Response to common place libel in modern times:
Ever talk to a wall?
Or to a crazy person who thinks he is Moses? My trying to reason with you about law is futile, so why do it? You already established that in your mind, knowledge of that subject means nothing because, well, we're all humans and therefore knew the law intuitively when we popped out of the womb. And yet, that is contrary to all experience.
Authority can be demonstrated within a voluntary association.
As soon as a criminal divides a voluntary association there is in that act, by that criminal, a criminal authority made by that criminal upon the victim targeted by that criminal and the inculpatory evidence is produced by the criminal for all who care to see, and know, exactly who is the criminal, and know exactly who may be victim to that crime.
Who is being targeted with the libelous attack made by this person who is now offering a claim of some sort concerning competence of mind?
Who is demonstrating insanity, in fact?
Look, it (your ideas) sounds really groovy and neato and people who aren't old enough to be responsible for themselves might buy into it, but in the real world, if you are in court, and there is a judge, that guy is the judge. Get it? Reality becomes "real" real fast when you aren't just some dork on the net with a computer his mom bought him, clicking away in the basement. For sure, Adam K. isn't following your or phreedom's nonsense.
Note the use of the discrediting, libelous, words written by the aggressive attacker as the aggressive attacker attacks, with libel, the targeted victim. Who is being targeted?
If the target being targeted by this aggressive attacker, attacking with this invention, production, and maintenance of libel, is me, then my name is Joe Kelley.
I ran for Congress in 1996.
I was on the ballot.
I managed to earn the signatures, going door to door, required to bypass the heavy fine (so called filing fee) to get on the ballot.
So, as far as I am concerned, I am not "some dork on the net with a computer his mom bought him, clicking away in the basement".
Is there discredit also aimed at people in a basement?
Libelous criminal attacker
Someone in a basement
One demonstrates the actual reality of crime in fact.
One is known to be in a basement in fact.
Which is guilty of something specific?
As to what happens in court.
I went to 2 Jury Trial summonses.
One I was on the Jury, and I offered my viewpoints.
The second was a case where I was dismissed. I was dismissed, apparently, by both Union Lawyers, and the Union Judge voiced a command to have me stay, then retracted, after a time when, apparently, both Union Lawyers overpowered the Judges opinion.
I offered to the Prosecutor, during the interview of 12 people in the Jury Box, me being one of those prospective Jurors, my viewpoint on his impertinent questions.
I dismissed his twisting of words outright, which he did not like, obviously, and confirmed by his own words later, and I said to the assembled group that our job here, as Jurors, was difficult, as we had to accomplish two things that are contentious by definition.
Do not convict an innocent person.
Do not abandon a victim.
I spoke of my current condition of understanding as to the principles of trial by jury and I referred to the work done in Trial by Jury written by Lysander Spooner.
It was the name Lysander Spooner that was picked up by the Judge, and the Judge defeated the initial rejection by the prosecutor concerning my power to be a Juror in that Court, so called, as the Judge then said to me that among the Judges he knows few of them know of the name Lysander Spooner. I was, in those words, given credit by that Judge.
That is my experience, out of the basement.
My son also was on a Jury, and his offer of his opinion on Law carried the day in that case.
My son said something along the lines of having the requirement to produce the proof of guilt, not the proof of innocence.
Jurors in common law, from way back in our collective history, command the power of law.
In Union Law, or Uniform Commercial Code Law, the Criminals produce their lies, their threats, and their aggressive violent attacks upon their targets, as proven by them each day.
Here is one example:
That is not the exception, that is the norm, that is the purpose behind Uniform Commercial Code.
The so called courts are private corporations now, so those who are targeted and "brought to court" need to understand that the Union Judges, the Union Lawyers, the Union Clerks, are all there to rape you, so long as you let them.
When I ran for congress I went to an NRA meeting. I was a candidate and a member of the NRA at that time. The meeting was intended to credit the Republican Candidate running at the time against the Republican Incumbent at the time. Both Republicans were supporters of Gun Control.
I said to the assembled criminals that no paper has the authority to remove my power to defend myself. I meant that, I know that, and my words were of no obvious importance in that group of fellow criminals, Union men.
The Union of Lawful Criminals have a weak spot, as their source of power is the power they steal from those who are honest and productive. Their weak spot can be found in the methods they employ to move that power from those who produce that power to them.
The Union Courts is one way that the Legal Union Criminals (Monopoly of Crime) accomplish that movement of surplus wealth from those who produce it to those who steal it in that Union System; now known as Uniform Commercial Code.
The Union of Uniform Commercial Code also insures their own fellow criminals against their own failures to follow their own rules and that is called Bonding, as far as I understand how that works.
Here is a taste of how that works:
That is only the tip of the iceberg.
If I understand how that Bonding works, then the concept of asking for proof of Authority includes asking for a name of the person claiming to be an authority, and then asking for a badge number, and then, having that information, after the supposed authority is done with what the supposed authority is going to do, the target of the supposed authority can then look into the Bond that is purchased as an investment in insurance upon wrongdoings done by that supposed authority.
That works on Union Lawyers, and Union Judges too, as far as I know at this time.
Having a known Bond on a known bad guy who abuses the supposition of authority is the possible Achilles Heel of these people who presume authority over their targeted victims who have anything worth stealing.
There may be a way to use their own rules against them, by making claims to the agency holding the Bond on those who are so readily able to abuse their supposed authority.
When a claim is made on a Bond then the real investigations that matter commence, and then it is possible that the Union of Supposed Authority begins to Police itself.
A completely fraudulent Bonding agency, if exposed as one, can't hold onto the POWER they steal, and if it is not a completely fraudulent Bonding agency then there will be payments paid out of the FUND to those who make those claims, and then the license is taken away from the Union Officers who abuse their supposed authority, and in that way that Union Officer is no longer in the Union and then that Union Officer is then just another target to fend for him, or her, self, outside of the Union of Legal Criminals.
That is how it works, as far as I understand how it works at this point.
I have little to do with the Union of Legal Criminals. I prefer it that way. Unfortunately the Union of Legal Criminals are growing less like true authorities and more like the criminals that pull the strings from deep down into that human hell on earth.
Examples of string pulling:
Inculpatory evidence is destroyed.
Iculpatory evidence is censored.
The founding fathers didn't outlaw courts or lawyers or judges or anything like what you think should happen. You need to go start your own little colony somewheres because the USA, even in its libertarian origins, is not what you desire. But its easy to criticize all when you're a part of nothing.
The person doing this, above, is inspired to do so by some reasoning, I suppose.
In fact there were two obvious groups of people working during the so called founding of this Legal Apparatus that is now in the form of Uniform Commercial Code.
An example of one of the criminals is Alexander Hamilton.
"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."
An example of one of the Potential Victims is George Mason.
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."
The criminals took over in 1788, a well established fact, unknown, misunderstood, by most of the current targeted victims.
The criminals invented National Debt, which is a fraud, since the actual Credit is earned by the good, honest, producers in this Country, something that they produce themselves, and something stolen by the Criminals in the form of that National Debt and that National Interest Fraud and Extortion made Legal by those criminals.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Any questions, or more of the lies told by Union Lawyers who cover up their crimes with their lies?
And...I get to read words from another person offering some sense to those who fail to see the facts as they exist, as another forum members rejoins this, ahhhh, discussion?
Libel is not discussion, it is libel.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: