I realized this morning that it is not abnormal for Legal Criminals to create a counterfeit version for everything that threatens their power to perpetuate crime made legal.
So...in place of equitable commerce (voluntary methods of arriving at equity among people trading in a free market) they create a counterfeit version.
In the 3 way chess game there may be a chess clock that is used to force a player to complete his turn in a specific interval of time.
I have this Bonding chess piece now, and I have not found, yet, the best place to place this new piece on the chess board. It is as if I've been given a Knight where the move is potentially as powerful as any other piece but the Knight isn't a straight line and easy to see attacking move.
I've been wrestling over the concept of Admiralty Law, or Commerce Law, or Contract Law, or Equity Law, trying to see the good in it, and picking up the opponents moves, and knowing the facts in the cases, as they are brought into view.
How about, for your consideration, please:
Look through Article III.
The Admiralty and Equity Law ISSUE is not a side show dreamed up by agent provocateurs seeking to ferret out the good people among us, and then chop off their heads as they stick their necks out to see what the ruckus is all about with this Admiralty ruse.
Note: Spooner is right about you and I not signing onto any Constitution, there is no Treason for us, until (and according to Contract lawyers willing to enforce their contract laws) we sign contracts.
Note 2: Carl Miller offers some help with the signing of documents with the additional declaration of being Under Duress.
Quote from the official U.S.A. (corporate) Constitution:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
You may not know about the dividing lines between Common Law and any other Law, since you are so well versed in God's Law. Other people claim that Common Law is God's Law, and to me that makes sense, but only in the sense that any one person, any individual person, anywhere, anytime, is capable of knowing God's Law, and then applying it in real time. Over time, day in, day out, year in year out, century in, century out, from the first human being walking the Earth, to these days when our children now walk the Earth, God's Law expresses itself, God expresses life on Earth, in forms that we can better understand, over this span of time, so we have, at our disposal, competitive examples on a scale, for us to know better, as to what really is God's Law, and what is not God's Law.
Counterfeit versions are not God's Law, and this is in scripture, not just my own feeble mind.
So, please, build a scale for us, a competitive one, and I can offer a starting point, to exemplify what I mean to ask you to do.
You are much more well versed in God's Law than I am, and you have much more, authoritative, expert, specialized, help that I have access to, so your scale can be much better than mine:
1. Do no Harm
2. Golden Rule
3. Ten Commandments
4. Ancient Athens Government by Sortition
5. Icelandic Commonwealth
6. Holland Confederation
7. Switzerland Confederation
8. Declaration of Independence
9. Articles of Confederation
10. The Constitution
11. The Bill of Rights
12. A Mortgage Contract denominated in Federal Reserve Notes
13. The Divine Right of Kings / Absolute Despotism / exemplified by The Inquisition, Nazi Germany, Bolshevik Russia, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, etc.
Which rules are too complicated for the average person?
Which rules are too complicated for the weaker people among us whereby the measure of weakness is only relevant when measured relative to those of us who have strength in figuring out the difference between an honest person and someone who is willfully working to deceive targeted innocent victims?
Who is victimized first, and worst, and who manages to survive longer, inside Legal Crime?
In other words: Which Laws in the list above are easily understood by anyone, including people who are very good people, very productive people, very honest people, but they are very naive people who are easily deceived, and therefore they are powerless against people who are very good at the "art" of deception?
I did not yet describe to you the concept of "Job Security" as that term is used by Union members who work in a Closed Shop, which is a Monopoly Union of Workers.
Job Security involves many tactics by which the Union Workers make sure that their security in their jobs remain powerful, whereby they do things to make sure that there will always be a high demand for their place in the work force, and they do such things as sabotage, whereby things that a repairman does, which is fixing things, is always in high demand, so the repairman breaks things, to be fixed later.
If the Union repairmen fix everything the first day, then their employers won't need them the next day, so the Union repairmen overtly fix things, and they covertly sabotage, so as to break things, so as to maintain "Job Security".
I was not often "Good" in the eyes of my employers, relatively speaking, because I tended to work myself out of a Job, while my coworkers were so much more busy, when the employers were around, looking much better than I, relatively speaking.
I also told them what was happening, not what I thought they wanted to hear.
"Job Security" works in Law too. If a "Law" can be made ambiguous then the "Law" can only be understood by the enforcers, and this should not be news.
Returning to the subject matter by way of Patrick Henry:
"The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses: and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government. Take longer time in reckoning things; revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome instances of the people losing their liberty by their carelessness and the ambition of a few."
Energy is spoken of here as the Bait dangled before the masses of people by those who intend to sabotage.
That is a clue.
In that time period there were how many Laws IN FORCE whereby innocent people, not knowing (ignorant of) these Laws, become criminals according to these laws, and without Expert Advice, those innocent people will be injured by the Law Enforcers?
How many people, as a percentage of the population, in that time period, 1700/1800 were aware of the dangers presented by Greeks offering Gifts of Energy?
Not enough - obviously.
They did not have the Internet.
They had print media.
Where Common Sense by Thomas Paine worked to connect the dots between Friends of Liberty, The Federalist Papers falsely accomplished the same thing, rallying the troops around and polarizing them onto one path.
