Comment: I agree too.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The funny thing is here (see in situ)

I agree too.

My comments were neutral concerning you personally. My comments had to do with a specific, documented, fraud in progress whereby that "We the People..." Legal Record is the inculpatory evidence providing the proof of the crime that began in 1788 and is today almost irrelevant as a device used by anyone other than a few people who pick from it those parts that serve their interests.

I do not see any reason to discredit a form of voluntary agreement, having the label in English of "constitution," whereby those in agreement to abide by it are employing it to keep that record of agreement preserved in case there is any doubt as to what the agreement was, in fact.

I do not necessarily agree to your take on how law "actually" flows.

To me Divine Law is Natural Law and both of those are Organic Law, all one and the same thing, so I am curious as to why there are 3 words for the same thing.

The specific areas of division from Divine Law into any other Law could be spelled out, offered, and I may agree to them, so long as we both follow Divine Law during that process?

"Those who lay claim to the Law as applicable need to uphold the Law they lay claim to otherwise the inviolate Divine Law will order Nature to their detriment for not obeying the very Law they lay claim to."

I did not read that until I finished my initial response to your first paragraph was written by me, and now I see that we are again (apparently) in agreement.

I am learning from others that it may be a good idea to express agreement (preaching to the choir?) just in case there may be misunderstanding about those conditions of agreement where they (may) exist.

"Divine Law you have free will to contract with God for direct and continual access to divine inspiration with in return for your devotion to pursuit of fulfillment of the Divine inspiration thus receive its protections, Natural Law can have applicability revoked by you through your free will to remove your own life force from Nature, Common Law can be revoked/not recognized by living outside the law with the same lawful applicability/revocation/null of Organic, Constitutional and Code."

To me those words are foreign to me, and that is not meant to be a discredit, it is as if the words are a foreign language, and so I'd need to learn the language to even begin to understand the intended meaning of those words.

I see no such thing as a contract with God, for example.

I also see no such thing as "protections" that may arrive on the scene from a source that is mysterious or in some way not identified, such as whatever may be found when someone finds "Divine inspiration."

Those are two areas of mystery to me; hence the foreign nature of the word arrangement as if I were reading a foreign language.

No discredit meant, merely my own personal experience does not include any cause for me to connect to those words as if those words were words spoken in the language that my experience allows me to recognize the meaning of those words arranged in that order.

"It is all by consent and it is even formally recognized in the US Organic Law for those who recognize our Organic Law."

I don't know what the intended meaning being "Organic Law," but one of the essential elements of Law is recognizable as conveyed (offered) with the word "consent," as far as my understanding, and consent, can go in that case.

"...form of Common Law (not unlawful case law but actual common understanding that Law is for protection) is applicable..."

I appreciate the effort to define terms in that instance, it is very helpful to me, so as to avoid an easy to make (by me) error in failing to know what is meant by the use of the term Common Law.

Case in point:

http://one-heaven.org/canons/positive_law/article/259.html

That offers one version of the definition of a Common Law.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

Therein is an offer for a nearly perfect opposite meaning.

Those who make their Crimes Legal, according to them, tend to use common forms of language used by free people in Liberty so as then to counterfeit those common forms of language and use that counterfeit device as a means of deception, derision, division, and aggressive violence so as to consume the targeted victims of those lies created by those secretive alterations of useful, accurate, common language.

My guess is that you can make sense of my last offer to you; contained in that last paragraph.

Money is a common form of language.

What is counterfeit money?

What is meant by the term money laundering?

"Soooo, I don't think those freaks and I have any valid contractual agreement."

I agree with the concept of using a tool, even if the tool is dull, even if the tool is fatally flawed, even if the tool was initial invented by, produced by, and maintained by criminals, to do good things, when there is a need to defend against criminals, and the lie is a perfect example.

I can explain in much greater detail, suffice to say that so long as the tool is used by those who effectively use the tool to do good things with the tool, including defense against criminals, then the tool, if it works for that purpose, is almost as good as a better tool, for that purpose.

That was why a Democratic Federated Republic had to be CRUSHED by those same criminals, they called themselves Federalists in those days, because 13 competitive Constitutions, driven by those who agree to one over the other, is the often misunderstood FORCE of MARKET FORCES working to improve quality and lower costs. So...in place with that working Democratic Federated Republic were those Market Forces which were working to improve those many competitive constitutionally limited Republics (13 of them at that time) which was working, even then, to make crime pay less, and less, and less, until the obvious result (at least obvious to the criminals who called themselves Federalists and those who verbally, and even violently, opposed Consolidation/Monopolization/Crime made Legal by the Criminals Themselves) was, in demonstrable FACT, improvements in voluntary governments based upon consent of the governed who are, in FACT, the same people, governed and governors being the same people.

