Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Joe Kelley]

From simple to complex the devil and the details are here and now offered to a candid world, for consideration actual, not for counterfeit forms of discussion.

Simply put the law is either an agreement among defenders to hold to account offenders, or there is no law, and offenders gain ready access to victims.

Counterfeit agreement is not the law.

“Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.”
Josiah Warren, 1863

Criminal:
“I am here to protect you, give me everything of value in your current possession or I will break your legs, or worse, my gang will rape you, torture you, for the rest of your life.”

Defender:
“No, if I do so you will go to my neighbor and counterfeit the same agreement only this time you will have my help. My conscience does not allow me to do so. You do know that everyone with a working conscience knows that your so-called Emperor is naked, don’t you? So...why pretend that you are here to protect us?”

Criminal (under the color of law):
“We the People, says right here, consented to this charade. So pay up.”

To be continued, please be civil actual, not counterfeit.

[Joe Kelley]

The next source of information is actually a sound bite when compared to the demand for the power required to deter the criminal opposition, the opposition that works under the color of law.

The next source of information is vital if the idea is to understand true government power commanded by individuals who are then constituting an aggregate or "collective" sum total of individual, voluntary, defensive, power.

Since there are no responses yet, I think the following fills the void in a very special way.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

[Bill St. Clair]

Lysander Spooner rocks!

There are incredible collections at http://www.lysanderspooner.org/works and http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm#spooner

[Joe Kelley]

Spooner may have riled the Austrian Economic Professors with his Paper Money Essay, I know Murray Rothbard printed derogatory words aimed at Spooner in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays. It turns out that at least Rothbard is willing to join the Cult of Might Makes Right; in my opinion.

I think also that this was pointed out by Gary North here:

"One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
"Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?"
The Gold-Plated Sting, March 3, 2007, Gary North

For the purposes of this Topic the main point is well stated in the quote from Spooner repeated for effect:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."

Those words are not ambiguous, at least not in my opinion. Those who allow their actions to place them in The Cult of Might Makes Right, with or without pledges, oaths, licenses, contracts, and counterfeit authority of law, are those who subscribe to the idea that criminal means justify criminal ends, and that is the first step down that slippery slope that turns into a torturous hell on earth for everyone as the mass of mankind gains momentum, as the slippery slope turns inevitably into a vertical drop to extinction.

The pretention of authority that is false, counterfeit, opposite of true lawful authority is expressed well in the forward to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli here:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction)

Similar words explaining that basic fraud, or self-deception, that is both stupid and servile, are explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo

Also here:
"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.”
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, 02/18/2008

To the point, individuals decide (often with malice aforethought) to injure innocent people so as to consume innocent people, to take the life out of innocent people, and that decision is followed by actions that are necessary for reaching the imagined benefit. There are 3 basic actions as such:

1. Deception aimed at innocent targets
2. Threats of aggressive violence aimed at innocent targets
3. Aggressive violence perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims

There is a connection between violence and deception, and that is explained well enough by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, which will follow, so as to end this post in this Topic, after one more comment of my own.

In order to begin down that slide into man-made hell on earth someone, somewhere, has to invent and then infect other people with this unnatural, suicidal, genocidal, destructive path, a path that can be described with the word entropy. The path is chosen by the first criminal, then the next, and along the way there is a founding, a framing, a forming of what I call The Cult of Might Makes Right, whereby all those members in that Cult share the same lie, and that lie is the price of admission into the cult, it is the unstated oath. If mankind were as self-destructive as the lie being told suggests, then why not hold the worst to account, if for no other reason than to keep score? Is it just a coincidence that those in (criminal) power always remove from general use the power to hold those in power to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter?

"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."
Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
 

 

[Joe Kelley]

The simplest form of law is a power built into the species, that power is moral conscience, and for that simple example there is offered a relevant quote:

All things whatsoever … - This command has been usually called the "Saviour's golden rule," a name given to it on account of its great value. All that you "expect" or "desire" of others in similar circumstances, do to them. Act not from selfishness or injustice, but put yourself in the place of the other, and ask what you would expect of him. This would make you impartial, candid, and just. It would destroy avarice, envy, treachery, unkindness, slander, theft, adultery, and murder. It has been well said that this law is what the balance-wheel is to machinery. It would prevent all irregularity of movement in the moral world, as that does in a steam-engine. It is easily applied, its justice is seen by all people, and all must acknowledge its force and value. This is the law and the prophets - That is, this is the sum or substance of the Old Testament. It is nowhere found in so many words, but if is a summary expression of all that the law required. The sentiment was in use among the Jews. Hillel, an ancient Rabbi, said to a man who wished to become a proselyte, and who asked him to teach him the whole law, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another." Something of the same sentiment was found among the ancient Greeks and Romans, and is found in the writings of Confucius.
Barnes' Notes

Simple laws that work naturally are turned into complication as the devils put into human contact those devilish details previously listed as:

1. Deception, so as to consume the lives of innocent people.
2. Threat of Aggressive Violence, aimed at targeted innocent people.
3. Aggressive Violence, perpetrated by guilty people upon innocent people; with malice aforethought.

The most basic, simple, deception is a well-worn claim made by powerful criminals whereby the targets are convinced that the criminals constitute the only hope for innocent people, the only form of protection available to innocent people. 

That is clearly exemplified in those events that became known as the founding of America. Previous to the deception described above the people in America started a voluntary mutual defense association that was based upon rights afforded to all people by all moral people. No one in their right mind then or now can argue the legitimacy of the lie used then, the same lie used now, in complex forms, or in simple forms, not without resort to further lies.

The deception that starts out simple, “we the people,” give a band of criminals absolute power, because that band of criminals said so. Then the simple lie becomes a very tangled web of deceit in short order, doing so by natural laws. Power begins to shift from moral people who volunteer to create and maintain an effective defense of all people as the criminal gang begins to extort everything that is worth anything from those moral, productive, people who manage to maintain enough liberty to actually get productive work accomplished.

I will end this sound bite with a common form of the lie as the lie begins to go down that path of the exponential increase in lies, a natural course governed by natural laws, as each lie will require more that one lie to cover up the first lie. 

The original lie where the criminal gang claims that they are the government is soon followed up with the lie that criminals will obey criminal made laws. That is an accurate description of the lie told by the criminals who counterfeit government. The lie is not a confession, so the words used by the criminals are not accurate words. The lie used by the criminals is not as it was just stated, the criminals do not say: “Criminals will obey the laws that we criminals force upon our victims.”

Instead of that type of confession, the lie takes on a form that convinces the targeted population that somehow, this time, even though it is a required condition necessary for a criminal to be a criminal, that criminals, as a rule, do not obey man-made laws, this new (counterfeit) law, as the lie goes, this additional law added to the pile of laws already not obeyed by criminals, this new law will be obeyed by criminals, and that they say is why this new (counterfeit) law must be enforced by our exclusive group. Although it has never worked in the past, this time it will work. Although it is a condition required for a criminal to be a criminal, that the criminal does not obey man-made laws, this time they say it is necessary to add yet another (counterfeit) law.

The simple form of the lie is objectively exposed as a lie in every actual criminal case where there is an innocent victim, there is in fact, a guilty criminal. The crime scene is not a crime scene without that fact working whereby the criminal, as a rule, does not obey the man-made laws that advise criminals about natural laws.

If you kill some innocent victim, with malice aforethought, as a rule, you are a murderer in fact.

When people claiming to be the government murder people, in fact, they are guilty of murder.

Well, I rambled on when my intention was to be brief, but that last sentence could be exemplified with something resembling a common law trial by jury case:

THE COURT: Let me ask you, do all of you
agree with this verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

THE COURT: In answer to the
question did Loyd Jowers participate in a
conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther
King, your answer is yes.

Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by
the defendant? Your answer to that one is
also yes.

And the total amount of damages
you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is
one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

The Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee
Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, 1999

[Joe Kelley]

The lie restated:

“...all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity…”

And:

“...the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good…”

And:

“...the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual…”

If all men are bad then none of them ought to be given arbitrary power. Those who tell this lie confess they're obvious deception when they tell their fellow criminals, and when they tell their targeted victims, that among all the men who are bad there is one exception, and that single exception is always the liar, or the liars sycophants. The sycophants, as in the Emperor’s New Clothes, put the imaginary clothes on the fraudulent exception to the rule. Once the lie has legs, and boots, it starts kicking ass at will with impunity.

How does one place one’s self outside of the law that is meticulously enforced upon everyone else? One claims to be above the law that is the same law claimed to be the one’s source of authority. That is a self-made confession of lawbreaking.

“Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE.”

Falsehood only works on those who believe the lies that create falsehood.

Digging deeper may help the skeptics who remain willing, even eager, members of the Cult of Might Makes Right.

