place to keep such wrongdoing from happening.

I have a problem with that too.

It is the same problem as the "court" or the "prosecutor" or the one who has a name that initiates Due Process according to the common law.

"Whenever the court calls for..."

Who calls for a Grand Jury?

Not a thing. Who?

If a false accusation is invented by someone, and someone "calls for" a Grand Jury to be assembled into action, beginning action according to the cause of action, then that one has a name. Someone initiating a Common Law Grand Jury Case has a name.

Joe Jones, for example, initiated or "calls for" a Grand Jury to be assembled in the next case.

I go and ask Joe Jones, for example, why Joe Jones initiated a Grand Jury case, because the evidence available to many people, each having names, suggests that the case started by Joe Jones is false.

What does Joe Jones say, against a counter claim, concerning the case started by Joe Jones?

Does Joe Jones say that it was not me?

Does Joe Jones say that the court did it?

If you do not see a problem then you may want to check your memory storage where you keep all your knowledge. Some of the knowledge you are keeping in storage may be counterfeit stuff.

This is fundamental reason.

This is fundamental common sense.

This is fundamental logic.

This is not rocket science.

I do not need a Bar "teaching" me common sense.

If there is a reason for a trial by jury, in any place, and any time, then that reason is discovered by the first person first.

The criminal is the first person who willfully decides to cause a victim to be a victim, and then the cause of action in defense of the victim is the crime that is willfully perpetrated upon the innocent victim by the guilty criminal in time and place.

Had the criminal not made the decision to injure the innocent victim there would be no victim, and there would be no crime, and there would be no REASON for a trial by jury: no victim, no cause, no cause to act in defense of an innocent victim that is not a victim.

The obvious next likely person to know about the crime, an accurately accountable, real, crime, is the victim, but not necessarily, since there may be other witnesses, and there may be other criminals involved in the crime.

Such as...

One witness to the crime may be someone who knows that there is a criminal organization currently claiming the souls of all the babies not yet born, and this organization of criminals are then ready as soon as a new baby is born, to capture the soul of the baby, and monetize it, and market it, and sell it, selling that new soul at birth; selling the baby into the slavery of falsehood. And...this witness pays the extortion fee demanded by the organized criminals instead of fighting back against those criminals. That is abhorrent to at least the ideas offered in The Declaration of Independence of 1776.

Doing nothing while the criminals have babies sold into slavery even before they are born is not nice.

That, doing nothing, and paying the extortion fee, is a case of aiding and abetting, lending moral and material support to, a bunch of criminals, whereby each criminals has a name, and each victim has a name, and the records of the crime in progress are well documented as accurate facts.

So...who, which name of which witness, volunteers to "calls for" a trial by jury in any case, and that one, that individual, the one member of the whole number of people, has a name, is responsible, and is accurately accountable, for "calling for" a trial by jury, because the accusation may be false.

If it is Joe Jones initiating trial by jury according to common law, then Joe Jones is held accountable if Joe Jones is guilty of a false accusation.

Back to the Monday Conference Call:

Time: 12:00

Administrators are to make sure that common law proceeds according to The Constitution?

What? How can that be? The Constitution was legalized slavery, a well known fact.

That common law stuff is only true if The Bill of Rights IS The Constitution.

If John Darash is speaking about Admiralty Law, or Equity Law, or this nebulous "Court of Law," in the so called Constitution (not the Bill of Rights) then there is a serious problem with identifying precisely who defines the meanings of the words in the so called Constitution. John Darash, alone, is in command of all the power required to decide what IS the meaning of the Constitution?

If John Darash and Gerard Aprea again accuse (indirectly) Joe Kelley of spreading poison concerning the accusation I make that the criminals George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and those members of the falsely named Federalist Party took over the government in their fraudulently advertized meeting in Philadelphia in 1787, then such an accusation could initiate due process of law according to The Bill of Rights.

John Darash, not a nebulous "court," would be THE accuser.

Gerard Aprea, not a nebulous "judge," would be another one of THE two accusers.

Joe Kelley would be accused of a crime called libel, or there would be some other claim of some other kind, other than libel, such as treason, as the cause of action, the crime being the cause for the action of calling for a trial by jury.

The following might help:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treas......

You won't find that here at National Liberty Alliance?

Why not?

If I am accused of wrongdoing, of spreading poison, then so is Lydander Spooner, Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Lansing, Richard Henry Lee (a.k.a. Federal Farmer), Robert Yates (a.k.a. BRUTUS), Luther Martin, and those other people who were falsely labeled "anti" Federalists.

So how does common law work according to The Bill of Rights, and how does that due process acknowledged in The Bill of Rights compare to whatever someone claims to be the meaning of the words in The so called Constitution of 1787?

I can not honorably ask anyone to obey the slavery made legal laws, the piracy made legal laws, the extortion made legal laws, the fraud made legal laws, in the so called Constitution, because slavery, piracy, extortion, and fraud are NOT legal, so how can I honorably ask someone else to obey such obvious, and accurately measurable, crimes?

1.The Declaration of Independence
2. Each Constitution forming each Republic, many having their own Bill of Rights
3. The formation of a voluntary Union of Republics into a Federation under The Articles of Confederation
4. The fraud known as The Constitution of 1787
5. The Bill of Rights as a last ditch attempt by the true Founders of a true Federation to defend the innocent victims from the criminals who took over government in 1787.

Which one is out of place?

If we are jurists then we ought to get the facts straight, or suffer the costs of failure.

Back to the Monday Conference Call:

Time: 12:29

On the subject of counterfeit courts, which go by many false names, such as:

1. Chancellery
2. Exchequer
3. Common Law (the counterfeit or false versions)
4. Admiralty
5. Maritime
6. Equity
7. Family
8. Supreme
9. Circuit
10. Fill in the blank

On that subject I found this:
http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes...

Here is a useful quote from that offer of words________________
As equity was developing, it had no fixed rules of its own and each Chancellor gave judgement according to his own conscience. This led to criticism about the outcome of cases and John Selden, an eminent seventeenth century jurist, declared, "Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor's foot".
________________________________________________

I am in full agreement with John Darash when John Darash refers to the work of Lysander Spooner titled Trial by Jury as a useful source of information concerning our common law and our trial by jury due process.

I can be mistaken as to what John Darash means.

Back to the Monday Conference Call:

Time: 13:00 or so...

"Our paperwork is strong..."

As far as I know the meaning of the word "our" is a group of people who constitute a working common law grand jury in New York.

Who initiated that cause of action? If we did it, then there is a list of names constituting we who did it.

If there is no list of names, then there is no we.

Who is accurately accounted as the people on the list of names of we, or our, as in "our paper work"?

If a common law grand jury has been assembled to work a case, then there is an individual, or a group of individuals, who are accurately accountable as the people accusing someone of wrongdoing.

Who accuses someone of wrongdoing?

It can't be a thing, a false label, a "we the people," or "the government," or "the court," who accuses someone of wrongdoing.

If a thing can accuse someone, then how can the accused face their accuser?

Where is the thing, if a thing accuses someone?

No such thing exists; it is fictional.

People accuse, and often people falsely accuse, so therefore there is reason, common sense, in common law, to accurately identify the one who accuses.

The one who accuses is the initiator of a cause of action, and documenting that fact puts the accuser's flesh on the line, or failure to accurately account for the one who accuses is a failure that results in predictable consequences.

The one who accuses is accurately identifiable as the one who initiates a cause of action of law. The cause is a wrongdoing done by a criminal upon an innocent victim according to an accuser. The accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and therefore due process is afforded to the innocent accused, and if that does not happen, then the law is not the law, the law is a crime in progress instead of the law being a law.

If everyone were to accuse everyone else of wrongdoing, because it feels good to accuse everyone of wrongdoing all at once, then how many people would be needed from the jury pool to try each case in time and place?

There is an obvious need for triage, just like a Charge Nurse at the Emergency Room in a Hospital, where the right decisions must be made as to which cases go first, as the least wrongdoings tried first would result in never, ever, getting to the worst cases in time to save the victims of the worst injury.

If we the people wait around for a thing to tell us which cases to try first, and it just so happens that the thing we are waiting on for our orders to obey without question is not a thing, it is a bunch of criminals who do the worst damage to the most people the quickest, then that condition of abject belief in falsehood without question ought to be our first case tried in the mirror.

Accuse the mirror image of the crime of waiting for the orders issue by a thing.

If someone, a member of the whole body of people, issues an order, a dictate, a command, and the recipient of the order does not hold back independent thought as to the right or wrong of the order, the dictate, then that is called dictatorship.

That ship is now on this land, and it arrived in 1787.

People accuse. Who?

Who accuses?

There must be a name.

What idea inspires people to hide the name of the accuser?

How does one go about accusing someone else of wrongdoing while remaining anonymous?

I'd like to know. That type of thinking leads to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbGypiDik2E

This is fundamental stuff. This is not fiction. This is real.

There...

I had to do other things.

Back to the Monday Conference Call (my duty as a National Liberty Alliance volunteer jurist):

Time: 18:50 or so...

"...they want to sue the President of The United States..."

That is a reference to someone here in California. I can cut and paste my opinion on that event right here on this Public Access Forum; straight out of my letter sent in internal e-mail:

My opinion offered as it happened____________________
To whom it may concern,

The vow signed by me makes sense to me. I did not, and I will not, sign any oath to uphold anything that either does not make sense to me or that is an obvious fraud.

Here is what I signed:

I vow to the governor of the Universe, in my capacity as Jurst, to insure that all public servants uphold the US Constitution and Bill of Prohibitions (Rights); and to carry out all of my deliberating under National Law, principled under Justice, Honor, and Mercy; etc.

That makes a lot of sense to me. In this order:

1. The Creator of the Universe (I don't even have to be formally religious to understand this as a fact of existence) Creator creates People, People do not create the Creator.
2. Natural Law (Whatever, or whoever, created the Universe created Natural Laws that apply the same to all people) Natural Law is over people, people are not over it.
3. Whatever we the people can agree to do in our common defense; principles that makes sense, like don't burn each other alive for fun, we have been given the power of reason.
4. Those Laws we agree to abide by, such as ancient, wise, unwritten, common sense, common law, such as trial by jury due process afforded to all, including everyone, not excluding anyone, and definitely afforded to the criminals who need a lot of help in discovering a better way through life.

"The only requirement that I would suggest be MANDATORY for the California Common Law Grand Jury is that each TAKE THE OATH TO UPHOLD THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA."

I happen to know that the so called US Constitution was a slave trading compact among a few people who decided to commit a very devious fraud in 1787; which became known as The Dirty Compromise.

Since I know that, beyond a reasonable doubt, then the only way I can honorably TAKE THE OATH TO UPHOLD THE US CONSTITUTION, is if I too am a criminal and my OATH is offered to who? The Devil? Do any of you actually want to know the truth? Why invite me to such things, if the idea is to sweep under the rug all the criminals working to enslave free people since 1787? I am not that type of janitor.

Setting that aside, me aside, along with the facts that were discovered, deliberated upon, not just by me alone, mind you, but setting all that aside, it is probably not a good idea to be connecting anything any individual is doing on their own "in their sandbox," while claiming to be working with the people of the National Liberty Alliance.

I think John Darash has been very clear about that, but of course I can be wrong often. I can only offer the viewpoint that is before me clearly.

Joe
__________________________________________________

So...

When people are on the side of ancient trial by jury then I happen to be on that side too; but when people are on the side of a criminal take over of ancient trial by jury, then I can't be on that side since I know better; and I am not about to lie about it.

