CDZ A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution

[Josf]

So...before being asked to leave this Topic agreeably there are a few notable concepts to restate.

1. The power required for voluntary mutual defense of innocent people from guilty criminals includes the power to transfer accurate information from one individual to another individual or "free speech" so called.

2. The power to transfer a specific message having to do with the demarcation between moral economic ideas on one side and immoral economic ideas on the other side.

John Adams is a key figure in this battle to reach intended goals, such as the intended goals that may be shared, voluntarily, and agreed upon, by people NOW forming an Article V convention. John Adams, supposedly at the time of the writing (by Thomas Jefferson) of the document that formed (officially) a federation of independent states, against the divine right to rule absolutely, which was British rule, while these independent minded defenders were soliciting help from the French, is the same John Adams, who later commanded a newly formed Nation State Dictatorship, whereby the tyrant John Adams enforced The Alien and Sedition Acts, which was an order to never speak ill of John Adams and his policy to support the British against the French, or failing to obey the order to never speak ill of John Adams and his policy to support the British against the French would result in a form of court marshal, or a kangaroo court, or a counterfeit court, whereby those found guilty by the tyrant are then punished for the crime of speaking ill of the lesser tyrant who supports the greater tyrant.

Sam Adams, also of Massachusetts, is another key figure.

Back to Elliot's Debates Volume I, and quotes from the declaration of independence penned by Thomas Jefferson:

"For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: - For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: - For cutting off our trade with all parts of the word: - For imposing taxes on us without our consent: - For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury..."

Next is a quote from Elliot's Debates Volume I, printed in that volume just after the reprinting of a Declaration of Independence, which are words addressing the message that intends to inform the reader about the understandable difference between rule by agreeable law and rule by criminal tyrants.

Judge Story:
"In the first place, antecedent to the declaration of independence, none of the colonies were, or pretended to be, sovereign states, in the sense in which the term "sovereign" is sometimes applied to the states. The term "sovereign," or "sovereignty," is used in different senses, which often leads to a confusion of ideas, and sometimes to very mischievous and unfounded conclusions. By "sovereignty, " in its largest sense, is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the jus summi imperii, the absolute right to govern. A state or nation is a body politic, or society of men, united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength."

The idea is conveyed in a genuine form; while the counterfeit form might be called a legal fiction, or the counterfeit (criminal) form might be called any false name under the sun.

Key points from Judge Story include:

______________________________________
In like manner, the word "state" is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community. In this sense, the "state" means the whole people, united into one body politic; and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. Mr. Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, used the word "state in its broadest sense. "In free states," says he, "the people form an artificial person, or body politic, the highest and noblest that can be known. They form that moral person, which, in on of my former lectures, I describe as a complete body of free, natural personas, united together for their common benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating, and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests which it ought to manage; as enjoying rights which it ought to maintain; and as lying under obligations which it ought to perform. To this moral person we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified appellation of State."

Legal Fiction

If it, so called, is moral, then it would confess when it enslaves, tortures, and slaughters for it's exclusive benefit. It would not do so if it were criminal and immoral would it?

Also:

"To the extent of the power given, the government may be sovereign, and its acts may be deemed the sovereign acts of the state. Nay, the state, by which we mean the people composing the state, may divide its sovereign powers among various functionaries, and each, in the limited sense, would be sovereign in respect to the powers confided to each, and dependent in all other cases. Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is the people of the state."

The battle between absolute power immorally wielded by a few criminals profiting at the expense of the may victims, or a counterfeit version of "legal fiction" on one hand, and on the other hand, the other side, is the idea that all people are equally independent and free from such victimization by anyone, anywhere, including those criminals who claim to be exempt from this single universal understanding of true law: no one is above it, not even the criminals, and not even the criminals who claim that they are above it.

Expressed:

________________________________________________Judge Story:
But the declaration of independence of all the colonies was the united act of all. it was "a declaration of the United States of America in Congress assembled;" "by the delegates appointed by the good people of the colonies," as in a prior declaration of rights they were called. It was not an act done by the state governments then organized; nor by persons chosen by them. It was emphatically the act of the whole people of the United Colonies, by the instrumentality of their representatives, chosen for that among other purposes. It was an act not competent to the state governments, or any of them, as organized under their charters to adopt. Those charters neither contemplated the case, nor provided for it. It was an act of original, inherent sovereignty by people themselves, resulting from their right to change the form of government, and to institute a new government, whenever necessary for their safety and happiness.
____________________________________________________________________

As some criminals managed to lie their way into false representation of the whole people, and instead of strictly following the moral intent of safety and happiness of ALL THE PEOPLE, those criminals added fine print, clauses, hidden meanings, which were intended to empower those few people with the absolute power to make slavery legal, according to their special interest, then that fact constitutes inculpatory evidence proving that self-evident fact. The criminals falsely represented the whole people by their actions that caused the slave trade to be subsidized and then to flourish as a direct result of that subsidizing of the slave trade in the north as well as the slave trade in the south, which included central bank fraud slavery that constitutes a thinly veiled so called tax.

 

[Josf]

To put the point squarely in view the following quote may suffice:



__________________Judge Story____________________
"In the debates in the South Carolina Legislature, in January, 11788, respecting the propriety of calling a convention of the people to ratify or reject the Constitution, a distinguished statesman used the following language: "This admirable manifesto (i.e. the Declaration of Independence) sufficiently refutes the doctrine of the individual sovereignty and independence of the several states. In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, or right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the Declaration is made in the following words: 'We, therefore, the representatives of the United States, &c., do, in the name, &c., of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish, &c, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states." The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration. The several states are not even mentioned by name in any part, as if it was intended to impress the maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could never be free or independent. Let us then consider all attempts to weaken this union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
_________________________________________________

Now that may appear to be convoluted which may be due to the inconsistent meanings of many similar words. The idea, the message, is such that individual people, each one, is inherently as free as every other one, as a matter of demonstrable fact, while at the same time there are tyrants who may beg to differ, in no uncertain terms, causing serious distress by criminal means. So the idea is to acknowledge that tyrants do not give people their freedom. The idea is to acknowledge that free people are not required to ask tyrants for their permission to be free people; rather freedom in an absolute sense is inherent so long as criminals are not free to take away freedom.

