CDZ A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution

[Christophera]

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.

If I had not already asked dozens of times for people to post their strategy for creating change; defense of the constitution, restoration of constitutional government, stopping the NWO, stopping the MIC, with no one ever coming up with a comprehensive plan, you would be right. But I've done that on every forum I've posted on for 2 years.

There is no other real plan that separates from partisan politics and uses legal due process under the law of the land.

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.

The area of citizens grand juries is murky enough to lack effective authority. We are going to need the lawful and peaceful revolution to return jurisdiction to them.

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.

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.

Your post had duplicated sections. Not sure if I was able to sort it out properly.

What you see as all or nothing thinking is not. It is the result of wide testing, research and conclusion.

Here is a list of cognitive distortions that cognitive therapy created about 25 years ago. They discovered people were distorting their perceptions of reality by phraseology that makes assumptions. What I refer to as "all or nothing thinking" is basically an unconscious assumption of totality. I'm not doing that.

BTW, how many lawsuit have you filed against government?

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure.

3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.

6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established

7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.

8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation. ie.

9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.

12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

CHRISTOPHERA SAID:

“If I had not already asked dozens of times for people to post their strategy for creating change; defense of the constitution, restoration of constitutional government, stopping the NWO, stopping the MIC, with no one ever coming up with a comprehensive plan...”

This is nonsense, no matter how many times you ask it.

There is no need to 'restore' Constitutional government, as Constitutional government is currently in place, exactly as the Framers intended.

And there is no 'new world order,' the notion is delusional idiocy, along with the notion of 'stopping' the military/industrial complex.

No one has come up with a 'comprehensive plan' because any 'solution' would be one in search of a problem that doesn't exist.

You can't expect serious responses or good faith debate when the premise of your thread is inane and ridiculous.

 

[Christophera]

CHRISTOPHERA SAID:

“If I had not already asked dozens of times for people to post their strategy for creating change; defense of the constitution, restoration of constitutional government, stopping the NWO, stopping the MIC, with no one ever coming up with a comprehensive plan...”

This is nonsense, no matter how many times you ask it.

There is no need to 'restore' Constitutional government, as Constitutional government is currently in place, exactly as the Framers intended.

And there is no 'new world order,' the notion is delusional idiocy, along with the notion of 'stopping' the military/industrial complex.

No one has come up with a 'comprehensive plan' because any 'solution' would be one in search of a problem that doesn't exist.

You can't expect serious responses or good faith debate when the premise of your thread is inane and ridiculous.

With regard to the nwo your assertion of denial, serves their secrecy.

One Evil New World Order

Time to ask you what your plan and path to restoring constitutional government? If you can't produce something logical with due process, the plan I've put forth is the only legal due process route to defending and enforcing the constitution.

It doesn't have to be done this week. But the principles of natural law of constitutional intent require our versatility, our ability to not loose sight of an ideal, of keeping it pure as the truest intent for a republic.

Article V through proper preparation for it is the perfect cure. We just start doing it because it IS the only method for us to become the masters.

For Christs sake, we have this f'nn communication technology and we are going to let a runaway federal government control our future? Wrong.

This is text buddy, concept, ideas, perspective = understanding. Hey this could be permanent! You might not ever get over it, but using this technology in conjunction with an national awareness of the preparations to be the masters by establishing our unity through a natural law demand to restore the purpose of free speech.

BS quasi sectarian evasions prefer dividing up the intellectual community with beliefs that do not lend themselves to reason very well in confronting priorities and timelines.

Legal due actually process actually can be made to pivot on an expanding group of Americans that accurately select priorities for unity that are prime to resolving all common concerns of the nation under the principles of the republic defined by the framing documents.

Why not have a very high fidelity regroup across the nation, speaking to the intent of the constitution as it can function for us through Article V?

DUH, wtf's the matter, can't discuss constitutional intent?

The nations justice system is an ethical shambles so deep because of obfuscation at all level, having corporate interests secretly running the country. Congress just starting counting applications for an Article V convention for the first time in 226 years. You've got to be working for the side trying to oppress, dominate and subjugate Americans if that is your position.

 

[Josf]

"BTW, how many lawsuit have you filed against government?"

The government is not a responsible being, therefore the government cannot be accountable. The idea that a legal fiction can be responsible, and held accountable, is a knowable deception. Belief in this fraud (government is responsible and accountable) is likely to inspire people to add to the lies required to maintain their belief in the known fraud. If government was understood as a process, the law of the land, legem terrae, common law, by an individual, then an individual would understand that the government cannot be held responsible, and the government cannot be held accountable, rather the process called due process, or law of the land, or rule of law, or legem terrae, or common law, requires an individual to be held for individual thoughts and actions that constitute right or wrong: liberty or crime.

Blaming government is possible, and what is the goal when blaming government for something? Is it similar to blaming guns for shooting people?

 

[Josf]

"DUH, wtf's the matter, can't discuss constitutional intent?"

The intent of the constitution of 1787 was explained by many people who were against that intent of the constitution of 1787. George Mason was against it, and so was Richard Henry Lee. Both opponents of the intent of the constitution of 1787 spelled out how the intent would play out as the intent followed through to fruition. If someone can't discussion constitutional intent, and someone want's to know "wtf's the matter," then someone ought to look in the mirror.

One chief concern of George Mason was the removal of the liberty of the people to vote with their feet from one more despotic area where so called taxes are oppressive (criminal) to one less criminal state of criminality (under the color of law) as the working federation of states was working to preserve that liberty in that way since there was no Nation State where a National Debt Scheme was affording a tyrant all encompassing power to directly extract payments from individual people. That was the intent behind the Con Con Con Job of 1787, to turn everyone into slaves from a Nation State (legal fiction) idea that consolidates all the independent state agreements between people (governments) into one dictatorship with absolute power over all.

It was not an intent to preserve liberty, or preserve competitive methods of preserving liberty, and it was not an intent to defend innocent people from guilty people, it was an intent spelled out in no uncertain terms, and the intent was to enslave everyone under rule by criminals, which is precisely the opposite intent as an intent to defend innocent victims from criminals.

The source from which the idea, the intent, is to acknowledge, and make known, a conspiracy to create a world wide criminal version of government, or New World Order, is an interesting choice of web pages dealing with that information.

The author of that web page is Frank O'Collins. Frank updates information weekly in a Blog. Recently that Blog included a History of America series. In the past Frank O'Collins offered direct conversation with people during weekly call-in programs. Discussion was encouraged. Topics included the History of America, rule of law, methods to accurately identify threats and methods to effectively deal with those accurately identified threats.

Claiming something is one thing. Establishing the facts, for all who care to see those facts, is another thing.

Federal v. Consolidated Government George Mason Virginia Ratifying Convention

"Mr. Chairman--Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments."

Intent?

"This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments."

If the discussion actually does turn to intent, then the facts that prove the intent could be acknowledged by anyone who cares to know the facts. Those who prefer to blame a fiction can continue to do so; that was another intent explained well enough by Richard Henry Lee who was the abolitionist 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled before the slavers in the North and South took over the working federation by intentionally creating an all powerful legal fiction which was the intentional move to extort all value from everyone through that legal fiction fraud.

 

[Christophera]

Josf, you are replying for C_CLAYTON_JONES, which is not okay.

You've failed to recognize that the act of 1871 is what created the fraud.

You've failed to recognize the loyalists that compromised the statement of intentions set forth in the Declaration of Independence by social sabotage of the environment the framers worked in. And that the same thing happened to the 1787 constitution. Then it continued with the bill of rights.

It appears to you everything that exists is a fraud except the court you've been working in as a jurist.

You try to say that courts hear common law cases and make decisions respecting such, then you say government is not accountable. You cannot have it all ways here, but you are trying and it makes a cognitive tangle.

It looks like it is by design. Therefore I'm going to ask you one quick question.

Do you agree with the natural law purpose of free speech being to enable or create the unity required to oppose tyranny?

 

[Josf]

"You've failed to recognize..."

To be clear, so as not to allow for further false accusations, there are many examples of frauds in American history and if anyone is ignoring one then someone can demonstrate that they are ignoring one. The fraud of the first Con Con Con Job in 1787 was explained in great detail while it was happening for all to recognize if anyone cares to recognize (or ignore) that demonstrable fact.

If you wish to change the subject from fraudulent Constitutional Conventions (Con Con Con Jobs) then by all means do so, and if you want to change the subject to false accusations by you, where you falsely claim that I "failed to recognized" something, then you might want to demonstrate how you arrive at that false accusation, so that you can then recognize your own error, or you can willfully ignore your ignorance concerning why, how, when, where, you made this false accusation. How can you possibly know how many of the frauds I fail to recognize without ever asking if I recognize this, or that, fraud out of the pile of frauds that were started with the first Con Con Con Job?

How about the fraud of claiming that Admiralty Law (British central banking extortion payment criminal collection agency) can return to America with the Judiciary Act of 1789?

Judiciary Act of 1789 Primary Documents of American History Virtual Programs Services Library of Congress

I didn't fail to recognize that fraud, as those frauds had to reestablish their fraudulent extortion payment collection agency on a Nation State level once all the competitive, free market, federated, independent, states were swallowed up by the criminal federalist party members. Why would I fail to recognize the fraud you now speak about?

How about the fraud of taking a head count of all the targeted victims and paying for this accounting process with the loot stolen from the productive people, in a fraud known as the Naturalization Act of 1790?

What Was the 1790 Alien Naturalization Act - Illegal Immigration Solutions - ProCon.org

I didn't fail to recognize that fraud as the frauds made sure that the false "mob rule" idea was not shared with the newly legalized National slave market in both North and South. The productive slaves who thought they had a "vote" (yet trial by jury was now forced under the National State Dictatorship) to keep them working harder to pay the criminals more, as these fraud victims were fed this mobocracy idiocracy.

How about the fraud of The First Bank of the United States in February 1791 where a fraudulent corporation takes over the job of issuing a "subsidized" counterfeit money printing scam as National conscripts will then be used to enforce the legal fraud money monopoly Nation Wide? Did I overlook that fraud too, according to you?

How about the fraud of direct taxation, or Stamp Act type value added direct tax on the production of value by producers from Nation State dictatorship a month before the fraud of the Central Bank counterfeiting scam, as the criminals repeated what was criminally done in Massachusetts to cause Shays's Rebellion, this time on a Nation State Dictatorship scale instead of an Independent State (part of a working federation) Dictatorship scale with the fraud known as the Whiskey Tax of Jan 1791? I managed to skip over that one too?

How about the fraudulent Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation whereby the new Nation State Dictator is sent into a formerly independent State of free people federated up until the frauds took over in 1787, where the new Dictator assembles an army of slaves (conscripts) so as to crush the free people who dare to make their own competitive money which outperforms the criminal fraud money issued by the criminal frauds running the fraudulent, criminal, central bank counterfeiting ring?

Full Text of the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation

Did I mess that fraud too? How many frauds, according to you, did I miss if you were to count them all up?

"You've failed to recognize the loyalists that compromised the statement of intentions set forth in the Declaration of Independence by social sabotage of the environment the framers worked in. And that the same thing happened to the 1787 constitution. Then it continued with the bill of rights."

That may actually be worth further study, so, if you are going to change the topic from Con Con Con Job (the first or the next) then please consider providing references.

"It appears to you everything that exists is a fraud except the court you've been working in as a jurist."

Your version of what you see as you peer into appearances is one thing. My actual experience in the use of trial by jury as a competitive, voluntary, free market, defensive process, in reality, is not the same thing as your peering into what appears to you as real.

This is the problem with a so called Con Con as some people confuse voluntary, free market, defensive, rule of law with fraudulent versions. Claims of having the one and only solution that works for everyone, and this one and only solution is dictated to everyone by a very small group of frauds at the top of a criminal heap, compares to a free market competitive, voluntary, defensive alternative called trial by jury. The concept is described briefly in the Bill of Rights. The Con Con Con Job has already happened once. One time. How many trial by jury cases have proceeded according to (at least some of) the common law in America?

I went to one, myself. I go when asked to volunteer, even while the paperwork is inculpatory evidence of a fraud in progress whereby the individuals authorizing (authoring/distributing) the inculpatory paper work may "think" that I must (or else punishment according to the threat) go to jury duty, obey the order, without question. That paper trail leads back to the Judiciary Act of 1789, a fraud launched from the fraud known as the Con Con Con Job of 1789.

So...if you have references concerning how the criminals took over, so as then to be in a position to overpower the current criminals, then I'm on board, and we the people can assemble a lawful accusation or two. If on the other hand your axe to grind is to repeat the Con Con Job, only this time do so with less fraud, then I'm not on board, because your version of my thinking is false. If you can manage to invent a false version of me, and you assume that your false version of me is the more accurate version of me than me in reality, then you are hardly in any position to judge me, let alone anyone else, other than you.

"You try to say that courts hear common law cases and make decisions respecting such, then you say government is not accountable. You cannot have it all ways here, but you are trying and it makes a cognitive tangle."

Good point? That above is an example of you falsely judging my thinking. Common law courts were outlawed with the Judiciary Act of 1789, for almost all practical purposes. Plea bargains (so called) now replace many current example of trial by jury.

Argus tell us How the FBI solves its cases Gerry Spence s Blog

In order for individuals (not legal fictions) to command (take charge of) a common law court, it stands to reason, the individual in question has to understand due process according to the common law; which is not the same thing as an Admiralty, Equity, Exchequer, or other Summary "Justice" court.

If you do not know the difference, that fact does not dictate ignorance upon everyone else.at once, by edict.

"Do you agree with the natural law purpose of free speech being to enable or create the unity required to oppose tyranny?"

If you can ask a reasonable question then I may be able to offer a reasonable answer.

I am free to speak right now. Other people can invent false versions of what I mean to say, and those false versions come from practicing tyrants.

 

[Josf]

As to the general membership of this forum I think it may be very important to restate my earlier (repetitive) statement concerning the idea of attacking a problem from many competitive directions instead of crushing any competition that may offer a voluntary, creative, new angle alongside the one angle that is claimed to be the only, monopoly, angle that is said to be justified as being the only, single, angle of defense.

The topic is certainly worthy of my time and effort and to that end I've been inspired in this version of debate (if it can be called a debate) to look for, find, and begin reading these records of events leading to the formation of a supposed process called an Article V convention.

After beginning to read the first volume in Elliot's Debates (so called) I ran into the words "common soccage" and "capite," which then inspired another search which ended up with the History of the Society of Jesus in North America: Colonial and Federal.

Here:
History of the Society of Jesus in North America Colonial and Federal. 1605 ... - Thomas Hughes - Google Books

The two competitive ideas which are expressed in examples of words written, such as rule of law exemplified with a Declaration of Independence, and rule of criminals (under the color of law) exemplified in any words (such as the fraudulent Constitution of 1787) claiming (overtly or covertly) that enslavement of people by criminals is in any way "legal" as an opposing example, are also competitive ideas that can be expressed in these words that are new to me.

Common soccage and capite are claims of authority to extort fees from victims who require land for their survival. That idea was acknowledged as false by people who formed competitive defensive ideas based upon voluntary association, such as the idea of trial by jury, and the idea of selecting by lot representative individuals who represent the whole number of individuals, or "the country" whereby there is a process by which facts are found and that process that is due everyone (due process) replaces the process where special interests (criminals) get to make any rule that a criminal might make, and then those criminal orders (rules) are enforced by criminal means, including the criminal means known as fraud.

The idea of allodial title (stewardship or ownership) replaces divine right of kings (criminals) to extract extortion payment from everyone who may (or may not) produce anything worth stealing. I just found another new words (new to me): glebes.

Private Property Rights

______________________________________________________________________________
All property in the united States of America was set up to be held in allodium. So that we are all on the same page we should probably define these terms.

Allodial
Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal.
as found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
Allodium
Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; and not subject to feudal duties or burdens.
as found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
When property is held in allodium, all police powers are removed from the property. There are no building permits required and there are no property taxes (feudal duties) due. When property is held in allodium, the title is called a Land Patent.
______________________________________________________________________________

 

[Josf]

OK, well, too precious:

Back to Elliot's Debates (looking for this Article V justification based upon a known fraud) I find:

"In respect to domestic trade, a general freedom was guarantied to all the inhabitants to buy and sell to the greatest advantage, and all engrossing was prohibited."

What was the probable intent, or meaning, of prohibiting engrossing?
engrossing legal definition of engrossing

"To print a final copy of a document. In archaic Criminal Law, engrossment was the process of forcing higher the price of a good by buying it up and creating a Monopoly."

Times change, criminal behavior does not.

Perhaps the OP might acknowledge the following quote from the same Elliot's Debates Volume I:

_________________________________________________
But his answer to the question respecting religious and other instructions in the colony would, in our times, create universal astonishment. - "I thank God (says he) there are no free schools nor printing; and I hope we shall not have these hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects, into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libels against the best government. God keep us from both!"
__________________________________________________

 

[rdean]

From the OP's article:

There’s no evidence

Go ahead, ask the GOP which freedoms they are missing. They are losing the right to publicly and maliciously hate gays. And their "freedoms". Which they can never define.
Now if you are actually afraid of your "freedoms" being taken away, check out the GOP agenda. You can get a long list from there.

 

[Christophera]

As to the general membership of this forum I think it may be very important to restate my earlier (repetitive) statement concerning the idea of attacking a problem from many competitive directions instead of crushing any competition that may offer a voluntary, creative, new angle alongside the one angle that is claimed to be the only, monopoly, angle that is said to be justified as being the only, single, angle of defense.

It's hard to determine who you are replying to when you do not respond directly. So I'll ask again.

"Do you agree with the natural law purpose of free speech being to enable or create the unity required to oppose tyranny?"

 

[Josf]

You can ask a reasonable question and get a reasonable answer. Asking a question that I cannot reason out, due to my ignorance concerning what your word choices, and your grammar choices, mean, leaves me with no power to answer the so called question. Perhaps you can rephrase the question in a manner that even a simpleton like me can understand. I can guess:

"Do you agree with the natural law purpose of free speech being to enable or create the unity required to oppose tyranny?"

That looks like an idea that you have concerning the purpose of natural law. I guess that this is your idea based upon your words choices: "the natural law purpose" whereby I suppose that there is willful intent (purpose) assigned to natural law by this idea you may, or may not, intend to convey with your word choices.

So I would then have to agree that "natural law" can willfully choose to reach for a goal, or a purpose, and then there is this idea that natural law may, or may not, actually arrive at the intended purpose of natural law. So that is a lot of reasoning that may work in this case, or you may figure out that your words do not mean what I think your words mean when you chose the words "natural law purpose".

Setting that whole can of words aside, I can move onto the idea contained in the word choice: "free speech" and I can say again that I can speak freely so long as some tyrant does not censor me in some way, and my purpose when I wish to speak freely is my purpose, not a purpose chosen by something you call "natural law". When I choose a goal, a purpose, then I can speak as an act that I act out, so as to then enable me to reach the purpose I choose. So now there are 2 possible, perhaps mutually exclusive, entities, or things, that may have a purpose where free speech is employed.

1. Natural law employs free speech for a purpose.
2. I employ free speech for a purpose.

If my purpose is to injure someone with my choice to speak freely, then I am responsible, and therefore accountable for the intended injury done when I spoke.

If someone blames "natural law" for their speech when they intend to injure someone with their choice to speak, then that is an obvious additional injury done, if someone were to believe the ruse.

Setting aside the obvious controversy as to who is responsible and accountable for the use of free speech to reach a purpose, and moving toward your question and your word choices that describe the purpose (of natural law as natural law relates somehow to free speech) is found your word choices: "enable or create the unity required to oppose tyranny".

So my guess as to what your question may actually mean can be a rephrasing of your question: Is accurate communication of the knowable and understandable facts concerning precisely how tyranny gains power vital in the cooperative work of volunteers whose goal is effective defense?

If that is the meaning of your question then my answer is yes, certainly yes, since the volunteers cannot cooperate effectively if the volunteers volunteering to defend the volunteers are unable or unwilling to communicate accurately.

 

[Christophera]

From the OP's article:

There’s no evidence

Go ahead, ask the GOP which freedoms they are missing. They are losing the right to publicly and maliciously hate gays. And their "freedoms". Which they can never define.
Now if you are actually afraid of your "freedoms" being taken away, check out the GOP agenda. You can get a long list from there.

Yes, I have to agree. It appears the usurpations have largely come from there. However, the infiltration trades shoes for certain aspects leading to the goals of tyranny.

We can see democrats acting very much against that which supports freedom, or a stable economy empowering freedom when clinton signed the GATT treaty.

Debating left and right is exactly what the usurpers want.

To instead focus on what they are trying to destroy, or protection of it is far more functional.

The unity I'm working for is prime to that. My question to Josf is critical in the creation of functional unity. It represents a trident of power for the people. One, unity upon the natural law purpose of free speech. Two, legal due process. Three, position dictating constitutional intent as only the people can do.

Just getting the first thing, acceptance of the natural law purpose of free speech past those indoctrinated into the endless complexities created by the elite to befuddle the masses willing to approach the mess, if the first real task.

 

[Josf]

" My question to Josf is critical in the creation of functional unity."

Note the repetitive claims of absolute authority over what is true. The question offered is full of innuendo concerning belief in an unidentified power of will, or God (if you will), as this natural law entity may, or may not, have a purpose concerning the capacity for human beings (one life form out of many life forms) to communicate.

Then the word "free" is attached to "speech" as if everyone under the sun is sharing the exact same meaning attached to the one word: free.

A criminal version of the word free is their exclusive freedom to insult people with words such as "goofball".

Sure, the criminal version of free is perfectly understood as the meaning of the word free, as that meaning is freely defined when that individual resorts to that type of communication despite the well publicized rules published by the forum authors who authorized those rules and offered those rules to anyone who cares to obey those rules, or to ignore those rules freely.

Then, of course, the choice to insult is followed by a move to force out the target of insult, with word choices such as "get lost" in the effort to do what (freely?): inspire the mob to act according to this definition of free speech?

Meanwhile back at the work of looking for individual intent behind this Con Con idea, specific to this Article 5 "authorization" (law is not derived from crime) open door policy, allowing anyone to repeat the first version of fraudulent law, with a supposed Con Con II, which might work well this time, but certainly not based upon the first example of a Con Con that did work very well for the criminals, if not so well for the victims.

The obvious battle of words over control of land is expressed in words written freely in Elliot's Debates Volume I, and although it may be possible to ignore the connection between control over victims by criminals and control over land by criminals, the willful, free, use of attention during reading in my case is such that I prefer not to ignore that connection.

Side A: Pay me an extortion payment for my agreement to allow you to exist on the land or I'll be paid in another way, such as forced labor, or whatever I can dream up as I speak freely.

Side B: Allodium

Quo Warranto (choice words) pops up often so far in Elliot's Debates Volume I.

How does that work, while I'm at it, when insult is followed by a petition to throw someone out, is this like word magic? Is this like casting a spell or something? Is the moderator of the web page supposed to hear the insult, and then hear the call to throw someone out, and then forget all about the actual rules, and then reward the one casting the spell, and punish the target of this word magic? Is that the intention?

 

[Josf]

On to page 56 in Elliot's Debates just now finding the first act to form the 1776 federal government statute #1, which is the landmark paper designating United States of America to be declared for the first time. In this introductory portion of Elliot's Debates the author rushed through a description of the formation of each individual colony that led up to the return to the idea of rule of law, as an agreement rather than a dictate enforced by a dictator claiming (false) divine right, and before this page 56 report on the first meeting of the first congress, there was mention of a previous United Colonies of England Federation existing under similar circumstances which amount to a shared agreement in the need to cooperate for mutual defense of innocent people defended against persistent organized criminals which include the criminal types who claim such things as (false) divine authority.

So the date on this first meeting of a new, genuine, organic, spontaneous, free market, voluntary, agreeable, cooperative mutual defense association, or government, or congress, or confederation, or federation, is (again according to one source, and that source is Elliot's Debates Volume I) September 5th, 1774.

People had had their fill of criminals posing as the good guys - apparently.

Doors were closed to the public and the meetings were ordered (by unanimous agreement?) to be secret. Orders were issued to stop trade with England.

That can be compared to the reverse when the Con Con of 1787 happened, when delegates of an existing federation were in no way in agreement with the idea to issue gag orders.

In this September 5th, 1774 meeting the public was clearly divided as those willing to fight (many did) in defense of their new found idea called independence, or at least support in some way said independence, and many were willing to support in some way the criminal British Red Coats.

In the later Con Con in 1787, on the other hand, those loyalist were now fraudulently assembling delegates under the false pretense of amending the existing federal agreement, and those rebels who dared to speak the truth were the one's being gaged.

The relevance to the current situation is that the FRAUD was done. The FRUD was to (falsely) claim that the assembled group was assembled for the purpose of amending the existing voluntary agreement, which was The Articles of Confederation, and then the FRAUD followed through to throw out the voluntary agreement and to replace the voluntary agreement with something that was the polar opposite. The tactic is called bait and switch for those unfamiliar with criminals perpetrating frauds.

 

[rdean]

As to the general membership of this forum I think it may be very important to restate my earlier (repetitive) statement concerning the idea of attacking a problem from many competitive directions instead of crushing any competition that may offer a voluntary, creative, new angle alongside the one angle that is claimed to be the only, monopoly, angle that is said to be justified as being the only, single, angle of defense.

It's hard to determine who you are replying to when you do not respond directly. So I'll ask again.

"Do you agree with the natural law purpose of free speech being to enable or create the unity required to oppose tyranny?"

That's why the Democratic Party is a coalition. To fight the tyranny of the right wing.

 

[Josf]

"That's why the Democratic Party is a coalition."

The OP is able to offer questions, yet I have trouble reasoning out his questions. Your statement above, on the other hand, requires an example of what you mean when you refer to something called the "Democratic Party". What IS the Democratic Party?

Here IS a possible example:



Clinton was supposedly the one in charge when more than 80 innocent people in Waco Texas were mass murdered. IS that what you mean when you refer to the Democratic Party? Who exactly is accountable when someone in the Democratic Party mass murders 80 or so innocent people in Texas? Did you know that those innocent people were systematically tortured before being burned alive?

 

[Josf]

A letter was sent by Congress, signed by the President, to the British General named Gage, according to the following quote:

"On the 8th of October, it was resolved that the Congress approve the opposition of the inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay to the execution of the obnoxious acts of Parliament; and if the same should be attempted to be carried into execution by force, in such case all America ought to support them in their opposition; and on the 11th of October, the letter of remonstrance to General Cage, ordered on the 7th, was brought in and signed by the president."

That is akin to an Article V occurring today, and those members at the meeting agreeing to something, and then those members writing something down, and then that letter is handed to the existing ORDER. That is not an example of what happened at the first CON CON of 1787. The first CON CON of 1787 was two main groups of criminals, a group in the north made up of central banker frauds, and a group in the south made up of "subsidized labor" criminals, which today might best be described as a Labor Union, and these two groups decided to perpetrate a fraud involving the existing ORDER whereby the idea was to CON the people elected to run the existing ORDER into a trap and then once led into the trap the two criminal gangs would usurp the existing ORDER and replace the existing order with a criminal version. The criminal version that replaced the existing ORDER was involuntary servitude to fraudulent bankers in the north and involuntary servitude to a criminal Labor Union in the south, which was known at the time to sow the seeds for a future Civil War.

The heinous act of kidnapping, torturing, selling, profiting from, and forced labor of Africans was not yet lawful according to most of the existing ORDER (federation) as exemplified by the outlawing of the heinous trafficking of human beings done in Rhode Island. So the CON CON Job ensured, by criminally ordering everyone to obey the criminal order to subsidize the human trafficking of human beings, to cause more, and more, and more kidnap victims to be tortured, and sold into forced labor, for profit of the few criminals on the top of that pyramid.

If it was known in the time of 1787 that human trafficking of Africans as a form of subsidizing criminal Labor Unions was going to inspire (in part) a Civil War, when fewer Africans were victims to this type of torture then compared to later in 1861. What would those who knew that Civil War would be the result (Civil War) in 1787, what would they have thought once the dirty business flourished once everyone was forced to subsidize it - everyone except, again, the criminals on the so called top of that pyramid?

1. The number of victims of subsidized slavery in 1787 as that heinous crime was then being defended against, and there were more and more places where slaves could find sanctuary from such crime.

2. The number of victims of subsidized slavery grows rapidly as everyone in the new Nation State is forced to subsidize the criminal human trafficking crime, reaching such large numbers of victims in 1861 when the predicted, and predictable, Civil War goes off on schedule.

 

[Josf]

Page 60 Elliot's Debates:
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, "that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers in the vicinage according to the course of that law."

And:

"On the 20th day of October, the non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement was adopted and signed by the Congress. This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India teas from any part of the world."

The point being, again, free people defend each other voluntarily, and if that is the existing ORDER, then the principle at work is agreement. When they criminals take over, they agree to cooperate with other criminals, sure enough, but the slaves are only claimed to agree to something; they agree to obey without question or be punished for disobedience. The free, independent, people ought to defend each other, and we ought to consider trial by jury as a competitive option, while the enslaved masses may be inspired to ask the criminals for their preferred methods, just one please, by which the criminals enforcing the other ORDER (criminal order) prefer their slaves to earn their freedom? How does that make sense as the only way?

As early as 1650 free people, through trial by jury, help defend people with due process:
17C American Women 1650s Virginia Court Records - Elizabeth Key - Slave or Free

"Wee whose names are underwritten being impannelled upon a Jury to try a difference between Elizabeth pretended Slave to the Estate of Col. John Mottrom deceased and the overseers of the said Estate doe finde that the said Elizabeth ought to be free as by severall oathes mightappeare which we desire might be Recorded and that the charges of Court be paid out of the said Estate."

 

[Josf]

Day two working on Elliot's Debates Volume I so as to understand the intent of those who wrote in this idea of a defense against tyranny where this defense against tyranny is this Article V process.

I can offer a resolution to avoid further writing in this Topic on this subject matter, and I can start another topic having the same basic goal just stated, which stated again is the goal of understanding the intent behind those who wrote-in this Article V clause in that fraudulent Constitution of 1787.

So let me know, please, what agreeable decision is made concerning my continued connection and participation in this specific Topic on this Forum.

I'm just now at the point at which votes were taken by representatives of the 13 NEWLY formed States as these people now create a working free market, competitive, open source, voluntary, moral, mutual defense association knowable as a federation. Again, this is the basic intent supposedly being the intent behind the Article V process, whereby people intend to disconnect from the unwelcome injury done to people by criminals whose claims of authority of government prove to be false claims. This competitive method of breaking those unwelcome bonds made by criminals (under the color of law), in this case British (false divine right of kings) criminals BONDING Americans living in America (a geographical location), is called federation. These people form independent governments of a more local nature, known as states, which were former colonies, and these people then form a mutual defense association of a more expansive nature, meaning a larger geographical area (larger than a former colony) is encompassed within the jurisdiction of rule of law, which in this case is the intent to replace rule by (false) divine right.

Therefore there are at least 2 competitive methods (not the one and only one) in clear view according to the historical record.

1. Formation of independent defensive states, which are then formed into an independent federated number of independent states, and their intention is reported in a declaration of independence, and the date of this competitive process is July 4th, 1776.

2. A future possible process known as an Article V convention; based upon the writings of a group of people who assembled in Philadelphia in 1787; whereby the people in that assembly included:
a. Those who were fooled into a false belief that the intent was to amend the existing federal agreement documented as Statute #1 on July 4th, 1776.
b. Those whose criminal investments were tied up in war profits in the form of a fraudulent central banking scam
c. Those whose criminal investments were tied up in the heinous trafficking of human beings kidnapped, tortured, and forced into labor from Africa and other parts of the world.

The next quote is from Elliot's Debates Volume I:

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

12 very small groups of people representing 12 independent states full of people who would either support independence or support dependence upon criminal orders issued according to (false) divine right; and a minority at these people forming this competitive federation were criminals whose crime is to profit from the heinous crime of so called slavery.

Two very notable members noted in Elliot's debates is Thomas Jefferson, who was tasked with writing the declaration of independence, who therefore must have added the no slavery rule, and John Adams, John Adams was the one dictating The Alien and Sedition Acts later on; after the criminals took over.

There is in this information many competitive angles of view concerning moral economic understanding, amoral economic understanding, and in stark contrast immoral economic understanding.

One obvious reason for suggesting, and deterring, "trade with the enemy" is to stop the ability of the enemy to gain by that trade. Another obvious reason is to take that part of that trade, take it from the enemy, and use that gain from that trade rather than that gain being used by the enemy.

The tea trade run by the British (or Dutch) East India Company is one such suggestion to block that trade, and to deter by some means that trade which empowers the enemy. The same Company, known as the enemy, was shipping slaves as a profitable cargo.

1. Formation of independent defensive states, which are then formed into an independent federated number of independent states, and their intention is reported in a declaration of independence, and the date of this competitive process is July 4th, 1776.
a. Those who were no longer fooled into the belief of divine right of kings
b. Those who were ready, willing, and able to defend all innocent people, including Africans, from criminals: i.e. independence
c. Those who hedge their bets and are always somehow on the side that gains the most from the targeted victims

2. A future possible process known as an Article V convention; based upon the writings of a group of people who assembled in Philadelphia in 1787; whereby the people in that assembly included:
a. Those who were fooled into a false belief that the intent was to amend the existing federal agreement documented as Statute #1 on July 4th, 1776.
b. Those whose criminal investments were tied up in war profits in the form of a fraudulent central banking scam
c. Those whose criminal investments were tied up in the heinous trafficking of human beings kidnapped, tortured, and forced into labor from Africa and other parts of the world.

Not to lose sight of one important fact: in between 1 (formation of a federation) and 2 (a future Article V convention) is the example known as the Dirty Compromise in 1787 in Philadelphia.