• Exile or Censorship

  • Welcome!

    I can offer to you a proof of your claims here:
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/spirit-liberty

    A long story short:

    Last year I was the first one to volunteer to work as the National Liberty Alliance State Coordinator and my record of activities is published on that Forum.

    My benefit for having spent all that time in offering all that work has been of an incalculable value to me alone, for I've learned so much in that short time.

    I'd like to share, but my power is limited.

    If not for you, and people like you, those who depend upon deception would have long ago institutionalized all of us into insanity.

    Joe

  • Real versus Counterfeit

    The real free market (so called anarchist-capitalist) federal government design existed between 1776 and 1788.

    There were a number of presidents at work during that time period.

    Homework:
    http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/

    The criminal British overplayed their counterfeit government racket when they issued and enforced The Stamp Act.

    The Stamp Act was a modern version of the IRS in early American history.

    So one who asks these vital questions ought to be one that nails down the major two sides of these types of questions.

    Side A:
    Actual people sharing a common need for common defense against Side B; i.e. true defensive government based upon true law whereby no one is above the law, and everyone is afforded the same due process as everyone else.

    Side B:
    Criminals who work cooperatively at monopolizing organized crime and the obvious dominant criminal organization is the one controlling the most powerful counterfeit money, and counterfeit government.

    If you do not get that straight then these questions and these answers may not reason out well: beyond reasonable doubt.

    So the proven method by which the defenders defend themselves was the example provided by the people in America between 1776 and 1787.

    The founders of government that worked for people in defense of everyone (including the criminals) are those who worked trial by jury at local county levels (getting rid of summary justice or Admiralty/Equity/Exchequer "courts," which enforced fraudulent debt and extortion payments) and those who worked at constitutional republics (res-publica or the public thing), and then those who worked at unifying the republics (many competitive public things) into one competitive federal government between 1776 and 1787.

    That is what was founded.

    There were presidents elected to work at unifying the military defense of the many competitive republics.

    There were trial by jury cases as people assembled to find the facts as to who was on the side of Liberty, and who was on the side of the criminals who were currently rioting in the innocent blood of Americans.

    American presidents working the federal government had very little work load once the British criminal mercenary and conscript military forces had run out of orders and money to continue that crime spree.

    The criminal central banking frauds and those who profited by arming both sides of open war kept up the covert war and their complete take-over of the Massachusetts Republic resulted in the last battle of the Revolutionary War which later became known as Shays's Rebellion.

    Stop and think a moment as you might contemplate the power of the existing President of the United States when a criminal Central Banker controlled Government in Massachusetts, closely connected to the British criminals, which was closely connected to the Vatican through Jesuits, is currently using criminal "courts," (Admiralty/Equity/Exchequer) to enforce debt payments and an excise tax (just like the Stamp Act in principle) on Whiskey, payable in Gold, when everyone clearly knows that the Revolutionary War was fought over this same exact counterfeit money, counterfeit tax, counterfeit government systematic looting of the people in a country/republic/land, as the criminals running the government overpower and crush the rebellion.

    So you are the president of the United States of America and in many of the Republics/States there are covert British forces enforcing the same old tired counterfeit debt, counterfeit excise taxes, with the same old counterfeit courts, and in Massachusetts the Rebels, actual decorated Revolutionary War Veterans are defeated and those who did not escape and flee to another (better) Republic are tried for treason against who?

    Was it treason against central banker criminals (Side B) or treason against Patriotic Liberty loving Americans who abide by common laws, due process, constitutional republics, and voluntary federations of republics, all in which trial by jury is the law of the land?

    Homework:
    http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539282.pdf

    When the criminals take over they bring into play their counterfeit courts.

