• Suggestion

    "I don't believe they relate it to moral conscience."

    I don't think it is a good idea to recite a dictionary. Nailing down one workable definition for government might be a good idea.

    Joe

  • Ed Ucation

    To set the record straight, once again, there are at least two types of speakers here on this forum, or anywhere for that matter.

    1. Those who claim to speak for everyone.

    2. Those who speak for themselves.

    Common to those who claim to speak for everyone, in my experience, are people who claim that they have no idea what I write about.

    Common to those who speak for themselves, in my experience, are people who discuss topics with me in a reasonable manner.

    Group 1 speaks dictatorially, or one way, as each member of that group speaks for everyone, as if they alone command the collective mind of the majority, and therefore their majority mind, as they claim to speak for it, trumps all other viewpoints at a single stroke.

    1. Dictators Union

    Group 2, on the other hand, tend to employ something called two way communication, whereby individuals listen to each other viewpoint, and individuals ask questions in cases where individuals have questions to ask of other individuals.

    2. Free market competitors discussing topics in Liberty

    To each their own.

    Joe

  • Vague accusation?

    What does obfuscatory mean?

    "it is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them"

    What is government according to whomever intends to enlighten anyone as to what they mean when they use that term?

    If the neighbor offers a claim that the absence of government will result in the neighbor robbing someone, then the context of that use of the word government is such that the word government means the same thing as moral conscience.

    The neighbor enlightens the neighbor in that case.

    The neighbor enlightens the neighbor as to what the neighbor will do if the neighbor no longer is inspired to NOT rob the neighbor.

    How is that not moral conscience?

    I will NOT rob my neighbor, proven by the fact that the robbery does not occur.

    Absent something, whatever something is, absent it, the neighbor will rob the neighbor, if it is proven, and the robbery does occur.

    You can claim that my words obfuscate. That is your choice to do so, and you can choose to do so ambiguously, a mere statement, couched in a language that manages to hedge your bets, with the word choice "perhaps," as if now you have created plausible deniability.

    Your choice.

    Perhaps your government is absent.

    Joe

  • Case 1 Continued

    All don't rise.

    Entering the court of record room, the court building, are various people, none of which are lawfully any more powerful than any other, this is not a story about a kangaroo court, or a court conducted by criminals, or a court conducted by fools who are not even aware of the fact that their false court is false.

    Entering at some point, as the crowd of people increase, is a magistrate, a judge, an individual who specializes in maintaining order, efficiency, and step by grueling step progress along the process that is due to all who accuse, and all who are accused, of any wrongdoing worthy of the effort to commence, and follow through, with trial by jury, with due process, with our law of our land, with our common demand for the common supply of common law, which results in the saving our our souls, which results in our temporal salvation, as we prefer not to solve our problems with trials by ordeal, with duels, with gun fights, with weapons of mass destruction, the worst of which are lies.

    We seek the truth, and the magistrate knows how to maintain order in due process as well as anyone in the whole country, at least as well as anyone in the court room where the court of record is recorded in time and place.

    All don't rise. The judge is one of the people, presumed to be innocent, having no record of unredeemed crime accounted to the judge, no standing accusations whatsoever, and therefore another member of the jury pool, a member of the people in good standing among the people insisting upon good standing, not one of the criminals who chose a life of crime; despite the olive branch afforded to all criminals, all the time, by our natural law, our God given law, our law of our land, our due process, afforded to all, without exception.

    All don't rise. The judge acknowledges the beginning of the trial, the time, the day, and the floor is open for opening statements.

    To be continued; the work bell rings.

    Judge:

    "Order in the court." The people assembled polarize. The judge introduces the case.

    "Let the record show on this day that the trail of Respublica versus the Legal Fiction A, The case against The Federal Reserve System, begins, and representing the people at large, representing the Public Thing, is the Public Prosecutors, who are also the accusers in this case, and their names are now entered into the Record as John Q Public and Jane Q Public. These people will make their opening statements, and then whoever stands as the defendant, under subpoena, or on their own volition, will, as they may, as they can, or as they please, speak in their defense, doing so now, or the absence of their defense will be their defense, which is no defense, and a clear, voluntary, confession of guilt, as this court of record, according to the common law, has expended, at the public cost to the public fund, a voluntary collection of real monies, a cost to the Public Thing, every reasoanble expense due the accused, in the effort to afford them the opportunity of having their side of this case heard in this court, including said subpoenas delivered by hand to each of the named defendants in this case."

    The judge remains silent for one long minute. Those assembled in the court room also remain silent for the whole minute.

    Then the judge looks at the two Prosecutors and offers them their opportunity to set the common law court of record straight in this case.

    "Please commence your opening statements John and or Jane Q Public, our time is wasting away, and there are many good people among us, innocent people, paying the ultimate price in these very trying times. It is past time to settle this matter once and for all."

    Jane and John both stand and look at each other, Jane nodding to John. John appears to be the more nervous one of the two, and John speaks first. "Your honor -"

    The judge interrupts immediately. "Please John, we are all just people here, there is no need to address me at all in this case. Call me umpire, perhaps, if needed, or just call me Bill, my name is Bill. This is a common law trial by jury, you ought to address your statements to the people assembled here as jurists in the jury. It is their duty to represent the whole country, as the fact finders according to God's law, or Natural Law for those not yet familiar with God, and they will either be honorable, doing the right thing, acting unanimously, as if they were our best possible lie detector we as people can muster, and they establish the law of this case, the facts of this case, guilt if there is any, innocence on the part of the victims, if that is found by these people, our jurists, as the facts, and these people, our jurists will also, if it is possible, again as our representatives of the whole country, our Public Thing, our Respublica, our law of our land, our regem terrae, find, they will find, again unanimously, any punishment due to the accused if the accused be found guilty."

    John and Jane hesitate. The Judge fills in the void. "Please, Jane, take a stab at it, we are burning dayight."

    Jane Q Public faces the assembled jurors and begins speaking as if she had at her command the intense attention of the whole country of people at once. "This case is more than seeking equal access to the first seat available on public transport systems, and more than an equal chance to buy a hamburger at a public school lunch counter, my friends of Liberty, this case is the case that bores down into the soul of America, and offers to us our temporal salvation, to redeem our collective souls -"

    The Judge again interrupts. "That was very well said, Jane, but the facts in this case ought to paint the picture of relative significance well enough along the way, so, excuse my interruption, albeit to compliment you on one hand, the idea is to get to the bottom of this case, before we all die of old age. If you please."

    John Q Public steps out from a table and moves directly in front of the assembled jurists, he does so with an obvious interest in commanding the situation. "We must establish the meaning of this case as a matter of accurately measurable facts, beyond any reasonable doubt, among any randomly selected group of jurists, so as to ensure that this trial proceeds as it ought to proceed in any event, anywhere, on any land, at any time. This case ought to have been recorded as a precedent set, according to the common law, in the time of Jesus, and if we the people had done so then, we would not be in the fix we are in now. It is past time to listen to the words offered in Scripture, and use them in earnest. Among our numbers are very evil people, who were called then, back in the time of Jesus, by the fictional name of Money Changers. They were then, as they are now, frauds, criminals, of the worst kind. They have names. They walk among us. They have but one obvious goal in their guilty minds. They will burn out the souls of every innocent victim they touch with their lies, as they turn each of us against each other of us, removing from us this very thing we share, this Public Thing, this common law, this law of our land, this fact finding process that we have been given, and that we can use, to defend the innocent among us, if any are left among us, from the guilty among us, hoping that God, or chance, allowed 12 honest people to be present here and now."

    The judge intently follows the actions of John, looking for the cue to move another step in the process, but there is a seamless passing of command from John to Jane as opening statements flow from the souls of the Prosecutors into the Court of Record. The judge refrains from interrupting despite the growing concern by the judge that the jurists may not be listening carefully.

    As soon as John stops speaking Jane picks up a new sentence at that period ending John's offer of words to the Jurists. "We will offer the olive branch to our tormentors in this case, under no uncertain terms, clearly, precisely, and without error in communication, a choice of redemption will be offered by you the jurists to those who will be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in this case against the criminals who have destroyed so much for so long with their false money scam known by the false title Federal Reserve System."

    Jane spoke from the table as John returned and both Prosecutors sit at the end of the opening statements.

    The judge picks up the ball. "It is my duty to instruct the jurists as to the State of the accused, as to their absence in this court of record, whereby the named accused have refused every request, and then every forceful order, to attend this trial by jury according to the common law. Their defense is silence, ignorance, apathy, whatever you as jurists will judge to be the facts in this case, and my opinion as judge, or the opinions of the Prosecutors are what they are in fact, offered to you, to the Public Thing, to all the people at once, on the record, as factual opinions only. You will have my opinion to work with, you will have the opinions of the Prosecutors to work with, in this case, and you will also have, on the record, every attempt on our part to afford the accused the defense they can muster, and the fact is that they choose not to defend themselves. These are the facts as they exist, and you as jurists must deal with these facts, as they exist, and if you find cause to doubt the sincerity of effort expended to inspire the accused to defend themselves, consider that willful choice on your part as a fact in this case, and do so with knowledge concerning our common law. A failure on your part to find the truth will not go unchallenged for long, such is the way of Nature, and such are the words offered in Scripture. Please keep that in mind, we are all accountable for our errors in judgment."

    The judge senses the opportunity to pile upon the jurists a additional idea that could arm the jurists with the knowledge that may tip the balance in favor of truth. "If you fail in your duty in this case, then that failure will either be a very serious failure to arrest the criminal willful injury of innocent victims, or as bad as that failure may be, your failure could be worse still, as instead of affording the victims a proper defense, your error compounds injury by your failure on top of the injury done to the innocent victims by the criminals; in essence your failure turns justice into crime, turns truth into lies, and ruins the good standing of our common laws. Your failure, if that is our fate, destroys our power to defend ourselves and unless further action remedies your failure, the injury done by you passes as law, yet it will be counterfeit law, by your hands in this case."

    A few jurists begin raising their hands and the judge arrests that effort to open up two way communications, or discussions, between jurists and judge. "Please, hands down, there is little time here for chatting with me, all your questions will be addressed in due time."

    The judge then explains the situation involving assigned public defenders standing in place of the accused defendants. "Those 2 people at that table are going to now speak on behalf of the Public Thing in the capacity of defending the accused in this case, in the willful absence of the accused, for our common laws must afford everyone who is accused of any wrongdoing a form of defense. The cost of this defense is covered by the voluntary Public Fund, by our voluntary taxes, which are meager, so these representatives of the accused are reasonably selected from our local pool of students currently studying our common laws. Their interest is thereby ensured to be a common interest in the truth, not a special interest in gaining at the expense of the Public Fund. They volunteer, as do yourselves, the jurists, albeit with a meager compensation for living and travel expenses. Now you are fully informed as to what can be expected from the opening statements made by these public defenders in the absence of any of the named accused defendants themselves or representatives hired by the accused."

    Both Public Defenders, Henry and Jill, were inspired to stand up, as the Judge introduced them, and Jill begins the defendants opening statements, addressing the jurists, and walking from the table to stand in front of the rows of jurists. "As we the people look deeply into this case, the alleged crime as it currently exists, if it exists as a crime, we ought to look in the mirror while we judge the accused for their part in this ongoing transfer of power flowing in the form of legal money. Had we the people refused to accept this form of money, there would then have been no demand for it, and this form of money, from these people accused of this crime, would never have gained any currency. This money would not have sold well, or at all, to anyone, if there was no demand for it. This form of money would have long ago went the same way as the Confederate money issued by the Southern Confederacy at the end of the Civil War."

    Joe

  • Case 1

    Respublica (All the people as one, no exceptions) versus Legal Fiction A (a.k.a. The FED)

    This is a dream I have, over and over again, a recurring dream, a burden of immense measure bearing down on my soul as moral conscience tends to affect little old me.

    There will be a series of efforts, by me, to you, to Respublica, to the Public Thing, for your use, as you please, numbering 3, staring with the case against The FED, then the case against The IRS, and then the Case against Criminal Orders to be obeyed without question by the modern versions of home grown Nazis; wherever they may now be growing stronger, and stronger, because they find ways to make people talk the talk, and walk the walk, along with their False Flags, and their ever so eagerly offered Nazi salutes to their Fuhrer.

    Respublica must be understood, in this and the preceding cases, as the counterfeit version will not do to fit the purposes of this case.

    The Public Thing is precisely what it is, in fact, without dependence upon the least lie told by the least guilty mind that makes up the entire collective power of all the people everywhere.

    The Public Thing is a FUND paid into by all who choose fact over fiction, as that FUND builds up from nothing into the grand power of all our moral conscience combined into a sum total of moral conscience, a whole that is then greater than the sum of all the individual parts, and it is directly placed in opposition to the exact counterpart which can be summed up as Deception and Evil, the big D added to the worst Evil imaginable, so call it the D-evil, as may be worth doing for some, if there is any doubt as to the full measure of the opposition that opposes respublica, the public thing, our collective sum total of our power to nurture our God given moral conscience.

    A trial commences in time and place.

    There are 12 jurors selected from the pool of jurists. Honest people if God wills it, for the common law method is to take the power of stacking the jury out of the hands of mere mortals, and the power to stack the jury is placed upon the whole country of people, the trial is a trial by the whole country of people, near, and dear, to the accused, the defendant, the presumed to be innocent, the named individual suspect of wrongdoing, and whoever else may have participated, conspiratorially, in the same crime upon the same victim, or the same victims, who are also named.

    By lot, not by man, if not by the direct hand of God, are the jurists assembled, 12 in number, honest people, as honest as they are in fact, not in fiction, and these people try this case, in time, and these people try this case in place.

    Imagine, if you will, a fictional account, for this has not happened yet, and this may never happen, so long as the criminals rule these people on this planet.

    Joe

  • Comments at times

    Time: 3:50 or so.

    The topic starts with a term that is not defined. When this thing is gone, says one of the people engaged in this discussion, someone will rob their neighbor.

    This thing, once it is gone, someone says, I will rob my neighbor, so says someone speaking about what someone said, concerning this thing that is not defined.

    Back up to the Title of the Topic:
    Marc Clair and Dwalters Discuss Individual Rights, How to Effectively Communicate Ideas, and All Things Liberty!

    How can someone claim to be speaking about that topic be someone who does not define the meaning of crucial things that are intentionally communicated effectively?

    In other words, someone intends to communicate effectively yet someone does not define the meaning of the terms used to reach the goal?

    Someone speaks about something existing, which goes away, and once this thing that exists is gone, someone will then rob their neighbor.

    They are then speaking about, obviously, the thing known as moral conscience, or are they speaking about something else?

    The term they use is the word government.

    So government means, in that context, moral conscience, or government means something other than moral conscience, so which is it?

    Time: 4:00

    "He was...the Devil's advocate..."

    Another term. The definition of that term appears to be, in context, someone who invents false fronts, or facades, or fake personalities, instead of someone who is offering their own true self.

    Terms, defined, in context, are then two in number as such:

    Government = moral conscience
    Devil's Advocate = False Persona (a.k.a. legal fiction)

    Time: 4:20

    Regular people, which are 96% of the number of people, exist according to statistics.

    That adds 2 more terms.

    Regular People = 96%
    Irregular People = 4%

    In context, hopefully, those categories, those sets, of people will be defined more clearly, other than people few in number in one set, and people many in number in another set.

    Got it.

    Time: 4:23 or so...

    Regular people = not sociopathic killers = 96%
    Sociopathic Killers = 4%

    Time: 4:45 or so...

    If the government (moral conscience) was gone tomorrow, most of these guys (sociopathic killers) would not kill you.

    Time: 5:10 or so...

    Solution to the sociopathic killers problem is to hand them from a tree out west, as an example of what happens when the government (moral conscience) is gone.

    Presumably, then, out west is where moral conscience is gone, and the solution to problems is to hang people from trees, when moral conscience is gone?

    That is understandable, sure, as judge, jury, and executioners find people who may be guilty of something, or not, and there is at least time to hang them in trees, just in case they may be guilty.

    I think that is a working definition of a sociopathic killer.

    The speaker speaking about what happened out west, in all fairness, spoke about a case where the sociopathic killer is known, by some means, as one, beyond any doubt whatsoever, and then the one solving that problem of having found the sociopathic killer solves the sociopathic killer problem with a final solution to that problem in that individual case, at that tree, with that rope.

    Time: 5:19 or so...

    "...there is a lot of accountability whenever there is no government..."

    No moral conscience = a lot of accountability?

    "...there is a lot of accountability, uh, whenever there is no government...[something ineligible] individuals are held accountability for their actions...however if their is a government then there is a way to weasel your way out of accountability...and that's one of the biggest problems that I find...is that accountability is not something that is of paramount importance."

    Without government (moral conscience) there is a lot of accountability?

    When there is government (moral conscience) there is a way to avoid accountability?

    When there is government (moral conscience) the concept of accountability is not something important?

    The definition of government is no longer the definition of government offered at the beginning of this effort to show how information is effectively communicated.

    So...I am holding the speaker accountable, because I think it is a very important duty each of us are born with, as moral conscience governs my actions in this case.

    Joe

  • Static versus Dynamic

    Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

    Here is a favorite, and I found a second name attached to the quote:

    Henry Ford:
    http://sustainableman.org/blog/2013/07/30/if-people-understo...

    Andrew Jackson:

    http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html
    "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."

    The dream serves a purpose.

    How about this one:

    "You can't eat your cake, and have it too."

    Who decides which dream to follow, which path to take?

    The puppet on which end of the strings?

    If you do not nurture your own power to dream, someone else will, and one man's future dream is another's current nightmare.

    Joe

  • I found a good quote.

    Quote link:
    http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/Assassinati...

    Complete Transcript of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Assassination Conspiracy Trial

    Goal: Redeem the soul of America.

    James M. Lawson, Jr
    Page 541

    "The movement was aimed at reversing that. King's motto was, the SCLC motto, it was not civil rights, it was redeem the soul of America. That was our motto. So you see right away that that is much larger than getting a hamburger at a lunch counter."

    Tool needed to reach goal: Trial by Jury (according to the common law)

    Arthur Jackson Haynes, Jr
    Page 804
    “I have considered in my thirty-five-year career a jury is the best lie detector there is.”

    A Goal:
    http://www.dailypaul.com/321976/liberty-day-challenge-july-4...

    Joe

  • Richard Henry Lee

    Drilled right down into it.

    Joe

  • Facts Versus Fiction Versus Deception

    Fact versus Fiction versus Deception

    Case 2:
    Date: 8-25-2014
    Words used: States

    Fact: no
    Fiction: yes
    Deception: Unknown origin

    Link:
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/2236#comment-...

    My reply in Case 2:
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/2237#comment-...

    My Reply:

    In a dictatorship, perhaps, the common idea is that the dictators have the authority to require this and that, such as drivers licenses.

    That works that way because the dictators demand extortion payments.

    That was summed up here:

    http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

    Quote_____________________
    Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
    _____________________________________

    That explains how dictators steal all the power that can be stolen from the subjects who are subjected to dictators running a dictatorship. So the dictators running the dictatorship grow fat, stupid, and many; while the subjects grow poor, angry, and few.

    Soon enough there isn't anything left to steal, because that path leads to everyone becoming dictators in dictatorships, and there are no more subjects making things worth stealing.

    So I take issue with this:
    "If you read the case it actually confirms that the State does have the authority to require a Driver's License."

    There is no such thing as a State having authority, and anyone making such claims is either one of the dictators who knows there is no such thing as a State having authority, or one of the dictators who actually thinks that the State has authority.

