The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?  (Read 4034 times)

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7576
Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« on: July 25, 2019, 09:19:13 pm »

As soon as I read that Jeffrey Epstein's case was to be reinvestigated and he had been apprehended and it was theorised (correctly I assume) that he was running a world-wide blackmail operation and could potentially "name names", I saw that this would happen.

Do you think it was a genuine suicide attempt on his part? Or that it was a botched attempt at killing him before he could talk?  Or that it was botched on purpose?  Perhaps as a warning, or some other motive?

Remember when Hillary Clinton famously said "we will all hang from nooses if I lose" (the election) in 2016, well I guess the possibility of people like Jeffrey Epstein ratting on his clientele, is what she was talking about.

https://summit.news/2019/07/25/ann-coulter-get-epstein-to-a-super-max-prison-before-he-is-suicided/

Ann Coulter is asking that the Bureau of Prisons move Jeffrey Epstein to a Super Max facility so that “the people who want him dead” won’t be able to hide their complicity in his sex trafficking crimes.
Epstein was found nearly unconscious in a fetal position inside his NYC jail cell yesterday, with the cause of his injuries unknown.
The incident became public at the same time as a report confirming that Epstein had visited the Clinton White House multiple times, contrary to Bill Clinton’s claims of limited contact with the billionaire.
Now Ann Coulter is calling for Epstein to be protected so that the powerful people complicit in his crimes do not go free.
“Dear Bureau of Prisons: Please get Jeffrey Epstein to a super Max prison pronto, or the people who want him dead will make sure we never know the truth. ACT NOW!” tweeted Coulter.

snip
« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 05:18:46 pm by mouse »
Logged

Joe Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2019, 01:08:42 pm »

Jeffrey Epstein could be effectively protected if the law power was in power in America, but it is not, and that same question works for everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Could ___fill-in-the-blank___ being "suicided," be prevented?

Put the name John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, and any name of anyone, anywhere, anytime in the crosshairs of those who wish to "suicide" someone, and what are the obvious answers for every one of them?

People are not protected in so-called "custody." The criminals run the law power. The people themselves run the law power when the law power is genuine. Solid proof of the fact that the criminals run the law power is abundant since so many people confess by their actions, and their words, that they are ignorant of this very fact: the people themselves run the law power: not the government.

If someone innocent (or guilty) is brought before the criminal versions of JUSTus, they are routinely consumed for profit, because that is how criminal versions of JUSTus work in actual reality. Criminal versions of JUSTus are working monopolies that cause the flow of power to begin flowing from a victim group - each victim in turn from birth to death - to a criminal group, and that flow of power is meticulously documented - unarguably - as a matter of fact.

Putting on a fantasy hat that wrongfully presumes that the powers-that-be (criminal), are in any way just, and in any way capable of following the law of the land: What would happen to secure the blessings of liberty for this Jeffrey Epstein (or any) alleged criminal?

The (or any) accusation of wrongdoing is passed from the accuser to someone who can then assemble an independent grand jury. If the grand jury is, in fact, independent, then the grand jurors command all jurisdiction civil and criminal in this case. They can, therefore, subpoena witnesses, including the original accuser.  The grand jurors, or someone more familiar with the actual law power, can inform these accusers that they voluntarily place their liberty, life, property, and reputation on the line as an official - not kidding, and no fingers crossed - witness to a criminal act perpetrated by a named perpetrator. Lying is fraud, fraud while serving as a witness is perjury. Accusers are subject to obvious and demonstrable counterclaims of False Accusation; what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the grand jurors find no cause (no probable cause to begin exerting the law power) they can place the accusation in the round file, and inform the witness that they have no cause to prosecute the case, but those grand jurors could inform the witnesses in the case of possible methods that the witnesses could employ in the future to ensure that probable cause is, in fact, established. The grand jurors can thereby excuse those nebulous witnesses and the grand jurors could, on their own authority, pursue the case as they see fit, if they see probable cause other than the nebulous witness testimony.

Here is where the laugh test ought to be employed. If witness after witness brings at least 10 tortured bodies to the “Grand Jury,” along with videotaped evidence recorded by the “accused” showing how those tortured bodies were tortured by the “accused,” and one of the “Grand Jurors” is the accused, then that would not be - laughably not be - an independent Grand Jury to some. To other people, I suppose, anything goes.

Since the case in question involves sufficient evidence to have already caused a Kangaroo court trial involving alleged multiple victims, and the alleged perpetrator has already placed on record a plea deal (which could have been extorted), it is likely that this case would breeze through the independent grand jury phase of a real trial according to the real law, and the presentment from a real grand jury would officially place on record the reasons why the cause moves into action mode: a jury trial by the country, according to the law of the land, which is the common law: not Equity, not Maritime, not Admiralty, not Family, not Military, or any other Summary Justice System of Plunder other than the law of the land, which is the common law.

Note: The actual common law has been counterfeited in England, and that is well documented. The actual common law involves a trial by the people, not a trial by the so-called legal fiction sovereign fake being, or fake government with a black-robed devil worshiper swinging absolute JUSTus and a little hammer.

So, there are the particulars concerning how the accused, who is free to protect himself as best he can, leading up to an offer by the people, who are represented in this case by the grand jurors, for the accused to clear his name, liberty, property, and reputation in open, public, trial by the country, with the help of the government if the government is actually a government. If the government is just another despotic criminal organization operating under a very thin color of law, then anything goes, just ask them, obey them, and don’t question their dictates or else.

If the accused refuses to appear in a trial by the country, then by the actions of the accused - confession by action - the accused willfully chooses to become an outlaw in fact. If the accused is in danger, likely to be assaulted for merely appearing in front of armed bandits (with or without badges), then clearly that alone can excuse someone from attending a dangerous situation which threatens their life, liberty, property, security, health, well-being, independence, freedom, etc.

If you go around doing onto other people that which you would fight tooth and nail to prevent having the same done to you, then it is unreasonable to expect peace in your lifetime. The real law is natural law, you get what you pay for, even if it was falsely advertised.   



 

 

 

Logged

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7576
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2019, 02:56:53 am »

They are saying the same thing on several sites, even mainstream, is it that obvious?  If so, it's really insulting if the mainstream media (after an Epstein "suicide") turn round and claim that it was a genuine suicide and then "move on folks, nothing to see here ….."

This is the "Sun" - hardly known as a "right wing" rag (but definitely a "rag") and yet more "alternative" sites (many of them) say that an Epstein "suicide" is a sure thing.

what do you think?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9605078/jeffrey-epsteins-life-in-jeopardy-pals-dont-want-secrets-out/

JEFFREY Epstein's life may be in danger as his powerful pals do not want him to reveal their secrets, his victims' lawyer has claimed.
Spencer Kuvin, who represents three of the billionaire perv's sex trafficking accusers, threw doubt on claims the financier attempted suicide.

Epstein was found "sprawled on the floor" and "blue in the face" in a New York jail, last Tuesday according to reports.
Investigators are still probing whether it was a suicide attempt or if the shamed 66-year-old was attacked.

Now Kuvin believes Epstein knows so much dirt about his rich and famous friends that there may be some individuals willing to organise a "hit" on him to prevent that information ever getting out.
"I question whether or not it was a true suicide attempt that Mr Epstein was involved in in jail or whether or not there may be some powerful people who just don’t want him to talk," Kuvin told Sun Online.

snip
Logged

Joe Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2019, 02:12:45 pm »

Perhaps the following is worth considering concerning this matter and broader matters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6-gUqNPi4I
Logged

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6852
    • End the War on Freedom
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2019, 04:33:03 pm »

Perhaps the following is worth considering concerning this matter and broader matters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6-gUqNPi4I

For those who would rather not click on video links without some idea of what's in them, it's a video posted by Steve Pieczenik of a guy who claims that the Epstein pedophilia ring is a Mossad operation that goes back decades. I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

Joe Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2019, 08:51:35 pm »

"I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more."