    So there is a President, the British overt army is driven out, but the Tories remain as covert criminals, and the same old central banking fraud, same old excise tax (creating the demand for the fraudulent money), same old Gresham's Law working to drive good money out of circulation, same old inventing American Spirit to create useable competitive barter or commodity money in the absence of gold and silver, or accurate paper money based upon redemption of gold, silver, real estate, or other titles of real wealth, and then the same old resort to summary "just-us," ordered by the same old devil worshipers in black robes, calling for the same old criminal armies of people who will obey any order, no matter how criminal the order is, and obey without question, because the pay is currently good. So there is the President, presiding over the very limited, voluntary, union of Republics/States,and that president has no lawful power to conscript an army of criminals to help the Tories in Massachusetts crush that last battle of the Revolutionary War.

    Homework:
    http://historicalspotlight.com/shays-rebellion-american-revo...

    What did the Tories in America do as a result of Shays's Rebellion BECAUSE those Revolutionary War Veterans, like Daniel Shays, was allowed to vote with their feet from Massachusetts on into Vermont, and there wasn't a damn thing, lawfully, that a despot, slave trader, could do to get his runaway slaves back from the Liberated Republic of Vermont?

    There was no compact among the slave traders in the North with the slave traders in the South, to keep their slaves in line paying, obeying, criminal orders without question, and both the slave traders in the North with their central banking monopoly rackets, and the slave traders in the South with their subsidized Black slave labor institution, got together in Philadelphia under the false pretense of amending the existing laws, which were the same existing laws that worked to drive out the largest covert army of criminals then on the planet earth.

    The Dirty Compromise commenced in Philadelphia in 1787 directly inspired by the events known as Shays's Rebellion, whereby the central banking cabal and the black slave trading cabal divided up the spoils of their covert war on the people, and they re-institutionalized excise tax (to create the demand for a fraudulent money monopoly), fraud money monopoly, black and white slavery, piracy, and monarchy (a.k.a. consolidated government), to end the American experiment in free market government.

    So that brings us to the question of how the criminals decided to pick their favorite despot among the many competitive despots available to run the criminal government that covertly took over what the overt British criminal army of aggression could not take over.

    The criminals had few options as to how the criminals could, conceivably, remain in power.

    1.
    Lie

    2.
    Threaten with brutal dictatorial violence.

    3.
    Execute brutal, terrifying, torturous, horrid, aggressive violence upon anyone daring to question the order to pay.

    Enter into the age of America the American version of The Cult of Personality.

    Homework 1:
    http://mises.org/daily/2885

    Quote:______________________
    His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.

    To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.

    At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.

    In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.

    In a few short months, Washington had succeeded in extirpating a zealous, happy, individualistic people's army, and transforming it into yet another statist army, filled with bored, resentful, and even mutinous soldiery. The only thing he could not do was force the troops to continue in camp after their terms of enlistment were up at the end of the year, and by now the soldiers were longing for home. In addition to all other factors, Americans were not geared — nor should they have been — for a lengthy conflict of position and attrition; they were not professional soldiers, and they were needed at their homes and jobs and on their farms. Had they been a frankly guerrilla army, there would have been no conflict between these roles.
    _________________________________________________

    Homework 2:
    http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedRep...

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

    Homework 3:
    http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

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

    So...

    If you want the question answered accurately then you may have to do your homework A:
    http://famguardian.org/Publications/AntiFederalistPapers/AFP...

    B:
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/virginiatime...

    C:
    http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/henry.html

    Quote:______________________________
    This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American?

    Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

    If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely—and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion—have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?
    [Here Mr. HENRY strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America, and the horrid consequences that must result.]

    What can be more defective than the clause concerning the elections? The control given to Congress over the time, place, and manner of holding elections, will totally destroy the end of suffrage. The elections may be held at one place, and the most inconvenient in the state; or they may be at remote distances from those who have a right of suffrage: hence nine out of ten must either not vote at all, or vote for strangers; for the most influential characters will be applied to, to know who are the most proper to be chosen. I repeat, that the control of Congress over the manner, &c., of electing, well warrants this idea. The natural consequence will be, that this democratic branch will possess none of the public confidence; the people will be prejudiced against representatives chosen in such an injudicious manner. The proceedings in the northern conclave will be hidden from the yeomanry of this country. We are told that the yeas and nays shall be taken, and entered on the journals. This, sir, will avail nothing: it may be locked up in their chests, and concealed forever from the people; for they are not to publish what parts they think require secrecy: they may think, and will think, the whole requires it. Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is, the publication from time to time of the receipts and expenditures of the public money.