    1. The one making the claim knows the claim is a lie, for common sense is such that a legal fiction, or State, cannot have authority. Common sense is such that a legal fiction, or State, cannot have accountability. Legal fiction cannot have responsibility. Legal fiction cannot have liability.

    2. The one making the claim fell into the legal fiction falsehood web of deceit.
    The State has no authority. The State is a legal fiction.

    If someone speaks about the State, then they are speaking about a few people who think and act as a group. The State does not have, hold, use, employ, authority. People have, hold, use, employ, authority. When people abuse authority that abuse is called treason, or crime, and people either know it, or people are defenseless against crimes done by false authorities, meaning people, as people are false authorities when they abuse authority, not legal fictions, or States perpetrating crimes.

    If the idea is to understand the public thing, or res-publica, then that idea may be a good idea.

    If the idea is to promote limited liability legal fictions that pose as authority under the color of law, then count me out.

    Cross Post:
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/fact-versus-fiction-v...
    Cross Post:
    http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_post.php?post_i...

    Joe

  • Federalist Farmer

    Antifederalist No. 41-43 (Part II)
    (Richard Henry Lee)

    "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"

    . . . In the present state of mankind, and of conducting war, the government of every nation must have power to raise and keep up regular troops. The question is, how shall this power be lodged? In an entire government, as in Great-Britain, where the people assemble by their representatives in one legislature, there is no difficulty; it is of course properly lodged in that legislature. But in a confederated republic, where the organization consists of a federal head, and local governments, there is no one part in which it can be solely, and safely lodged. By Art. 1., Sect. 8., "congress shall have power to raise and support armies," etc. By Art. I., Sect. 10., "no state, without the consent of congress, shall keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace." It seems fit the union should direct the raising of troops, and the union may do it in two ways: by requisitions on the states, or by direct taxes. The first is most conformable to the federal plan, and safest; and it may be improved, by giving the union power, by its own laws and officers, to raise the state's quota that may neglect, and to charge it with the expense; and by giving a fixed quorum of the state legislatures power to disapprove the requisition.

    There would be less danger in this power to raise troops, could the state governments keep a proper control over the purse and over the militia. But after all the precautions we can take, without evidently fettering the union too much, we must give a large accumulation of powers to it, in these and other respects. There is one check, which, I think may be added with great propriety-that is, no land forces shall be kept up, but by legislative acts annually passed by congress, and no appropriation of monies for their support shall be for a longer term than one year. This is the constitutional practice in Great Britain, and the reasons for such checks in the United States appear to be much stronger. We may also require that these acts be passed by a special majority, as before mentioned. There is another mode still more guarded, and which seems to be founded in the true spirit of a federal system: it seems proper to divide those powers we can with safety, lodge them in no one member of the government alone; yet substantially to preserve their use, and to insure duration to the government by modifying the exercise of them-it is to empower congress to raise troops by direct levies, not exceeding a given number, say 2000 in time of peace, and 12,000 in a time of war, and for such further troops as may be wanted, to raise them by requisitions qualified ,as before mentioned. By the above recited clause no state shall keep troops, etc., in time of peace-this clearly implies it may do it in time of war. This must be on the principle that the union cannot defend all parts of the republic, and suggests an idea very repugnant to the general tendency of the system proposed, which is to disarm the state governments. A state in a long war may collect forces sufficient to take the field against the neighboring states. This clause was copied from the confederation, in which it was of more importance than in the plan proposed, because under this the separate states, probably, will have but small revenues.

    By Article I., section 8., congress shall have power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. It is to be observed, that the separate states have ever been in possession of the power, and in the use of it, of making bankrupt-laws, militia laws, and laws in some other cases, respecting which, the new constitution, when adopted, will give the union power to legislate, etc. But no words are used by the constitution to exclude the jurisdiction of the several states, and whether they will be excluded or not, or whether they and the union will have concurrent jurisdiction or not, must be determined by inference, and from the nature of the subject. If the power, for instance, to make uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, is in its nature indivisible, or incapable of being exercised by two legislatures independently, or by one in aid of the other, then the states are excluded, and cannot legislate at all on the subject, even though the union should neglect or find it impracticable to establish uniform bankrupt laws. How far the union will find it practicable to do this, time only can fully determine. When we consider the extent of the country, and the very different ideas of the different parts in it, respecting credit, and the mode of making men's property liable for paying their debts, we may, I think with some degree of certainty, conclude that the union never will be able to establish such laws. But if practicable, it does not appear to me, on further reflection, that the union ought to have the power. It does not appear to me to be a power properly incidental to a federal head, and, I believe, no one ever possessed it. It is a power that will immediately and extensively interfere with the internal police of the separate states, especially with their administering justice among their own citizens. By giving this power to the union, we greatly extend the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, as all questions arising on bankrupt laws, being laws of the union . . .-[indeed], almost all civil causes-may be drawn into those courts. We must be sensible how cautious we ought to be in extending unnecessarily the jurisdiction of those courts for reasons I need not repeat. This article of power too, will considerably increase, in the hands of the union, an accumulation of powers, some of a federal and some of an unfederal nature, [already] too large without it.

    The constitution provides that congress shall have the sole and exclusive government of what is called the federal city, a place not exceeding ten miles square, and of all places ceded for forts, dock-yards, etc. I believe this is a novel kind of provision in a federal republic; it is repugnant to the spirit of such a government, and must be founded in an apprehension of a hostile disposition between the federal head and the state governments. And it is not improbable that the sudden retreat of congress from Philadelphia first gave rise to it. With this apprehension, we provide, the government of the union shall have secluded places, cities, and castles of defense, which no state laws whatever shall invade. When we attentively examine this provision in all its consequences, it opens to view scenes almost without bounds. A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. it is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

    If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc., totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments. If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West- Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

    The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States.

    The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these
    places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .

    Every suit in which an inhabitant of a federal district may be a party, of course may be instituted in the federal courts; also, every suit in which it may be alleged and not denied, that a party in it is an inhabitant of such a district; also, every suit to which a foreign state or subject, the union, a state, citizens of different states in fact, or by reasonable legal fictions, may be a party or parties. And thus, by means of bankrupt laws, federal districts, etc., almost all judicial business, I apprehend may be carried into the federal courts, without essentially departing from the usual course of judicial
    proceedings. The courts in Great Britain have acquired their powers, and extended very greatly their jurisdictions by such :fiction and suppositions as I have mentioned. The constitution, in these points, certainly involves in it principles, and almost hidden cases, which may unfold and in time exhibit consequences we hardly think of. The power of naturalization, when viewed in connection with the judicial powers and cases, is, in my mind, of very doubtful extent. By the constitution itself, the citizens of each state will be naturalized citizens of every state, to the general purposes of instituting suits, claiming the benefits of the laws, etc. And in order to give the federal courts jurisdiction of an action, between citizens of the same state, in common acceptation-may not a court allow the plaintiff to say, he is a citizen of one state, and the defendant a citizen of another without carrying legal fictions so far, by any means, as they have been carried by the courts of King's Bench and Exchequer, in order to bring causes within their cognizance? Further, the federal city and districts, will be totally distinct from any state, and a citizen of a state will not of course be subject of any of them. And to avail himself of the privileges and immunities of them, must he not be naturalized by congress in them? And may not congress make any proportion of the citizens of the states naturalized subjects of the federal city and districts, and thereby entitle them to sue or defend, in all cases, in the federal courts? I have my doubts, and many sensible men, I find, have their doubts, on these points. And we ought to observe, they must be settled in the courts of law, by their rules, distinctions, and fictions. To avoid many of these intricacies and difficulties, and to avoid the undue and unnecessary extension of the federal judicial powers, it appears to me that no federal districts ought to be allowed, and no federal city or town-except perhaps a small town, in which the government shall be republican, but in which congress shall have no jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the states. Can the union want, in such a town, any thing more than a right to the soil to which it may set its buildings, and extensive jurisdiction over the federal buildings, and property, its own members, officers, and servants in it? As to all federal objects, the union will have complete jurisdiction over them of course any where, and every where. I still think that no actions ought to be allowed to be brought in the federal courts, between citizens of different states; at least, unless the cause be of very considerable importance. And that no action against a state government, by any citizen or foreigner, ought to be allowed; and no action, in which a foreign subject is party, at least, unless it be of very considerable importance, ought to be instituted in federal courts. I confess, I can see no reason whatever, for a foreigner, or for citizens of different states, carrying sixpenny causes into the federal courts.

    I think the state courts will be found by experience, to be bottomed on better principles, and to administer justice better than the federal courts. The difficulties and dangers I have supposed will result from so large a federal city, and federal districts, from the extension of the federal judicial powers, etc. are not, I conceive, merely possible, but probable. I think pernicious political consequences will follow from them, and from the federal city especially, for very obvious reasons, a few of which I will mention.

    We must observe that the citizens of a state will be subject to state as well as federal taxes, and the inhabitants of the federal city and districts only to such taxes as congress may lay. We are not to suppose all our people are attached to free government, and the principles of the common law, but that many thousands of them will prefer a city governed not on republican principles. This city, and the government of it, must indubitably take their tone from the characters of the men, who from the nature of its situation and institution must collect there. This city will not be established for productive labor, for mercantile, or mechanic industry; but for the residence of government, its officers and attendants. If hereafter it should ever become a place of trade and industry, [yet] in the early periods of its existence, when its laws and government must receive their fixed tone, it must be a mere court, with its append ages-the executive, congress, the law courts, gentle men of fortune and pleasure, with allthe officers, attendants, suitors, expectants and dependents on the whole. However brilliant and honorable this collection may be, If we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we must assuredly deceive ourselves. This early collection will draw to it men from all parts of the country, of a like political description. We see them looking towards the place already.

    Such a city, or town, containing a hundred square miles, must soon be the great, the visible, and dazzling centre, the mistress of fashions, and the fountain of politics. There may be a free or shackled press in this city, and the streams which may issue from it may over flow the country, and they will be poisonous or pure, as the fountain may be corrupt or not. But not to dwell on a subject that must give pain to the virtuous friends of freedom, I will only add, can a free and enlightened people create a common head so extensive, so prone to corruption and slavery, as this city probably will be, when they have it in their power to form one pure and chaste, frugal and republican?

    THE FEDERAL FARMER

    Joe

  • False claims persist

    Now the false claim is that the criminals took over in 1862, or so, with so called Civil War, and so called Income Tax, and so called Fiat Money, and on, and on, and on.

    The criminals were taking over with so called "excise tax," at the time of the document called The Declaration of Independence.

    Excise tax was the false front covering up fraud and extortion perpetrated by people who were calling themselves Loyalists, The British, and other fancy names that were used to hide the criminals who were perpetrating their so called Stamp Acts, and so called Excise Taxes, as the criminals demanded the extortion payments according to their fraudulent claims of authority over simple commerce.

    That is very well explained in the following expose done by one of the people alive at the time the criminals were taking over, again, with the same old pyramid scheme, in 1787:

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

    Quote_____________________________________
    Antifederalist No. 41-43 (Part II)
    (Richard Henry Lee)

    "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF
    EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"

    . . . In the present state of mankind, and of conducting war, the government of every nation must have power to raise and keep up regular troops. The question is, how shall this power be lodged? In an entire government, as in Great-Britain, where the people assemble by their representatives in one legislature, there is no difficulty; it is of course properly lodged in that legislature. But in a confederated republic, where the organization consists of a federal head, and local governments, there is no one part in which it can be solely, and safely lodged. By Art. 1., Sect. 8., "congress shall
    have power to raise and support armies," etc. By Art. I., Sect. 10., "no state, without the consent of congress, shall keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace." It seems fit the union should direct the raising of troops, and the union may do it in two ways: by requisitions on the states, or by direct taxes. The first is most conformable to the federal plan, and safest; and it may be improved, by giving the union power, by its own laws and officers, to raise the state's quota that may neglect, and to charge it with the expense; and by giving a fixed quorum of the state legislatures power to disapprove the requisition.

    There would be less danger in this power to raise troops, could the state governments keep a proper control over the purse and over the militia. But after all the precautions we can take, without evidently fettering the union too much, we must give a large accumulation of powers to it, in these and other respects. There is one check, which, I think may be added with great propriety-that is, no land forces shall be kept up, but by legislative acts annually passed by congress, and no appropriation of monies for their support shall be for a longer term than one year. This is the constitutional practice in Great Britain, and the reasons for such checks in the United States appear to be much stronger. We may also require that these acts be passed by a special majority, as before mentioned. There is another mode still more guarded, and which seems to be founded in the true spirit of a federal system: it seems proper to divide those powers we can with safety, lodge them in no one member of the government alone; yet substantially to preserve their use, and to insure duration to the government by modifying the exercise of them-it is to empower congress to raise troops by direct levies, not exceeding a given number, say 2000 in time of peace, and 12,000 in a time of war, and for such further troops as may be wanted, to raise them by requisitions qualified ,as before mentioned. By the above recited clause no state shall keep troops, etc., in time of peace-this clearly implies it may do it in time of war. This must be on the principle that the union cannot defend all parts of the republic, and suggests an idea very repugnant to the general tendency of the system proposed, which is to disarm the state governments. A state in a long war may collect forces sufficient to take the field against the neighboring states. This clause was copied from the confederation, in which it was of more importance than in the plan proposed, because under this the separate states, probably, will have but small revenues.