Common Sense, it seems to me, intended to preserve Common Law/Liberty/Natural Law/ Free Markets/ and even God's Law.
The Federalist Papers PRETENDED to preserve Common Law/Liberty/Natural law/ Free Markets/ and even God's law.
The person of Alexander Hamilton, in particular, broke the campaign promises promised in The Federalist Papers, and what became the Law of the Land, despite The Bill of Rights, is, obviously, Contract Law, or Admiralty Law, or the falsely named Equity Law.
But the battle continues.
Because the true Natural Law, or Common Law, or Liberty, or God's Law prevails in any case where actual equity exists, not counterfeit equity, and that brings me back to this mornings thought.
Equity does not include the POWER of deceit.
Equity does not include the POWER of violence being threatened upon one party by another.
Equity does not include the POWER of aggressive violence being perpetrated by someone guilty of crime upon someone innocent of crime.
If any of those POWERS are being employed then the use of the word Equity to label those POWERS is, in its own self evident existence, a confession of guilt.
If any of those POWERS are being employed, then in fact, the case is a criminal case, not a case of equity.
In other words: Equity exists in Liberty, or within a Free Market, whereby that market is Free because there is no deceit being employed by someone upon someone, no threats of violence being employed by someone upon someone, and no violence, no crime, being perpetrated by someone upon someone in that case of Equity existing in Liberty.
What, consider please, would a poor honest farmer do, in any case, anywhere, if said individual were attacked by lies, threats, and violence, in defense if their Liberty?
Accuse the attacker, face the attacker, and have the attacker tried by 12 members of a randomly picked Jury that is assembled quickly, from the local population, to try the criminal case, to render a judgement concerning the facts discovered during the trial, facts that are demanded by the Jury, so as to accomplish at least two simple things.
Avoid convicting an innocent person (suggesting a need to try a counter case concerning false accusations) and thereby avoid becoming that which we supposedly abhor.
Avoid abandonment of a victim to further victimization at the hands of criminals (in effect: making crime profitable) and thereby making sure that crime does not pay so well.
I told you about my recent experience with Trial by Jury. I was prodded along with everyone else, through Rapiscan scanners, across The Bar, making "oaths" to God (which I did not recite), and being interrogated as to my worthiness as a Juror.
Instead of following the herd I informed everyone there as to the actual need to accomplish those two tasks listed above, and the authorities present excused me, claiming that I was, in effect, unfit for Jury Duty.
If we do not preserve Liberty, who will?
"It seems to me that the word equity is being used in a negative light. I wonder why?"
I throw so much information at you all at once, and somehow you manage to employ it, so uniquely, it is surprising to me. To me: you earn much respect as a competitive person capable of challenging the authority of well established, but false, or counterfeit, versions.
I think Equity is voluntary, mutual, agreement, absent deceit, threats, or violence, therefore such things are outside courts, having nothing to do with courts, so the word is obviously being used as a False Front - or bait and switch routine, or Legal Crime.
Why does anyone go to one of those Equity Courts if Equity exists? If everyone is happy as a clam, what is the need for a court? If all parties are satisfied that no deceit, threats, or violence is involved, then why involve a "Court" where Equity already exists?
The Authorities intend to enforce equity?
That is like fornicating your way back to virginity.
"It seems the constitution is highly regarded as natural law as opposed to civil law."
There are many traps to fall into, such as a confusion of The Declaration of Independence with The Constitution or similarly a confusion of The Bill of Rights with The Constitution. I've shown you where The Constitution is OPPOSITE The Declaration of Independence. Why would anyone confuse the two?
One document declares the DUTY of rebellion against a criminal government, the other document authorizes the suppression of those rebellions. How can it be any more Black and White?
But I think the general theme of the information is useful and there may be a very important lesson concerning exactly how deep the lies go down into our souls.
Why are there two words used to describe regular people, you, me, the neighbor as such: Public and Private
Who is this Public person?
Who is this Private person?
Why two words for people who are supposed to be self-governing people?
What causes a person to cross over the line from Public to Private or from Private to Public?
I think the answer is right here in this Bonding/Admiralty Issue.
I think the answer is the same answer to the following, parallel, question:
Why are there two words for regular people as such: Employer and Employee
What causes a person to cross this invisible line from being an Employer one second, and then becoming an Employee the next, as one person may put on a Workers Hat, take it off, and then put on a Suit?
Then take off the suit, and put the hat back on?
"Is this the kind of discussion you wanted to have?"
Yes, in my opinion, this is vital stuff. Will you ever be on a Jury?
Do you see the folly of voting when voting is compared to the power a member of a Jury has in our actual world?
Voting is pure fantasy. Look around and see how many people are caught up in that side show called an Election.
Look at the ENERGY wasted by so many people, and for what, so we can move faster and closer into World War III and have all of our "legal" power moved to China after we are on the schedule to lose World War III (we being everyone except those who make the schedule)?
We being everyone who pays the costs of our own failure to defend Liberty, we being everyone who provides the means by which we suffer, we being everyone who transfers our earnings to those who know how to get our earnings well enough, and without even a wimper from the powerless victims who do what, dress up their children in uniforms and send them gladly into the mean grinder while paying at least half of their earnings in various ways to a the orchestrators of the same meat grinder?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: