CDZ A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution

[Christophera]

Some history and a description of the environment our lawful and peaceful revolution will take place in America.

Since the very first framing document in 1776, the right to alter or abolish government destructive to rights has been a primary intent of the framers. The later 1787 constitution codified it as Article V. Both define our right to a lawful and peaceful revolution.

Thomas Jefferson envisioned such a revolution every generation. By the early 1800's, it's fairly visible in his writing that he is wondering why there hasn't been one and wants to see one.

A couple of factors seem to be controlling. One, there was a constant influx of immigrants that were not familiar with the options of protecting rights and freedoms. Two, the printed word seems to have pandered to the sensations a great deal. Ostensibly for profits, but also, basically diverting American focus from protecting rights and freedoms to social sensations or greed and fantasy. Easily an agenda of the elite.

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Indicating a lot of misleading may have been common,

It turns out a factor of human psychology tied to physiology could very easily be to blame, even exploited. Because of left and right hemisphere control over perceptional capacity and potentials, what is spoken and heard always uses cognitive capacity whereas writing or reading, might be done without as much cognitive capacity.

A factor relating to the control over newspapers plagued Lincoln. They would mostly not print his speeches. He spoke a great deal, but only those hearing knew what he had said, and for the most part were very impressed. Very few of his campaign speeches were published even in part. One that was was in his home state, Illinois stand out. From that 1859 speech we learn he was an avid supporter of an Article V convention with the impressive passage, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

Clearly, Lincoln could only be working for an Article V convention to try and avert civil war. But, the elements that wanted war controlled the printing presses, so his thoughts on preserving the union peacefully were not written. What was written were the words inflaming anger and resentment towards the south.* Coupling that with the many speeches against the south created a desire for war amongst many people of the north despite the fact that the north was all but impoverished.

Herein we have an opening for an old enemy of rights and freedoms. The descendants of king john and the barons who signed the Magna Carta. The main financiers of the union army. Some say the Rothschild money was primary. A friend did research while in the north east about 15 years ago and found that Tory influence in Nova Scotia was the destination of 40 shiploads of machine tools for making weapons that were brought in by trains of heavy wagons for for months across the northern borders.

At any rate, there was a very quiet takeover and abandonment of the 1787 constitution that occurred with the act of 1871. And that, in advanced form, is what we are confronting today in our federal government.

That infiltration of course, always has and does, oppose Article V, our right to a lawful and peaceful revolution.

At this point the issue of covert manipulation infiltrating American activism on the internet and elsewhere should be mentioned. Some of it originates from the UK or other commonwealth countries.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...-manipulation/

Other sources could be from the US.

Obama confidant s spine-chilling proposal - Salon.com

Basically their agenda is to prevent Americans from understanding and unifying around any strategy that could politically upset their current control or lead to any unity whatsoever opposing their agendas. Simply keeping Americans focused on the wrong things is plenty to block understanding which is the key to unity. Partisan politics is certainly a mainstay of preventing this revolution and always has been.

The observant and objective member on web forums has certainly noticed this.

Accordingly, members here that refuse to agree or accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish, could easily be covert agents or very much influenced by them. Particularly if involved with attacks against the concept. Others that will no agree with that purpose of free speech could easily be simply influenced by the infiltration and be acting within what have become normal and natural social fears. This is what cognitive infiltration hopes for and depends upon. So by no means am I implying everyone is a cognitive infiltrator. I am saying there are quite a few agents and most everyone has been influenced to varying degrees by the false agreement exhibited between the infiltrators regarding the purpose of free speech as well as other political issues.

The legal and constitutional mechanisms of our lawful and peaceful revolution.

This is actually an exceedingly simple plan. It's based on natural law, which is by definition almost a no-brainer. Our instincts provide the prime criteria for acceptance.

This prime criteria is "the purpose of free speech". Seriously, all of our rights have a purpose. I focus on that because many Americans know the key words of the Declaration of Independence (DOI) well enough from memory to confirm what I assert. Americans do know enough of the DOI by heart to simply use the logic and reason I put forth to prove my point when I describe the purpose of free speech. The infiltration exposes itself with unreasonable opposition to the purpose of free speech with each failure to be accountable and reasonable. They can never be either, it is a lose-lose for them.

The ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the peoples unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

The odds philosophically are heavily in our favor as free people under our constitution or law because the constitution or the documents which framed its intent include the biologically correct philosophies of natural law. Our social, phylogenetic instincts in action reacting and relating to one another under stress in pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (notice the order there) guide us towards survival.

The purpose of free speech prevails in discussion because of logic, inference and obvious constitutional intent.

The point is that if free speech does not have the purpose of enabling the unity adequate to empower the peoples action of "alter or abolish", what does?

No one has ever answered that question reasonably. The people win! By default the purpose of free speech under law is PROVEN by default, everyday one of those deniers (agents) fails to produce a description of what creates unity if free speech does not have that purpose.

Free speech is in essence the second constitutional right or intent we can actively engage to defend the constitution. It is in support of the first right we can engage; the right to alter or abolish; because free speech can create an understanding, which is the backbone of unity.

Two other aspects, basic rights empowering true representative government are secured in preparation for the full fledged Article V convention. Fair and just elections and fair campaigning. This addresses any election fraud, the potentials for electronic manipulation as well as the citizens united decision. For a time, campaign finance will likely leave the realm of "freedom of expression" because economic power has failed to show it can avoid placing greed over the principles of the republic. Someday, if the powerful learn, they will again be allowed to contribute to our betterment by using developed discretion parallel to constitutional intent for $ to politicians, if they learn constitutional intent and act to serve it properly, constitutionally. Exhibiting an INTENT to unify, as in "united states".

That convention will occur in social conditions far different than we now know. Because of the manifestation of free speech through mass media our adaptation to needed change will be underway. The stern restrictive dominance of fearfully obedient consumership will evaporate leaving openness to difficult truths with their logical implication of reasoned, logical, acceptable sacrifices.

In that, human creative nature will begin to find the intellectual and emotional rewards of living lives focused on continuity for future generations rather than condemned consumption for comfort and false security. Being badly used and exploited to support conquest of empire is a miserable awareness no matter how much of it one carries.

All in all, there are basically three amendments to the constitution to be considered as preparatory amendment for the purpose of making the nation of people more constitutional so they may properly define constitutional intent. Until that capacity to define intent is determined, no further amendment of any kind should take place, unless numerous states already have applications in on similar, proposed amendments.

After the preparatory amendment and the end of the abridging of free speech, there will be an era of truth telling. This will rock our sheltered world, which is no less than a form of "designer reality". The purpose of free speech will be creating truly deep unity where nearly none had existed before.

Part of that will be some new web forums that enable informed opinion quickly in an environment where covert agents can get no traction. From that, and their polling features, will come developed awareness and capacity to define or articulate constitutional intent. Those places on the internet will bear the proof of American peoples capacity to be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts to be witnessed by the people themselves.

But none of that describes the transition from partisan controlled politics inside of a media shell of misleading division to something with the dynamics needed to form state legislatures into leadership tools of and for the people. Or, State legislatures capable of unifying in control over the federal government via the amendments to the federal constitution 3/4 of them can make by ratification. This is not a re-write of the constitution. This is a very carefully considered set of adjustments that expose, remove an old infiltration while preventing any new ones.

The states created the federal government and by amendment can alter parts of it and abolish others. But still, the people must define constitutional intent to shape states to lead to a republic by and for the people.

Accordingly there is a needed transition period of great contention in 3/4 of the states. It is a time where a minority, who is exceedingly vocal and sure of itself, asserts itself with regard to the purpose of free speech with other constitutional intent, to the states legislations imposing upon them legal, constitutional tests lawfully over all state officials. For the corrupt it is a challenge, for the sincere American leader it is an invitation and honor.

There will be a parallel to the official test, which will be made upon media to either get publicity or expose the media entity as working against the constitution and the people.

The exposures will often occur in courts, or also expose courts. Very quickly, when these challenges become legal questions in courts, corrupt courts will refuse to hear the cases whereupon the challenge will move to another court which will honor constitutional intent with lawful recognition from true legal authority under the constitution.

In this way, media will be initially and lawfully be controlled because under the doctrine of purpose, which free speech must have for the constitution and republic under it to stand, government, and it's courts have a duty to enable American unity upon prime constitutional intent and preserve freedom of the press.

In this way states will be assembled one by one into representing the peoples burning need for unity in their task of defeating the infiltration and conversion of the federal government from something resembling less and less, one nation under God, into a nation respecting its natural, human purposes to survive and adapt perpetually.



And this is how it shall be, if we are to be free.



What follows is a step by step breakdown in summary, with the sequence of testing state officials for adequate constitutionality to lead states.

It begins with an enquiry by petition to state officials-Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

A) Test officials and candidates for acceptance of the root purpose of free speech being to assure information vital to unity needed to alter or abolish is shared and understood.

B)Test officials and candidates for acceptance of root purpose of free speech as prime constitutional intent used to create unity to conduct Article V with constitutional intent as the prime right for the purpose of protecting unalienable rights.

C) As an official of government, can you accept that EVERY American can understand and accept A)?

D) Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmark...al-convention/

Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-...n-applications

E) Can you understand and accept that any state legislator that cannot accept A), can be impeached in this constitutional emergency as being unfit for office?

F)Can you understand and accept that A) B) C) D) & E) are legal process and that IF citizens act with D) as justification, and E) to complete the legal process, they WILL be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" BECAUSE their states, as led by the people, then will agree that proper preparation for Article V consists of;

1) Amend Article V to assure the right to "alter or abolish" is enforceable under law by including preparatory amendment as a requirement.

2) End the abridging of free speech.

3) Securing the vote.

4) Campaign finance reform.

G) Americans need to agree that Officials of states and federal government must accept that such preparation by amendment is completely constitutional and can only enable democratic assertion of the principles of the republic, and, once complete; WHEREUPON all amendment should cease until America can be certain it is competent to Article V by testing itself to assure it knows and can define constitutional intent

 

[Josf]

The half truth above is definitely worthy of knowing in my opinion. The whole truth is such that the methods for peaceful revolution included trial by jury according to the common law.

So there you have the half truth in full view, since the half truth is nothing but a cover-up of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This whole truth idea was not at all covered up on many minds that flourished at the time of the signing of a Declaration of Independence, which was proof positive that the truth was self-evident concerning the already existing free people, in free countries/states/republics, preserving the palladium of liberty, which was trial by jury, ALREADY formed into a voluntary, free market, mutually beneficial, defense association, known as a federation.

The half truth covers-up that fact above, whereby it is indisputably factual, that the federation already existed in order for there to be a Declaration of Independence for the free people in those federated states.

Now this half truth of the one and only method by which free people are allowed to defend themselves against criminals who take-over their voluntary defensive government power with a so called Article V instruction book, as if that were the whole truth, which is it certainly not the whole truth, since those who were against the original Con Con Con Job made it perfectly clear that the criminals were behind the original Con Con Con Job in 1787 when the voluntary (liberty) nature of the voluntary federation was thrown out, and the involuntary (slavery) nature was brought into criminal force at the end of a lie, the end of terrorizing threat, and the end of a bayonet or sabre wielded by a tyrant leading a mercenary or slave army of aggression for profit.

All that happened, that entire usurpation happened, well before the individual going by the name Lincoln was even born. And it was certainly something known already by Jefferson, who was not invited to the criminal take-over, the Con Con of 1787, and who, this man Jefferson, explained in no uncertain terms what was destroyed by the Con Con, and the criminals who fraudulently perpetrated that usurpation in 1787, when Jefferson combined forces with the FORMER (false) Federalist sympathizer (traitor) James Madison, when they wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

It was well known at the time of the RATification process that the current organized crime bosses owned most of the newspapers and their fealty was an oath of allegiance to the false Federalist Party members who included George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams. George Washington assembled an army of conscripts (slaves) to invade Pennsylvania in 1794 to collect the newly formed National Debt scam run by Alexander Hamilton and other fraudulent central banking cabal members. John Adams proved his criminal mind with the enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts. By that time Jefferson was aware of the usurpation and by that time Madison had turned his coat back to blue and Liberty.

It was repeated in the then existing free press, where blue, liberty, patriots still managed to get the word out, how the plans of the criminals perpetrating the Con Con Con Job of 1787, this RAT version of a Constitution, would, certainly, inspire people into fighting each other in a so called Civil War. The free press published the writings of the opponents of the RATification process, while the turncoat, corporate, criminal press published the lies of the false Federalist Party members. That is uncontroversial since the whistle blowers inside the Secret Meetings in Philadelphia in 1787 proved, beyond doubt, that those people calling themselves Federalists during RATification where the same people working in the Con Con Con Job in Philadelphia to "consolidate" all the formerly free states into one National government. The false Federalists were Nationalists at best, and closet monarchists, tyrants, slave traders, and fraudulent central bankers in fact: NOT Federalists. The true federalists included famous names like Richard Henry Lee, who was the 6th president of the united states in congress assembled, George Mason who attended the Con Con Con Job of 1787 in Philadelphia refusing to sign the dirty compromise, and the same George Mason directly responsible for the Bill of Rights later amending the criminal version of a constitution, Patrick Henry whose RAT smelling sense was directly attributed to the stench of false Federalism, Robert Yates and Luther Martin, also attending the Con Con and blowing the whistle, no different in principle as the vital work of sounding the alarm done by Paul Revere in the earlier moments of clear and present threats to the Liberty of free people already secure in their working federation that worked well enough to drive out the largest criminal army of OVERT aggression for profit then on the planet.

Half true often covers up something. The process by which free people have been know to find the whole truth is also known as the palladium of liberty, trial by jury, the law of the land, common law, and legem terrae, at least that was known well before the criminals took over and reestablished their foreign, fraudulent, criminal, treasonous, corporate, legal fiction, war debt collection, or extortion payment, agency then, and even now knowable as Admiralty.

 

[Christophera]

The half truth above is definitely worthy of knowing in my opinion. The whole truth is such that the methods for peaceful revolution included trial by jury according to the common law.

One of the goals of a lawful and peaceful revolution should be the return of common law jurisdiction in courts, as well as jury nullification.

This whole truth idea was not at all covered up on many minds that flourished at the time of the signing of a Declaration of Independence, which was proof positive that the truth was self-evident concerning the already existing free people,

Most importantly there is that "the Americans" were unified. Amongst the people were the loyalist Tories working against the Americans. They schemed and plotted to corrupt the unity of the Americans with treasonous guile of secret funding of networks of newspapers well trained to consistently misrepresent the truth while exploiting human social weaknesses.

Then, to not mention the influence of the Masonic order is pure fearful negligence. Within their ranks were competing factions, some good, some not so good.

We have to track Benjamin Franklin to the Hellfire cave to know how the best of it is anchored in a history of rebellion and freedom with rights reaching from the Magna Carta. A completely misrepresented period and event. Understanding, and what the hell Barons were doing in England explains far more than any could imagine.

in free countries/states/republics, preserving the palladium of liberty, which was trial by jury, ALREADY formed into a voluntary, free market, mutually beneficial, defense association, known as a federation.

Yes, a loosely formed federation and defense was a bigger deal
then, or at least in the minds of Americans.

The half truth covers-up that fact above, whereby it is indisputably factual, that the federation already existed in order for there to be a Declaration of Independence for the free people in those federated states.

Largely correct, but functionally, the most dominant feature was a form of unity that is based in understanding. The understanding came from having accurate information. That naturally formed a federation from which came the Declaration of Independence.

That structure of accurate information, opinion forming and community resolve spreading throughout the colonies WAS the purpose of free speech working.

Now this half truth of the one and only method by which free people are allowed to defend themselves against criminals who take-over their voluntary defensive government power with a so called Article V instruction book,

The criminals are led by loyalist Tories, and still are. The loyalists breed them like dogs to set them hounding bastions of independence that underly true freedom. This is done over generations while newspapers constantly misinformed, mislead and incited nonsense political positions.

Article V has no handbook. It is left to those who realize the constitutional intent formulating in 1776. The who realize that intent stand fast with the service of the purpose of free speech in creating real unity.

Unity that can faithfully take the intent of "alter or abolish" and hammer Article V into a functional tool forging that effect.

It was well known at the time of the RATification process that the current organized crime bosses owned most of the newspapers and their fealty was an oath of allegiance to the false Federalist Party members

And because the facts of unconscious control that are a part of Masonry could not be socially known, the dynamics of falsity could not be explored effectively, leaving time and misinformed democratic majority to unknowing accept unconstitutional compromise over and over.

The point of this thread is not to rehash the past, but rather to correct a deficiency which can secure the future. To understand that the American framers, had a form of unity they did not fully appreciate, so did not; or were diverted by loyalists from including the basis for it in 1776 or 1792.

Meaning the full implications of it must be spelled out now and implemented by Americans NOW. Or, our rights and freedoms may permanently be complexly compromised.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The half truth above is definitely worthy of knowing in my opinion. The whole truth is such that the methods for peaceful revolution included trial by jury according to the common law.

One of the goals of a lawful and peaceful revolution should be the return of common law jurisdiction in courts, as well as jury nullification.

This whole truth idea was not at all covered up on many minds that flourished at the time of the signing of a Declaration of Independence, which was proof positive that the truth was self-evident concerning the already existing free people,

Most importantly there is that "the Americans" were unified. Amongst the people were the loyalist Tories working against the Americans. They schemed and plotted to corrupt the unity of the Americans with treasonous guile of secret funding of networks of newspapers well trained to consistently misrepresent the truth while exploiting human social weaknesses.

Then, to not mention the influence of the Masonic order is pure fearful negligence. Within their ranks were competing factions, some good, some not so good.

We have to track Benjamin Franklin to the Hellfire cave to know how the best of it is anchored in a history of rebellion and freedom with rights reaching from the Magna Carta. A completely misrepresented period and event. Understanding, and what the hell Barons were doing in England explains far more than any could imagine.

in free countries/states/republics, preserving the palladium of liberty, which was trial by jury, ALREADY formed into a voluntary, free market, mutually beneficial, defense association, known as a federation.

Yes, a loosely formed federation and defense was a bigger deal
then, or at least in the minds of Americans.

The half truth covers-up that fact above, whereby it is indisputably factual, that the federation already existed in order for there to be a Declaration of Independence for the free people in those federated states.

Largely correct, but functionally, the most dominant feature was a form of unity that is based in understanding. The understanding came from having accurate information. That naturally formed a federation from which came the Declaration of Independence.

That structure of accurate information, opinion forming and community resolve spreading throughout the colonies WAS the purpose of free speech working.

Now this half truth of the one and only method by which free people are allowed to defend themselves against criminals who take-over their voluntary defensive government power with a so called Article V instruction book,

The criminals are led by loyalist Tories, and still are. The loyalists breed them like dogs to set them hounding bastions of independence that underly true freedom. This is done over generations while newspapers constantly misinformed, mislead and incited nonsense political positions.

Article V has no handbook. It is left to those who realize the constitutional intent formulating in 1776. The who realize that intent stand fast with the service of the purpose of free speech in creating real unity.

Unity that can faithfully take the intent of "alter or abolish" and hammer Article V into a functional tool forging that effect.

It was well known at the time of the RATification process that the current organized crime bosses owned most of the newspapers and their fealty was an oath of allegiance to the false Federalist Party members

And because the facts of unconscious control that are a part of Masonry could not be socially known, the dynamics of falsity could not be explored effectively, leaving time and misinformed democratic majority to unknowing accept unconstitutional compromise over and over.

The point of this thread is not to rehash the past, but rather to correct a deficiency which can secure the future. To understand that the American framers, had a form of unity they did not fully appreciate, so did not; or were diverted by loyalists from including the basis for it in 1776 or 1792.

Meaning the full implications of it must be spelled out now and implemented by Americans NOW. Or, our rights and freedoms may permanently be complexly compromised.

Hyperbolic, unfounded nonsense.

There is no need for a 'revolution,' the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law exist and function now as intended by the Framers.

Indeed, more Americans enjoy greater freedom and liberty today than at any point in our Nation's history; and our freedoms and liberties are more secure today than at any point in our Nation's history, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, case law that safeguards the fundamental, inalienable rights of every American.

 

[there4eyeM]

Revolution is intimately installed in the Constitution.
Every two years, the entire House is up for re-election. All money spent by the Federal Government must start its approval here (this is what Reagan and North circumvented).
Voters have the opportunity to totally revamp things biennially.
They don't.
What possible chance would a more vigorous 'revolution' have?

 

[Christophera]

The half truth above is definitely worthy of knowing in my opinion. The whole truth is such that the methods for peaceful revolution included trial by jury according to the common law.

One of the goals of a lawful and peaceful revolution should be the return of common law jurisdiction in courts, as well as jury nullification.

This whole truth idea was not at all covered up on many minds that flourished at the time of the signing of a Declaration of Independence, which was proof positive that the truth was self-evident concerning the already existing free people,

Most importantly there is that "the Americans" were unified. Amongst the people were the loyalist Tories working against the Americans. They schemed and plotted to corrupt the unity of the Americans with treasonous guile of secret funding of networks of newspapers well trained to consistently misrepresent the truth while exploiting human social weaknesses.

Then, to not mention the influence of the Masonic order is pure fearful negligence. Within their ranks were competing factions, some good, some not so good.

We have to track Benjamin Franklin to the Hellfire cave to know how the best of it is anchored in a history of rebellion and freedom with rights reaching from the Magna Carta. A completely misrepresented period and event. Understanding, and what the hell Barons were doing in England explains far more than any could imagine.

in free countries/states/republics, preserving the palladium of liberty, which was trial by jury, ALREADY formed into a voluntary, free market, mutually beneficial, defense association, known as a federation.

Yes, a loosely formed federation and defense was a bigger deal
then, or at least in the minds of Americans.

The half truth covers-up that fact above, whereby it is indisputably factual, that the federation already existed in order for there to be a Declaration of Independence for the free people in those federated states.

Largely correct, but functionally, the most dominant feature was a form of unity that is based in understanding. The understanding came from having accurate information. That naturally formed a federation from which came the Declaration of Independence.

That structure of accurate information, opinion forming and community resolve spreading throughout the colonies WAS the purpose of free speech working.

Now this half truth of the one and only method by which free people are allowed to defend themselves against criminals who take-over their voluntary defensive government power with a so called Article V instruction book,

The criminals are led by loyalist Tories, and still are. The loyalists breed them like dogs to set them hounding bastions of independence that underly true freedom. This is done over generations while newspapers constantly misinformed, mislead and incited nonsense political positions.

Article V has no handbook. It is left to those who realize the constitutional intent formulating in 1776. The who realize that intent stand fast with the service of the purpose of free speech in creating real unity.

Unity that can faithfully take the intent of "alter or abolish" and hammer Article V into a functional tool forging that effect.

It was well known at the time of the RATification process that the current organized crime bosses owned most of the newspapers and their fealty was an oath of allegiance to the false Federalist Party members

And because the facts of unconscious control that are a part of Masonry could not be socially known, the dynamics of falsity could not be explored effectively, leaving time and misinformed democratic majority to unknowing accept unconstitutional compromise over and over.

The point of this thread is not to rehash the past, but rather to correct a deficiency which can secure the future. To understand that the American framers, had a form of unity they did not fully appreciate, so did not; or were diverted by loyalists from including the basis for it in 1776 or 1792.

Meaning the full implications of it must be spelled out now and implemented by Americans NOW. Or, our rights and freedoms may permanently be complexly compromised.

Hyperbolic, unfounded nonsense.

There is no need for a 'revolution,' the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law exist and function now as intended by the Framers.

Indeed, more Americans enjoy greater freedom and liberty today than at any point in our Nation's history; and our freedoms and liberties are more secure today than at any point in our Nation's history, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, case law that safeguards the fundamental, inalienable rights of every American.

I can only speculate that you missed the patriot act, and the miss carriage of justice at 9/11 in order to make such statements.

You will have to become more informed to feasibly and reasonably enter this discussion.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Or, more simply you can study other countries, their governments, laws, and societies and emmigrate to one that best matches what you like. Trying to change a pile of shit into anything else is a waste of time.

 

[Christophera]

Revolution is intimately installed in the Constitution.
Every two years, the entire House is up for re-election. All money spent by the Federal Government must start its approval here (this is what Reagan and North circumvented).
Voters have the opportunity to totally revamp things biennially.
They don't.
What possible chance would a more vigorous 'revolution' have?

Yes, through democratic action a form of revolution is a part of American government. However, democracy depends on opinion and opinion depends on information. The public is deprived of quality information, and has been since the Add that to the fact that the public has no reasonable way to conduct discourse upon the information to refine their opinions, and therein is the reason democracy does not serve the American people. In fact, the misleading is so huge that democracy is a disservice to those people.

This has been true since just after the Bill of a Rights. Thomas Jefferson was outraged by what the press was doing.


"I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them... These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief... This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit." --Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46

"Our printers raven on the agonies of their victims, as wolves do on the blood of the lamb." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1811. ME 13:59

"From forty years' experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of what is not done in open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1816. ME 14:430

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:224

"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers." --Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:118

"Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819. ME 15:179

"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.

Sowing Dissension

"A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle and the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite... So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful and would have to go to the plough." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1801. ME 10:254

"These people [i.e., the printers] think they have a right to everything, however secret or sacred." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1815. ME 14:345

"To divide those by lying tales whom truths cannot divide, is the hackneyed policy of the gossips of every society." --Thomas Jefferson to George Clinton, 1803. ME 10:440

"[We] have seen too much... of the conduct of the press in countries where it is free, to consider the gazettes as evidence of the sentiments of any part of the government; [we] have seen them bestow on the government itself, in all its parts, its full share of inculpation." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792. ME 8:300

"Nations, like individuals, wish to enjoy a fair reputation. It is therefore desirable for us that the slanders on our country, disseminated by hired or prejudiced travellers, should be corrected." --Thomas Jefferson to James Ogilvie, 1811. ME 13:69

"Our newspapers, for the most part, present only the caricatures of disaffected minds. Indeed, the abuses of the freedom of the press here have been carried to a length never before known or borne by any civilized nation." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. ME 10:357

"For the present, lying and scribbling must be free to those mean enough to deal in them, and in the dark." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1792. ME 8:411

Effects on the Nation

"Our people, merely for want of intelligence which they may rely on, are become lethargic and insensible of the state they are in." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1777. ME 4:288, Papers 2:19

"The materials now bearing on the public mind will infallibly restore it to its republican soundness... if the knowledge of facts can only be disseminated among the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1799. ME 10:104

"I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time, whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them... but no details can be relied on." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:224

"History may distort truth, and will distort it for a time, by the superior efforts at justification of those who are conscious of needing it most." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:442

"A truth now and then projecting into the ocean of newspaper lies serves like headlands to correct our course. Indeed, my scepticism as to everything I see in a newspaper makes me indifferent whether I ever see one." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1815. ME 14:226

"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:225

"We... who are retired from the business of the world are glad to catch a glimpse of truth here and there as we can, to guide our path through the boundless field of fable in which we are bewildered by public prints, and even by those calling themselves histories. A word of truth to us is like the drop of water supplicated from the tip of Lazarus' finger. It is as an observation of latitude and longitude to the mariner long enveloped in clouds, for correcting the ship's way." --Thomas Jefferson to John Quincy Adams, 1817. ME 15:145

"I may say from intimate knowledge, that we should have lost the services of the greatest character of our country (i.e., George Washington) had he been assailed with the degree of abandoned licentiousness now practised... He would have thrown up the helm in a burst of indignation." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1805. ME 11:73

"The public... say so from all quarters... that they wish to hear reason instead of disgusting blackguardism." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1799. ME 10:98

"The firmness with which the people have withstood the... abuses of the press, the discernment they have manifested between truth and falsehood, show that they may safely be trusted to hear everything true and false and to form a correct judgment between them." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804.

"The printers and the public are very different personages. The former may lead the latter a little out of their track while the deviation is insensible; but the moment they usurp their direction and that of their government, they will be reduced to their true places." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1811. ME 13:59

"I would wish you to distribute [some pamphlets], not to sound men who have no occasion for them, but to such as have been misled, are candid and will be open to the conviction of truth, and are of influence among their neighbors. It is the sick who need medicine, and not the well." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1799. ME 10:104

Dealing With the Press

"During the course of [my] administration [as President], and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:380

"The Chief Magistrate cannot enter the arena of the newspapers." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1811. ME 13:64

"I have been for some time used as the property of the newspapers, a fair mark for every man's dirt." --Thomas Jefferson to Peregrine Fitzhugh, 1798. ME 10:1

"I have from the beginning determined to submit myself as the subject on whom may be proved the impotency of a free press in a country like ours against those who conduct themselves honestly and enter into no intrigue. I admit at the same time that restraining the press to truth, as the present laws do, is the only way of making it useful. But I have thought necessary first to prove it can never be dangerous." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1808.

"I had laid it down as a law to myself to take no notice of the thousand calumnies issued against me, but to trust my character to my own conduct and the good sense and candor of my fellow citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1809. ME 12:288

"The man who fears no truths has nothing to fear from lies." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

"I feel no falsehood and fear no truth." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac Hillard, 1810.

"[One printer's] malignity, like that of the rest of his tribe of brother printers who deal out calumnies for federal readers, gives me no pain. When a printer cooks up a falsehood, it is as easy to put it into the mouth of a [great man] as of a smaller man, and safer in that of a dead than a living one." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1811.

"From a very early period of my life, I had laid it down as a rule of conduct, never to write a word for the public papers." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:340

"I never in my life had, directly or indirectly, written one sentence for a newspaper; which is an absolute truth." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1800. ME 1:435

"At a very early period of my life, I determined never to put a sentence into any newspaper. I have religiously adhered to the resolution through my life, and have great reason to be contented with it. Were I to undertake to answer the calumnies of the newspapers, it would be more than all my own time and that of twenty aids could effect. For while I should be answering one, twenty new ones would be invented. I have thought it better to trust to the justice of my countrymen, that they would judge me by what they see of my conduct on the stage where they have placed me, and what they knew of me before the epoch since which a particular party has supposed it might answer some view of theirs to vilify me in the public eye. Some, I know, will not reflect how apocryphal is the testimony of enemies so palpably betraying the views with which they give it. But this is an injury to which duty requires every one to submit whom the public think proper to call into its councils." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1798. ME 10:58

"[I have seen] repeated instances of the publication of what has not been intended for the public eye, and the malignity with which political enemies torture every sentence from me into meanings imagined by their own wickedness only... Not fearing these political bull-dogs, I yet avoid putting myself in the way of being baited by them, and do not wish to volunteer away that portion of tranquillity, which a firm execution of my duties will permit me to enjoy." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:226

"Conscious that there was not a truth on earth which I feared should be known, I have lent myself willingly as the subject of a great experiment, which was to prove that an administration, conducting itself with integrity and common understanding, cannot be battered down even by the falsehoods of a licentious press, and consequently still less by the press as restrained within the legal and wholesome limits of truth. This experiment was wanting for the world to demonstrate the falsehood of the pretext that freedom of the press is incompatible with orderly government. I have never, therefore, even contradicted the thousands of calumnies so industriously propagated against myself. But the fact being once established, that the press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood, I leave to others to restore it to its strength by recalling it within the pale of truth. Within that, it is a noble institution, equally the friend of science and of civil liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807. ME 11:155

Reforming the Press

"My opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful [is]... 'by restraining it to true facts and sound principle only.' Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:224

"Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2nd, Probabilities. 3rd, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:225

"An editor [should] set his face against the demoralizing practice of feeding the public mind habitually on slander and the depravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. Defamation is becoming a necessary of life, insomuch that a dish of tea in the morning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant. Even those who do not believe these abominations, still read them with complaisance to their auditors, and instead of the abhorrence and indignation which should fill a virtuous mind, betray a secret pleasure in the possibility that some may believe them, though they do not themselves. It seems to escape them, that it is not he who prints, but he who pays for printing a slander, who is its real author." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:225

 

[Josf]

Wow!

I do not often find someone precisely pointing out my errors in offering understanding viewpoints.

"Largely correct, but functionally, the most dominant feature was a form of unity that is based in understanding. The understanding came from having accurate information. That naturally formed a federation from which came the Declaration of Independence."

That is certainly the most important part of creating and maintaining a voluntary, free market, mutual defense association constituting any number of people from 2 to 500 million or more. Thanks, and for you to get past my standard frontal assault (nipping in the bud any room for deception), and return with even greater focus toward better understanding is inspiring. Thanks, too often it appears that all has been lost to the deceivers and their sycophants.

"Largely correct, but functionally, the most dominant feature was a form of unity that is based in understanding."

In the vain attempt to find greater understanding concerning the meaning I derive from that quoted sentence above I wonder what you think about the misdirected sides in recent examples such as the Waco Massacre years ago and the current Bundy Ranch and Ferguson confrontations between so called Federal Agents and people calling themselves Oath Keepers. Clearly both groups claim that the understanding of their authority is based upon that Constitution of 1787, and yet what is obvious to me, as an understanding, is that the Oath Keepers include the Bill of Rights into their understanding of authority, while the other group of so called Federal Agents, by their actions, are merely following orders that may, or may not, have any connection to any form of Constitution, fraudulent or not, and by their actions that constitute inculpatory evidence proving a crime in progress, based on the Bill of Rights, or merely based upon common sense laws of free people, the individual level of understanding in any case, obvious to me, would not be readily known, factually, without something along the lines of a deposition, witness statement, or even confession expressed and documented for the purpose of defending the targeted victims in a common law trial by jury case, according to the common laws of free people. Youtube videos of Oath Keepers serve to help others understand precisely what they are thinking in such confrontations, that are so far non-violent defensively, since deterrence is so far working, but to get an honest, voluntary, true statement from one of the so called Federal Agents, without due process, rule of law, working as a deterrent against further criminal fraud, the steady flow of lies continues unabated from that side of the confrontation. So your viewpoint on those current examples of the possible beginnings of another up-scaled conflict that could be someday called a Civil War, Act II, is welcome in my view. What do you think about the understanding of many individuals concerning natural or God given rights compared to rights enumerated on instruction books that intend to help people defend themselves from deceiving, threatening, and aggressively violent tyrants whose obvious goal is enslavement of all?

"That structure of accurate information, opinion forming and community resolve spreading throughout the colonies WAS the purpose of free speech working."

There was a reason why the survivors of the lost, last, battle of the Revolution in Massachussets were threated with capital punishment (hanging by a rope) or that they would have to sign an oath of allegiance to the criminal Massachusetts crime cabal (under the color of law), which included an oath to not own a tavern, not teach children, not run a newspaper, and never again speak about such things as defending liberty with rule of law. Of course those are my words, but the work of Leonard Richards in his study of Shays's Rebellion includes these details that are understandable in the context of the battle between rule of law, accurate accounting, on one side, and rule by criminal deception, threat of aggressive violence, and very destructive violence upon the innocent on the other side. It makes perfect sense to gag the information that constitutes inculpatory evidence, if seen from a criminal mind. From a non-criminal mind, on the other hand, gaging accurate information inculpates the one willfully choosing to gag their targeted, often innocent, victim. As easily proven in these forums as so many individuals routinely reach for that gag reflex in the form of character assassination.

Rewind quote:
"We have to track Benjamin Franklin to the Hellfire cave to know how the best of it is anchored in a history of rebellion and freedom with rights reaching from the Magna Carta."

I do not know about a Hellfire cave, but the deal made to recognized existing due process has been confused with a Divine Right to create, by edict, the counterfeit version of due process. This is easily understood in examples of common law sheriffs, of the people, by the people, and for the people, defending people based upon common laws of free people, and, on the other side of the moral fence, are the King's version of a (counterfeit) sheriff, who is employed in the work of collecting extortion payments under the color of law. That is almost precisely (in principle) what is happening in these standoffs between Oath Keepers and so called FEDs.

"Unity that can faithfully take the intent of "alter or abolish" and hammer Article V into a functional tool forging that effect."

In order for me to offer information on that subject matter specifically I would need to go back over my reading of the so called Anti-Federalist Papers so as to afford a more informative viewpoint concerning the Article V idea. Absent that effort there is this quote from an attendee who was at the Philadelphia 1787 dirty compromise meeting where the so called Article V idea was hatched and written on paper. Before quoting it may be justified to accurately account for the fact that there was no justification for the nullification of the existing federal agreement when the conspirators consolidated the state governments into one Nation State. So this idea that the criminal usurpers gave their victims a way out, with Article V, is somewhat hard to understand, like watching a Hollywood Movie where the kidnappers loosely tie the victim up and leave the victim unattended.

Page 13 Luther Martin

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

That so called Party later became known as The Federalist Party. They were the ones supposedly offering the victims a way out?

"The point of this thread is not to rehash the past, but rather to correct a deficiency which can secure the future. To understand that the American framers, had a form of unity they did not fully appreciate, so did not; or were diverted by loyalists from including the basis for it in 1776 or 1792."