Back to the Monday Conference Call:

Time: 34:43

More references by John Darash whereby his words suggest to me that he thinks that the Anti-Federalists papers were an effort to help construct the Constitution. That is not factual if that is what he thinks. John says things like, "...none of that got into the Constitution..." as if the News Paper Opinion Discussions between so called Federalists (Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, and that old time Central Banker Robert Morris), who were against the existing Federal Government (Under The Articles of Confederation with a representative Continental Congress, as far as I know the separate Republic people sent representatives to the Continental Congress),, whereby these News Paper Opinion Discussions were those false Federalists against the true Federalists (Robert Yates, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, and Richard Henry Lee), who were called by the false Federalists: "anti" Federalists, a fraud in itself, a confession itself, inculpatory evidence as prima facie evidence in fact, and the News Paper Opinion Discussions between False Federalists who were FOR destroying the Federation, and turning the working Federation into a well hidden Monarchy, and the false Anti-Federalists who were FOR maintaining the working Federation, improving it where possible, improving it with very detailed suggestions, was, the News Paper Opinion Discussions were, after the fact of the Constitution already having been covertly written behind closed doors in secret, including gag orders issued to the participants of The Dirty Compromise, and so the ink was already dry on the so called Constitution, so how could anything get into it, as John Darash appears to think may "get into it" through these News Paper Opinion Discussions.

Some of the Anti-Federalist papers were not News Paper Articles, as exemplified by the so called (falsely labelled) Anti-Federalist Number 35.

Quote______________
Antifederalist No. 35

FEDERAL TAXING POWER MUST BE RESTRAINED

George Mason of Virginia opposed the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, and
centralized powers further than he felt it necessary. Mason delivered the following speech before the Virginia ratifying convention, June 4, 1788.
___________________

Telling words indeed.

The Rat-ification process of the already written Constitution, as explained in the falsely named Anti-Federalist Papers was a take it (as is) or leave it demand made by the few people who made up the falsely named Federalist Party as those few people elected themselves, on their own say so, to disobey the orders of the people in each Republic, to amend the working Federation under the Articles of Confederation, and those criminal Federalists set about dividing up the people in the whole continent as their slaves. The Northern interests were tied up in debt slavery of the devious, covert, fictitious, Central Banking Fraud and Extortion Racket type, and the Southern interests were planning on expanding the Black Slave trade OVERTLY enslaving people out in the open as if they thought they were Gods among men.

So those few criminals, who elected themselves as God's among men, stole Liberty right out from under the people on this continent, but they were not un-opposed in the News Paper Opinions and the criminals were not un-opposed in the RAT-ification process.

Back to the Monday Conference:

Time: 40:00 or so...

Sheila from California is asking about connectivity issues between California Coordinators and the National Liberty Alliance Headquarters.

Time: 50:00 or so...

Donna from California is asking about connectivity issues between County Organizers.

My way of thinking is that a Forum offers everyone a virtual County Court House as a place to meet whenever the inspiration, opportunity, and inclination exists in each volunteer.

No need to be at the right place, at the right time, just send a note to the Public Access Forum and it will be there for anyone else when anyone else is seeking connectivity too.

I hear John Darash claiming that every State Coordinator must get connected to Kathleen.

Why can't John Darash invent a Kathleen Forum Topic?

When John Darash claims that every State Coordinator must get connected to Kathleen, then John Darash can inform everyone to check into that Forum Topic. At that Forum Topic can be a contact list of information that NETWORKS everyone connected to that one place where everyone can get connected to Kathleen.

Kathleen can announce all the vital information offered by Kathleen to all the State Coordinators at once. All we have to do is read from the one place.

No? That won't work? Is Kathleen the one who thought I was taking away from her authority when I offered to help with the Testing Process under Construction to help inform potential County Common Law Grand Jury Administrators? Is that the same Kathleen that all the State Coordinators are now needing to contact, for instructions?

Time: 53:05

"...if people are lumps on a log..."

That can be filed with the repeated words I heard as: "...Sheriffs are as dumb as a box of rocks..." or some such spoken words, recorded, more than once.

Is that an example of being humble or is that an example of pushing, haranguing, insulting, and "inspiring" people to do the right thing by example?

You, if anyone reading this, can accuse me of being a lump on a log too. I can find, link, and quote where I suggested to John Darash, on a Monday call, where it was not a good idea to be insulting Sheriffs.

Damned if I do, and damned of I don't?

Perhaps I should be listening quietly and following instructions without question?

Time: 53:20

Speaking about people who have been around for a long time and not yet knowing about the Monday night calls. Ok, well, speaking about Coordinators who have not yet called Organizers. How long has John Darash been connected to California Coordinators and he does not yet know that we have been calling?

When I started calling I kept records of each call. I still keep records of calls. Calling was not working, as it was a game of phone tag. So I went to e-mails, and kept records of that too. Then I went to Forum Topics. I keep records on those Forum Topics.

Here is another Coordinator in California who is calling, and keeping records of those calls on Forum Topics:

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/phone-record-05-28-2014

So Donna calls John, and John then makes blanket statements about lumps on logs.

So...I'm doing my duty, listening to the Monday Conference Call, to keep up to date on the latest vital information; and I find abuse.

I need abuse?

I need a hole in my head too?

Time: 1:00 or so...

"...once we get the lumps on the log moving..."

Hi, my name is Joe, and I'm committed to getting the lumps on the log moving, so between now and next week I will verbally abuse one of those lumps on the log, to get the targeted lump on the log moving.

Did I misunderstand the message offered?

Time: 1:05 or so...

Marxist, Fascist, Progressive stuff?

Where does John Darash think that the Marxists, Fascists, and Progressives got their ideas about a Central Banking fraud and extortion racket?

Did they study, and copy, the false Federalist takeover of America?

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck......

Quote_________________
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.
___________________________________

Actually it was Time 1:04 and the words included "...Nazi stuff..."

The reference was to a text book used on children to educate them?

Like this:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/us-marshal

Quote________________
School Integration

As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases. But the Marshals, regardless of their personal
feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law.
__________________________

That is straight out of the Nazi text book of "I was just following orders."

1850 was well before 1913 when the Central Banking Fraud criminals of Wall Street started financing the other criminals who became the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, and the home grown "progressives," as well documented fact:

Nazis:
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

Marxists:
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

Home grown:
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FD...

Clearly the mold was already well established with the great help from the Federalists like Hamilton, Washington, Madison, and John Adams.

Time: 1:51 Micheal Los Angeles County California

Explaining paid positions (Administrators) and volunteer positions (County Organizer) and connectivity. Again no mention about a Forum, as if no such thing exists.

Time: 2:10 or so...

Much meat along the lines of due process, and access to courts of record (that which is currently counterfeited) ideas offered.

Time: 2:20 or so...

Micheal asks if California Coordinators are privy to the latest Quo Warrento being worked on in New York. The answer is decidedly no.

Time: 2:25 or so...

Speaking about the genius of the Constitution. Slave traders making a deal to divide up the spoils of legalized fraud, extortion, slavery, piracy, etc., and that is good?

John asks where you at California?

Why doesn't John call up whoever he is sharing the Quo Warrento work with in California as to where the seal is?

Those who are privileged to know the secret knowledge don't have to do the grunt work?

As to the Constitution.

1. Fraud

It started as an advertizement to amend the existing form of a Confederation under The Articles of Federation; which was a lie.

Evidence:
1.
http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...
2.
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdo......

Relevant quotes from those two sources abound.

2. Extortion/Central Banking Fraud

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

quote_________________
Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
___________________________________

3. Piracy

Same official copy of the so called Constitution:

Quote_________________
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
_____________________

4. Black Slavery

Quote_________________________
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
______________________________

That is a self contained confession of fraud itself. With a wink and a nod the slave traders decided to avoid the OVERT declaration of legalized black slavery.

Way to go geniuses.

Time: 2:40

People speaking about Obama being elected. That is odd. The office was explained here:
http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedRep......

The office is the office of tax collector. Now the tax collector is a third party corporation tax collector. Anyone claiming that the tax collector (third party or collection agency) is "elected" is helping educate those who can use education?

Time: 2:45

The conversation turns toward the so called Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

The word INDIVISIBLE is said.

The Tyrants of the Bank of England, through such things as the Exchequer, the so called Courts, taking over common law trial by jury in England, made slaves of everyone in England.

So the slaves ran away from those Tyrants in England and the slaves ran to America as pilgrims and pioneers, and they did so at a very high cost.

That is DIVIDING.

The Tyrants say INDIVISIBLE.

The slaves run away.

That happens a lot.

So which lesson is being taught by the Tyrants?

1. INDIVISIBLE (Involuntary servitude)

Example:

Quote________________
School Integration

As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases. But the Marshals, regardless of their personal
feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law.
__________________________

Source: http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/marshal/1%20US%......

Which lesson is taught by the runaway slaves who pioneer a better version of trial by jury?

2. Divisible (voluntary association)

_________________________________
Antifederalist No. 15

RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!

This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-America Intelligencer?)

The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury.
________________________________________________

1. Once you join, you can never leave.

2. Volunteers have a duty to defend against Tyranny as declared in at least one Declaration of Independence.

You people want to learn about American History or do you want to parrot the lies?

Which flag are you pledging your allegiance to?

1.
https://flagspot.net/flags/gb-eic.html#flag

2.
http://www.gadsden.info/

The history of the Corporation of Merchants under that stripped flag include the Corporations running Slave Ships from the African soul stealing bandits, and the Drug Ships from the Chinese Opium Drug pusher profiteers.

So you guys think it is coincidence that thousands of souls of people each year in this Monopoly Nation State under that flag are sold in Human Trafficking, so called, while the CIA, so called, is filling all the pockets of all the investors growing fat on that corporate monopoly power copied from the age old standard?

1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttT6FrMosBk

2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nn0w_uXStM

3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83A2jAGcl7Q

Of course people don't want to know the truth.

I am going to offer a competitive version of the truth in this context, and you can push the red button as you please, because you have an interest in remaining ignorant, so called.

When the Federation worked as a Federation, the enemies of Liberty had two obvious options from which to reconnect the slaves into slavery. The slaves who ran from England, as runaway slaves, disconnected, so the slave traders had two obvious options from which to reconnect the slaves into slavery.

1. OVERT WAR OF AGGRESSION (costly in economic terms)

Physically destroy all the defenders of the idea of Liberty in each Sovereign, Autonomous, Defensive Government Power called a Republic, where there were 13 Republics formed into one Federal Voluntary Union. Each Republic could join or seceded from the Voluntary Union of Sovereign, Autonomous, Defensive Government Republics. Each Autonomous Republic could PAY FOR, or not PAY FOR, a Union, and that was the check on Tyranny from the Top Down as understood by most people in America who were sharing the idea of Defense of Liberty. We the people declared independence for a reason. The ability to secede from Tyranny when Tyranny is Tyranny is reserved as a right, by people, in Republics.

That was common knowledge. That is all well documented in many forms, including those falsely labeled "Anti" Federalist Papers, and those RAT-ification hearings in each Republic during the RAT-ification process.

The enemies of Liberty, the slave traders, the drug pushers, those who torture people in concentration camps that could make a Nazi blush, or smile, who knows, those enemies had two options, and one was OVERT take-over, by physical force, to consume, to destroy, or to enslave, all those who dare to say no to Tyranny.