A free people in a free state are free people in a free state because freedom is inherent, and because free people create a mutually defensive, voluntary, association, and free people call that a state, if they wish to do so, or they call that a society, if they wish to do so, or they call that a country, if they wish to do so, freely.

A people victimized by criminals under the color of law, on the other hand, was exemplified in the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion which followed through in that place in 1786 and 1787. The criminals ignored the inherent freedom of free people and the criminals set about to enslave those people in Massachusetts, so in that counterfeit State sense, those people were captured, kidnapped, and removed from the United States as a whole people united in states, where the Union was considered a voluntary federal union at the time. Had the representatives (such as Richard Henry Lee, who was at the July 4th meeting resulting in the Declaration of Independence) been united in the work of defending free people, then those leaders of free people would have worked to step into the conflict in Massachusetts, to help the victims of tyranny regulate the tyrants, with the shared goal, the agreeable intent, of defending free people from harm; to defend their safety and happiness FROM those criminals who took their safety and happiness from them; by criminal means.

In that light, where independence, freedom, and liberty, is inherent at the individual (each individual member of the whole people) level, and the whole people (the country, the state, the federation, the city, county, whatever) is a sum total of each individual, independent, free, sovereign, entity in flesh and blood, if not in a twisted criminal mind who mistakes a "legal fiction" for a responsible, accountable, living, breathing, thing; capable of right or wrong.

 

[Josf]

I left a Veterans Day topic to honor true veterans whose intent is to ensure the safety and happiness of free people FROME tyrants and lesser criminals. I know of a veteran, the son of someone I worked with, whose life ended recently, do to unknown causes. I am ignorant concerning that specific individual veterans fate, at this time. When the individual was a child I remember how he was remarkably different compared side by side to his younger brothers. The man volunteered as a medic in the armed forces.

No one responded to my Veteran's Day topic. Few people respond here now that the work required to get to the bottom of the Article V clause is bearing fruit?

Well, at least I was not asked to leave, and perhaps I am afforded the generous opportunity to continue reporting on the present material employed in this specific intention to study that relevant material.

Key points repeat as Thomas Jefferson left notes on the Debates involving the representatives claiming to represent moral government where the intent is the safety and happiness of free people in geographical areas such as farms, corporations known as towns, cities, counties, states, and federations. A change in wording appears to be appearing as "safety and happiness" is changed to "general welfare".

Some of the representatives are still working their plans to return to rule by men, as their "argument" is clearly an attempt to take-over rule of law through artful deception: to protect their "leverage" and their power to subsidize their slave trade profits, or less obvious, less overt, is the underlying desire, interest, special interest, in commanding fraudulent banking interest, which requires the method by which a fraudulent banking monopoly enforces the use of the single, monopoly, fraudulent, money, and that power to crush competition, which is that power to demand only that one money, is that power to demand payments of fraudulent tax, or extortion payments, from individual producers who produce anything worth stealing.

What is seen in Elliot's Debates Volume I (for the first time I am reading this inculpatory evidence) is this thinly veiled attempt by some of the representatives at the meeting to Debate the wording in the written document known as the federal constitution, or Articles of Confederation, to shift power from the concept of rule of law (effective defense of the safety and happiness of everyone everywhere) and shift that power to them exclusively and their special interest groups of slave profiteers, which include the fraudulent central banking form of slavery employing DIRECT TAX (code for extortion under the color of law) to create the demand for their exclusive power to issue fraudulent money, and the many avenues of profiting from slavery in shipping slaves, selling slaves, the sociopathic "fun" of torturing slaves ( a form of gain according to psychopaths), subsidizing (false law) the monopolization of the labor force (forcing out independent laborers in competition (now) with "subsidized" labor, and direct employment of forced labor at (false) "government" "subsidized," (fraud) incorporated farms.

I can find the key words which announce these intentions as two competitive ideas are offered concerning the funding of the expenses required in defending against the largest criminal army then on the planet Earth as that criminal army of so called Red Coats were rioting in the blood of the innocent in some of the farms, churches, towns, cities, counties, and former colonies now being designated as states, where the word states is defined more than one way.

1. Fund by way of figuring out the ability to pay based upon the known, or knowable value of the land in each former colony, now known as a state.

2. Fund by way of counting the number of people (source of labor value) in each State.

There was an obvious contention at that point in the Debate concerning the competition between the idea of "majority rule" and rule of law arriving in an argument made by some of the people attending the meeting whereby they wanted more power for their STATE, which is to say the same thing as they wanted less power afforded to people in the competitions STATE.

Yesterday I stopped reading at the point at which Elliot's Debates Volume I reported the official text of those Articles of Confederation whereby those competitive ideas were compromised and settled, and in some way agreed upon, and put down on paper.

 

[Christophera]

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.

Try this;

"Do you agree that the ultimate legal purpose of free speech is to enable or create the unity required to oppose government destructive to unalienable rights?"

Not an idea. It is derived from the framing documents.

You could answer with a "yes" or a "no", but instead attempt to justify restating the question. Not credible that you didn't understand.

It is the implied purpose related to manifesting the intents from the Declaration of Independence manifested in the constitution as Article V.

If the framers stated we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights. How did they intend we do that against government so powerful? They intended for us to be unified. What did they intend would serve the purpose of enabling the unity?

There is only one logical answer. Freedom of speech was to serve the purpose of enabling that unity.

Do you agree?

Please, a yes or a no answer is appropriate.

 

[Josf]

I do not agree at all with any attempt by anyone anywhere to pigeon hole me into their subjective viewpoint of reality, so your attempt to do so will be defended against, and I do not appreciate your ventriloquist act in this case. Why not change the topic title to "multiple choice questions only: bla, bla, bla"?

My subjective viewpoint is offered with specific (not vague and therefore potentially misleading, or subject to constructive interpretation) examples of existing records of the so called framers as they debated while they "framed" the original federal, voluntary, union.

Your vague, potentially misleading (by construction or other means), claims of intent by a group (as if a group could speak as one) is competitively demonstrated for what it is in fact, while again the actual (so called) framers are being quoted for their individual part in forming documents that form the federal idea onto paper.

1. Declaration of Independence (an end to a belief in false claims of authority which eventually INCLUDES an end to the false authority that became known as The Alien and Sedition Acts)

2. Articles of Confederation (the federal union expressed in words that were agreed upon by each representative of the federal union who agreed to that federal union according to that document, and there may, or may not, have been any authorization for anyone to throw it out and turn it into a false claim of authority by fraudulent means: depending on what the meaning of is is).