As far back as people have documented their lessons through life there has been evidence of counterfeiting the true law power.

Returning to the words in the introduction to my copy of The Prince is the term Republic:

“This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good.”

In that reference, someone could be misled as to the meaning of the term republic.

Is a republic a voluntary association for mutual defense, such as an insurance policy as explained by Lysander Spooner?

Counter, opposite, in opposition to, and counterfeiting a voluntary mutual defense republic: is it instead an involuntary association falsely labeled a republic?

Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense = Republic

Or

Involuntary Association to force the slaves to pay for their own enslavement = Republic

Of course, it can be both, but which is it in any case involving a controversy, or conflict of interest? What is a republic in a case where there is a clear and present danger to any single innocent individual member of the amalgamated group of individuals known as the public?

If it is a private conflict of interest then those involved in the conflict can remain inside the law, if they choose to do so.

For those who are confused about the true meaning of law see The Golden Rule. The true law can be confused with rules, statutes, suggestions, offers, hints, and friendly advice, which are expressly not the law. The law can also be confused with counterfeits of law such as edicts, proclamations, and oaths of allegiance to falsehood without question: The Cult of Might Makes Right Oath.

Those involved in private conflicts of interest can remain inside the law by doing onto each other that which they would want to be done to themselves. That is a choice to remain inside the law power. Those in conflict can agree to remain inside the law, and one or both, or however many are involved in the conflict can decide to step firmly outside the law by doing onto the others as they themselves would defend tooth and nail to prevent having that act done to themselves.

Those inside the law choose to remain inside the law. Those who do not choose to remain inside the law choose to step firmly outside the law. Law is a voluntary association. Those who step outside the voluntary association (the law) choose to do so, and in order to step firmly outside the law, a victim must be willfully created by the guilty criminal who chooses to step outside the law power.

Who keeps score, and where is that score kept these days?

Before writing things down the scorekeepers who operated courts of conscience (individuals with memories volunteering) kept score and the amalgamated total sum of all those scorekeepers constituted a collective court of record in human memory. Many conflicts concerning which individual kept the more accurate score could be solved inside the law. Many conflicts concerning which individual kept a less accurate score, or intentionally false score, constituted a conflict of interest, and the score could be solved inside the law, or the conflict could be solved outside the law, according to individual choices ruled by nature.

Trial by jury, a voluntary association for mutual defense, has been traced back, in various forms, to ancient times, and places, including places where people were not writing things down. In those places, there was also a process known as trial by ordeal. Trial by ordeal evolved into something called a Duel. If you wonder why the early American patriots and their opposition (who were known as loyalists) were so polite to each other consider what happened to Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr over alleged defamatory statements made by Alexander Hamilton against Aaron Burr.

A court of record functions as a memory bank where all recorded conflicts of interest have been resolved, and recorded, within the confines of the law power. Those who agree to remain inside the law power do so, those who choose not to agree don’t agree, and they choose to move outside the law power. It is a clear distinction, a matter of fact, that criminals, as a rule, choose to step outside the law (Golden Rule) power. Those who believe in the lie that puts imaginary legs on counterfeit law will have other’s believe that law applies to criminals as if criminals will, by some magic, obey laws that apply to criminals. That is the same lie that places criminals who counterfeit government outside the law, as those same criminals claim that their authority to be above the law, immune to it, is the same authority that no one is above the law; an obvious lie.

Criminals confess their crimes as they perpetrate their crimes, as a matter of demonstrable fact.   

Criminals do not obey laws. Criminals may choose to leave other people alone, let them live and let live, most of the time, but the fact remains that crimnals must step outside the law power in order to become criminals. Criminals must, as a rule, target, and then injure innocent victims, and they do so despite the fact that doing so is outside every form of law worthy of the name.

So where is the evidence, in the collective memory of people, written and unwritten in this bank of memories called a court of record, accounting for the true meaning of the term republic?

I’ll end this effort with a quote from Thomas Paine, and then something from a court of record.

"As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others.
It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case.
The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.
What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.
Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively.”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, page 176, 1791

“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

[Joe Kelley]

I was not inspired to watch the Marxist fake debate (so-called democratic debate), but I did watch the competitive Clown World alternative offered by the gang at Infowars.

Biden was not molesting children at that time, and another Marxist criminal threw Biden under an imaginary Bus, the bus may have been figuratively used to segregate races, and Rosa Parks may have been on that bus in spirit.

Those are not democrats, and I guess I know how people can give up on words so easily, as the counterfeiters construct opposite meanings for previously useful words.

True democracy was explained, in time and place, by democrats (is the capital D an enforceable trademark for Marxists?):

The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long, 1996

"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

Did you know that the same counterfeiting job applied to the word Republic (voluntary association for mutual defense), which was also applied to the word Democracy (voluntary association for mutual defense), was the same counterfeiting job applied to the word Federation?

Here in the Congressional Record before 1789:

“That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”

When the criminals who counterfeit government begin to extract power from their victims it is the duty of the victims to - at least - keep an accurate score of that fact that matters.

When the criminals took over America by fraud, by threat, and by aggressive force, they left confessions on the official (court of) record. They had to get rid of the actual federation of independent states (a federation forms a voluntary dependency or division of labor), which was formed officially by Articles of Confederation.

The criminals counterfeited the term Federalist, like a King who might don imaginary clothes, and all those who were dupes at the time put legs on the false name, redefining a voluntary mutual defense association, turning a former state of liberty into subsidized slavery of everyone, including the criminals themselves. Life is much less costly for those criminals who make their slaves work hard to allow the criminals to afford luxurious lives at first, but natural forces also destroy the criminals who create counterfeit governments.

 June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.”

Patrick Henry sniffed out (called out) that Rat Smell as the criminals falsely claimed to be Federalists.

FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
“He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”

Melancton Smith also called out the Con as a Con. Those in favor of voluntary mutual defense for all, an invitation to live and let live, and the means to defend those rights born into people, were mislabeled, mischaracterized, misinterpreted, misjudged, and publicly smeared by the counterfeiters who were counterfeiting an existing federation (voluntary mutual defense association).

Later, much too late, that fact that matters became an obvious fact to Thomas Paine.

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.
As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.”

What power does Thomas Paine illuminate: the power to defend the innocent from the guilty, or the power to extract everything of value from the subjects of arbitrary government?

The criminals confessed, they always do, but who keeps score?

Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.
Philadelphia 14 May 1787.
Convention.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

They knew that what they were doing was outside the boundaries entrusted to them, and right there is the confession, so skeptics can look elsewhere for holes in the storyline. The criminal slave traders, along with central banking frauds, and warmongers whose propensity to fund all sides all the time in all wars is well documented - all these fellow cult members - stole liberty from those living then, and they stole liberty from posterity, up to these times in these places now.

We have the means to reestablish that perishable liberty.

[Joe Kelley]

The means to reestablish that oh-so perishable liberty (in time and place: all “politics” is local) is rational, reasonable, logical, time-tested, agreeable (to moral people), relatively costless (compared to the inevitable alternatives), and supported with mountains of evidence including scripture.

Example:

Mathew 7:12:
Golden Rule

John 8:32:
The freedom goal is achieved by way of the truth: establishing it, acknowledging it, recording it, passing it on to the next generation, and the next, or similar message in other words.

Proverbs 1:8-19:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."

Call that a suggestion concerning involvement and consequence, or if you can’t do something good, don’t be the problem yourself, hidden costs blow back.

There is a thread on this forum eluding to studies that suggest a physical part of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Those who gain arbitrary (absolute) power suffer from brain damage over time.

You extort, and you suffer as a result, or you pay the extortion fee, and you get what you pay for.

So…

Stop being the problem, and that is a step toward affecting a solution to the problem.

If you don’t want other people giving power to your enemies, consider what happens when you give power to their enemies, and that can be called Blowback: see for example Ron Paul’s critiques on (corporate) U.S. foreign policy. Where do the members of corporate U.S. get their power to execute what they call “Foreign Policy?” See: National (not federal) Debt Clock Real Time.

Finally, there is a tried and true method by which the people as a whole can inspire voluntary membership in a group of moral people whose participation is a process that has at least one truthful goal: such as finding any fact that matters in any case involving any controversy anywhere anytime, so as to set us free, please?

If it isn’t your duty to discover the truth that matters, then the least you can do is admit that your “contributions” to the Empire may blowback on you or posterity. Admit that to yourself, if to no one else, even if it an unwanted, ignored, fact that matters to you. If it is your duty to discover the truth that matters, including the facts concerning what is being done with your “contributions” to the Empire, then it might be a good idea to find a way to help other people reach that goal too. There is a process, and it is relatively costless.

Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)

Barrister.
My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair.

Jurym.
Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with.

Barr.
I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray?