That OVERT War of Aggression Option was problematic. Mercenaries will not rape, torture, enslave, pillage, murder, and mass murder as a hobby, then want to be paid well. Conscripted soldiers, on the other hand, are infected with that moral conscience stuff, so they are not willing to actually do the dirty work.

Then there is that problem of having only so many people willing to actually do the murdering, and there are 13 Autonomous, SELF DEFENSIVE, Units, or Republics, to physically occupy and enslave, murder, pillage, etc.

The invading criminals take over one Republic, and the other Republics grow stronger; like a demonic game of Wac-a-Mole.

Wac-a-patriot

Here:
http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html

Wac these guys:

John Kelley (5)
Michael Kelley (2)
Oliver Kelley
Patrick Kelley
Samuel Kelley
William Kelley

Mere cannon fodder. But wac those guys in one Republic and the other Republics produce more cannon fodder, because they can, and because they will. Call it the Spirit of Liberty, but the patriots, each one, went by their given names. They went miserably.

For what?

INDIVISIBLE?

2. COVERT WAR OF AGGRESSION (make the patriots pay for it)

If you do not understand how the money monopoly fraud and extortion Confidence Scheme works, then this all may go over your head, and you may keep on keeping on with demonizing, insulting, berating, censoring, anyone who dares to expose to you the true meaning of that flag, and the true meaning of that criminal take-over of a working Federation.

Hamilton spelled it out, and the author of the following book spells it out, for all to see, if you care to see who, what, when, where, and how Liberty was, is, and will be destroyed one patriot at a time.

SOURCE:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck......

Quote__________________
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.
____________________________________

What the criminal British and their Bank of England, and their Slave Trading, Drug Pushing, Gun Running, Monopoly POWERS could not do to the ex-slaves, the patriots, the runaway slaves, in America by FORCE OF ARMS, the criminal British accomplished COVERTLY.

That was done in Philadelphia, in 1787, by the so called Federalists (Tories) UPON the patriots in America even while the patriots spelled out the crime of the millennium in fine detail in News Papers and in the halls of justice while those halls were being COVERTLY TURNED from Patriot Blue (The French were on the side of Liberty at that time) to Torie Red (why did they call them Red Coats?) and how can anyone with a straight face, and a reasonable understanding of simple, obvious facts, still, even now, call the PATRIOTS who defended Liberty, through Federal Government (Voluntary Federation) ANTI-Federalists?

You people harp on criminals who call themselves Republicans and Democrats today?

When the criminals took over in 1787 those criminals called themselves Federalists, and they were working covertly to end a working Federation.

How does a working Federation work, Joe?

I don't know, how about finding out, how about reading an explanation offered in a book on the subject?

Quote___________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
__________________________________

Well Joe, that is much to complicated for me, where is my Red Button, why is my Red Button not working, as I push it, push it, push it, it just won't work anymore, the Red Button FINAL SOLUTION comes to an end folks.

Push all you want after the point of no return.

Keep on sending in your Extortion Payments with the Fraudulent Money and expect a handsome return on your investment for only so long and then what happens Joe?

You get a copy of the flag covering you up as one more body thrown on the pile of cannon fodder?

Food for cannons?

Look into the minds of the evil ones for only so long as to get the idea, please, then, then after you get it, then shut the door.

1. Physically destroy all those people who refuse to be slaves.

2. Turn them, incorporate them, make them believe, and pay for, their own demise.

The first solution inspires the criminals to smile.

The second solution inspires the criminals to smile, and laugh out loud, all the way to their Fraudulent Bank where the Extortion Payments are demanded to be paid with the ONE MONEY.

LOL!

TL;DNR

Back to the Conference Call:

Time:

Time: 2:50

Public and Private

John Darash reaches for his dictionary?

This is an area that I've been working on for some time, so I can offer my latest findings, for all to see, who care to see.

Public equates to the spirit that connects each private soul to each other private soul.

I'm slow. Actually I may be retarded. So it has taken me decades to figure this out to this point of understanding just offered in one sentence above.

If you don't get it, then I can be patient for awhile, but from my view it has taken me considerable effort to offer IT so that you can GET IT without having to go through all the trouble I went through to GET IT.

If I am wrong, then someone can help me GET IT, where I went wrong.

Again:

Public equates to the spirit that connects each private soul to each other private soul.

How does that understanding offered in that sentence apply to the discussion at Time: 2:50 in the Monday Conference Call of 07-28-2014?

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/mondayrecording...

The people are united by a spirit, such as a spirit of Liberty, which is only shared by those who share, or acknowledge, or recognize, or accurately account for, said spirit.

When the people share that public spirit of Liberty, then the government of those people, by those people, and of those people who share that public spirit of Liberty, think, and act in ways that can be accurately accounted in fact.

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

Government becomes a shared, voluntary, duty to defend each other from criminals who take over governments, and to do so those people sharing that spirit of Liberty, that Public Thing, accurately account for each failure and each success in defending the innocent from the guilty.

That is Public.

Public is a shared spirit of Liberty.

That is the Public Thing as shared by those who share the spirit of Liberty.

If John Darash is reaching for Black's Law for an accurate accounting of what is, or is not, the Public Thing, then John Darash can accurate account for the Public Thing from that source of information.

Private, on the other hand, is autonomy. This is factual.

The power to acknowledge, share, and employ the Public Thing as The Spirit of Liberty, exists in fact.

The power to refuse, go against, discredit, discount, overlook, fail to acknowledge, fail to defend, fail to realize, fail to employ, or fail to utilize, or reject, or destroy, or counterfeit, the Spirit of Liberty, as the Public Thing, is also a private thing, a choice, and a power in fact.

I do hereby solemnly swear to counterfeit the spirit of liberty so as to consume as many innocent victims as I can get my hand on as soon as possible.

That is not something a private individual is likely to decide to announce to the public.