I can posit, of course at risk of obvious consequences.

My posited notion concerning the quote above is what I will call the Ostridge syndrome. Unwanted information inspires the Ostridge to not only stick the sensory mechanism into darkness, said Ostridge leaves a warning sign to any similarly constituted Ostridges: stick head in the sand now.

I've been on forums for over 30 years now, and it isn't so much that the general population cannot be all satisfied with the information offered by so many varied perspectives, rather the routine is such that the so-called moderators claim to fill the demand for those fact-based, or potentially fact-based perspectives, while those same so-called moderators are the first to stick their heads in the sand, and insist upon the righteousness of doing so.

The hideousness of worldwide consumption of posterity is hardly more evident in what has now become "human trafficking." Children, extracted from mothers prior to birth, in pieces, well I didn't want that in my head anymore. Children (posterity) brainwashed as slaves from birth to death, nope, don't want that in my head anymore. Children kidnapped and sold for body parts, again not something I want in my head anymore. Children forced into poverty, by obvious, less obvious, and very well hidden mechanisms, and sold into what? Is it righteously called Satanism?  I don't want that anywhere near my head anymore. One of the moments that this fake “legalized” consuming of posterity became current events in my head was an obscure (censored) documentary titled The Conspiracy of Silence; an apt title.

I don’t want that in my head anymore. 

I'll save the Ostridge gang the trouble of allowing such unwanted information to pierce their sterilized, secure, environment, and for those constituted with some vague duty to know the truth, and provide for it, those exceptions to the rule (non-ostridges) can find the title of the documentary if they so choose.

I suppose that this is again off-topic, daring to move the topic from Jeffery Epstein, and moving the topic to someone named Steve, as Steve offers some names of people who are known associates of Jeffery Epstein, such as:

“Court papers put daughter of Robert Maxwell at centre of ‘sex slave’ claims”  That is a title of a “News” Article, with a reference to a Kangaroo Court Case in the Plantation known as Florida.

Of course, that may be as poor a choice for information as is listening to a fictional character named Jack Ryan, but there are so-called (kangaroo) Court documents, for whatever that may be worth to any current or future ostridge.

Everyone is lying or sticking their heads in the sand?

You tell me, please.

In law (a verb) a suspected perpetrator is offered a trial by jury, which is a trial by the country, and 12 randomly selected people who represent the whole country to determine fact, law, guilt or innocence, remedy, restitution, or punishment, attempt to get all the facts in the case, it is their duty in fact.   

In a world run by criminals, the plebes know when to stick their heads in the sand.

"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."
Logged

Tahn L.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2020
  • Neither Predator Nor Prey
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2019, 11:05:28 am »

Joe Kelly,

 To imply that Bill St. Clair is refusing to acknowledge reality, (ostrich syndrome) by not chasing down every iota of evil is to be unaware of how much Bill has helped and promoted freedom for the last several decades, both here and elsewhere. Not wanting to smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician, is NOT the same as being "unaware". I believe you have done him a great disservice by your erroneous implication, not that he probably cares about your uppity superiority, nor would most of the thousands of people who have read and followed his postings and quest to promote freedom over the years. 

Bill, THANK YOU for sharing your few minutes of watching that crap, so I did not have to. I join you in not wanting that stuff in my head.

Tahn

Logged
All human beings have two dogs within them. A good dog and an evil dog. The evil dog is always attacking and fighting the good dog. Which one wins?
The one you feed!
  Native American Story

Government is a meme, woven within a supporting memeplex.

Who ever frames the argument, kicks ass.

From MamaLiberty; "The Price of Liberty (is) self ownership, self control, integrity and non-aggression."

"The lust to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil". MamaLiberty

Joe Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2019, 02:58:55 pm »

"To imply that Bill St. Clair is refusing to acknowledge reality,..."

Did I imply (strongly suggest something), or did someone other than me infer something? Why not just ask? Dictatorial people tend to put words in other people's mouths as if the dictator has a sock puppet. The concept of dictation is one-way communication. The shoe does not fit me. My point had to do more with the process known as gatekeeping.