Jurym.
I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour.

Barr.
It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service.

Jurym.
You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath been much to my loss.

Barr.
I commend your tenderness and modesty; yet must tell you, these are but general and weak excuses.

As for your time and trouble, it is not much; and however, can it be better spent than in doing justice, and serving your country? to withdraw yourself in such cases, is a kind of Sacrilege, a robbing of the public of those duties which you justly owe it; the more peaceable man you have been, the more fit you are. For the office of a Juryman is, conscientiously to judge his neighbour; and needs no more law than is easily learnt to direct him therein. I look upon you therefore as a man well qualified with estate, discretion, & integrity; and if all such as you should use private means to avoid it, how would the king and country be honestly served? At that rate we should have none but fools or knaves entrusted in this grand concern, on which (as you well observe) the lives, liberties, and estates of all England depend.
Your tenderness not to be accessary to any man's being wronged or ruined, is (as I said) much to be commended. But may you not incur it unawares, by seeking this to avoid it? Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.

[Joe Kelley]

From the Redoubt News Website:
https://redoubtnews.com/2019/07/declaration-independence/

"The Declaration of Independence – Full Text "

That is the half-truth since the “Full Text” original Declaration of Independence was edited according to the official record, for specified “reasons.”

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Why is it important to get the whole truth instead of the redacted half-truth?

Here are a few (of many) clear warnings:

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson:
"To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."

George Mason
June 17, 1788
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1745
"For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions. . . "

Garrison's Constitution
The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made
By Paul Finkelman
"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."

People are built with a natural governing power called conscience, maybe it is worth knowing the facts that matter. The common laws of free people in perishable liberty is a form of Voluntary Mutual Defense, a form documented in such works as a Declaration of Independence and a Bill of Rights.

When people volunteer to hold the worst criminals to account, there is in that work an increase in the power of deterrence: shinning the light of truth.

[Tahn L.]

I can understand why they waited until Jefferson was out of the country, before beginning the "coup" against the Articles of Confederation. 

Thanks Joe Kelly! Interesting.

[Joe Kelley]

You are welcome Tahn L.

I wish to be clear about something infecting people in such a way as to cause powerlessness in defense against crimes such as the coup d'état in 1789.

Each individual moves by a combination of the individuals own will power and powers external to each individual. The powers external can be called peer pressure on one end of a scale and brainwashing on another end of a scale. Some people are very independent-minded while other people merely obey any official-sounding order; doing so without question.

An example of this phenomenon is exemplified well in the whistleblowing effort by Murray Rothbard on the myth of George Washington:

“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.”
Murray Rothbard, Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty

One individual action is added to another, and another, and either by coincidence or by concerted, organized, combined, effort in a team of individuals, the sum total of the actions affect a coup.

Out goes precious liberty, a value worth a defensive fight, as valuable as life itself, and in place of liberty is blind obedience to falsehood without question: the slide into man-made hell on earth.

“And on top of this we are threatened by destruction in the fact that the physically compressed, strained world is not allowed to blend spiritually; the molecules of knowledge and sympathy are not allowed to jump over from one half to the other. This presents a rampant danger: THE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION between the parts of the planet. Contemporary science knows that suppression of information leads to entropy and total destruction. Suppression of information renders international signatures and agreements illusory; within a muffled zone it costs nothing to reinterpret any agreement, even simpler – to forget it, as though it had never really existed. (Orwell understood this supremely.) A muffled zone is, as it were, populated not by inhabitants of the Earth, but by an expeditionary corps from Mars; the people know nothing intelligent about the rest of the Earth and are prepared to go and trample it down in the holy conviction that they come as “liberators”.”
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture 1970

I want to be clear about who “they” are; as in:

“I can understand why they waited until Jefferson was out of the country, before beginning the "coup" against the Articles of Confederation.”

They include everyone on all sides. Every individual on the defensive truth-seeking side and everyone on the falsehood creation and maintenance side are constantly in a struggle to either move the collective sum total of human action toward liberty or toward the willful extinction of life on earth.

Thomas Jefferson could have employed the common law to hold the Slave traders, the slave owners, the slave torturers, and the slave criminals in the federal government to account for their crimes against nature itself. He did not, and that is probably because he feared for his individual life, and any combination of other reasons or excuses. The fact that the whistleblowing by Thomas Jefferson in his published writings on the crimes of slavery exist is one of many facts that matter to all generations that constitute posterity. People even today scoff at the idea that slavery is a crime, hell they are slaves, so they would have to admit that fact that matters to themselves, but they do not, for some obvious, and some less obvious reasons.   

