In the first place the idea of rule of law instead of rule by man was not, and is not, based upon a vote count where the majority vote launches blind obedience to whoever is voted into the role of Dictator.
In the second place the liabilities of employees employed in the work commonly known as government (defensive actions in defense of innocent people from guilty criminals) have historically been required to pay into their own bond, which is an insurance policy, which is the fund used to pay damages in case the individual employee perpetrates a crime under the color of law, or the individual employee accidentally causes injury to some innocent victim while working as an employee of government.
Just recently the method of individuals being held accountable for their individual actions (having their own BONDS) was replaced with a new idea, and the new idea is to TAX everyone with the liabilities associated with criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law, and to TAX everyone with the liabilities of accidental injuries caused by individuals who accidentally injure innocent people while working as employees of government.
Why do you think the process of suits at common law were replaced with claims by claimants who then receive benefits from a TAX FUND paid for by those who pay into that TAX FUND?
Instead of individual employees of government being held accountable for their own, individual, BOND, whereby those individuals pay into that BOND, so that those individuals are then insured individually, for possible damages, known as liabilities, instead of that BONDING CODE, there is instead a lack of accountability, and instead of accountability those who perpetrate crimes under the color of law are given paid vacations for murdering people, while the victims of the murder, if there are survivors seeking damages, are paid out of the same FUND that they pay into, in the form of TAXES.
If you do not see how free people remain free, by being individually responsible, and individually accountable, and how the criminals manage to deceive the victims with false laws, then that does not mean that your lack of vision constitutes a lack of criminal activity under the color of law.
Here is a source for information on Bonding Codes:
Bonding Code
Example:________________________
Criminal acts may not be bonded against prosecution or litigation, or there would be people who would become bonded as a license to commit criminal acts in violation of the peace and dignity of the state.
Likewise, corporations may not be established by a person to hide the criminal acts of that person behind corporate limited liability, or there would be people who would incorporate their activities in order to secure for themselves a license to commit criminal acts behind the corporate limited liability veil in violation of the peace and dignity of the state. Corporate limited liability, as it pertains to civil commercial obligations, is a delicate enough creation without the criminal aspect, and it is only because business people accept the idea that they are gambling in commerce when they deal with a corporation that there is any honesty at all in the limited liability concept of a corporation. For if a person uses a corporation to run up a commercial debt with the intent to abscond (run away and hide) at some future time, then that corporation becomes simply an instrumentality, called an alter ego, for the commission of crime. It is for this reason that the state is a silent partner in every state incorporated artificial person, and has the liability. There is no corporate limited liability for the commission of crimes.
Criminal acts committed by corporate officials, officers and clerks pierce the limited liability veil of every type corporation and artificial (purely legal) person. Also, criminal accusation always pierces the veil of corporate limited liability.
_________________________________
That is not news by the way. The 6th President of the Untied States in Congress Assembled, a man named Richard Henry Lee, blew the whistle on how the criminals were taking over the free people of America as far back as 1787 in the following words:
Quote:______________________________________
All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .
Every suit in which an inhabitant of a federal district may be a party, of course may be instituted in the federal courts; also, every suit in which it may be alleged and not denied, that a party in it is an inhabitant of such a district; also, every suit to which a foreign state or subject, the union, a state, citizens of different states in fact, or by reasonable legal fictions, may be a party or parties. And thus, by means of bankrupt laws, federal districts, etc., almost all judicial business, I apprehend may be carried into the federal courts, without essentially departing from the usual course of judicial proceedings. The courts in Great Britain have acquired their powers, and extended very greatly their jurisdictions by such :fiction and suppositions as I have mentioned.
____________________________________________
It is very simple if you can rap your head around the simple idea of a Man of Straw argument, whereby there is a choice to create a false version of someone, and that new thing, a false thing, is constructed out of whole cloth, completely imaginary, so as to then connect the false image to an actual individual. The target of the deception is precisely what the target of the deception is, in fact, while the Man of Straw is whatever the creator of this false character becomes, and the Man of Straw is meant to discredit the actual person.
1. Creator of a false imagine, or man of straw
2. Target of the deception
3. The false image, or legal fiction, or Man of Straw
The end result, the actual reason for the choice to create the legal fiction, is for the target to suffer and the criminal to gain at the expense of the target.
It is not that hard to figure out; but it is hard enough to figure out, obviously, because there are, demonstrably, so many victims who are inspired to pay into the deception.
This is not news.
Quote:__________________________
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
________________________________
Not too long ago it was common sense among free people. Don't pay into the lie, unless you want more lies.