Time: 2:55 or so...

John Darash (pot calling the kettle black?) reports how "...they didn't even know who George Washington was..."

Is it better to not know, and therefore not believe, or to know, and therefore to believe, the counterfeit version of history?

Time: 3:05

Bill from California? Which County?

Time: 3:13

Marje from El Dorado California asks a very important question to challenge the thinking of John Darash and Gerard Aprea going into a Court that is claimed to be Constitutional, meaning, the Supreme Court of The United States of America.

Knowing what I know about the so called "Supreme Court" is such that it was a direct tax collection agency used by the criminals to ensure the extortion payments made to the tax collection agency by the slaves who were directly enslaved by the criminals through the usurpation of 1787.

So those criminals hired as "justices" of the "supreme court," from the moment the criminal Judiciary Act of 1789 "authorized" their rise to power (as tax collectors) sewed the seeds leading up to the Civil War and then the change of "government" to the present state whereby those so called "justices" are no longer tax collectors in this country, now they are third party tax collectors, working for a foreign agency, or a corporation.

In other words they started out as the lenders of false money themselves. They were once the central bankers themselves. Now they are hired by foreign central bankers as a third party collection agency, or contractors, who live here in America.

In other words; The United States of America started out as an American Corporation (private) after 1787, usurping the true American Federation (public), and so those so called "justices" of the so called "supreme court" where hired by the private central banking corporation here in America to ensure the extortion payments (called National Taxes) so as to create the demand for the Central Banking (private) money monopoly power. Since the Civil War, however, the ownership (private), of the corporation was transferred, officially, offshore.

It is all a confidence scheme, but there is a use in keeping accurate records as to which bunch of criminals are calling the shots, and they do keep accurate records themselves, so that is their story line, not ours.

Credit goes to both John Darash and Gerard Aprea concerning the answer they offer to Marje from El Dorado County.

We the people (public means spirit of liberty in my view) represent a true Federation (not the counterfeit one) and so we command our government, not the other way around. You, the people running your foreign tax collection agency for a foreign central banking fraud and extortion racket, do not command any power (other than falsehood and violence or criminal power) over us.

Those are my words, not John Darash's words, and not Gerard Aprea's words, but I think there is agreement in the viewpoint.

Who commands true authority?

1. Those who offer the accurate account of the facts.

2. Those who enforce obedience through falsification, threat of aggressive violence upon innocent victims, and horrible, torturous, terrifying, criminal violence upon innocent victims.

Both authorities exist in fact. One is based, again, on accurate accounting of the facts, shared to all without exception, and the other is the authority created by, and maintained by, the criminals.

The obvious problem surfaces in that part of that Monday Conference Call.

Who is on which side, when push comes to shove, and armed forces are then in view under no uncertain terms, since armed forces must exist in either case.

1. Criminal offensive destruction of life on earth.
2. Armed defense against criminal offensive destruction of life on earth.

That is not news.

There are 4 examples of that happening in context of this discussion.

1. Patriots against Tories in the so called Revolutionary War.

2. Shays's Rebellion BEFORE the criminals took over the working Federation in 1787

3. The Whiskey Rebellion AFTER the criminals took over the working Federation in 1787

4. The so called Civil War which was virtually ensured to happen because of The Dirty Compromise that made slavery legal, accelerated the Black Slave Trade in the South, and accelerated the Central Banking and Extortion Slavery made legal in the North.

Time: 3:18 or so...

John and Gerard speak about common law leaning judges (like Patriots, not like Tories) who may side with our efforts to return to trial by jury (The Public Thing), however it may be important to understand that turning back the clock to 1789, as John Darash repeats from time to time, only returns back to home grown criminal control of the Monopoly Central Bank and Extortion Racket.

It is a step in the right direction, from a worse wrong, to a lesser evil.

That I can wholeheartedly agree with...

Time: 3:20 or so...

A claim is made as to what we the people did, or did not do, as far as people creating a trust of some kind.

The document known as The Constitution is explained in at least three ways.

Claims:

1.
We the people (who exactly?) created a trust in this thing called The Constitution.

2.
Someone at the meeting in Philadelphia assembles a book under gag orders, so the book was not printed until well after the dirty deal was RAT-ified, and then during the marketing (false advertizement) phase of the dirty deal the Federalists who were against the dirty deal were called Anti-Federalists by the dirty dealers, and these people, real people with names like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Richard Henry Lee, John Lansing, and Robert Yates (BRUTUS) exposed the criminal take-over, as the criminals were taking over the former Federation, and on top of that Public Access Public Notice Public Letter writing Marketing Campaign there were again opportunites for those against the usurpation to blow the whistle on the criminal take-over in the RAT-ification hearings.

3.
People after the dirty deal was RAT-ified documented the meaning of it, in no uncertain terms.

1.
No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority, by Lysdander Spooner here:
http://freedom-school.com/the-constitution-of-no-authority-b......

Example:____________________________
So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may
have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far
as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives,
in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable
to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and
welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The
language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on
the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to
live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they
should have said that their object was, not "to secure to them the blessings of
liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live
under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and
dead grandfathers.
__________________________________

2. George Washington Jailer And Tax Collector by Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedRep......

Quote________________________________
Washington broke the government, so he could become the chief tax collector for the Congress of the United States and, also, so he could jail anyone who refused to consent to be taxed. Broken American government has been falling apart steadily since George Washington first broke it. As I explain in this report, fixing the government is as easy as getting the President Elect to take an oath "to support this Constitution." That part of the oath of Office of President of the United States to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," explains that the "United States" means the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America.

The secret power of the government was the knowledge that the "United States" meant the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. Anyone doing anything that was subject to the legislative power of Congress was subject to taxation. The President of the United States was, of course, in charge of the United States. It was subject to his administration, hence, today everything the President of the United States does is his administration. Technically, that administration is limited to the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America, but the President of the United States has his ways of making you consent to his administration.