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

“A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.”
Patrick Henry, June 9, 1788

John C. Calhoun, November 3, 1837
"Of all the interests in the community, the banking is by far the most influential and formidable—the most active; and the most concentrating and pervading; and of all the points, within the immense circle of this interest, there is none, in relation to which the banks[484] are more sensitive and tenacious, than their union with the political power of the country. This is the source of a vast amount of their profits, and of a still larger portion of their respectability and influence."
John C. Calhoun, PUBLIC LETTER TO J BAUSKETT AND OTHERS, EDGEFIELD DISTRICT, November 3, 1837

“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.” 14th Amendment (thought crime)

Who is doing what, when, where, to move the force of liberty in the accurate accountability direction inside their own mind, or external to their own mind, and who on the other hand is suppressing the facts that matter to life on earth? All politics is local, and to be clear, the Emperor's naked body has no clothes on it, and the little man behind the curtain is not the all-powerful Wizard of Oz. The reason King John did not want to sign the confession known as Magna Carta was (at least in part) because that document entered into the public record (court of record) an accurate accounting of the power (moral conscience) of each individual (volunteering on a jury) to nullify any law made by any so-called dictator.

[Joe Kelley]

Skeptics persist in the face of overwhelming evidence, perhaps.

Skepticism is necessary on the path seeking an elusive truth: accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case.

Willful ignorance of the facts that matter is necessary for the creation and maintenance of violence, falsehood, and fake government.

Some will agree with the lie parroted by every single criminal who has made the choice to create and maintain counterfeit government. Call that lie whatever you want, in any words you choose or borrow from the pile of lies that document the process created and maintained by criminals and their ignorant victims.

Example: The Strong Man Fallacy

If we do not find and empower our own Strong Man, those people over there will enslave us with their Strong Man.

In principle, those who exist in liberty, naturally, can voluntarily associate for their mutual defense against the Strong Man Fallacy, but they can’t do so if they are sucked into that lie too.

Next is further evidence from a previously mentioned source, a discovery of facts that matter, offered to all those who are skeptics, and placed in front of those who may stumble upon this evidence even as they willfully ignore this evidence.

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"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."

When did the liars get away with the lie? When did those lies begin to emit that familiar Rat Smell to those who prefer liberty over despotism?

Those who insist that “our” Strong Man must sit upon our arbitrary “government” to kick ass with impunity upon “our” innocent targets before they can attack “us,” will ignore the facts that matter in the case. That will happen in that individual mind, in that individual place, at that individual time, and that fact will contribute to obvious consequences down that road to those who seek the obvious causes of those obvious consequences.

Patrick Henry:
“Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?  For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.”

Sam Adams:
“From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

In truth like so many before him, Sam Adams turned his coat during Shays’s Rebellion, and that ought to be entered into the public domain right here and now.

The following is for the skeptics, remain vigilant, but if you can Smell that Rat Smell, consider the value of the information on its own merits; please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

[Joe Kelley]

The Federalist Papers : No. 81
The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Falsehood:

"That there ought to be one court of supreme and final jurisdiction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested."

Evidence:
The Debate over the Judicial Branch
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/judiciary/

"The Agrippa letters appear to have been written by James Winthrop, who was register of probate in Middlesex when these letters were written."
http://www.constitution.org/afp/agrippa.htm

Agrippa V, Massachusetts Gazette, 11 December 1787:

"Authority is also given to the continental courts, to try all causes between a state and its own citizens. A question of property between these parties rarely occurs. But if such questions were more frequent than they are, the proper process is not to sue the state before an higher authority; but to apply to the supreme authority of the state, by way of petition. This is the universal practice of all states, and any other mode of redress destroys the sovereignty of the state over its own subjects."

That is also false, but the obvious false claim by Al Hamilton (the claim of absolute authority: not likely to be contested) is contested by James Winthrop, as a matter of fact.

The falsehood of James Winthrop appears to me to be on the subject of what is or is not a free member of a free people in liberty.

1. A subject of an all-powerful state.
2. A volunteer in a voluntary mutual defense association under the common laws of free people in liberty.