    By Article I., section 8., congress shall have power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. It is to be observed, that the separate states have ever been in possession of the power, and in the use of it, of making bankrupt-laws, militia laws, and laws in some other cases, respecting which, the new constitution, when adopted, will give the union power to legislate, etc. But no words are used by the constitution to exclude the jurisdiction of the several states, and whether they will be excluded or not, or whether they and the union will have concurrent jurisdiction or not, must be determined by inference, and from the nature of the subject. If the power, for instance, to make uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, is in its nature indivisible, or incapable of being exercised by two legislatures independently, or by one in aid of the other, then the states are excluded, and cannot legislate at all on the subject, even though the union should neglect or find it impracticable to establish uniform bankrupt laws. How far the union will find it practicable to do this, time only can fully determine. When we consider the extent of the country, and the very different ideas of the different parts in it, respecting credit, and the mode of making men's property liable for paying their debts, we may, I think with some degree of certainty, conclude that the union never will be able to establish such laws. But if practicable, it does not appear to me, on further reflection, that the union ought to have the power. It does not appear to me to be a power properly incidental to a federal head, and, I believe, no one ever possessed it. It is a power that will immediately and extensively interfere with the internal police of the separate states, especially with their administering justice among their own citizens. By giving this power to the union, we greatly extend the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, as all questions arising on bankrupt laws, being laws of the union . . .-[indeed], almost all civil causes-may be drawn into those courts. We must be sensible how cautious we ought to be in extending unnecessarily the jurisdiction of those courts for reasons I need not repeat. This article of power too, will considerably increase, in the hands of the union, an accumulation of powers, some of a federal and some of an unfederal nature, [already] too large without it.

    The constitution provides that congress shall have the sole and exclusive government of what is called the federal city, a place not exceeding ten miles square, and of all places ceded for forts, dock-yards, etc. I believe this is a novel kind of provision in a federal republic; it is repugnant to the spirit of such a government, and must be founded in an apprehension of a hostile disposition between the federal head and the state governments. And it is not improbable that the sudden retreat of congress from Philadelphia first gave rise to it. With this apprehension, we provide, the government of the union shall have secluded places, cities, and castles of defense, which no state laws whatever shall invade. When we attentively examine this provision in all its consequences, it opens to view scenes almost without bounds. A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. it is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

    If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc., totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments. If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West- Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

    The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States.

    The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these
    places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .

    Every suit in which an inhabitant of a federal district may be a party, of course may be instituted in the federal courts; also, every suit in which it may be alleged and not denied, that a party in it is an inhabitant of such a district; also, every suit to which a foreign state or subject, the union, a state, citizens of different states in fact, or by reasonable legal fictions, may be a party or parties. And thus, by means of bankrupt laws, federal districts, etc., almost all judicial business, I apprehend may be carried into the federal courts, without essentially departing from the usual course of judicial
    proceedings. The courts in Great Britain have acquired their powers, and extended very greatly their jurisdictions by such :fiction and suppositions as I have mentioned. The constitution, in these points, certainly involves in it principles, and almost hidden cases, which may unfold and in time exhibit consequences we hardly think of. The power of naturalization, when viewed in connection with the judicial powers and cases, is, in my mind, of very doubtful extent. By the constitution itself, the citizens of each state will be naturalized citizens of every state, to the general purposes of
    instituting suits, claiming the benefits of the laws, etc. And in order to give the federal courts jurisdiction of an action, between citizens of the same state, in common acceptation-may not a court allow the plaintiff to say, he is a citizen of one state, and the defendant a citizen of another without carrying legal fictions so far, by any means, as they have been carried by the courts of King's Bench and Exchequer, in order to bring causes within their cognizance? Further, the federal city and districts, will be totally distinct from any state, and a citizen of a state will not of course be subject of any of them. And to avail himself of the privileges and immunities of them, must he not be naturalized by congress in them? And may not congress make any proportion of the citizens of the states naturalized subjects of the federal city and districts, and thereby entitle them to sue or defend, in all cases, in the federal courts? I have my doubts, and many sensible men, I find, have their doubts, on these points. And we ought to observe, they must be settled in the courts of law, by their rules, distinctions, and fictions. To avoid many of these intricacies and difficulties, and to avoid the undue and unnecessary extension of the federal judicial powers, it appears to me that no federal districts ought to be allowed, and no federal city or town-except perhaps a small town, in which the government shall be republican, but in which congress shall have no jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the states. Can the union want, in such a town, any thing more than a right to the soil to which it may set its buildings, and extensive jurisdiction over the federal buildings, and property, its own
    members, officers, and servants in it? As to all federal objects, the union will have complete jurisdiction over them of course any where, and every where. I still think that no actions ought to be allowed to be brought in the federal courts, between citizens of different states; at least, unless the cause be of very considerable importance. And that no action against a state government, by any citizen or foreigner, ought to be allowed; and no action, in which a foreign subject is party, at least, unless it be of very considerable importance, ought to be instituted in federal courts. I confess, I can see no reason whatever, for a foreigner, or for citizens of different states, carrying sixpenny causes into the federal courts.

    I think the state courts will be found by experience, to be bottomed on better principles, and to administer justice better than the federal courts. The difficulties and dangers I have supposed will result from so large a federal city, and federal districts, from the extension of the federal judicial powers, etc. are not, I conceive, merely possible, but probable. I think pernicious political consequences will follow from them, and from the federal city especially, for very obvious reasons, a few of which I will mention.

    We must observe that the citizens of a state will be subject to state as well as federal taxes, and the inhabitants of the federal city and districts only to such taxes as congress may lay. We are not to suppose all our people are attached to free government, and the principles of the common law, but that many thousands of them will prefer a city governed not on republican principles. This city, and the government of it, must indubitably take their tone from the characters of the men, who from
    the nature of its situation and institution must collect there. This city will not be established for productive labor, for mercantile, or mechanic industry; but for the residence of government, its officers and attendants. If hereafter it should ever become a place of trade and industry, [yet] in the early periods of its existence, when its laws and government must receive their fixed tone, it must be a mere court, with its append ages-the executive, congress, the law courts, gentle men of fortune and pleasure, with allthe officers, attendants, suitors, expectants and dependents on the whole. However brilliant and honorable this collection may be, If we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we must assuredly deceive ourselves. This early collection will draw to it men from all parts of the country, of a like political description. We see them looking towards the place already.