3. The fraudulent assembly of representatives assembled under the false pretense of amending the existing federal union (which was good enough to aid in the defeat of the largest criminal army of (aggressive war for profit) criminals then on the planet) and their dirty compromise between Northern fraudulent central banking interests (special "national" interest) and the Southern Slave Trade special interest, to consolidate, and create a Monopoly Nation State (tyranny, despotism) out of the former voluntary, federal, agreeable, defensive, union: whereby this known fraud is then labeled (falsely) The Constitution of 1787.

Onto your second attempt at creating a false agreement based upon ambiguous words that can mean anything you may construct as meaning one minute, and then anything you may construct as meaning the next minute:

"Do you agree that the ultimate legal purpose of free speech is to enable or create the unity required to oppose government destructive to unalienable rights?"

If by "legal" you mean something definite, something unchanging, something universal, something the applies to all the same like gravity, then you might mean this:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

If instead of that you mean something like the following, then your offer or words will be "whatever the criminals orders to be done, and to be done without question, or else."

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

If you prefer to exile me from this topic then all you have to do is request for me to disconnect and will do so willingly, peacefully, and happily. I can agree that you do not want my competitive answers to your ambiguous questions; which now turn toward dictatorial questions as you dictate to me that you demand either yes or you demand, on your own authority to make demands, no, either yes, you demand on your own, or no is your demand, on our own authority to make demands concerning my answers to your ambiguous and potentially misleading questions.

Next:

"If the framers..."

If you think "the framers" are of one mind, of one opinion, of one monopoly intent, then your question is knowable in that light. If on the other hand you are speaking about one or the other main group of "framers," then your questions is potentially two, not one, opposing questions.

"If the framers stated we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights."

The Declaration of Independence is demonstrated as a matter of factual history. Everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence and everyone who has since read it, understood it, and agreed with the message offered in it is a factual demonstration of reality. The one who wrote it, and those who signed it are known facts. Do you question the meaning of the document? I don't. Your version of what the English words chosen by Thomas Jefferson are competitive words that attempt to sum up the meaning offered in the Declaration of Independence. If it turns out that your condensed version of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence is useful to you, then who is to be credited with authoring that useful meaning you wrote on your own authority?

How did they intend we do that against government so powerful? They intended for us to be unified. What did they intend would serve the purpose of enabling the unity?

Really? I am spending my time and energy researching the recorded debates between the individuals behind The Declaration of Independence, as they were forming those ideas on paper, and I am finding every reason to confirm my understanding of what happened, and I am, so far, not finding any evidence against my current, comprehensive, understanding of precisely what happened, and you are attempting to inspire me to paint myself into your monopoly corner?

The defenders had to fund their expenses. That is unquestionably vital, as I read the reports from the individuals behind the forming of a Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation WHILE the largest criminal army was currently rioting in the blood of the innocent from one former colony to another.

The defenders had to agree on who would make decisions under which restrictions and how those decision makers would be afforded those positions. Your focus on "free speech" is on the list to do, in the form of "free" mail service as messages were transported from authority in one division of defensive government, to another division of defensive government.

What did they intend would serve the purpose of enabling the unity?

Here is a vital question put on the table during the Debates when the Articles of Confederation were "framed."

They had two choices on two fronts expressed as either FUNDING according to land value, or according to head count, and they had the choice to authorize decision making power based upon one vote for each legal fiction entity, or state, or proportion that power to decide according to a head count.

The one vote for each equal partner in the federation idea was the only idea authorized by the representatives in the states where land and people were fewer in quantity.

Which was the better idea?

1. Those independent states (countries) with more land could afford to give up more value in defense of people on that land.
2. Those independent states (countries) with more people could afford to give up more value in defense of those people and land.
3. Those independent states (countries) each have equal power in any decision affecting each individual human being in each state.
4. Those independent states (countries) with more people can issue dictatorial orders that must be obeyed or else.

There is only one logical answer. Freedom of speech was to serve the purpose of enabling that unity.

If you say so? What is the punishment, if any, for offering a competitive alternative answer to be employed at will in conjunction with the responsibility to be accountable while individuals willfully speak the truth?
_______________________________________________
There is only one logical answer. Freedom of speech was to serve the purpose of enabling that unity.

Do you agree? Please, a yes or a no answer is appropriate.
_______________________________________________

That deserves further comment in my subjective opinion. The setup being setup above is a setup where anyone falling into the trap is anyone who says no, I do not agree, because it is dictated as a fact, that there is only one (logical) answer. Therefore, anyone who does not answer correctly is illogical. So it is also a case of bad cop - good cop, or passive aggressive behavior.

I am going to dictate the only logical answer that must be the answer returned to the dictator who dictates that there is only one logical answer possible, at all, ever.

[I can confess to the willful choice of resorting to hyperbole at this point]

So that is bad cop, or aggressive behavior, which would not be aggressive behavior, or bad cop, if instead of posing a subjective opinion as if the subjective opinion was fact, the poser employed a more accurate message such as:

In my humble opinion there is one best possible answer based upon my employment of logic in this case; however I am open minded enough to entertain the remote possibility that I may not have discovered possible external considerations.

Then good cop shows up passively asking politely to please answer (with the only logical answer) which is yes.

The not too well hidden message is such that the false choice does not even exist. Either you answer yes, or you will be automatically judged as a dumbass.

 

[Christophera]

This is not a good subject to be evasive on. Manipulation, re-interpretation will not serve us in dealing with things in our world. These concepts are so simple children could understand them and do.

I've been posting these questions for over a year, and no one can come up with alternative interpretations of the framing documents than the ones I've posted.

I don't think you have either but your written subterfuge is so circular or convoluted, that its hard to identify what you are saying. You are using cognitive re circuiting of phrases in selective redirective fashions that are highly manipulative an non productive.

I would prefer if you cease filling the thread with things that cannot be made sense of and make sense of nothing. Please.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Odd when you consider everything the Founders did was of the violent and illegal sort of revolution. And many of them publicly advocated for that sort of action to topple an unjust government including their own should it ever got hat way. Which it has.