"...not chasing down every iota of evil is..."

That is called hyperbole, added to a false claim of implication concerning an inference. Why is attack mode the default mode? Why not simply ask? That shoe does not fit me either.

"... smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician..."

That is potentially libelous, but certainly not in that form. Someone is waving an indiscriminate finger at an unspecified evil. Who is an evil politician according to the one making that claim? Who fits that shoe? 

"Not wanting to smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician, is NOT the same as being "unaware"."

Who said that the one thing claimed is not the other thing claimed? I did not. This is the Man-of-Straw process. It is routine. The creator of the Man-of Straw puts a fallacious process of thought out into the data stream. Who fits that shoe? I do not. I don't know anyone who fits that shoe. Perhaps the one who created that shoe has in mind someone to fit that shoe on; Cinderella?

A sign was placed in the path of information as such: "I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more."

Does the gatekeeper shoe fit on the author of those two sentences, in the context of this topic?

It looked to me like someone was warning other people about information that they have judged to be unworthy of credit. I can be mistaken. Some people will read that warning sign, read it as a warning, such as keep out, and those people may take that advice. The information does not flow to those people, because they obey the warning sign, that gate is thereby closed by that gatekeeper. Other people may read that sign and be inspired with greater curiosity. The obvious intent (at least as far as my ability to infer such a thing as motive) is discredit aimed at someone or anyone who might credit the information that exists on the other side of that closed gate.

"I believe you have done him a great disservice by your erroneous implication..."

You have inferred something about what you read. I can tell you as many times, in as many words, as possible, to let you know that your inference as to my intended implication is incorrect, at least as far as I am able to find the intended meanings of your words. In your mind, as far as I can tell, you have determined, on your own authority, what my intention “is”, and you have formed a belief concerning your ability to find the intended meaning of my words. Is your trust in your belief accurate or something else? Do you understand the difference between an inference (in your control) and an implication (something I am in control of while I write)?

"...not that he probably cares about your uppity superiority..."

That is called an ad-hominem attack.

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

You do not know me, you have no idea (very likely false ideas based upon your resort to ad-hominem attacks) what is, or is not, my character flaws, of which there are many, and all that is beside the point: off-topic.

"...nor would most of the thousands of people who have read and followed his postings and quest to promote freedom over the years."

If it acts like a gatekeeper, then perhaps it is a gatekeeper. How would one know without asking?

Is it an example of gatekeeping?

Was there already a Court Case in Florida involving the daughter of Robert Maxwell? Is that on-topic? Who might be targetting Jeffrey Epstein? Who might have a clue as to what might be possible if the idea was to prevent a false suicide, which would be an assassination, of Jeffrey Epstein? If someone, or a lot of people, ignore the information from sources like Steve Pieczenik, why - what is the motive - in doing so?

What is the stated motive?

"Bill, THANK YOU for sharing your few minutes of watching that crap, so I did not have to. I join you in not wanting that stuff in my head."

If there is an actual trial, a trial by the people themselves, not a trial by the fake government, then is it possible that the flow of innocent lives flowing into a figurative meat grinder will abate? If the bird is dead, it don't sing; that gate is closed too.
 




 

 

 
Logged

Tahn L.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2020
  • Neither Predator Nor Prey
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2019, 06:59:35 pm »

"I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more."

I can posit, of course at risk of obvious consequences.

My posited notion concerning the quote above is what I will call the Ostridge syndrome. Unwanted information inspires the Ostridge to not only stick the sensory mechanism into darkness, said Ostridge leaves a warning sign to any similarly constituted Ostridges: stick head in the sand now.



Joe Kelley,

 You are the one who quoted Bill and "posited" that he was guilty of "the ostrich syndrome". If I, in my ignorance of language, misinterpreted your statement, then I apologize.

Tahn   
Logged
All human beings have two dogs within them. A good dog and an evil dog. The evil dog is always attacking and fighting the good dog. Which one wins?
The one you feed!
  Native American Story

Government is a meme, woven within a supporting memeplex.