An Article V FRONT can certainly work to focus general (collective) awareness back toward well established principles that understandably work toward individual defense of individual victims from any injury done by anyone including people claiming to be Federal Agents. Meanwhile other people can certainly apply those same well established principles on other FRONTS, such as this Forum, to help increase general (collective) awareness of those well established principles exemplified in past or current examples.

Perhaps a quoting of this Article V might help.

 

[Christophera]

Or, more simply you can study other countries, their governments, laws, and societies and emmigrate to one that best matches what you like. Trying to change a pile of shit into anything else is a waste of time.

Firstly, you are using cognitive distortions of "all or nothing thinking", "labeling", "minimizing" etc., which prohibit critical thinking to be effective.

I do however understand you sentiments.

Have you considered that pile may eventually invade the other countries? Or that said countries would attack the pile causing the shit to hit the fan?

Your appreciation of the extent of the problem is not great enough. Besides, in my case I'm too impoverished by injustice in the last 20 years to have the economic position to escape.

And where are your balls? I mean this is an exceptional challenge. How could you run off to done poor, threatened country and leave your own to despots and tyrants to spoil as infinitium contagium?

 

[oldfart]

A factor relating to the control over newspapers plagued Lincoln. They would mostly not print his speeches. He spoke a great deal, but only those hearing knew what he had said, and for the most part were very impressed. Very few of his campaign speeches were published even in part. One that was was in his home state, Illinois stand out. From that 1859 speech we learn he was an avid supporter of an Article V convention with the impressive passage, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

Clearly, Lincoln could only be working for an Article V convention to try and avert civil war. But, the elements that wanted war controlled the printing presses, so his thoughts on preserving the union peacefully were not written. What was written were the words inflaming anger and resentment towards the south.* Coupling that with the many speeches against the south created a desire for war amongst many people of the north despite the fact that the north was all but impoverished.

I am not sure where you got the idea that Lincoln's speeches were not well recorded, but it is obviously incorrect. At the time Lincoln delivered most of his speeches prior to his Presidency (including all of the Lincoln-Douglas debates) the technology of the times depended on shorthand notes of newspaper reporters, especially when Lincoln spoke extemporaneously as he often did or in debates. Basler's "Collected Works" which is available online, has over a thousand such speeches, often including more than one newspaper version. Lincoln himself carried a briefing book into the debates with Douglas filled with newspaper clippings of his and Douglas' speeches as a debate aid and subsequently published a collection based upon it. The Coopers Union Address was so important to Lincoln that personally edited the galley proofs before publication. In the period between the election and inauguration, Lincoln frequently represented that his views were readily available in print, obviating the need to answer questions before his inauguration.

Therefore I have to call balderdash and poppycock to any idea that Lincoln's speeches and writings were not readily available or that there was any kind of general publishing conspiracy that made his ideas hard to access outside the South. Of course, Southerners had to cope with the interception of mails and prohibitions made by the southern states to outlaw "abolitionist agitation", a self-inflicted wound created by their willful ignorance.

 

[Christophera]

A factor relating to the control over newspapers plagued Lincoln. They would mostly not print his speeches. He spoke a great deal, but only those hearing knew what he had said, and for the most part were very impressed. Very few of his campaign speeches were published even in part. One that was was in his home state, Illinois stand out. From that 1859 speech we learn he was an avid supporter of an Article V convention with the impressive passage, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

Clearly, Lincoln could only be working for an Article V convention to try and avert civil war. But, the elements that wanted war controlled the printing presses, so his thoughts on preserving the union peacefully were not written. What was written were the words inflaming anger and resentment towards the south.* Coupling that with the many speeches against the south created a desire for war amongst many people of the north despite the fact that the north was all but impoverished.

I am not sure where you got the idea that Lincoln's speeches were not well recorded, but it is obviously incorrect. At the time Lincoln delivered most of his speeches prior to his Presidency (including all of the Lincoln-Douglas debates) the technology of the times depended on shorthand notes of newspaper reporters, especially when Lincoln spoke extemporaneously as he often did or in debates. Basler's "Collected Works" which is available online, has over a thousand such speeches, often including more than one newspaper version. Lincoln himself carried a briefing book into the debates with Douglas filled with newspaper clippings of his and Douglas' speeches as a debate aid and subsequently published a collection based upon it. The Coopers Union Address was so important to Lincoln that personally edited the galley proofs before publication. In the period between the election and inauguration, Lincoln frequently represented that his views were readily available in print, obviating the need to answer questions before his inauguration.

Therefore I have to call balderdash and poppycock to any idea that Lincoln's speeches and writings were not readily available or that there was any kind of general publishing conspiracy that made his ideas hard to access outside the South. Of course, Southerners had to cope with the interception of mails and prohibitions made by the southern states to outlaw "abolitionist agitation", a self-inflicted wound created by their willful ignorance.

Lincoln's speeches were not often published in large cities. They certainly were not valuable outside of short quotes gonna very long time after the war.

Even today I cannot find his wide and varied thoughts in Article V, which was to subject of this famous quote, BUT IT DOESNT SAY SO. Only by inference and deduction can we know. "The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

At any rate, it is pretty well understood that the people of the country sides did not want the war, it was the people of the cities that were convinced it was needed.

If you've read the many quotes of Jefferson regarding the press on the previous page you can see what a problem he considered it. It certainly didn't get better in later years.

 

[Christophera]

"And where are your balls?"

Right where they should be, and up front defending the constitution, our lives and futures.

The truth of the Twin Towers structural core. Misrepresented to those charged with determining the cause of death of 3,000 people. Make sure you read the 2 pages following because there is proof there that federal judges are concealing treason.
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382

The abridging of the freedom of the press concealing a treatment for mental illnesses that would save many lives.
Santa Barbara Secrets of media-Newspress independent county public defender.

Many of those lives were people lost in mass murders here in Santa Barbara. Twentytwo in 14 years all within 4 miles of each other. Killed by 4 mass murderers.

17 YR s Trying To Prevent The Killing In Santa Barbara

State court judges have been depriving me of justice for a reason over the last 18 years. That reason is because they knew I would be trying to use my right to free speech to disclose treason, and they wanted to be sure I had no money to use that right with.

Orienting to Constitutional Defense

Maybe now you gather just how badly I need the purpose of free speech to exist, how badly we all do.

 

[Christophera]

Wow!

I do not often find someone precisely pointing out my errors in offering understanding viewpoints.

Largely correct, but functionally, the most dominant feature was a form of unity that is based in understanding. The understanding came from having accurate information. That naturally formed a federation from which came the Declaration of Independence.

That is certainly the most important part of creating and maintaining a voluntary, free market, mutual defense association constituting any number of people from 2 to 500 million or more. Thanks, and for you to get past my standard frontal assault (nipping in the bud any room for deception), and return with even greater focus toward better understanding is inspiring. Thanks, too often it appears that all has been lost to the deceivers and their sycophants.

Largely correct, but functionally, the most dominant feature was a form of unity that is based in understanding.

In the vain attempt to find greater understanding concerning the meaning I derive from that quoted sentence above I wonder what you think about the misdirected sides in recent examples such as the Waco Massacre years ago and the current Bundy Ranch and Ferguson confrontations between so called Federal Agents and people calling themselves Oath Keepers. Clearly both groups claim that the understanding of their authority is based upon that Constitution of 1787, and yet what is obvious to me, as an understanding, is that the Oath Keepers include the Bill of Rights into their understanding of authority, while the other group of so called Federal Agents, by their actions, are merely following orders that may, or may not, have any connection to any form of Constitution, fraudulent or not,

I consider the Bundy episode to be theatre by the actors controlled by secret societies. They attempt to demonstrate that an armed confrontation works. The federal actors are controlled by the same puppet masters that control the rest, so there was no shooting. Perhaps less desirable but certainly less connected people tried "Operation American Spring" in Washington DC about the same time.

This is coming from someone that understands secret societies to a significant degree, and Mormons, and was banned from the oath keepers forum for trying to present Article V as a part of the constitution designed to protect the constitution. Oath keepers is not "keeping their oath" they are simply selectively not violating parts of it.

That structure of accurate information, opinion forming and community resolve spreading throughout the colonies WAS the purpose of free speech working.

"We have to track Benjamin Franklin to the Hellfire cave to know how the best of it is anchored in a history of rebellion and freedom with rights reaching from the Magna Carta."

I do not know about a Hellfire cave, but the deal made to recognized existing due process has been confused with a Divine Right to create, by edict, the counterfeit version of due process. This is easily understood in examples of common law sheriffs, of the people, by the people, and for the people, defending people based upon common laws of free people, and, on the other side of the moral fence, are the King's version of a (counterfeit) sheriff, who is employed in the work of collecting extortion payments under the color of law. That is almost precisely (in principle) what is happening in these standoffs between Oath Keepers and so called FEDs.

As I said, I consider it theatre and designed to distract and confuse us away from understanding HOW we can conduct a peaceful and lawful revolution using constitutional intent, which is not all contained int he constitution. Its spread out over at least three documents and maybe a forth, the Articles of Confederation. They key is in our ability to create unity upon prime aspects of the the "law of the land". Such law is supposed to control all government. And we, the American people are "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" because of our lawful capacity to define, even CREATE constitutional intent BY OUR AGREEMENT.

So the core of this thread is to present the notion that free speech has a purpose. Such a notion cannot be reasonably denied according to the the implications of the framers statements of the Declaration of Independence and the existence of Article V.

Unity that can faithfully take the intent of "alter or abolish" and hammer Article V into a functional tool forging that effect.

In order for me to offer information on that subject matter specifically I would need to go back over my reading of the so called Anti-Federalist Papers so as to afford a more informative viewpoint concerning the Article V idea. Absent that effort there is this quote from an attendee who was at the Philadelphia 1787 dirty compromise meeting where the so called Article V idea was hatched and written on paper. Before quoting it may be justified to accurately account for the fact that there was no justification for the nullification of the existing federal agreement when the conspirators consolidated the state governments into one Nation State. So this idea that the criminal usurpers gave their victims a way out, with Article V, is somewhat hard to understand, like watching a Hollywood Movie where the kidnappers loosely tie the victim up and leave the victim unattended.

I like you analogy, but it would be created from the kidnappers perspective rather than the kidnapped.

It is most logical to assume the documents were created in an environment of intense competition for inclusion and exclusion of concept. Therein certain deficiencies and omissions were created, probably intentionally by loyalists, Tories, working to give the old king and barons a way back in to control their lost colonies or escaped serfs.

IPage 13 Luther Martin

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

That so called Party later became known as The Federalist Party. They were the ones supposedly offering the victims a way out?

The point of this thread is not to rehash the past, but rather to correct a deficiency which can secure the future. To understand that the American framers, had a form of unity they did not fully appreciate, so did not; or were diverted by loyalists from including the basis for it in 1776 or 1792.

IAn Article V FRONT can certainly work to focus general (collective) awareness back toward well established principles that understandably work toward individual defense of individual victims from any injury done by anyone including people claiming to be Federal Agents. Meanwhile other people can certainly apply those same well established principles on other FRONTS, such as this Forum, to help increase general (collective) awareness of those well established principles exemplified in past or current examples.

Perhaps a quoting of this Article V might help.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If the people use constitutional intent, which is simply natural law absolutes, such as the fact that unity is required to "alter or abolish" government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, and freedom of speech is the only possible thing that can serve the purpose of creating that unity; our constitution, the First Amendment, has a MAJOR deficiency that must be corrected immediately.

Obviously Article V is the only way to do that, and doing so would be a FULLY constitutional preparation for Article V; which is pretty much unthinkably entered into WITHOUT proper preparation. We can constitutionally demand these things AND that all officials recognize their constitutionality OR, they are unconstitutional.

 

[Josf]

"I like you analogy, but it would be created from the kidnappers perspective rather than the kidnapped."

The intended analogy was from the kidnappers perspective. It makes no sense to me that the kidnappers (false Federalist Party membership) had any intention at all in loosely tying Lady Liberty, to leave Lady Liberty unattended, and allow Lady Liberty to escape. The ransom demanded was to believe in the fraudulent constitution, and if those who loved Lady Liberty enough would pay the ransom, then the kidnappers get the loot, and they keep the loot, and ask for more loot, rather than honoring their word and letting Lady Liberty free.

I have no idea how the analogy works from the kidnapped perspective; since the idea was to understand the true intent of the so called constitution of 1787.

If people realize, and make good, an Article V convention, then that alone is one path taken by many individuals who are then active for reasons that each individual understands to varying degrees. But to say it is the only way for this, that, or the other thing, according to you alone, is entirely another thing; an absolute, the only, way.

The test for agreement was historically known to be the palladium of Liberty, which was, is, and can still be, trial by jury according to the common laws.

Any effort by any individual looking for any lawful remedy can see, and understand, the concept of trial by jury according to the common law, and if anyone then begins to look for an example, they may then realize how Lady Liberty (understandable methods of redress, remedy, and agreement with whatever someone, in or out of office, does to someone else, including so called law enforcement) remains to be kidnapped by the kidnappers demanding the same old tired ransom that causes people to give credit to the past criminals who took over a working federation, the present criminals who give credit to a working federation, and the future criminals are given credit, given permission, given agreement, given POWER, to perpetrate crimes under the color of law BECAUSE rule of law is no longer understood even by, obviously, you.

People command natural laws that can be called common law, and in any case where someone accuses someone else of doing anything wrong, anyone at all, even someone claiming to be a government agent at any level, said people in command of natural laws that can be called common law have step by step methods to act upon the cause of action, which is the crime the perpetrator is accused of perpetrating, and due process of law, or rule of law, followed through in finding the facts in any case.

That was known BEFORE the criminals took over in 1787 and if Lady Liberty could speak, then why would Lady Liberty not speak through one new court case, one case of people commanding trial by jury according to common laws of free people, involving any accusation of any kind, including the exposure of any one in public office accused of membership in a secret society such as: The Federal Reserve, or pick from a hat?

So again:

Article V work can work, granted, it is certainly a possibility. Play by the rules written by the criminals, and perhaps something good can be done when the process reaches intended fruition. What is that intended fruition precisely?

Is that the only way? Having no way, yet, in so many words written already, to convey the intended goal precisely, is evidence that does not afford the idea earned credit. What is the precise intended goal?

If, on the other hand, people understood the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and people thereby understand the meaning of trial by jury according to our common laws, which include understandings of how trial by jury works, then people can begin to formulate that step by step process in any case where someone innocent is injured by someone guilty of crime, especially when the criminal perpetrating the injury is a so called government agent (any office), as to how they, on their own, individual capacity, commands precisely what will be done with his, or her, accusation, as understood by the individual in time and place.

So you have a goal. Call it goal A. You claim that the only way to reach your specific goal is by following the instruction book you quoted, and who is in command of how that instruction book is interpreted?

The common law is the sum total of understanding of law commanded by all the individual people within a geographical area, so any individual within that area is in command of constituting the common law in fact. Any one individual, according to the understanding of past individuals, and at least one individual now, knows, understands, that it takes 1 individual decision to acquit, and it takes 12 individuals in agreement to establish a lawful fact of guilt concerning any presumed to be innocent accused individual who is afforded the opportunity to answer any claims of guilty by anyone anywhere.

1. Article V
2. One trial by jury case according to the common law involving one major criminal currently in so called government, then two cases, then three...
3. Defense of the innocent in time and place by armed people effecting deterrence against aggressive assault

I don't know what you know, but I've been following the rise of awareness since BEFORE the massacre in Waco, and there are a lot of people who could be called Oath Keepers who are genuine, honest, truthful, honorable, yet slightly misdirected people, who are effectively constituting a viable deterrence. So...a controlled opposition plan, and execution of that plan is probable, but for you to establish the facts in the Bundy Ranch or the Ferguson Standoff on your own say so, without a due process followed through to fruition, is comparable to what: my opinion?

Those misdirected by their fealty to a fraudulent Constitution are failing to see effective remedy in any individual case of wrongdoing done by anyone in time and place.

If the law of the land is enforced by a special interest upon everyone else, then that constitutes a nullification of the common laws of free people; no law other than the orders issued and enforced by criminals. So asking the past criminals to light the way to free the kidnapped Lady Liberty, as the only way, is true?

 

[Christophera]

I like your analogy, but it would be created from the kidnappers perspective rather than the kidnapped.

The intended analogy was from the kidnappers perspective. It makes no sense to me that the kidnappers (false Federalist Party membership) had any intention at all in loosely tying Lady Liberty, to leave Lady Liberty unattended, and allow Lady Liberty to escape. The ransom demanded was to believe in the fraudulent constitution, and if those who loved Lady Liberty enough would pay the ransom, then the kidnappers get the loot, and they keep the loot, and ask for more loot, rather than honoring their word and letting Lady Liberty free.

I have no idea how the analogy works from the kidnapped perspective; since the idea was to understand the true intent of the so called constitution of 1787.

If people realize, and make good, an Article V convention, then that alone is one path taken by many individuals who are then active for reasons that each individual understands to varying degrees. But to say it is the only way for this, that, or the other thing, according to you alone, is entirely another thing; an absolute, the only, way.

The test for agreement was historically known to be the palladium of Liberty, which was, is, and can still be, trial by jury according to the common laws.

Since I scrupulously avoid all or nothing thinking, I'm prone to perceive those times with those groups of people as a situation where no one group had total control. There was intense competition that went back and forth between the political realm to a purely social realm and back. With each cycle it gained some aspect of interests of one group or another. Ultimately a set of compromises was attained.

This explains the disparity of the kidnappers leaving liberty loosely tied and the notion that that they had complete control. They didn't. Another group loosened the knots by applying Article V hoping the people had the where-with-all later to throw of the bindings.

So far the the American people have not. And in that new constraints have bound liberty. The issue of the purpose of free speech not being defined let media corrupt the people. It made it so all speech was equal, when obviously some speech can inspire Americans to invest in constitutional defense and restoration and other speech makes them lazy and divided.

This is a draft of the revision of the first amendment I feel can correct the basic problem.

REV. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.​

This part, " and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people " manifest in the capacity for on e American to reach a national, prime time audience over network television. They must gain the support of a given number of Americans who affirm that the information is good, vital for the public to know, and not available generally and not basically known by any significant number of Americans.

That is a petition for submitted to a state legislator who then must hand it on to the state supreme court who drafts and order to the largest network corporation in the state to produce a documentary type television show that is made to a quality the public is accustomed to. Then broadcast that nationally in order to retain their corporate license in that state.

Any effort by any individual looking for any lawful remedy can see, and understand, the concept of trial by jury according to the common law, and if anyone then begins to look for an example, they may then realize how Lady Liberty (understandable methods of redress, remedy, and agreement with whatever someone, in or out of office, does to someone else, including so called law enforcement) remains to be kidnapped by the kidnappers demanding the same old tired ransom that causes people to give credit to the past criminals who took over a working federation, the present criminals who give credit to a working federation, and the future criminals are given credit, given permission, given agreement, given POWER, to perpetrate crimes under the color of law BECAUSE rule of law is no longer understood even by, obviously, you.

I've filed 9 lawsuits against government to learn that there is no such thing as rule of law under this government. It is corrupt.

People command natural laws that can be called common law, and in any case where someone accuses someone else of doing anything wrong, anyone at all, even someone claiming to be a government agent at any level, said people in command of natural laws that can be called common law have step by step methods to act upon the cause of action, which is the crime the perpetrator is accused of perpetrating, and due process of law, or rule of law, followed through in finding the facts in any case.

The only way to get common law jurisdiction returned is through Article V where the supreme court has no authority of 3/4 of the states are ratifying. Only the tyranny of the masses can have control over the government at this point. To make that tyranny have constitutional order is to see the American people prevail in manifesting common law as a rule.

The citizens grand jury needs to have its jurisdiction returned to correct statute law courts when they are not just and relying on corrupted precedent rather that valid principle.

That was known BEFORE the criminals took over in 1787 and if Lady Liberty could speak, then why would Lady Liberty not speak through one new court case, one case of people commanding trial by jury according to common laws of free people, involving any accusation of any kind, including the exposure of any one in public office accused of membership in a secret society such as: The Federal Reserve, or pick from a hat?

With tyrants in control, no court is truly functional. The American people, if they begin to define prime constitutional intent, and identify it as such, then demand that officials recognize it; the issue in the corrupt courts will be so plain that the corruption cannot act without exposing itself as unconstitutional and unlawful.

It will not take all of the American people. It will only take a vocal and committed minority that reaches out to other groups with such common sense that it cannot be denied, actually escaping partisan politics completely. At that point, with challenges in the corrupt courts to media, we will see the public coming forward with a uniform understanding of the effort to return the purpose of free speech to join in the simplification of the rule of law.

So again:
Article V work can work, granted, it is certainly a possibility. Play by the rules written by the criminals, and perhaps something good can be done when the process reaches intended fruition. What is that intended fruition precisely?

Is that the only way? Having no way, yet, in so many words written already, to convey the intended goal precisely, is evidence that does not afford the idea earned credit. What is the precise intended goal?

If, on the other hand, people understood the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and people thereby understand the meaning of trial by jury according to our common laws, which include understandings of how trial by jury works, then people can begin to formulate that step by step process in any case where someone innocent is injured by someone guilty of crime, especially when the criminal perpetrating the injury is a so called government agent (any office), as to how they, on their own, individual capacity, commands precisely what will be done with his, or her, accusation, as understood by the individual in time and place.

Since 1871 common law has been abandoned along with the 1787 constitution. This was done covertly meaning it is easily reversed by common knowledge and agreement of the illegal and treasonous actions while also identifying the greatest rules of the true law. Constitutional intent.

With preparatory amendment, the nations people will become constitutional and make Article V work very well.

So you have a goal. Call it goal A. You claim that the only way to reach your specific goal is by following the instruction book you quoted, and who is in command of how that instruction book is interpreted?

Constitutional myopia is employed. Which is acceptable in a constitutional emergency as an action of constitutional defense because it preserves the ideals. In this case, "prime constitutional intent". The right to alter or abolish and the purpose of free speech serving to create the unity required to do it.

I underlined and bolded the appropriate lines of Article V to make this myopia obvious to you.

The common law is the sum total of understanding of law commanded by all the individual people within a geographical area, so any individual within that area is in command of constituting the common law in fact. Any one individual, according to the understanding of past individuals, and at least one individual now, knows, understands, that it takes 1 individual decision to acquit, and it takes 12 individuals in agreement to establish a lawful fact of guilt concerning any presumed to be innocent accused individual who is afforded the opportunity to answer any claims of guilty by anyone anywhere.

Common law means nothing to the despots. But we can make it mean something with our agreement freely made out of natural need. Natural law has meanings to us we must share and agree upon. The most powerful at this point being that free speech has a purpose and that is to alter or abolish the government destructive to vital rights.

1. Article V

2. One trial by jury case according to the common law involving one major criminal currently in so called government, then two cases, then three...

3. Defense of the innocent in time and place by armed people effecting deterrence against aggressive assault

I don't know what you know, but I've been following the rise of awareness since BEFORE the massacre in Waco, and there are a lot of people who could be called Oath Keepers who are genuine, honest, truthful, honorable, yet slightly misdirected people, who are effectively constituting a viable deterrence. So...a controlled opposition plan, and execution of that plan is probable, but for you to establish the facts in the Bundy Ranch or the Ferguson Standoff on your own say so, without a due process followed through to fruition, is comparable to what: my opinion?

As I've said, oath keepers are not keeping the oath, they are only agreeing to not violate certain tenets of the constitution. the Bundy affair is fraught with vagaries and red herrings that make it unfit for example. The invisible cooperation creating the unity seen at the ranch, as well as the hubbub on the web bespeaks of mind control, theater and manipulation of public opinion, and informed people know that such is historically valid.

Oathkeepers act is a sight better than many groups, but not enough to get the ordinary American to simply agree and become a part of a body politic that is asserting itself over all officialdom because they are properly defining constitutional intent which only the American people can do.

Those misdirected by their fealty to a fraudulent Constitution are failing to see effective remedy in any individual case of wrongdoing done by anyone in time and place.

If the law of the land is enforced by a special interest upon everyone else, then that constitutes a nullification of the common laws of free people; no law other than the orders issued and enforced by criminals. So asking the past criminals to light the way to free the kidnapped Lady Liberty, as the only way, is true?

The criminals are ignored, and their criminal systems are too. That is what the justified myopia is about the focuses on the most prime rights testing all the officials in the land to see if they stand with the American people or not. They cannot hold office if not.

 

[Josf]

"This is a draft of the revision of the first amendment I feel can correct the basic problem."

Your attempt to accuse someone of "all of nothing thinking" is noted. The so called compromise was no such thing. The people who knew that the criminals were taking over refused to sign the dirty compromise. The dirty compromise was a central banking fraud cabal in the north signing with a slave trading criminal element in the south, it was known to be a perfect setup for a future Civil War as explained in great detail by those who refused to "compromise" in the way that the two major criminal gangs compromised as your words suggest. A dividing up of the spoils of usurpation into northern turf and southern turf as the criminals take over can be an example of avoiding "all or nothing thinking" if you are ignorant of the facts, and if you are ignorant of the facts then you can claim that the criminal dividing and conquering method, repeated so often in history, is a "compromise," according to your application of your lack of knowledge, which is fine, but now you know, or at least now you are clued in. George Mason, for one example, refused to sign the criminal (dirty) compromise where slavery, which was already outlawed in Rhode Island, and nearing that stage in Pennsylvania, and the same dirty (criminal) business of kidnapping and selling people for profit, was not yet "Nationally" subsidized, as a means of forcing competitors into poverty, and then causing free market competitors to be squeezed into relying upon borrowing OR investing part of their time and energy into the production and maintenance of their own home grown forms of money, such as whisky, since the northern banking interests WOULD create a National money that drove out gold (through Gresham's law when that takes effect during the printing and inflating of fraudulent money on a National scale) as was done in Massachusetts and other independent states, and there would then be another reason for internal state rebellion for the same precise reasons as the reasons that inspired the Revolutionary War, and with a (criminal) National army instead of merely a criminal State army (Massachusetts) the new tyrant as head of the new Nation State can then assemble an all slave army (conscripts) to invade a formerly independent state of independent people, where slavery is not legal, and that army of slaves (conscripts) can force all those people to pay the new Stamp Act type, extortion payment, or National Debt Tax, ordered into force by central banking fraud members.

Now you know that in this case it is not "all or nothing thinking" and you can hold onto your ignorance as dearly as many other people do, or you can pony up and learn something instead.

"This is a draft of the revision of the first amendment I feel can correct the basic problem."

The man claimed to be the inspiration for James Madison to be put to the pen to write the Bill of Rights was George Mason. James Madison had not yet realized how criminal the dirty compromise of 1787 was, so he was as yet hoodwinked, or willingly who knows, a member of the criminal usurpation known as the Federalist Party, while George Mason, the one who refused to sign the dirty compromise, was very busy making sure that no one else would "compromise" and give any credit to the usurpation as George Mason spoke out in great detail during the so called RATification process, which was not a legal process since there was no authorization to usurp the voluntary federation in the first place, so the so called first Constitutional Convention was demonstrably outside the law, demonstrably a fraud, and therefore demonstrably a crime perpetrated by criminal frauds, whose crime was treason; which was a capital crime, which at the time period just earlier inspired common law jurists to order by their authority the death penalty.

No such due process was allowed to exist as the very first thing done by the criminal usurpers was to reintroduce the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law on a National Level with their criminal act going by the name The Judiciary Act of 1789, enforced well before the actual compromise where the criminals could not prevent all of those first 12 Amendments, in which 2 were dropped for reasons that could be made more clear as true reasons, instead of revisionist (false) history quasi-reasons.

I can go on and read more, and comment more, from your response, but from this point there is an obvious lack of understanding on you part concerning the meaning of compromise, which is a voluntary agreement to come to terms among free people as the word compromise is defined that way by free people who do not resort to FRAUD, or threat of criminal violence, or criminal violence as a means of enforcing a criminal version of so called "compromise."

So now you skip past the criminal takeover and you skip past the Judiciary Act of 1789, as if the true meanings of those acts, known at the time to be steps toward Civil War, and you move to the POWER behind the Bill of Rights, which were first 12 Amendments, not 10, and you pick number 3, which became number 1, when the first 2 were removed.

That is a lot of ignoring of a lot of very important American history that must be understood if the idea is to proceed in such a way as to defend (discredit criminal usurpation) liberty instead of financing the usurpers of liberty. The first Con Con was a fraud, so the idea that a second Con Con based upon a fraud is a good idea can be communicated in that light of knowledge in that way precisely or what often happens instead, demonstrated often enough, is a false foundation is claimed to be a solid launching pad to repeat the fraudulent Con Con, only this time conduct all proceedings out in the open and under honorable, accurate, honest, publicized, true, intentions this time, instead of repeating the fraud that was the launching pad for the first Con Con Con Job.

Because the frauds, slave traders, and criminal central bankers in 1787 gave their posterity permission to follow their criminal orders to hold an Article V Con Con, we the people now have permission to do so, and this time the criminals already in POWER won't turn the proceedings into a repeat of the first one, which was outside the existing law, launched on fraudulent pretense of amending existing statutes, and conducted in secret, as the criminal usurpers issued gag orders. This time Con Con II will be on the up and up (lawful not fraudulent) because this time the criminals in POWER will refrain from investing their stolen POWER during this Article V process?

Why not have the process of common law Grand Jury proceedings working as a deterrence against anyone in POWER who may dream up a plan by which the Con Con II process is "compromised" in favor of criminals whose POWER is derived from the existing "Constitutional" ORDER - to be obeyed without question?

People, more than one or two, would need to know how common law Grand Jury proceedings work to afford an accuser due process in the face of criminal usurpers commanding counterfeit "government" POWER. Imaging having 25 randomly selected people tasked with the goal of justifying an accusation of treason whereby the accused is someone compromising the lawful intent of people proceeding with an Article V convention; if you can.

 

[Josf]

The following is worthy of note:
"The only way to get common law jurisdiction returned is through Article V..."
"Since I scrupulously avoid all or nothing thinking..."

"The citizens grand jury needs to have its jurisdiction returned to correct statute law courts when they are not just and relying on corrupted precedent rather that valid principle."

If you can't see when the frauds compromise rule of law then you fail the test required for a number of people, large or small, capable of defending rule of law, defending liberty, defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals peacefully by that understanding of how rule of law works in time and place.

People who understand are people who take any accusation seriously, and that accusation follows the process of assembling a Grand Jury according to the common laws of free people in America. A good start would be to figure out, judiciously, forensically, scrupulously (not quasi-scrupulously), how the following Grand Jury was formed:

RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE 1 U.S. 35 1778 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Anyone accused of any crime is afforded, scrupulously, due process, because failure to understand this vital necessity ensures the take over of government by criminals.

That is not all or noting thinking. That is a report concerning the facts as the facts are demonstrated as facts time and again. Let the criminals decide who is, or who is not, a criminal, and those who let the criminals do that will be those who are either the criminals themselves (slavers) or slaves. That is not all or nothing thinking, that is not even quasi-all or nothing thinking, that is demonstrated with or without my offering a report on what happens time and again.

"...they begin to define prime constitutional intent..."

Whose prime constitutional intent? The prime constitutional intent was DEFINED by people who were then called (falsely) Anti-Federalists. The prime constitutional intent was to enslave everyone. If you refuse to know something that is demonstrably knowable, what does that make you? Does that make you, by your own choice, ignorant?

A criminal first chooses to enslave themselves if they are not forced into slavery by a criminal. So someone free to choose to be a criminal or not, chooses, on their own power of will, to enslave themselves in a criminal bond to their targeted victims, and the victim is enslaved too. That is the nature of the power of will in respect to natural principles governing free people and on the other hand those who create and maintain criminal bonds.

If your choice is to be ignorant of the criminal intent behind the constitution of 1787, then you choose that path of ignorance, and you proceed into that ever expanding pile of lies, adding to it.

"...then demand that officials recognize it..."

An individual jurist understanding rule of law is as powerful as any other official since an individual jurist can defend any victim victimized by any criminal official anywhere anytime, so long as due process, or rule of law, or the law of the land, or legem terrae, or common law, or trial by jury, all one and the same thing, is followed through from accusation to the decision made by the trial jurists. Unanimity of the whole country (represented by 12 randomly selected jurists) is required for a guilty verdict, and any single official jurist, any volunteer capable of understanding the true meaning of defensive government, can set anyone else free from harm by any despot, any tyrant, and bad cop, any bad judge, any bad legislator, and bad sheriff, and bad soldier, any bad major, and bad lawyer, and bad prosecutor, any bad tax collector, any bad national debt collector, and bad fraudulent central banker, any bad congressman, and bad congresswoman, any bad senator, any bad president of the false United States of America, or any bad president of the genuine, organic, true President of The United States of America in Congress Assembled.

Asking the criminals to recognize (confess) that they are the criminals is a stretch.

 

[Josf]

"At that point, with challenges in the corrupt courts to media, we will see the public coming forward with a uniform understanding of the effort to return the purpose of free speech to join in the simplification of the rule of law."

An example of avoiding all or nothing thinking is an example already offered to you. If you claim that your way is the only way, then that constitutes all or nothing thinking, and then if I offer in response that it might be good to take your path, certainly it is worth trying, for many reasons, not limited to the idea that more and more people will become more and more aware of just how precarious liberty, rule of law, security in our homes from robbery by criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law, is in fact.

While one way, your way, is taken there can obviously be other ways taken by Oath Keepers, who you discredit outright (all or nothing) and by people reforming common law grand juries, or people reforming any other cooperative, voluntary, defensive, organized effort, their way in time and place, including moves by people in states where gold and silver are allowed to be "legal" as money.

"Since 1871 common law has been abandoned along with the 1787 constitution."

Your all or nothing way is for you to tell me that common law has been abandoned? I happen to be a volunteer jurist who has, in fact, managed to do my part in a jury trial at least once. My son was also able to do his part in trial by jury. I did not abandon rule of law. My son did not abandon rule of law. This is happening right now, not in 1871, not in 1787, but right now. We, therefore, my son and I, are not ALL as your words appear to suggest. Common law cannot be abandoned, it is perpetual, it is there for anyone to volunteer to participate in, anytime, any place, under obvious restrictions imposed by the ignorant, such as you, and the criminals, such as those usurpers who compromised rule of law, common law, due process, the law of the land, which is perpetual, in 1787 when they divided up the former working federation into two zones, the north, and the south, and they then set about to extract all value from their slaves from that point on.

 

[Josf]

"...the nations people will become constitutional..."

If you intend to say that the people in the many nations, which are many independent countries, also called states, are people who finally recognize the genuine, organic, constitution that existed to form a Federation, then you are speaking about the unwritten constitution, or you are speaking about the error filled Articles of Confederation, and you are not speaking about the fraudulent constitution of 1787. If you intend to credit a fraud with any credit of lawfulness, then you are going against very simple, and easy to understand, laws. A fraud cannot be a law. A fraud is a crime. A fraud is not a law. That is very simple to understand unless you choose to employ your power of will to willfully remain ignorant about how a fraud cannot be a law.

"The right to alter or abolish and the purpose of free speech serving to create the unity required to do it."

The organic, original, unwritten, constitution was based upon law, as people formed voluntary defensive associations, or states, or countries, or nations, or whichever word works best to accurately account for rule of law recognized by people in desperate times as the criminals were busy extracting value from their slaves in time and place and under the color of law. Law is perpetual, law does not change, law is not amended. If you are speaking about statutes, on the other hand, then those are man made instruction books, and they are often filled with errors and any sane individual in command of free will knows how that works. If the statute (man made) does not constitute true law, then the fault is in man, not law, and it might be a good idea to work at editing the statute (which is not perpetual) to better explain true law (which is perpetual) rather than go on, and on, and on, repeating the same crimes as if the same crimes were laws. That voluntary federation existed for a brief time, and we the people had a chance to thrive, all of us, to thrive, but was not to be, but that was not to be due to an error in law, if that is where your head is at, the cause for the error was the false belief in a demonstrable fraud BEING law.

Fraud is not law.

If you claim that the intent of the frauds was to constitute law, then your claim is noted as such. If your claim is to amend the organic, genuine, federal statutes, then it might be a good idea to know which federal status you claim to want to amend. Statute 1 is a Declaration of Independence. It is Statute 1 because the federation was already formed and those forming the federation wrote Statute 1. The federal government worked as a Continental Congress during the necessity of defending against the criminal reaction to a Declaration of Independence; which was aggressive war for profit, or invasion by plundering criminals whose goal was to enslave everyone claiming to be independent.

Next up might be a few other statutes, I don't know, but there was a time when a federal constitution was hastily written, and this statute is called The Articles of Confederation.

Is that the organic, defensive, voluntary, statute you wish to amend lawfully? If so then you can't lawfully claim that it is justified to perpetrate a fraud while you amend it; that is clearly a fraud, and fraud is outside of any common sense understanding of true law.

I need to get to work, so this educational discussion, or debate, will have to be postponed; as far as my participation is concerned.