If you wanna revolution to replace an unjust government, the legality is moot. If you win you get to redefine what's legal or not. If you loose, you're dead anyway. So don't worry so much about the legality of things.

 

[Josf]

"This is not a good subject to be evasive on. Manipulation, re-interpretation will not serve us in dealing with things in our world. These concepts are so simple children could understand them and do."

That is projection/transference as far as I can tell. Someone insisting upon yes or no answers to questions where the word choices in the question are ambiguous, duplicitous, and can mean opposite meanings depending upon which way the wind blows, is someone who is choosing to manipulate someone else, to pigeonhole them into a false answer based upon the false and misleading question.

Claiming that immoral actions (torture and mass murder for example) are "legal" is precisely why the word "legal" leads to the following two childish EVASIONS:





I have no idea what your background is, but my background includes an investigation into the torture and mass murder of people in Waco Texas that led to my effort and success in getting on the National ballot for my congressional district in California. I understand the reasoning behind so called free speech, which is eloquently expressed is may writers work, including Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, and I also understand the concept of an Article V convention as a competitive method by which people can think and act in their defense (moral "legality"), and I've been on a jury, and I've been asked to leave a jury during the process known as voir dire, on another case. My experience includes a life long search for solutions, joining and then leaving (or being removed, or being asked to leave) the John Birch Society, United We Stand (Ross Perot), Libertarian Party (my congressional campaign), and just recently Republican Party (Ron Paul), along with many forums, and many opportunities to discuss, debate, and speak about the worst problems facing life on earth, and the many competitive solutions that are proven to work.

Your specious claims of my wrongdoing, your accusations, have no basis in fact. And now your resorting to the simple, childish, straw man argument. This is as old as the first child's first experience with the playground bully who resorts to deception as a means of covering up the otherwise obvious, naked, physical aggression. The bully invents a false caricature of the targeted victim and once the other children are given this false version of the targeted victim then the bully has set up the false justification to then do whatever the bully wants to do to the targeted victims because all the other kids are given their excuse not to defend the innocent, actual, living, flesh and blood, target. The false version of the target is (according to the lie) "worthy" of being beat up; and all the other spell bound kids are (at the same time) frozen with fear, and relieved that it was not their turn to be beaten up.

"I've been posting these questions for over a year, and no one can come up with alternative interpretations of the framing documents than the ones I've posted."

I offered my help (not blind obedience to your political tactics) and I am now personally invested in learning more about the actual history behind the writing of this Article V process. I have more study to go through one source of information (Elliot's Debates) dealing with this specific subject matter. If you can't frame a question without the hidden (false) innuendo, then that may explain why there is a general (not individual) lack of communication. General trouble, or vague reference to many examples of trouble, is not the same thing as one specific word in one of your questions that can be explained by someone having trouble understanding your "alternative interpretations of the framing documents" since an effort is initiated by someone (not you) in the effort to understand your viewpoint.

1. General trouble could mean any of many reasons for general trouble communicating
2. Specific words that constitute an accurately identified source of trouble communicating

You offered a question. I explained in detail why the question was full of many possible meanings, and therefore your question was impossible for me to understand which of many possible meanings were your intended meanings.

You then ignore my explanation of why there is trouble and you rephrase the question in the form of a multiple choice question WHILE ignoring the duplicitous words in the first confused question. So the trouble in my individual case is your insistence upon using duplicitous (possible double, and opposite, meanings) words, and you ignore my communications that inform you of this cause of this problem. Then you set me up as an idiot that is worthy of discredit because I (and everyone you find that is unable to understand your viewpoint) am unable to understand what a child can understand?

I understand your question from at least three possible angles.

1. Moral
2. Immoral
3. Amoral

If you refuse to remove the ambiguity, then there is no way that I can understand what you mean; due to your refusal to remove the ambiguity.

I can guess. If you consistently resort to political games, such as deception, transference, etc., then the angle of view most likely to be your preferred angle of view is the immoral angle. That is the might makes right angle, that is opposite the rule of law angle.

To me this is serous business, along the lines of mass torture, and mass murder financed through the same playground tactics where the bullies spell bind their victims into doing nothing in their own defense other than giving credit to the lies told by the bully.

"....your written subterfuge is so circular or convoluted..."

That is the more of the same, base, character assassination. It lacks any evidence that might inculpate the accused as the accuser projects these (un-provable) negative attributes outward and onto the target.

What do you think is going to be the typical result of your baseless attempts at character assassination? Someone is going to agree with you that your version of their views is more valid than their hard earned honest viewpoint?

"... its hard to identify what you are saying..."

If you insist upon employing duplicitous words, such as "legal" or "lawful" when conveying your idea of what is "legal" or "lawful" then how is someone ever to know what you think is the meaning of those words?

Circular arguments are linked above. Is it legal or lawful to torture and mass murder innocent people for fun or personal gain, or for any "reason" Mr. Christophera?

Is it legal or lawful to discredit someone on a pubic forum if the words printed can be proven to be false?

"You are using cognitive re circuiting of phrases in selective redirective fashions that are highly manipulative an non productive."

Does that depend upon your exclusive power to determine what constitutes productive value? When you want to communicate a specific accusation against my personal character you do so productively. When your wish is to discuss your (elusive) viewpoint (alternative interpretations of the framing documents) the lack of productivity is entirely my responsibility?

"I would prefer if you cease filling the thread with things that cannot be made sense of and make sense of nothing. Please."

Does that mean what I think it means? If your intention is to censor my part in this clean debate (which was clean before you resorted to character assassination) then simply asking me to stop posting in this Topic can be easily asked with simple word choices instead of choosing words that constitute more of the same good cop, bad cop, passive, aggressive, political games.

I can state, with confidence, that you are in no position to represent moral law; by your actions you represent the opposite. Therefore the idea that someone like you may improve upon the fraudulent Constitution of 1787 is certainly possible, as you may agree with the (false) productivity of removing the Bill of Rights, since all you need is your Article V, and your Con Con II, and perhaps your freedom to speak falsely when you freely attempt to assassinate someone's character on a public forum.

The evidence inculpates.

The immoral founders lied, cheated, and stole their way to power, and the moral founders would not sign the Constitution, the moral founders immediately moved to amend the fraudulent Constitution with the Bill of Rights. In America (because people are moral) the Bill of Rights still conveys meaning to some people, and the meaning can be summed up in 3 words.

Rule of Law.