Who ever frames the argument, kicks ass.

From MamaLiberty; "The Price of Liberty (is) self ownership, self control, integrity and non-aggression."

"The lust to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil". MamaLiberty

Joe Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2019, 05:57:01 pm »

Posit:
"assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument."

Assuming something, or presuming something, is akin to a hypothesis, which is an idea, which is not a belief, not a conclusion, not a determination, not a judgment, rather it is a "basis" from which to discuss a specific topic from a specified (assumed) point of view. See also rhetoric; as in a rhetorical question.

rhetorical question:
"a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer."

I prefer not to use the word argument, and I prefer to employ the process known as discussion. To me, a discussion is a voluntary effort in which many participants offer their limited viewpoints in the effort to construct an improved viewpoint that is made up of many diverse viewpoints, on a specified topic. The concept of "argument" tends to illicit a winner take all battle of viewpoints, and typically anything goes, as the saying suggests: All is fair in love and war (war with words).

"If I, in my ignorance of language, misinterpreted your statement, then I apologize." 

I also apologize for my many character flaws that are painfully obvious to almost everyone save for myself. I can't seem to say anything without either being too wordy, too brief, insulting, boasting, meek, combative, confusing, boring, nonsensical, you name it, I'm guilty.

The topic is if anything a topic about gatekeeping. If the bird can be disappeared, it won't sing anymore. If, on the other hand, the song being sung can be employed factually, so as to account for specific actions done to innocent people by specific guilty people, then those on deck to do the same evil things may think twice out of concern for suffering the same focus of attention in their evil ways.

Nicomachean Ethics
By Aristotle
Written 350 B.C.E
"Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

"Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit."

Logged

slidemansailor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4225
  • A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves
    • The Bitterroot Bugle
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2019, 07:38:02 pm »

Appropos of nothing much, I just remembered the "IGNORE" switch. 
Logged
If you don't work for liberty,  you don't get it.

http://BitterrootBugle.com/

casca-503

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2019, 08:39:55 am »

slideman,  agree....enough   time   wasted   on   this   feces..../   those   rich ...crooked...pedaphyles ... politicians...or...not...deserve ....lamp   post   decoration   justice....some  here   being   far  too   verbose,   me   thinks....
Logged

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6852
    • End the War on Freedom
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2019, 09:55:56 am »

I often enjoy Joe Kelly's posts, though he tends to be overly wordy, sort of like Elias. 😈

I've caused myself much anger over similar things in the past. I have not noticed that my expressions of that anger have done ANYTHING to change the world. I've decided that treating with kindness the people the universe places physically close to me is more important to me than hunting down every one of the thousands of travesties that happen every day far away. If that's ostrich syndrome, then I own it, proudly.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

Joe Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2019, 02:21:01 pm »

"If that's ostrich syndrome, then I own it, proudly."

The shoe was not meant to fit anyone that does not fit into the shoe, and I hope that these are not too many words, or too few.

Discussion is the real law power, as for example investigatory jurors deliberate in the effort to share viewpoints as to the right or wrong of ignoring false or trivial accusations, and the right or wrong of presenting legitimate accused individuals with a trial date, so as to offer the accused their equal footing of real law power. Similarly trial jurors deliberately deliberate in the effort to constitute a true representation of the whole country of people in the location where an accuser has accused an accused individual of something worthy of unleashing the whole country into action in the effort to remedy a conflict.

Someone creating a pond, on their own authority, on their own land, to then provide water in case of fire that endangers life in the area, is not a terrorist in my view. I am one of those who constitute the whole country of people in the location where I locate. Someone kidnapping babies, or children, or young adults, or adults, or middle-aged people, or old people, and using those enslaved people for amusement or profit is a serial perpetrator of treasonous, heinous, capital, felonies. I would most certainly put my 2 cents into a presentment that moves a Jeffery Epstein from freeholder at liberty to accused, presumed to be innocent, defendant stating his case before the whole country represented in a trial jury in a trial by the country, if I were afforded the opportunity to do so by my fellow Americans. I would do that in the location where I locate because the accused is accused by someone in my location for having perpetrated the accused crimes in my location, according to what remains of the common law in my location.