Without the two powers of imprisonment and the power to tax, the America of today could not exist. Let’s hope that this revelation will eventually result in freeing all the innocent people held captive in America’s prisons allegedly guilty only of violating written law.

George Washington broke the government by taking the oath of Office of President of the United States, instead of the oath of office to the Office of President. Washington, the great man, was elected to the Office of President under the Constitution and President of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation. As President, George Washington was supposed to appoint an administrator to the Office of President of the United States, when he appointed himself President of the United States he created a dictator that to this day claims to run the country.
_____________________________________

At best there are many interpretations as to what is, or is not, a trust in what someone says, or said, in this case of this document.

As to the next innocent victim, or victims, who will be effectively defended by a number of people employing common law grand jury due process (due everyone without exception or it is not law) the proof will be in the pudding when, where, and how that takes place in fact, and then the documents written by people at that future time, can document those facts as they happen, or after those events happen in that way.

Which way?

A victim is defended effectively in time and place according to due process of law as exemplified by those people employing the very next common law grand jury case.

Now there is none.

The last time there was one, I don't know, and I have looked, perhaps the last case went down the memory hole.

If there is one now, such as the one being processed by an on again, and off again, Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury, and all the people are the victims (each and every one without exception), then that case is yet to follow through to an effective defense of all the victims.

When that happens, then that is the proof of the pudding.

That will happen, or not happen, despite The Constitution existing at all, on paper, or in anyone's mind.

Common Law Grand Jury Due Process goes back to at least Ancient Athens and the Greek's Golden Age.

Time: 3:22 or so...

Marje is having trouble getting a word in edgewise and that is a loss, never to be found again, for who knows what Marje might have offered had she been allowed to speak freely.

There is again a reference to Marxists, now supposedly members of the Supreme Court, so called, and again, where does John Darash think that Marxism got their ideas for Central Banking Fraud and the Extortion needed to create the demand for the one fraud money?

The Marxists got their play book from the Federalists, and the Federalists got the same play book from the same types of criminals that existed during the time of Jesus.

Time: 3:22 or so...

John Darash is speaking about a so called thing called Equity.

Here there is a serious problem along the same lines as John Darash speaking authoritatively on the subject of the Federalists, the Constitution, or what I've heard him say as Cess Q FUNDS.

I've asked John Darash if he means Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 related FUNDS (so called), and the answer was no, or he did not know.

As with the so called Magna Carta goes this same Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 stuff.

There are these criminals, who know how to lie, threaten, and be horribly violent as a means to gain power for their group, and to gain power over their many victims.

They, as a rule, destroy all competition, and as another rule, if they can, then incorporate all competition into the one criminal group. They do so by edict, whereby the edict, or dictate, assumes that a man can be a God, and this is what they say, by their actions, if not their lying words.

What they supposedly did with their Cess Q FUND confidence scheme, if that is the same thing as the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, what the criminals who took over did, was to claim that all people other than their group, were lost at sea, and/or insane, and/or under their exclusive ownership, and/or under their exclusive dominion, even before these invalids, these missing persons, are born.

So the Cess Q FUND, which was The International Monetary FUND up until recently, and now the FUND is probably already in Asia, who knows, I don't, I'm not inside looking out, I'm outside looking in, and that Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 FUND was, is, and will be a criminal version of an annuity.

What is done, at birth, is to steal the soul of the baby, from the parents, and then the soul of the baby is monetized into a for sale insurance policy, or annuity, whereby the monetized soul is auctioned off, and the monetized soul is traded on the fraudulent, criminal, open market among those who are in on the insider trading business.

When John Darash says that the Marxists at the kangaroo third party tax collector courts, called the Supreme Court, which is nothing but a private collection agency, of shore at that, that the Marxists have a gun to their head, what does he think that means?

If those people, who have names, are IN, then they are IN organized crime, as private contractors, running a collection agency, of shore, and they may want to do the right thing, or they may want to get out, or they may want to blow the whistle, or they may even be allowed to blow the whistle, so long as those above them, in the criminals system, allow it.

If those above them, in the criminals system, do not allow it, then the gun goes off, or there is a suicide, or there is a sudden lack of health, or there is a sudden decrease in Popular Opinion based upon a smear campaign, or there is a sudden reduction in the rate of pay flowing into the private FUND, the Cess Q FUND, and the private account of the one who steps out of line, inside the criminal organization.

Quote_______________________
Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often happened that such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and Reversioners cannot finde out whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many yeares after all the lives upon which such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt upon it to prove the death of their Tennants when it is almost impossible for them to discover the same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners.
____________________________________

Translated: We are tired of expending our stolen LOOT on making sure that our slaves are counted as our slaves, so to save us from wasting our stolen LOOT we hereby declare that all people who we have not counted yet, as our slaves, are our slaves, since they are lost at sea, infirm, insane, or otherwise desperately needing our protection from us.

As to Equity, so called, or Equity Court, again as far as the names go, they are false fronts, so the names have to be something rosy, something attractive, something a fly will look at and wander into it, so that the bait works to trap the fly in the fly trap.

If someone wants a private judge to be paid by two people who want a third party to settle their petty disagreement, then they can demand, and then other people can supply, a conflict resolution service, or so called equity court. That is private, free market, business just like the local computer repairman offers a service to people who demand that service.

If it is PUBLIC, not PRIVATE, then why is a court anything other than a Court of Record?

You tell me. Please, fill me in on the wisdom I have yet to find.

Time: 3:25 or so...

Words are exchanged with Tanner, and the words have to do with political economy, not justice, as John seems to think that only so many Administrators SPOTS will exist, no more, and no less, according to his opinion on the matter.

If that is what he things then he is dead wrong.