 

[Christophera]

You are prodigious typist but the pretense of caring about rights and freedoms lack substance.

The globally recognized, albeit corrupted American state is something you are bashing along with the natural law underlying it. A person using your information would be inclined to give up all hope immediately.

I've not seen a single element of a real plan in any of your posts that the masses can use to defend the rights and freedoms that are protected by our framing documents.

I actually have one, and its based on something apparently beyond your ability to comprehend.

The simple notion that free speech has a purpose. And, such purpose, in a natural law realm, being to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood; while in a legalistic realm enables the unity required to effectively alter or abolish, is something that is very easily understood and explained, but you've managed to create a morass of misunderstanding and cognitive soup to read through.

Shameful use of communication technology.

All I can do is post something functional for those who have managed to read this far.

It is the rudiments of a lawful peaceful revolution as it might be conducted state by state. It uses the the purpose of free speech as the second most prime constitutional right as it can be used to activate the first prime right to alter or abolish government becoming destructive to unalienable rights.

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://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...ands-for-article-v-constitutional-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.
U.S. House finally adopts rule to count Article V Convention applications - National Progressive Examiner.com

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]

"You are prodigious typist but the pretense of caring about rights and freedoms lack substance."

That is a serious libel. The act of gaining ballot access while working a 60+ hour per week job and raising 2 children and holding to together a marriage is substance in fact. Your character assassination routine is moving into the area of criminal libel.

"The globally recognized, albeit corrupted American state is something you are bashing along with the natural law underlying it."

Your version of my accurate reports concerning the formation of the true, genuine, voluntary, free market, federation between 1776 and 1787 and then the criminal take over and consolidation of the working federation is not my version of what I am doing. Your subjective opinion is one subjective opinion that is easily compared to the accurate reports offered individually by George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, Luther Martin, John Lansing, and Richard Henry Lee, to name a few individuals whose accurate reports contend with your individual subjective opinion concerning the subject matter. Concerning me personally, your libel is reaching criminal libel.

"A person using your information would be inclined to give up all hope immediately."

Your version of accurate information and the actual information are two different things. Your version inclines you to resort to character assassination and libel, which is far from your claim of what someone else might give up on.

1. You don't give up, you resort to character assassination and libel as a means of dealing with your interpretation of the accurate reports of actual history as it was happening.

2. You claim that someone else, some unknown individual, or any number of unknown individuals will not act in the hope of injuring the target of your libel, instead, according to you these other nameless people are inclined to give up all hope immediately?

Who is so inclined?

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

Jury duty is another competitive method by which people act within the concept of rule of law. If you claim that there is only one way to arrive at your chosen goal, then you have that hope. My comments were specific to your hopes, and my words so far remain published. The more you alert people to the specific dangers the more people may (or may not) become aware of those dangers, and they may (or may not) share your interest in your solution. They may (or may not) agree with you that your solution is the only solution.

"I've not seen a single element of a real plan in any of your posts that the masses can use to defend the rights and freedoms that are protected by our framing documents."

Jury duty was, is, and perpetually is, the palladium of liberty for those who understand it. For those who don't understand it, there ignorance will also be perpetual as long as they refuse to even see it. Jury duty is also called the law of the land, legem terrae, common law, due process, and other general names amounting to the same effective defense of the innocent victims from the guilty criminals INCLUDING those criminals whose cover story is that they are the authorities.

This topic had to do with the Article V idea, so I dove in and started finding relevant information concerning that Topic, why would I explain in great detail the meaning and use of due process, common law, the law of the land, and jury duty?

"I actually have one, and its based on something apparently beyond your ability to comprehend."

Your words twist the facts. If you can write a question without ambiguity, then I won't have to guess as to what your question means. Your "side" is exposed by your actions, as you continue to resort to character assassination despite that type of choice falling well outside the rules clearly stated in none other than the Forum label: Clean Debate Zone.

"...while in a legalistic realm enables..." That is beyond my ability to comprehend without guessing as to what those word and grammar choices convey as meaning.

How does a "legalistic realm" do something, such as enable? Show an example. You can describe precisely what is an example of a "legalistic realm" and then describe how this "legalistic realm" follows through, step by step, as this "legalistic realm" moves from one step to the next.

An example might be:

Well...I ran out of time for this effort. I may be able to return.

 

[Josf]

Making sense of this:

"...while in a legalistic realm enables..."

An example might be a Forum where "legalistic" means: Clean Debate Zone.

So inside this Zone the "legalistic" part of this Zone is offered in both the title, and the introduction to the Zone. Like this:
Guidelines for the Clean Debate Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This:
"No Personal Attacks."

And then someone starts doing this:

"Hyperbolic, unfounded nonsense."
"This is nonsense, no matter how many times you ask it."
"You can't expect serious responses or good faith debate when the premise of your thread is inane and ridiculous."
"DUH, wtf's the matter, can't discuss constitutional intent?"
"You've failed to recognize..."
"...you do not respond directly..."
"Not credible that you didn't understand."
"This is not a good subject to be evasive on. Manipulation, re-interpretation will not serve us in dealing with things in our world. These concepts are so simple children could understand them and do."
"... your written subterfuge is so circular or convoluted..."
"...filling the thread with things that cannot be made sense of and make sense of nothing."
"You are prodigious typist but the pretense of caring about rights and freedoms lack substance."

An accusation is step one. The accusation is either true or false. The next step is to find a rule of law method of determining if the accusation is based upon facts. The American way (between 1776 and 1787 as shown in at least one example case) is to form a representation of the whole country in the form of a Grand Jury. The accusation can be laughed at by everyone at once, and if no one ever cares to move the accusation to from step 1 (accusation) to step 2, then rule of law is thrown out the window for Majority Rule (so called) instead. If on the other hand the accusation is handled according to rule of law then the accuser is afforded equal treatment and a representative example of the whole country (Grand Jury) is assembled to judge the merits of the accusation and decide (as if the whole country unanimously decides) to present the accused with the opportunity to hear the evidence against him as a trial by jury will commence. The accused is presumed to be innocent by the jurists so as to then be impartial when the accuser must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did, in fact, perpetrate the crime. The jurist, representing the whole country, must unanimously agree to any conviction of wrongdoing, and the whole country (represented by the jurists) decide all matters of fact and law in each trial by jury case according to the common laws of free people. One individual jurist can acquit and set the accused free during due process, the law of the land, trial by jury, according to the common laws of free people who are willing to agree, volunteer, and defend each other from criminals foreign, or domestic, and do so peacefully.

Of course a small matter of nearly insignificant libel, such as what is demonstrated so often on this Forum, means almost nothing to the whole country of people, so the better example would be an accusation of mass murder whereby the accused is the one responsible for the most mass murder currently perpetrated under the color of law.

So there are, in those words above, 3 examples, not one.

1. Simple libel on one forum.
2. Some crime in between 1 above and 3 below
3. The worst criminal currently abusing a false trust in an ongoing fraud, such as the current so called President of the United States of America; who in reality is a figure head in place to divert attention away from the actual off-shore, foreign, corporate, legal fiction, trademarked, and incorporated as such, under the same (false) name of United States.

"...while in a legalistic realm enables..."

If those words mean something similar to common law, trial by jury, due process, the law of the land, legem terrae, or rule of law (all meaning the same thing) then the author authorizing those words quoted can provide a step by step example of precisely how "legalistic realm enables" and do so in fact.

Example:
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

That is a link to a factual event occurring in time and place as an example of what may (or may not) be the intended meaning with the words "legalistic realm enables."

More libel:

" ...you've managed to create a morass of misunderstanding and cognitive soup to read through..."

The first Con Con Con Job was recorded by people who WISHED that "legalistic realm enables" free speech.

Here is what you think may be a "morass of misunderstanding and cognitive soup":

___________________________________________________
Page 4 Luther Martin (accurate account of the first Con Con Con Job)
The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.
__________________________________________

In other words: There was already one Con Con Con Job, it was a fraud, and the frauds were keen to resort to criminal censorship as a means of covering up their crimes when the criminals did the first Con Con Con Job which over RULED rule of law and turned rule of law up-side-down.

So if someone (not you since you are so quick to resort to libel) could help cause another Con Con to turn back to rule of law, then my response has been, is, and will be, more power to you, please make it so. Please take note that there are worse criminals then petty libelers out there ready to take over rule of law, and they torture, and they murder, and they love to burn babies alive in churches.

Back To Top

PM

Quote

Reply

 

[Josf]

"It is the rudiments of a lawful peaceful revolution as it might be conducted state by state. It uses the the purpose of free speech as the second most prime constitutional right as it can be used to activate the first prime right to alter or abolish government becoming destructive to unalienable rights."

By all means, except criminal means such as fraud, threat of aggressive violence (as part of extortion), and aggressive violence upon the innocent (another part of extortion) or treason, torture, mass murder, etc., make it so. Please do make it so, to bring back into effective use the idea, and the actions, that constitute rule of law in time and place.


I'd like to make sure, until I'm asked to leave (under no uncertain terms), or until I am removed against my will from this topic, that my offered opinion has been that an Article V process may (or may not) at least bring light to a very serious problem as one of many potentially effective solutions are offered as a solution to that very serious problem.

A word of advice is now offered concerning how much (or how little) the existing ORDER (criminal orders to be obeyed without question, or tyranny, or dictatorship, started in 1787) listens to "petitions of grievances" on their terms.

Not long ago someone named Bob Shultz managed to inspire enough people, including me, to hand deliver a notice and demand to each congressional representative in America.

Peition for Redress -- War Powers

My personal experience was such that dictators prefer one way communication. The dictators demand that the subjects obey unquestioningly.

That is an FYI for those who may think that their way is the only way, because they say so, even though they may not actually know about other ways tried by other people in other places at other times.

 

[Christophera]

"You are prodigious typist but the pretense of caring about rights and freedoms lack substance."

That is a serious libel. The act of gaining ballot access while working a 60+ hour per week job and raising 2 children and holding to together a marriage is substance in fact. Your character assassination routine is moving into the area of criminal libel.

"The globally recognized, albeit corrupted American state is something you are bashing along with the natural law underlying it."

Your version of my accurate reports concerning the formation of the true, genuine, voluntary, free market, federation between 1776 and 1787

With the amount of posting, with the schedule you have, in this thread alone, it appears to be untrue that you work 60+ hours a week unless your job is to post here.

You continue to try and change the subject to your paradigm of free market and that does rationally connect and your efforts to connect it are so circuitous it is very likely that there is no connection and you have type pages of subterfuge and obfuscation.

You cannot state a simple "yes" or "no" to a question concerning the purpose of a right?

Really.

 

[Christophera]

Odd when you consider everything the Founders did was of the violent and illegal sort of revolution. And many of them publicly advocated for that sort of action to topple an unjust government including their own should it ever got hat way. Which it has.

If you wanna revolution to replace an unjust government, the legality is moot. If you win you get to redefine what's legal or not. If you loose, you're dead anyway. So don't worry so much about the legality of things.

If the King was operating control over the colonies in violation of natural law, then naturally the people had a right to overthrow the English rule.

In America Article V is a defacto revolution with is peaceful BECAUSE it is lawful, which is made legal by the law of the land.

 

[Christophera]

This:
"No Personal Attacks."

And then someone starts doing this:

"Hyperbolic, unfounded nonsense."
"This is nonsense, no matter how many times you ask it."
"You can't expect serious responses or good faith debate when the premise of your thread is inane and ridiculous."
"DUH, wtf's the matter, can't discuss constitutional intent?"
"You've failed to recognize..."
"...you do not respond directly..."
"Not credible that you didn't understand."
"This is not a good subject to be evasive on. Manipulation, re-interpretation will not serve us in dealing with things in our world. These concepts are so simple children could understand them and do."
"... your written subterfuge is so circular or convoluted..."
"...filling the thread with things that cannot be made sense of and make sense of nothing."
"You are prodigious typist but the pretense of caring about rights and freedoms lack substance."

Your failure to use the actual quote function of the website brings all of that into question.

Some I recognize, some I don't. This one particularly.

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

If you had been using the quote function I could see where I said it. It makes sense that I would say that, but you generally are not asking questions you are posting almost unrelated hyperbole semi related to what I'm stating or asking YOU in evasive ways.

An example:

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.

Try this;

"Do you agree that the ultimate legal purpose of free speech is to enable or create the unity required to oppose government destructive to unalienable rights?"

Not an idea. It is derived from the framing documents.

You could answer with a "yes" or a "no", but instead attempt to justify restating the question. Not credible that you didn't understand.

It is the implied purpose related to manifesting the intents from the Declaration of Independence manifested in the constitution as Article V.

If the framers stated we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights. How did they intend we do that against government so powerful? They intended for us to be unified. What did they intend would serve the purpose of enabling the unity?

There is only one logical answer. Freedom of speech was to serve the purpose of enabling that unity.

Do you agree?

Please, a yes or a no answer is appropriate.

"Do you agree that the ultimate legal purpose of free speech is to enable or create the unity required to oppose government destructive to unalienable rights?"

If by "legal" you mean something definite, something unchanging, something universal, something the applies to all the same like gravity, then you might mean this:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

If instead of that you mean something like the following, then your offer or words will be "whatever the criminals orders to be done, and to be done without question, or else."

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Back To Top

PM

Quote

Reply

[/QUOTE]

 

[Josf]

"With the amount of posting, with the schedule you have, in this thread alone, it appears to be untrue that you work 60+ hours a week unless your job is to post here."

Guidelines for the Clean Debate Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"No Personal Attacks."

My honesty and my integrity is change from the topic to a personal attack which is a form of censorship that is clearly outside of the "legalistic realm" that your words (on the topic) appear to mean by your intention, if I were able to understand your word choices. Clearly YOU are not part of an example of what might constitute a "legalistic realm."

You start a topic, then when someone cares enough to investigate the topic, and offer information concerning the topic, you change the subject to my personal integrity, and when I point out that your actions outside the rules of the Forum might be an example of your problem communicating with your word choices, you continue to send volley after volley of personal attack upon me, in an attempt to do what: start a flame war?

The repeat of breaking the rules may or may not be outside a "legalistic realm" as your word choices are subject to exemplification so as to remove confusion as to your intended meaning: no flame war = back to the topic instead of being drug into a flame war by you.

"You continue to try and change the subject to your paradigm of free market and that does rationally connect and your efforts to connect it are so circuitous it is very likely that there is no connection and you have type pages of subterfuge and obfuscation."

That is more projection. The subject was focused in on a question you asked (you admit to having trouble communicating) and in order to offer help in communicating the intended meaning of what you asked, with your word choices, where you admit that you have trouble communicating, is now focused in on the two words you choose, which are "legalistic realm" and you provide, by your actions, an example of something that may, or many not be, outside the concept of rule of law, since your example is to continue a personal attack (which is not "trying" to change the subject it IS changing the subject) and possible attempt to incite a flame war.

If you would like to communicate what you intend to say when you choose the words "legalistic realm" then it is not unreasonable to ask for an example of what is, or is not, a "legalistic realm" such as, perhaps, the Forum Rules.

Are the Forum rules what you mean when you offer the words "legalistic realm" as in:

"The simple notion that free speech has a purpose. And, such purpose, in a natural law realm, being to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood; while in a legalistic realm enables the unity required to effectively alter or abolish, is something that is very easily understood and explained, but you've managed to create a morass of misunderstanding and cognitive soup to read through."

As in:

The simple notion that free speech has a purpose. And, such purpose, in a natural law realm, being to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood; while in a the forum rules enables the unity required to effectively alter or abolish, is something that is very easily understood and explained, but you've managed to create a morass of misunderstanding and cognitive soup to read through.

So far you appear to be enabling censorship while you break the forum rules which are rules with a purpose in mind. The subject matter of the topic, as far as I know, are important concepts, such as Declarations of Independence (from rule by criminals to rule of law) and the fraudulent Constitution of 1787 (from rule of law back to rule by criminals) and then the Bill of Rights (back to rule of law from rule by criminals) and now a potential Article V process which goes which way?

That above sentence is not changing the subject, that is clarifying the subject matter in a light that is intended to clarify the subject matter so as to help people understand the subject matter as the subject matter exists in fact.

"You cannot state a simple "yes" or "no" to a question concerning the purpose of a right?"

If this was not a Clean Debate Zone, and instead if this was a Zone expressly for personal attacks, flame wars, and political games including the use of multiple choice questions that are intended for purposes only the author of the multiple choices questions (such as character assignation) knows, then this continued change from the subject matter to my personal integrity would be within something that might be called a "legalistic realm."

 

[Christophera]

"My honesty and my integrity is change from the topic to a personal attack which is a form of censorship that is clearly outside of the "legalistic realm" that your words (on the topic) appear to mean by your intention, if I were able to understand your word choices. Clearly YOU are not part of an example of what might constitute a "legalistic realm.""

I'm at least beginning to see why you do not use the quote system. The forum software is no good.

So I'm correct, your job is to post here and attempt to confuse what is otherwise a fairly simple issue by misinterpretation, misrepresentation etc disguised as quasi intellectual hyperbole.

Do not mistake what I'm saying, you are a great person. But your efforts at debate are not sincere if you state you stand to protect rights and freedoms.

Your posting demonstrates you are against a lawful and peaceful revolution because your argument is overly selective and re states what I'm stating with intentional inaccuracies.

 

[Josf]

"Your failure to use the actual quote function of the website brings all of that into question."

That is classic misdirection of responsibility and accountability. You are the one bringing something into question, which is an accusation. You are making an accusation concerning my personal integrity. You are doing that in print; which constitutes a breaking of the forum rules, and it constitutes libel according to the law of the land, which is not the fraudulent Constitution of 1787. The law of the land is derived from the ancient Latin term legem terrae, and that is a reference to "trial by the country" or due process, or the common law, or trial by jury, or unwritten, natural, law recognized, and agreed upon, by volunteers who prefer rule of law over rule by criminal frauds, or rule by personal attacks initiated by those who censor information by using the commonly understood tactic known as a flame war.

My focus of attention onto your word choices, such as "legalistic realm enables" is an attempt on my part to figure out what you intend to mean with those word choices, so as to offer help in your trouble communicating what you intend to mean with your Topic, and I can't do two things at once, so I do not try to figure out the "actual quote function" which from your exclusive power of judgment becomes "brings al of that into question," which is another case of you changing the subject for the subject to me personally, as you use this new device to bring into question my personal integrity WHILE your claim is that my choice not to spend time on figuring out the quote function automatically becomes inculpatory evidence of some wrongdoing.

1. I have yet to figure out how to use the forum quote function.

That is focusing attention on my person as if my person is the topic instead of the topic being the topic
That can be a subject of an investigation into why I have yet to figure out how to use the forum quote function.
That can be a device used by you to claim that the fact that I have yet to figure out the forum quote function IS proof of some nefarious flaw of my personal character.

So back to the topic, and focusing in again on "legalistic realm enables" something: the obvious, on topic, concept is to note rule of law (forum rules) are there to enable free speech, since personal attacks repeated over and over again, in the attempt to start a flame war, constitutes censorship as censorship is the intention of those who resort to personal attacks instead of dealing with the information that is pertinent to a topic such as an Article V convention.

"...unrelated hyperbole.."

My participation is focused on finding YOUR example of what is, or is not, a "legalistic realm" that "enables" something such as free speech. You can continue to incite a flame war instead of either telling me that the Forum Rules are (or are not) an example of "legalistic realm" that can "enable" or alternatively you can show an example of your choice where the example of your choice IS an example of "legalistic realm" where free speech may enable.

I think you may not be able to claim that the fraudulent Constitution of 1787 was such an example since The Alien and Sedition Acts were acted out under that so called (fraudulent) "legalistic realm" which enabled censorship, not free speech, and that is why (perhaps) your response (your responsibility) is to resort to REPETATIVE personal attacks.

It is not lost on me, even if it is lost on the majority of criminals who obey criminal orders without question (under the guise of "the law of the land") that the one quoted in the following quote was the one deemed worthy of torture and then murder as an example for all to see as to what happens to those who speak the truth about false rule of law.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Censor the message by assassinating the messenger? Is that rule of law or is that outside of so called "legalistic realms?"

 

[Josf]

"So I'm correct, your job is to post here and attempt to confuse what is otherwise a fairly simple issue by misinterpretation, misrepresentation etc disguised as quasi intellectual hyperbole."

That exemplified judge, jury, and executioner rolled up into an example of Libel. To turn that personal attack back to the topic is easy, all I need to do is point out how personal attacks, repeated, and repeated, are one half of a flame war. If the target of the flame war decides not to participate in the flame war, and instead the target of the flame war decides to return to the topic, then the topic subject matter can become more easily understood.

The Article V part of the fraudulent Constitution of 1787 was debated by those who debated the fraudulent move from the existing federal government to the opposite (judge, jury, and executioner) version of government. When my personal work load (which is another topic) is taken care of, with care by me, then I can move back to the study of Elliot's Debates where there are records of those Debates when this Article V process was written and debated by those who side with the judge, jury, and executioner type people, on one side, and on the other side are the people who prefer tried and true due process, also known as the palladium of liberty, and also known as the law of the land.

Once that is done I can report back here, if I've not be asked to leave at that point, I can report back to a similar topic started for the purpose of debating the stark (opposite) differences between rule by those who act out their own version of judge, jury, and executioner, all rolled up into one despot, and rule of law handed down for thousands of years on the other side.

So far in the study there were slave traders in the debates whose side of the debate was exemplified as they intended to count the number of free people, to their advantage, so as to lessen their costs of defense, and a the same time their tactic would have increased their power to rule over people living in states with fewer people. The slave trader mentality is clearly expressed in their own published words for all to see. I can quote those examples as the debates moved along before the debates finally resulted in this Article V process arriving on the scene in written form.

Again, an example of a Constitutional Convention (so called) already existed WHILE the slave traders wrote the Article V process down on paper. The Con Con Con Job was the launching vehicle for prescribing a possible future Con Con Con Job, which may or may not have been intended to inspire the OP, or other people whose predilection toward judge, jury, and executioner, all rolled into one, will then be a move toward actually going through an Article V convention each step of the way, as prescribed, or as exemplified with the first Con Con Con Job.

I have yet to finish reading the existing federation rule book, which was written to contain the areas of authority given to the employees who are employed for the expressed purposes expressed in the rule book, whereby there was, or was not, any written instructions concerning the process by which the Articles of Confederation were to be swept under the rug in total, or amended in part.

I turns out that cooler heads prevailed and the move to give leverage to the slave traders, as the expense of the slaves, with their head count, and their discounting of the value of slaves, was nullified by mutual agreement, or consensus, or by unanimous agreement since the rules were NOT favoring the head count idea, and instead the estimate of shares of costs were based on value and quantity of land, not the productive output of free people at full price, and slaves at a discount. Furthermore the written constitution proves that the consensus was toward rule of law as each independent country, known as each independent state, which was known as the people in those states, had one vote, an equal vote, each, in what will, or will not, be done in the name of all the people of the federation.

 

[Josf]

"Do not mistake what I'm saying, you are a great person."

I can ask? Why are you employing the passive aggressive form of personal attack on me instead of actually dealing with the subject matter that is relevant to the topic?

"But your efforts at debate are not sincere if you state you stand to protect rights and freedoms."

Your words above frame the idea that you alone determine if I am sincere or not sincere, and you alone determining facts in any case constitute something called tyranny, something also called despotism. Your offer of words that constitute a change from the subject to me personally is an example of tyranny in a forum where the rule of law is clearly stated in the forum rules; the same rules that you ignore as you resort to character assassination as a form of censorship.

The forum rules are in place, presumably, to enable free speech so as to avoid character assassination, personal attacks, and flame wars that so often hinder, rather than enable, free speech. Free speech does not mean that you are free to libel at will without cost to you as you create costs that I have to bear as I then work to defend myself against your libel.

"Your posting demonstrates you are against a lawful and peaceful revolution because your argument is overly selective and re states what I'm stating with intentional inaccuracies."

Again that is a personal attack. If there are inaccuracies concerning your word choices such as "legalistic realm enables" then you are (presumably) capable of exemplifying precisely what you mean when you choose those words. What is an example of "legalistic realm enables"?

An example of what might be "realistic realm enables" is the forum rules as the forum rules suggest to the forum members that it is against the rules to personally attack other forum members instead of dealing with the actual information relevant to the topic. If that is an inaccurate example of "legalistic realm enables" then you could provide an example so that the inaccuracies are accurately identified as such.

Returning the subject matter can happen as soon as I get another moment away from my personal work load which is none of your business; but since you brought it up in another one of your personal attacks, I can defend myself with the accurate report of my work load at this moment including a change of an alternator on a Ford Explorer.