    This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: it may extend to a century. Grant that any of them are wicked; they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression will give you no redress. I say they may ruin you; for where, sir, is the responsibility? The yeas and nays will show you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves; for, after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to public and divulge their iniquity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it. Where is the responsibility—that leading principle in the British government? In that government, a punishment certain and inevitable is provided; but in this, there is no real, actual punishment for the grossest mal-administration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, By what law? They must make the law, for there is no existing law to do it. What! will they make a law to punish themselves?

    This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility—and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.
    ______________________________________________

    Of course that is too much to read, let alone understand.

    Joe

  • Double edged sword

    If the viewpoint chosen is the most accurate one, then free will move along on a path driven by that power to choose the most accurate viewpoint encountered each step of the way on that path.

    That is the hard way when so many people choose the other path.

    The power to choose can be a time and place where an individual chooses to offer another individual a less accurate viewpoint.

    The example of that type of choice, to choose a less accurate viewpoint, begins as deception because the creator of the less accurate viewpoint knows that the viewpoint offered is less accurate.

    A false choice is then placed in the path of someone in the form of deception, and then there is a choice to be made by the potential victim of deception.

    The example of that type of choice can arrive in the form of a something for nothing offer offered by the deceiver to the potentially deceived.

    If the choice made by the potentially deceived is a less accurate viewpoint, then the potentially deceived may "believe," in the lie that the deceived will get "something for nothing," from the deceiver.

    At that point the deceiver is in command of the actions of the deceived.

    If the choice made by the potentially deceived is a more accurate viewpoint, then the potentially deceived will not "believe," in the lie that the deceived will get "something for nothing," from the deceiver.

    At that point the deceiver is not in command of the actions of the one who chooses not to "believe," in the deception.

    Call in the "show me the money" choice.

    If a whole lot of people believe in the false money "choice," then lies tend to become ubiquitous.

    Joe

  • If I win.

    I'll let you know in this Topic.

    Joe

  • Of course.

    You are right.

    Joe

  • True, half true, or downright false?

    "NATO doesn’t exactly have a good track record when it comes to defending individual rights, so its motives for involvement in the region should certainly be subject to question, particularly considering the organization is largely funded by the U.S. taxpayer."

    That is misleading. The actual power to purchase is a burden placed on anyone, anywhere, on this planet, who can produce value but their productive capacity is stolen, and instead of their productive capacity utilized in producing value, their productive capacity is used to destroy things.

    Anyone who is victim to the Federal Reserve Fraud can be placed into the message to make the message less false.

    Example:

    "NATO doesn’t exactly have a good track record when it comes to defending individual rights, so its motives for involvement in the region should certainly be subject to question, particularly considering the organization is largely funded by victims of the Federal Reserve Fraud."

    To make that even less false the following editing can help:

    "Those who are guilty of willfully perpetuating the Federal Reserve Fraud do not exactly have a good track record when it comes to defending individual rights, so their motives for involvement in the region should certainly be subject to question, particularly considering the organization is largely funded by innocent victims of the Federal Reserve Fraud."

    Nato, so called, is a false front covering up the actual criminals who run the World Reserve Currency Monopoly Fraud and Extortion Crime.

    Since the notes denoting the current World Reserve Currency are still Federal Reserve Notes, despite the fact that the International Monetary FUND is the one single criminal FUND, world wide, those notes thereby denote who are the worst criminals and who are the victims as following those notes to the source of those notes uncover those worst criminals.