People can waffle between the two, but in time and place, there are accurately measurable transfers of power from one to another, transfers that are contestable or agreeable, such as for two examples the removal of the power to speak out against arbitrary governors in arbitrary government as Martin Luther King Jr. and Lavoy Finicum have their lives removed from them, along with their liberty. Agents of the all-powerful Nation-State created by the likes of the liar Al Hamilton routinely murder people to keep them from blowing the whistle, and in at least the MLK case the country, through a jury, found agents of the State guilty of that conspiracy murder.

Being subject to arbitrary government at a State level, or at a Federal level, is despotic in either case, so the non-arguable Hamilton position of a National (not federal) all-powerful judiciary is - in fact - argued (proving that Hamilton is false) by James Winthrop whose argument is that a State, not a Nation (falsely called a federation) ought to have the power to subject people to arbitrary enforcement of arbitrary decisions made by dictators in black robes or uniforms.

Missing (so far) in this non-argument that is argued (a conflict of interest, and a cause to act morally i.e. the law) is the actual law at the time, which was the common law, whereby people volunteer to be subject to the decisions made by the country (the whole people) represented by jurors in a jury trial. Those who don't volunteer don't agree with the common law, and they are by their decision outside that law.

So...these people in this non-argument that is an argument (a controversy) as to who (or which legal fiction) is given arbitrary (absolute) power, could be settled according to the existing voluntary association for mutual defense. The country (through the jury) could decide the matter in each case, every time this conflict arises. 

Petitioner A, such as Al Hamilton, wants everyone in every county in every (soon to be overpowered) state to give up their rights to Legal Fiction A: an all-powerful Nation-State hid behind a federalist facade. 

Petitioner B, such as James Winthrop, wants everyone in every county in his State to give up their rights to Legal Fiction B: his all-powerful Nation-State Massachusetts, the crime scene known as Shays’s Rebellion.   

Falsehood was not yet ubiquitous in those days, not like today. Today almost everyone, each individual everywhere, invests into The Cult of Might Makes Right as if there wasn't any other viable, reasonable, option.

[Joe Kelley]

I don't have all day, so this present effort will dispense with some of the connections, links, references, and sources of offered data. For example, there are 2 opposing processes that have commonly known labels which were made common as people repeat these labels whenever people refer to the 2 opposing processes.

Law

Equity

Law, as in Law of the Land, also known as due process of law, is a process based upon a very simple, eloquent, suggestion known as The Golden Rule. The process called law is a process in which people endeavor to accurately account for the facts that matter in any case of controversy involving any single individual and any other single individual, and of course the process of law also involves any combination of individuals who find themselves in conflict with any other combination of individuals anywhere, anytime, and any place.

As Lysander Spooner points out the concept of law dates back thousands of years, traced originally (perhaps) to Ancient Greece, moving up to Ancient Germany, moving then to Ancient England, and eventually moving, as a concept if not a process, to America.

Again the concept driving the law process is The Golden Rule, and each individual is on an equal, or equitable, footing with each other individual, which is a concept that has many descriptions in words, and symbols, such as the words offered in that famous Declaration of Independence, and that symbol of a blind lady holding a scale. Those who remain on that equitable footing choose to maintain lawful order. Here it is useful to consider the fact that the law is for moral people only, and the law has only one use for immoral people. Moral people, in fact, take the law into their own hands, that is their duty in fact. The only use that immoral people have for the law is to counterfeit it, which is then a very efficient mask for immoral people. 

Recap:
The law is for moral people. Moral people maintain the law as individuals. Moral people employ the law to discover, to publish, and to determine the facts, as they exist, in any case where someone is suspected of willfully choosing to break the law. Criminals, as a rule, do not obey the law. Criminals choose to step outside the law, and that choice is what constitutes a crime. Criminals, as a rule, lie. One often told lie, told by criminals, is that they are the only law, and their dictates must be obeyed without question, or else.

Moving on to Equity.

Equity in this context of juxtaposition to Law has an intended meaning that is not commonly understood or employed. The meaning is a mask.

The common meaning for the word equity goes something like this:

“the quality of being fair and impartial”

Or this:

“the value of the shares issued by a company”

Equity - as in Equity Court - in stark contrast to Law has an entirely different, curious, and potentially understandable meaning. Equity Courts are Summary JUSTus Kangaroo Courts. This curious and potentially understandable label (Equity) is clearly a false front or false flag, like cheese in a mousetrap.

Out goes The Golden Rule-based process of individual people endeavoring to keep the record straight, with the process known as the law, on an equal footing with everyone else, and in place of Law is this counterfeit version of law called Equity.