    Such a city, or town, containing a hundred square miles, must soon be the great, the visible, and dazzling centre, the mistress of fashions, and the fountain of politics. There may be a free or shackled press in this city, and the streams which may issue from it may over flow the country, and they will be poisonous or pure, as the fountain may be corrupt or not. But not to dwell on a subject that must give pain to the virtuous friends of freedom, I will only add, can a free and enlightened people create a common head so extensive, so prone to corruption and slavery, as this city probably will be, when they have it in their power to form one pure and chaste, frugal and republican?

    THE FEDERAL FARMER
    _____________________________________

    Joe

  • Lies run deep.

    In response to those who claim that the so called Constitution of 1787 was anything other than a crime in progress then, now, and onward the following stands unanswered:

    ___________________________________________________________
    1787 was the year the criminals took over, so the claim that 1913 was the time of death (of Liberty in America) is off by 126 years.

    A quick run down of what happened in those 126 years:

    1. 1787
    The British return with a covert operation known as a Con Con in Philadelphia intending to re-Monopolize the 13 colonies into one central banking fraud and extortion wing, or satellite, of the Bank of England.

    2. 1789
    Judiciary Act, to nullify trial by jury, of the people, for the people, and by the people, replacing trial by jury with Admiralty (English) Courts under false names of supreme dictatorship.

    3. 1790
    Rhode Island RAT-ifies the criminal take over as the last independent republic to fall victim to the false advertizement campaign run by the criminals who called themselves The Federalist PARTY.

    4. 1790
    Naturalization Act, a cover up name for marking the names and whereabouts of the victims, a head count.

    5. 1791
    The First Fraudulent Central Bank Scheme of the United States, directly linking the satellite bank with the supposed "enemies" The British and the Bank of England

    6. 1794
    The new King Proclaims the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, a false name for conscripting an army of slaves to invade the former independent Republic of Pennsylvania to crush the spirit of Liberty, enforce a criminal tax, and end a money competition then gaining currency as whiskey.

    7. 1798
    Alien and Sedition Acts, the British influence (supposed Enemies) the second American King, another False Federalist named John Adams, to punish anyone daring to side with the French (those who aided the defeat of the English in the so called Revolutionary War), and anyone daring to criticize the False Federalist, criminal, take over, for the British Bank of England, by those False Federalists. This by the way is done despite the Bill of Rights and the 1st, 5th, and 7th Amendments [numbered wrongly].

    8. 1798-1799
    The Rebels (against the criminal British and their minions running the American take-over) gain the services of a former Federalist named Madison, and both Madison and Jefferson pen resolutions intending to re-establish a working Federal design to push back against the Monopoly, or Monarchy, established by the traitors with their Con Con and other crimes.

    9. 1800
    Jefferson, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, proponent of Federal government (labeled as an anti-federalist) is voted into the position of Monarch of America, foiling the plans of the False Federalists.

    10. 1811
    Jefferson, the true Federalists, end the First Criminal Fraud Bank, Central Bank, of the United (British) States (colonies).

    11. 1812
    Madison, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, former False Federalist, turning his coat from Red, back to Blue, is voted in as the second "anti-federalist" Monarch.

    11. 1812
    The British attack. The true Federalists defend.

    12. 1816
    The Second Criminal Central Banking Fraud, Satellite of The Bank of England is established in the British Colonies where the people still think they have a true Federation. Madison turns his coat once again.

    13. 1833
    Jackson, Democrat, no longer a Democrat - Republican, of course not, the enemies change color so often, KILLS the bank by fiat, so executive fiat, a benevolent dictator, ends the "private" fiat of Central Banking, severing again the connection to the Bank of England.

    14. 1833 to 1861
    Known as Wild Cat Banking there is in America a time in which free market banking contends with Central Banking, seeking dominance, seeking investors, as free market banking goes head to head with the criminal versions.

    15. 1861
    Civil War, as if there will ever be in the records of people a more deceptive term, the criminals finance all sides in the effort to destroy all liberty, and all life sustaining capacity throughout America, in one giant pogrom. Where was the former Union (North and South) Gold kept at the start of the war?

    16. 1863 - 1864
    National Bank Act NORTH (where the gold was kept)

    17. 1866
    Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    "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."

    If the events of 1913 are knowable as a very significant power grab, as claimed, as acknowledge, then relatively speaking there are lists of events that can be compared to those events in 1913.

    1787 The end of the Revolution and the British (Bank of England) wins.

    1866 The end of any further notions of a Federation, no more questions on that point.

    1913 The end of any further notions of prosperity; we are all slaves now according to those who claim to be our masters, not overtly, but covertly.

    If they say they are our masters, overtly, then we might wise up.
    __________________________________________________

    Joe

  • Fact versus Fiction versus Deception

    Fact versus Fiction versus Deception

    Case 1:
    Date: 8-22-2014
    Words used: defacto courts
    Fact: no
    Fiction: yes
    Deception: Unknown origin

    Link:
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/2190#comment-...

    My reply in Case 1:
    A court run by criminals so as to perpetrate a crime is a crime in progress. What is a defacto court? Where does the origin of the term defacto court come from precisely? Was the term defacto court an intentional deception to use an honest court as a false front to hide a crime at the time the term defacto court was created, and if so, then is it a good idea to stop helping the criminals hide their crimes before it is too late?

    Joe

  • Facts

    The so called Media, or Mass Media, is very selective as to what will be broadcast on the so called Media, or Mass Media, and often the choices are to broadcast half truths, outright lies, or obvious distractions and omissions.

    The so called Media, or Mass Media, is a scientifically perfected method of controlling the behavior of people.

    See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

    That is a good start.

    So those who fall for it, are what?

    Slaves to falsehood?

    Why is this incident of wrongdoing in any way more important than the wholesale slaughter of people all over the world by the same few people who pull the strings of Mass Media and Manufactured Consent?

    If the story here is RACE WAR, as some might be led to believe, then a trial by jury, to discover the lawful facts, according to the law of the land, could establish evidence discovered in that trial, if one were to commence, and if one were to commence, is it likely to be broadcast on Mass Media, or those who are led by Mass Media?

    Of all the examples of possible cases of RACE WAR happening right now, why is this one designated as the one to focus so much attention upon according to those who choose to focus so much attention upon this one case?

    http://english.pnn.ps/

    How many people are injured in that RACE WAR?

    Who is pulling the strings in that RACE WAR?

    Why is that RACE WAR not on a higher level of concern relative to the alleged murder of one man in one city in America?

    http://www.thekingcenter.org/assassination-conspiracy-trial

    When the Mass Media, so called, or those led by those running the Mass Media speaks, how often is the message false?

    What are the odds of the message being an outright lie?

    9.5 to .5?

    Joe

  • Succeeding again

    "A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name..."

    Those are words on paper, written by people who intend to perpetrate a crime, if they can get away with it.