    Those worst criminals write or speak purchase orders that are obeyed without question, and those worst criminals invest in drug pushing, arms dealing, and funding all sides in world wars, so as to keep their money monopoly power going.

    Those criminals are currently causing the end of the Federal Reserve Note denomination of their crimes, and they will produce a new type of dominant fraud money when World War III is over, on their schedule; if they can keep their fraud going through this cycle.

    "But Tesla should not be beyond a discerning eye any more than other corporations should when it comes to calling out crony capitalist tendencies."

    That is at best half true.

    Again there are words that defy accurate accounting. The use of the word "capitalist", for example, is completely misplaced; unless the idea is to give credit to the criminals who falsify the meanings of words. Capitalism has nothing to do with involuntary associations; unless a criminal creates an involuntary association (crime) and the criminal uses the word capitalism to hide his, or her, crimes behind that false use of that word. Adding "crony" to the word "capitalist," is like saying, hi, look at me, I'm helping the criminals cover up their crimes as I use their false words that they use to cover up their crimes.

    Editing the message can be done to help make the message less false.

    Example:

    "But Tesla should not be beyond a discerning eye any more than other corporations should when it comes to calling out fraud and extortion perpetrated by anyone anywhere in time and place."

    The story about Tesla, Elon Musk in particular, is a very good study. Elon Musk was one of the group of people who started up PayPal, and in the book PayPal Wars it was acknowledge that this group knew that they were going to take over the world currency monopoly power, or take it down, whichever way anyone dares to understand the true message offered by any competitor in free market money transactions.

    Now, after PayPal was sold, and misled since the sale, Elon Musk used the power to purchase earned from PayPal to begin forming Solar City, Space X, and Tesla motors, as direct competition for market share in transportation fuel (monopolized by the so called "oil" industry), and transportation vehicles, including interplanetary transportation vehicles.

    If the money monopoly, and the oil monopoly power, also known as the Petrodollar, is being taken down too slowly, here on Earth, there is then a contingency plan to colonize Mars.

    Look up Mars one here:
    http://www.mars-one.com/

    "It’s understandable that Tesla would seek the most friendly economic environment in which to build its new factory. But Tesla’s use of government to enhance its bottom line, as Fox’s Elizabeth McDonald describes, is something that taxpayers should be upset about:"

    Elon Musk may or may not be the individual who makes the final decisions as to where funds go in any case. If there are so called "tax breaks," then those so called tax breaks are deals made between someone like Elon Musk and someone else. If there is someone making a deal as to who receives "tax breaks," and who does not receive "tax breaks," then that is a connection made into the Federal Reserve System of Fraud and the Internal Revenue System of Extortion, and that scam is run out of The International Monetary FUND, which are off-shore corporations having no liability accounted to those investors in that criminal organization.

    What is happening in our time is something that Catherine Austin Fitts, Karen Hudes, and Frank O'Collins describe in many words as a battle between at least two of the most powerful crime factions.

    If Catherine Austin Fitts has useful words to describe what is going on, in fact, then there is something called a Breakaway Civilization; whereby the old monopoly system of fraud and extortion is left behind and a new group of investors are taking the money (titles, gold, silver, commodities, contracts, policies, accounts, whatever, including some Federal Reserve Notes while they are still powerful at purchasing anything) and starting up new networks. The obvious problem there is the fact that those investors are dealing with stolen property; but the fact is that the criminals have a capacity to make us all criminals, since that is what they do best.

    If the deal between Elon Musk and someone representing some claim of government power is on the table, then we can look at that deal precisely as it happened, so as to keep that record as straight in our minds as it was kept straight in the minds of those who made that deal.

    Speculation based upon ignorance favors the criminals at the expense of the victims.

    "The libertarian policy on Elon Musk and Tesla should be the same that it should be for Rand Paul: Praise when they’re right, rake ‘em over the coals when they’re wrong."