That is offered here and now as a bread crumb along the way for those who may want to know the details, the facts, that help explain what Lysander Spooner offers in the following quote:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”

In the process of Law, the whole body of people are duty-bound to represent the whole body of people as they work on grand and trial juries to ensure that facts are discovered, published, and those facts are placed before a trial jury so that the whole country (the whole body of people) are thereby represented as The Decider.

In the counterfeit law process known as Equity, there are profit-seeking monopolists taking the power from the people, and using that power of cognizance, discovery, judgment, and right, and turning that power against the whole body of people. This is clearly so, and those who are unaware of it, and those who faint (if they dare to do so) argument against these clear facts, prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts in the case.  The power to discover the facts, once taken from the people as a whole, and once commanded by the profit-seeking monopolists, ensure that the people as a whole remain ignorant. That explains why you are ignorant about these facts. Take it, it is yours.

If by chance someone, somewhere, is ready to argue that these facts now presented are in any way in error, then be my guest, please. Every shovel dug into this pile of crap will dig the hole deeper, and that is why no one will endeavor to argue in favor of so-called Equity.

Equity comes from Exchequer. Equity is similar to Maritime, Admiralty, Family, or other labels placed upon the same Summary JUSTus System of plunder.

It has taken some time to discover and assemble the information that shows these facts to be facts, and my work is far from done, so have at it, and again: please do so. 

[Joe Kelley]

Colonial Courts and Secured Credit:
Early American Commercial
Litigation and Shays' Rebellion
Claire Priest
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2298&context=fss_papers

"Yet, while the debt-recording interpretation of colonial courts is the dominant explanation of default judgments in current colonial law scholarship, other evidence characterizes the operations of the colonial court system in a dramatically different way. In 1786 and 1787, shortly after the Revolution, Shays' Rebellion constituted a widespread attack on the structure of the colonial court system, culminating in the violent takeover and closing of many county courts in western Massachusetts and throughout New England. The Shaysites (who referred to themselves as "Regulators") raised an armed revolt against the colonial court system.
They condemned its injurious costliness, its fee structure which, they claimed, enabled judges, witnesses, and sheriffs to profit at the expense of litigants, and its cooptation by lawyers."

That is a figurative Gold mine.

As was clearly the case in England previous to a deal made between Barrons and a Despotic King, to document Law in the form of a Constitution known as Magna Carta, the people did JUST fine with something called legem terrae, which was (and is) the law of the land, which was also coined the common law genuine, not counterfeit.

As it was clearly the case in England those who practiced the dark arts of criminal behavior (deception, threat, and violence upon the innocent, so as to consume the innocent) moved incrementally to counterfeit the common law so as to gain power over the targeted population, and that is clearly shown as so-called "Equity," took market share from the common law process.

Now, as this information (I just found) shows so far, the move in America was in principle the same move. The Americans had escaped the criminals (under the color of law) in England (and diverse other places in Europe) to regain individual responsibility, individual accountability, or in a word: sovereignty (of the individual), as opposed to "collective" sovereignty deceptively transferred (against the knowledge, or will, of actual people) from individuals to a Legal Fiction, or State, or "government."

In both cases, the people policed themselves, as individuals do in nature, albeit with standardized common law processes, involving representatives chosen to positions known as Sherriffs, Justices of the Peace (pool for grand jurors in some cases), Grand Jurors, and Trial Jurors (Petty Jurors). The people themselves were prosecutors or defendants, not so-called "lawyers or attorneys" who (as far as my study goes so far) work for a "legal fiction,"  and assume (extort) immunity from persecution (not prosecution according to the common law), as is their accurate accountability turned on them like shinning the truth. They, meaning criminals posing as representatives of a fictional character (legal fiction), persecute, and they impose Summary JUSTus, as positions in their criminal gangs known as Equity, Exchequer, Maritime, Admiralty, Family, Nisi Prius, and various other false fronts before the false word Court Judges, dictate their (false) Law upon targeted victims who are not paying members of their group.

How is it known who is in, and who is out of, their group? Why is that at all difficult to account for with precision? If the people try a case of Treason, what is a likely form of restitution offered by the people, through their representatives in a trial by the country, to the ones found guilty of treason? If you don't know then it might be a good idea to find out.

Those in the so-called legal fiction group, which are those in what I call the criminal organization that operates under the color of law, typically torture and murder anyone who dares to leave, or "rat on," their fellow partners in crime: under the color of law.