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

    or

    http://blogs.archives.gov/prologue/?p=13050

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

    Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
    ______________________________________________

    Back to the fraud:

    "A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name..."

    Frauds confess when the perpetrate fraud, each time. Frauds have no power when frauds are found out in fact.

    Joe

  • Statute is not Law

    One of the crimes of the millennium is a fraud in progress whereby some people are falsely claiming that their orders of obedience, to be obeyed without question, are laws.

    That is a damn lie.

    That is a fraud upon good people.

    Those supposed laws are called Statutes.

    Statutes are not laws.

    Statutes are agreed upon boundaries that are followed by the people who agree to stay within those boundaries, or failing to stay without those boundaries will result in specific consequences including the same affordable access to law given to anyone anywhere in time and place.

    If someone accuses someone of a crime, then the accuser affords lawful remedy to the accused.

    If someone can prove that someone agreed to stay within the boundaries of a Statute, and according to the Statute the punishment for going outside the Statute is a fine, or removal from the jurisdiction where the Statute is enforced by those who enforce the Statute, then a common law trial by jury, as explained in the Bill of Rights, is the law of the land, and the due process that determines the facts in that case. The common law jurists decide the facts of guilt or innocence, the Statute, the Law, and the punishment if any.

    The frauds who are perpetrating the false idea that a Statute is Law are getting away with that fraud in many place at this time; but people are discovering the facts on their own volition; so the fraud is losing the power of falsehood one step at a time.

    Statue is not Law, and if innocent people are being injured because the criminals inspired by the fraud, or the criminal frauds who know it is a fraud are perpetrating these crimes of injury upon the innocent, then knowing that fact, that it is a crime, is one more potential jurist added to the pool.

    Good example:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SWuXncoKsM

    Trial by jury is ancient law, surviving today, despite all the frauds making the claims of absolute authority as they continue to write their Statutes. The criminal fraud have gone so far with their claims of authority as to attempt to destroy trial by jury with false laws that are merely Statutes, supposedly covering the behavior of jurists in a jury trial.

    When someone claiming to be an authority orders a jurist to obey the order to "judge only the facts," or some other nonsense, the actual people selected to be on a jury can then realize who, at that time, in that place, is the judge of guilt, innocence, facts, law, Statutes, and punishment, in that case.

    Joe

  • Adding links

    Carl Miller:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ

    Secrets the Police don't want you to know:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B3no...

    Networking concepts:
    http://logosradionetwork.com/tao/

    Common Law Advocacy:
    http://nationallibertyalliance.org/

    The simplicity of the common law defense is explained in the 5th and 7th Amendments to the (fraudulent) 1787 Constitution.

    No one can be lawfully punished without affording the presumed to be innocent accused a common law trial by jury and the accusation must be by grand jury presentment or indictment.

    That means, in actual fact, that there is no fact of a crime until 12 randomly selected jurists establish that fact in that trial for that case.

    If anyone is injuring you based upon some lie, a fraud, a crime in progress, under the color of law, then that criminal, with or without a badge, is liable. The criminal can be accused by grand jury presentment, and that criminal fraud will then be offered a trial by jury in his, or her, defense. Then it is up to a common law trial by jury to decide guilt or innocence for the accuser or the accused in that case.

    Those are the simple facts of common law, and all one has to do check the authority of it, in case you doubt it, is read The Bill of Rights.

    These people claiming to be the police, or attorneys, or judges, or mayors, on and on, are no different, lawfully, than a security guard as WalMart. Their authority to punish someone lawfully is null. If they take an oath, then that is evidence. If they are bonded, then that is evidence. If they perpetrate a crime upon an innocent member of the whole population of people, anywhere, anytime, they are afforded the same due process as everyone is, in fact, according to the law of the land, which is expressed in an oath and bond.

    If the people shopping at WalMart think they can get away with crime (punishing the innocent), or if the security guards at WalMart think they can get away with crime while they wear their badges, or their licenses to do whatever they imagine to be their authority, that crime is still a crime, under that color of law.

    No more legal criminals.

    Joe

  • Yes we can, or I can?

    Unfortunately the vital information that can empower each individual is precisely the information that is censored effectively by the worst criminals among us by various means including counterfeiting.

    "It’s a damn good thing that early Americans had some moxie. Otherwise, your docile self would be bowing to British royalty, also, complacently."

    You may want to read this:

    Antifederalist No. 41-43 (Part 1) [Part II is vital too]
    Richard Henry Lee
    "THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF
    EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"

    Here is the link:
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdo...

    The moxie of which you speak is often used against those individuals with that moxie.

    Here is evidence of which I speak, in response to your welcome messages.

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

    Connecting the two links offered with your words repeated one more time:

    "It’s a damn good thing that early Americans had some moxie. Otherwise, your docile self would be bowing to British royalty, also, complacently."

    The so called British were working a scheme by which people were captured into legal fictions, or corporations, and that can also be called monetizing slaves through counterfeiting money, in the form of annuities. It is explained, somewhat, in the Federalist Paper (falsely named "anti" by those who counterfeited federations) written by one of those with moxie, the one named Lee.

    So the 8,000, or so, who were tortured and mass murdered in concentration camps, now a process made famous by copy cats Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (all employees of the FED by the way) were examples of what happens to those with moxie.

    Fear of consequences is not unwarranted. Hollywood movies compare, competitively, to snuff films of the genuine type, current beheading for example, and then there is "being there," for those who buy a ticket on the open market.

    The criminals, those British you speak of, managed to snuff out many with moxie, when the mercenaries (mass murder for a few more dollars) and those fooled by the counterfeit God saving the counterfeit King (mass murder for a few more lies), while the pogrom was perpetrated in earnest, but the British murderers left, driven out, or lost interest, or ran out of good money - blood soaked as it may have been.

    The British returned after the overt perpetration of wanton abandon of their porn or preference, and then the so called British, Red Coats, whatever, returned in earnest to perpetrate the covert war.

    Again, that is the message offered by the Federalist, with moxie, named Lee, in the expose' whereby the covert war was exposed for what it was, in great detail, in case anyone cared to know then, or now.

    The bodies thrown into mass graves accelerated with a vengeance after 1787, when the covert criminals took over, phase II one might say, after the pogrom called The Revolutionary War (phase I) bore fruit.

    A familiar tale?

    Meanwhile back at the ranch, those with moxie, despite measurable consequences in clear and present view, speak out, so thanks.

    Some do, some don't:
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/2132#comment-...

    Discussion is a supply offered in response to a demand.

    Dictation is a supply too, who is creating the demand for it?

    Joe

  • Gaining currency

    The faster news of Liberty spreads the less power is abused by criminal despots.

    http://nationallibertyalliance.org/indiegogo

    At least say no to criminal orders.

    Joe