    Judge, jury, and executioner all in one. So the writer hangs Elon Musk with obvious libel. Were there an operating system of due process the libeler could have his day in court in defense of his public hanging of Elon Musk.

    That is not a case of me publicly hanging the author who publicly hangs Elon Musk. I am merely a messenger acknowledging the facts as they exist.

    "It appears Tesla is just another example of crony capitalism; they simply excel at the marketing end better than many of the more obvious abusers of the system."

    The writer pretends to be open minded with the word choice "appears," but then the writer makes a statement as if his opinion is fact.

    The accuser publicly condemns someone of abuse of the system.

    That is laughable. The so called system is a crime in progress, as criminal enforcers of fraud and extortion insist upon adding costs to anyone who dares to produce anything of any value, and then idiots like this writer dare to claim that the victims are the abusers, when the actual evidence used to publicly hang someone is based upon barely scratching the surface of appearances?

    "Nick Hankoff, Amir Zendenham, and Noah Johnson have made national headlines for their success in the unlikely liberty stronghold of Southern California."

    What is "unlikely" about Liberty in Southern California? I live in Barstow.

    How about this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9ftbRWqkj0

    The myths of where, when, and how productive people produce value are many. Elon Musk competes and wins against the Money Monopoly, the Oil Monopoly, the Transpiration Vehicle Monopoly,the Space Vehicle Monopoly, including work done in California, and the so called free market libertarians publicly hang the man for abusing the system?

    I've run into this when I ran for Congress as a Libertarian. There are many criminal minded people hiding behind false fronts in every organization that could, otherwise, do good things.

    Joe

  • Open Source

    If you please, or if it pleases you, then consider, please, the following words:

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

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

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

    A true Federal Government existed between 1776 and 1787; according to the open source, free market, voluntary union, non-aggression principle, explained in those words above.

    So...

    Open source works the way it works. Free markets work the way they work. Liberty works the way it works. Voluntary association works the way it works.

    The opposite of open source, free markets, Liberty, and voluntary association is all that is within the single word crime.

    The criminals took over in 1787. That is explained in that book linked above, and in other books, and those criminals took over our ideas, our dreams, or Liberty, or self defense, our trial by jury, our law of our land, our legem terrae, our common sense, our common law, our due process, our capacity to invest in the best defense we can find, out of any number of competitive offers of better, and better, defense.

    Does that ring true?

    What can be done to regain our power to defend the innocent from the guilty criminals who have taken over our voluntary government?

    Compete in open source free markets.

    Is that what you are offering?

    When the rubber meets the road there is a criminal who is busy injuring an innocent victim.

    One of the best forms of defense, open source, in free markets, has been, is, and probably will be trial by jury according to the common law.

    Not knowing our best defense is worth all the gold in the world to the most evil, most powerful, most competitively evil criminals ever to visit this planet. OK, that may have sounded confusing, so I can rewrite that message in other words.

    Falsehood is a valuable commodity produced by criminals for reasons that are understood from a criminal perspective. Falsehood is much more powerful than any army of any size because falsehood can be used to mislead said army.

    The criminals have to cover up the methods we can share as defenders against the criminals.

    If we the people regain our shared power to effectively defend the innocent from the guilty, in each case, the worst criminals can fall first BECAUSE they have no victims other than the lesser evil criminals to consume.

    Do you understand, or am I again pissing in the wind?

    Joe

  • Gag orders

    I tried speaking freely on the so called Free State Project Forum.

    I was immediately sent to the off-topic areas (also know as the "free" speech zone), and then all my work was erased, sent down the memory hole, so that was my indirect message to shut the fuck up.

    When the criminals take over, they all do the same things.

    Joe

  • It?

    It cannot do anything.

    If you speak so often as if a collective, an it, can be responsible, be accountable, have, hold, feel, ruin its own name, whatever, then that is a message, intended or not, that is a possible, even likely, meaning in the words.