The concept of free market government (which was working between 1776 and 1787 in America) includes a demand for THE PUBLIC THING and then people who supply to meet that demand.

If people on one place, called a County, demand 100 cases, because there are 100 victims who legitimately claim, by accusation, that there are 100 crimes in this place, and there are only 4 Administrators working, and they can only process 1 claim per month, then the true political/economic solution to that problem is a supply of more than 4 Administrators in that area, which can be called a County.

Who says that there are only 4 Administrators working true due process of law according to ancient wisdom?

What possible reasoning could be offered to BAR 4, or 8, or more Administrators volunteering (with or without compensation drawn from the PUBLIC FIND which is a PUBLIC THING, not a PRIVATE THING), and then working, to process the work load as more cases overload the existing capacity of the existing number of people working those cases?

If people are still caught in this INVOLUNTARY association lie, where people are forced to pay so called taxes in to a criminal pile of LOOT, then of course, their thinking includes thinking that people must be excluded from those who are let IN to the criminal group.

What stops anyone, right now, from gaining access to due process of law according to ancient wisdom, or common law, or trial by jury?

Dictators, dictating, that only those chosen by dictators can be IN on the dictatorship, is the standard dictatorial system of control.

The opposite of that is voluntary association. If people volunteer to work as Administrators, or garbage collectors, and there is more than enough cases to go around, and there is more than enough garbage to be picked up, then the volunteer (with or without compensation) is turned away by who, and for what reason?

Of course the dictator may claim that the volunteer is not qualified. Take me for example. If the dictator demands that I worship their fraudulent constitution, then I will most certainly not be allowed IN, nor would I ever consent to such abject belief in falsehood without question.

So how many potential jurists, who could qualify, even raise the bar of knowledge for Administrators, be turned away because this group of volunteer jurists know the truth about the Con Con of 1787?

Who bars the gate? What is the reasoning for fixing the number of Administrators at all; unless the number is fixed precisely by market forces so as to allow the supply to meet the demand?

Time: 8:28 or so...

John has volunteered to do this volunteer work since Ron Paul first ran for congress in 2007?

http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=34...

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/1996/96Stat....
________________________
Jerry Lewis, Republican 98,821
Robert `Bob' Conaway, Democrat 44,102
Joseph T. Kelley, Libertarian 4,375
Hale McGee, American Independent 4,963
___________________________

In the effort to dispel any claims of being on a ego trip, I can offer a few more link and a short story.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/bsbhm2.html

Before Waco my efforts to know better about false government had already included ample study concerning the formation of America in history. After Waco the fact that the criminals really did take over in 1787 sunk into my soul, not just on the surface of consciousness, not just a matter of clear reasoning based upon the available facts.

When I spoke in THE PUBLIC THING, on the campaign trail for congress in 1996 it was clear in my mind how horribly the criminals WILL torture people, including babies. The criminals WILL burn people alive for fun and profit, and those criminals took over in 1787.

Back in 1996 few people listened, even while I spoke in THE PUBLIC FORUM, as a candidate for congress, but some people did listen.

Despite obvious intended consequences done by criminals to victims, including Sonny Bono, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHqC64Js7GY

And here:
http://www.dcdave.com/article5/080406.htm

So...people like John Darash, and Gerard Aprea, working as David fighting Goliath, in a sense, because we are all PRIVATE, individual, alone, people, inside our souls, have something on common, a PUBLIC THING, shared, and the criminals know this, and the criminals will have few options afforded to criminals when more, and more, and more PRIVATE SOULS say no more to the criminals and their lies.

The criminals have some obvious paths to take when good people defend each other:

1. Incorporating them (turn good people into bad people)
Routine lying, threatening, and working to enslave the victims by brutal force.

2. Crushing the life out of them (consume good people)
Burning them alive is an obvious favorite choice

3. Joining them (stop being criminals)

Trial by Jury offers 3 to the criminals.

I think my ego can handle that one.

Time: 3:35 or so...

Micheal is back on, and asking about the States (Republics) Conference Call. John says that Roger is running it, and for some reason my name is either not put on the e-mail list, or it is taken off of the e-mail list where Coordinators are offered a Conference Call opportunity.

Roger is from California.

Who is Roger?

This is the stuff I really don't get. Where was Roger through the entire process of Constituting all California Counties?

Why did John Darash repeatedly ridicule the people in California for "...going to sleep..." and for being "...lumps on the log..." while there is this fully capable guy named Roger here, who as far as I know, is a mystery man.

Was Roger at the Riverside County Constituting meeting, the Kern County meeting where we constituted all the remaining counties, the three meetings in South, Middle, and North Constituting meetings where we, the sleepers, the bumps on the log, Constituted all the Counties once again?

Does it make sense that Roger is conducting State Coordinator meetings from California and the actual State Coordinators don't even know who Roger is?

How does that make any sense?

So...here is this Web Page, as a central location, for members of National Liberty Alliance.

On this Web Page, which is the central location for members of National Liberty Alliance, is an open PUBLIC ACCESS, forum, to read, and for members of National Liberty Alliance members can write on this Forum.

A central location for networking work, for planning Conference Calls, for Announcing Conference Calls, for reading and writing about matters relevant to National Liberty Alliance, Trial by Jury, County Constituting, Law, and other things, and instead of using the Forum, people are phoning each other individually, or e-mailing each other individually, in private conversations, for reasons they only know. That makes sense from what angle of view?

At the end of the call, finally, that was quite a work load for me; at the end the phone cut out, and it may be that Roger is not from California, which does make more sense to me.

Keeping the record accurate is a good thing.

Joe

I'd love to

borrow Fein's brain sometimes! He's brilliant and unruffled.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Jan,

that deserves a bump!

"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

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and BUMP

Thank you for your support and BUMP.

Jan Helfeld

Government anarchy. How

Government anarchy.

How ironic.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.