If we the people have been corralled, cajoled, enticed, or otherwise controlled into becoming a single Nation State, then we are one country now, not many independent localities formed into independent individuals, families, towns, cities, counties, Nation States (example: Rhode Island), and all those independent, sovereign, entities, voluntarily formed into a Federation for our mutual defense of our lives, liberties, property, and our common law.

If, on the other hand, we the people afford each other as much law power as we voluntarily take upon our own authority, then we ought to learn from history and mind our own business in our own jurisdictions that extend roughly as far as we can afford to relocate when duty or necessity requires.

An assembly of the most discrete and honest among us in that area we all can afford to police on our own authority constitutes a grand jury in fact, not in fiction. Imagine a counter virus that works like a cure for the cancer of malfeasance in office and in each sovereign (independent) individual law power, those counter virus empowered people work effectively to discover, find, locate, become aware of, and inspire those who are most discrete and honest, and all of these counter viruses actually form those historic, ancient, cures for the cancer of malfeasance in office, those grand juries in those localities in every area where the common law has always been, and will always be, in power, if we decide to access it.

What would a presentment look like concerning anyone in any office anywhere in each town, city, county, State, or Federation of States? Which one would be good enough? Which presentment would constitute the cause to act in defense of all those slaves yet to be born, all those slaves just born, all those slaves yet to learn how to speak, and all those slaves yet to be shown either lawful behavior or the opposite?

If the shoe doesn’t fit then you don’t wear the shoe.

"Responsibility must be individual, or there is no responsibility at all."
Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, 1852

If you decided to volunteer to be a grand juror, and you were faced with a go or no go decision to place Jeffery Epstein (or anyone similar in your location) before a trial by the country (trial by jury) to state his case, would you help document a legible presentment, and if so what message would you place into a court of record in that, or a similar, case?

 

 

 

 

Logged

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4918
  • TMM
Re: Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2019, 03:12:54 pm »

As soon as I read that Jeffrey Epstein's case was to be reinvestigated and he had been apprehended and it was theorised (correctly I assume) that he was running a world-wide blackmail operation and could potentially "name names", I saw that this would happen.

Do you think it was a genuine suicide attempt on his part? Or that it was a botched attempt at killing him before he could talk?  Or that it was botched on purpose?  Perhaps as a warning, or some other motive?

Remember when Hillary Clinton famously said "we will all hang from nooses if I lose" (the election) in 2016, well I guess the possibility of people like Jeffrey Epstein ratting on his clientele, is what she was talking about.

https://summit.news/2019/07/25/ann-coulter-get-epstein-to-a-super-max-prison-before-he-is-suicided/

Ann Coulter is asking that the Bureau of Prisons move Jeffrey Epstein to a Super Max facility so that “the people who want him dead” won’t be able to hide their complicity in his sex trafficking crimes.
Epstein was found nearly unconscious in a fetal position inside his NYC jail cell yesterday, with the cause of his injuries unknown.
The incident became public at the same time as a report confirming that Epstein had visited the Clinton White House multiple times, contrary to Bill Clinton’s claims of limited contact with the billionaire.
Now Ann Coulter is calling for Epstein to be protected so that the powerful people complicit in his crimes do not go free.
“Dear Bureau of Prisons: Please get Jeffrey Epstein to a super Max prison pronto, or the people who want him dead will make sure we never know the truth. ACT NOW!” tweeted Coulter.

snip

Yo, mouse --
Am sure you've heard by now, but let's add this story which broke on Saturday, August 10, 2019.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/jeffrey-epstein-accused-sex-trafficker-dies-suicide-officials-125649444--abc-news-topstories.html

Hanging himself in a suicide-prevention cell would call for some fairly competent help, yes/no?

So this shows us at least some degree of depth in the Deep State.

Jeez!

Salute!
Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up