    If you think that it can be responsible, or be accountable, then that meaning can be communicate with those words you so often use, and that is contrary to the opposite possible meaning.

    1.
    You mean that "it" can actually ruin, "its own name," as if "it" decided to do this, or "it" decided to do that, with the resulting consequence if "it" ruining "its own name."

    2.
    You do not think that a collective, or a legal fiction, or a corporate person, or a false God, actually exists, an entity unto itself, even if your words can easily be interpreted as if you do think that "it" can actually ruin "its own name."

    "They did for those "words" what Hitler did for the Swastika."

    They, presumably actual people with names, may include a collective group of people collectively known as William Shakespeare. They, wearing pants, or skirts, undies, a pair of socks, shoes, may have actually wanted to keep the good name good, at least for as long as the good name managed to still hide the evil behind the false front.

    1. Not yet actually knowing of you attribute "it" with will power, an assumption can be made, based upon your reference to "they," that you don't attribute "it" with will power; despite your first sentence concerning it and its own name.

    "It has been their duplicitous approach - verbally espousing liberty while destroying it in reality."

    So what did government mean before its good name was besmirched by those who are they?

    What did the state mean, by the same reasoning, before its goods name was used as a false front to hide those criminals who so often decide to perpetrate injuries upon the innocent, not limited to mere mass murder?

    "Like I said once before - I'm not a solute in a pot, and I don't wish to be experimented on."

    Like the following example?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wUucANBY_8
    Time: 1:23

    Or this one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi5RNp2XS3k

    People experiment on people, not governments. If people in so called governments experiment on people, then criminals are government, so the accurate word is not government, the accurate word is criminal.

    "Nonetheless, if they wish to regain what has been lost, they won't get it done by doing the same things over and over again. An actual change in course is needed. A good start would be to end the War on Drugs and allow competition in the monetary system."

    Again, me the one who fails to communicate so often, prefer accurate accounts.

    There is no such thing as a War on Drugs. Criminals who took over government cover up their drug pushing with false flags.

    The following flag was the flag used by the criminals running drugs into China, the same criminals running slaves out of Africa.

    https://flagspot.net/flags/gb-eic2.html

    So...if there is no War on Drugs, can't be, it is a patented absurdity, what is happening?

    Criminals use cover ups, like false terms, like The War on Drugs, to hide themselves behind, as criminals monopolize the criminal drug cartels, and the slave trade, now known with a new, kinder, gentler, sounding name: Human Trafficking.

    Like this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggxiBWv4xYE

    People with names perpetrating gruesome crimes upon people with names, all well hidden, in plain sight, behind false names, false fronts, and a root criminal routine.

    The monopoly counterfeit or money fraud scam, at the heart of the so called government, so called state, where actual people keep it going century after century.

    At least some people are aware of it. Some invest in it, for a return on the investment. Some prefer to avoid it when possible.

    Some blow the whistle on it. Thanks for that.

    Not news:

    http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

    Quote:______________________
    First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
    _____________________________________

    As much as I appreciate the first American Anarchists, or those passing on the tradition today, there remains that familiar word play, as if calling a spade a spade somehow vanished down the memory hole.

    If they are frauds, criminals, torturers, murderers, why call them the government?

    Joe

  • Bugs

    Don't care.

    Joe

  • Bait and switch needs more power?

    Government is the hook, and then with an ever so subtle distraction, and nobody is paying attention to what is going on behind the curtain, the magician, pulls the State card out of his sleeve!

    Next time I may listen further, past the government baiting effort, and rather than comment on that contradictory, duplicitous, word play, the one individual listener, not the collective one, just me, can account for the use of that other false front term, that state stuff.

    I am curious. The thing about recorded interviews is that they hang around awhile, and while they are available they don't mind being rewound.

    Joe

  • Accurate accounting

    If the government is employed by people governed by moral conscience then the government is not a synonym for the organized crime cabal.