So the Free Market form of government (consent) had to go, and a Consolidated/Monopoly/Fraud/Extortion government had to be put in place, and that is that "The Constitution" with the false "We The People..." dogma.

Secret proceedings?

Why gag the people attending so as to hide the facts the prove the crime to be a crime in progress?

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

What was the point?

What is the point now?

"This is REAL LAW."

Please, see if my response fits in agreement to your words ending with that last sentence quoted above.

There is a workable monopoly and once everyone finds it and agrees to it there won't be any more competitions to consume time and energy in finding it. The working monopoly that works, in defense against criminals who pay themselves a lot of credit (which is debt in the eyes of the victims) for their "good" work which to the criminals is good by their measure according to how much the criminals can consume their targeted victims, in defense of that, in defense of crime, the victims who look for the best, highest quality, and lowest cost competitive DEFENSE of LIBERTY is, in FACT, competition.

The MONOPOLY (the one best thing) sought after by victims, so as to find, finally, the best way to defend against crime, is each person offering their own version of the best way, without any offers being SUPPRESSED violently by anyone doing said SUPPRESSING.

When the criminals claim absolute right to enforce their exclusive version (MONOPOLY) on everyone else, that is actually the definition of CRIME.

Obey without question. Pay this way or pay another way, but you will pay one way or the other according to the MONOPOLY POWER.

Example (in that so called Constitution):

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

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Pay.

No: and, or, but, resistance, rebellion, insurrection, defense, Liberty, competition, agreement, negotiation, reason, logic, productivity, peace, harmony, love, or anything but PAY.

When governments are instituted among criminals for the sole purpose of consuming the productive people, then someone, somewhere, aught to question the documentation that prescribes such things being made LEGAL by those criminals upon those productive people.

Or not.

"...born of divine inspiration..."

I can find similar things happening in my life but those words remain to be foreign to me.

"It seems that little of this is applicable to you because you have already figured it all out and have chosen to go all the way back to Natural Law so that a new Common Law can be formed."

I have not "already figured it all out," hence my participation on this forum, running for congress, joining and unjoining the Libertarian Party, joining and unjoining The John Birch Society, joining and unjoining United We Stand (Ross Perot), joining and unjoining an armed march on Washington soon after the Waco Holocaust, joining and being thrown out of the Mises Institute Forum, joining and being thrown out of the Fully Informed Jury Association Forum, on, and on, and on, seeking better from worse, and not, specifically not: "already figured it all out," and if that is the impression you receive, OF ME PERSONALLY, that is not the intended message I offer to you.

"...go all the way back to Natural Law so that a new Common Law can be formed..."

Personally I think one of the most promising possibilities is the one Adam Kokesh has realized. An armed march in each State to re-establish constitutionally limited governments in each State, and then renegotiate the need for, and the payment schedule for, a FEDERAL government IF any States find cause to join one, at that point.

No, I did not say an aggressively violent MOB attacking innocent people at State Capitals, if that is the message received by anyone, what is DEMONSTRABLE are RESPONSIBILITIES (rights?) such as the responsibility (duty?) of being armed in defense of innocent victims against criminals, so why does anyone have any problem with me being armed, and him, and her, and those people, and all those other people, and all those people showing, demonstrating, the fact that they are armed, and doing so in such a way as to demonstrate our unification as armed productive people who can afford to take a day off, with the guns we can afford, and we the people demonstrate, in that way, our power to agree to defend our responsibility to defend the innocent victims from the criminals especially when the criminals take over the power of LAW (so called by those same criminals).

I joined a group awhile back that sent legal notices of redress to each congressman (or women) in each district of the so called United States of America, and what was the response?

The criminals in office failed to respond, which is a crime by their own laws.

That was a legal demonstration.

Check this out:

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

Are you aware of the events in Athens Tennessee whereby the duties, responsibilities, of honest, productive, people in Liberty had to defend their Liberty, as required, by such documents as The Declaration of Independence?

What happens when push comes to shove?

What happened in Waco in 1993?

What more proof does any rational person need, right now, to remove any further doubt as to the fact that the so called Federal "government" is nothing more than a Legalized Crime on a World Wide Level?

Who thinks that asking nicely, politely, please, will you band of criminals, please, stop robbing, enslaving, raping, beating, torturing, murdering, mass murdering, experimenting on, burning to death (alive), sacrificing, eating, consuming, mass murdering, and mega murdering for YOUR fun, and for YOUR EXCLUSIVE PROFIT?

Please?

How about pretty please with sugar on top?

"Welcome to the wilderness. I hope this clarifies that you and I are really not so distant in our thinking here."

To me your viewpoint is highly competitive, mutually beneficial, and NOT the same viewpoint as mine, unless we both agree, then it is the SAME VIEWPOINT, and where we disagree, I am perfectly willing to work toward identifying why there is disagreement, because I am probably at fault.

Joe