    When people speak of the government that is a synonym for the organized crime cabal, that speech can be easily confused with the government employed by people governed by moral conscience, unless a message is offered to clarify the distinction.

    Joe

  • Beyond conception

    It is, of course, inconceivable that the individual is responsible.

    You know whatever you want to know.

    Joe

  • 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."

    NOTES:

    Notes from the author of -Test Trial 1.

    The date of this writing is 8-31-2014.

    I want to get something straight here and now. The idea above is not specious, fictitious, novel, as a product of an over-active imagination born out of someone, a so called conspiracy theorist, a lone pen-man, rather the above is the battle at hand.

    On the side of the defenders of the innocent are those whose job, whose work, is to prosecute the case, in the name of all the innocent people, through the idea of The Public Thing, or Respublica, which is an idea that is at least as old as The Golden Age of Greece, predating Jesus as the Christian Son of God.

    On the side of the defendant, which is the accused, which is also the presumed to be innocent, the alleged perpetrator of injury done to the innocent, and done willfully upon the innocent, from a guilty mind, but presumed to be innocent, for all according to the common law are afforded the same law, and there are no exceptions, each is processed through due process from eyes that are blind initially, on the side of the defendant, are people too, real people.

    Side A is the incessant demand for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us, please, please, with sugar on top, God.

    Side B is precisely the same thing as Side A. People seeking the truth on both sides, on the side of the prosecutor, and the side of the defendant, people seek the truth. The best defense, for someone who is guilty, is to get down to the accurate accounting of their crime soonest, so as then to know the true measure of the redemption that can be afforded to the guilty, as a matter of established fact, within the very limited boundaries of people who are prone to error; again, so help us God, we must find the truth, and we must help the guilty find redemption, sooner, rather than too late.

    Side C, on the other hand, can be summed up as Deception and Evil incarnate, or in human form, in the flesh.

    Side B in my story line, again I am not a so called conspiracy theorist, and this story is being told in this way for specific reasons, as a story-line, but it is an attempt to get a real story out, to get people to see the truth, because we, as people, as The Public Thing, have lost our way, in no uncertain terms, as the innocent victims pile up, tortured and burned out souls, reaching for heaven, because no one knows better, or no one cares enough, and because Deception, and Evil, are walking among us, in demonstrable fact.

    At this juncture, of this story, which I may or may not finish, I decided to place Side C, deception and evil, into one of the people written as the defenders, while the other, oddly enough, plays the part of the Devil's Advocate. So the people who are taking up the work of defending the accused, in this story line, will be a willfully evil criminal himself, and the co-defending worker (not a Bar Association Attorney because this is a fictional common law trial by jury case, not a Legal Fiction False Court Case) will represent the fool on the hill, or the one who sits upon a fence, where there is no fence, because the fence is pure fiction.

    All that above may appear to be just so much gibberish to so many people who may stumble upon this writing, and then they move on to more interesting things. To those who know what I am writing about, let it be known to them, that these so called defenders, in this story line, will, in time, either successfully help defend the innocent from the guilty, or they will successfully maintain the false front, the legal fiction, whereby the actual criminals always escape accountability, while the so called corporate soul is blamed for the wrongdoing instead of the people behind the facade, those pulling the strings from down low, way, way, way, down low.

    It is from my view, more, and more, patently absurd to claim that these criminals we face as a whole people, are in any way some form of elite, in Ivory Towers, stacked on top of some nebulous Pyramid, looking down with their All-Seeing-Eye. The worst of the worst evil people, are criminals, base, deceitful, threatening, torturers, and mass murderers, and worse things they do to whatever is remaining of our innocent.

    If we let them have their way with our innocent, there will be no innocence at all.

    They will burn the innocence out of the souls, quite literally, as they please, for their exclusive fun, and their exclusive profit, because we let them.

    The reasons why I write this now, are many, including a choice this morning to return to my study of the Martin Luther King murder, murder by spooks, phantoms, all of which are so well hidden, in plain sight, behind their Legal Fiction. So that is the leading idea causing me to focus that battle upon those 2 characters who will be the Public Defenders in this first Common Law Trial by Jury Case 1 titled: Respublica Versus Legal Fiction A, or The Case against the FED, or The Case for the soul of America.

    The Case for the Soul of America is a positive light (I've been accused of creating "spin," and I prefer to defend myself against such negative MUD thrown on whatever may remain of my good name), while The Case Against The FED is the negative aspect forced upon the innocent by the willfully guilty, as there would be no cause for action, in defense, were we all to heed the advice in Scripture, and heed the advice offered from whatever remains of our individual, and our collective, moral conscience.

    The devil will be in the detail of the one Public Defender as that one reaches for the idea that those people at The FED are innocent, and all of the focus of Guilt ought to be, according to this willfully deceptive Devil incarnate, accounted solely upon the Legal Fiction, or the Corporation itself.

    So that focuses attention precisely upon the actual battle we face as people on the two obvious sides where people will choose to be on, and there is no fence, one side is criminal, the other side is not, and in between is where the rubber meets the road, where the innocent bodies are piled up, or bulldozed into mass graves, by the criminals, or by their servants.

    Two sides, and no fence, are then going to be shown in this trial, offered to anyone who cares to know, as such:

    Side 1: Effective Defenders of the Innocent, or Respublica, including a common law Judge working as a Magistrate. Two common law Prosecutors refusing to allow the criminals to claim one more innocent victim. One common law Public Defender equally interested in finding the truth, so as then to truly find out if the defendant is innocent as presumed, or if the accused is guilty, and then in need of a true form of redemption. A number of jurists who may or may not be on the right side of things; so that has to be worked on in this story too.

    Side 2: My personal study has concluded, beyond any doubt whatsoever, no reasonable doubt at all, that those who are guilty of maintaining The FED counterfeiting crime are guilty in fact, or actus reus, if not guilty of mind, or mens rea, so someone who does look at the facts of this case and they know the guilty are guilty, and they know that the guilty ought to be afforded redemption, yet they decide to employ deception as a means to cover up the guilty criminals in this case, that deceiver, that willful deceiver, is evil, he is himself a criminal, either a pathological one, meaning a criminal having no moral conscience whatsoever, or a willful, mens rea, guilty minded criminal, and that part is played, in this story by the one Public Defender who decides to tell the Legal Fiction Story as a method by which he will attempt to divert accountability away from the actual people who are guilty of perpetrating this world wide counterfeiting crime known as The FED, or also known as The World Reserve Currency, or The New World Order, or whichever False Front they construct, and maintain, as a means of hiding the actual evil people pulling the strings from down in the bowels of criminal-man-made hell-on-earth.

    Sides again:

    Side 1:
    Respublica, God's Law, Natural Law, legem terrae, law of the land, common law, due process due everyone without exception, trial by jury, man's best lie detector, the public thing, the entire list of names of every living soul created anywhere, anytime, the entire list of each name of every one, each one spoken as a living being worthy of life, each one afforded effective defense against the criminals who choose, or who are made by criminals, to be on the wrong side, the evil side.

    Side 2:
    Those who perpetrate aggressive deception upon the innocent. Those who perpetrate aggressive threats upon the innocent. Those who perpetrate aggressive, horrible, torturous, murderous, terrifying violence upon the innocent. Those who do so willfully, and those who do so as followers following evil orders without question, for their exclusive fun, and for their exclusive profit, at the expense of the innocent who still walk among us, because the Evil side will not subject all to their evil existence, they will not "win," until the last one on the good side is either murdered or enticed into joining the Monopoly of Crime, also known as Legal Fiction.

    So long as one innocent life is left, and so long as there is one who chooses to defend that last innocent life, so long will evil remain to be defeated in fact. Evil is the willful destruction of all innocent life for the exclusive pleasure of evil people.

    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