CDZ A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution

[Christophera]

"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?

Ironic, because you have never dealt with the subject matter. Constant obfuscation and evasion is what you do.

 

[Josf]

If the subject matter includes your words concerning "legalistic realm enables," then I most certainly have, I most certainly am, and I most certainly can continue to deal with that specific subject matter in this Topic.

If you consider "legalistic realm enables" as something other than the subject matter, then why did you include "legalistic realm enables" into this topic?

"Constant obfuscation and evasion is what you do."

I can quote an example of character assassination above, and I can return to the subject matter as far as I know (because you can inform me if it is, or if it is not, part of the subject matter) since as far as I know "legalistic realm enables" is part of the subject matter until you clarify that "legalistic realm enables" is not part of the subject matter.

Is "legalistic realm enables" part of the subject matter? If not then I'll know once you tell me, and if so then I have dealt with that specific part of the subject matter. If you clarify and you answer and you state as a matter of fact (according to you) that (now) the subject matter you offered as "legalistic realm enables" is NOT part of the subject matter, then it might be a good idea to inform anyone your opinion as to what you now consider to be part of the subject matter, instead of writing falsehoods about my personal character or "legalistic realm enables" or anything you deem to be other than the subject matter - not part of the subject matter - yet you decide to put character assassination and "legalistic realm enables" (whatever that may mean) in the topic text anyway.

 

[Christophera]

yet you decide to put character assassination and "legalistic realm enables" (whatever that may mean) in the topic text anyway.

It was character suicide I've witnessed.

The "legalistic realm enables" of human discourse upon natural law include the American constitution, particularly Article V. Your obfuscation has evaded the most important part,

ARTICLE V
"or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,"

You have stated in various different ways that the intent was to defraud the American people. Constitutional intent is what only the people can define, and you deny that exists in the peoples interests. You are patently against the constitution and what it stands for.

 

[Josf]

"You are patently against the constitution and what it stands for."

That is false. There are many constitutions. California was a republic, with a constitution, when it was accepted into the counterfeit version of a federation. Rather than true equal footing as would have been the case if it were a true federation the people were then taxed more heavily by the criminals running the false federal government which thereby usurps the concept of a government by the people, of the people, and for the people in California, or a constitutional republic, a country of free and independent people. It is counterfeit federation not true federation, again, equal footing would have been the voluntary union had the criminals not taken over in 1787.

"You are patently against the constitution and what it stands for."

You are speaking about the constitution of 1787, since you are speaking about a specific Article V that was written into the constitution of 1787 by those who wrote that into that document. I'm working now on finding the step by step record of how that was done, because I am interested in this topic. Rather than spend too much time here having you create a false (man of straw) version of me, I started my own thread on this subject matter concerning competitive constitutions such as the articles of confederation, the fraudulent constitution of 1787, and the many version of each constitution in each state since the first ones drafted by those who drafted the first ones in Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, etc.

"You are patently against the constitution and what it stands for."

The document does not stand, no more than a state (legal fiction) stands, exists, has mass, has a brain, has a will, has a spirit, can make decision, can be responsible, can be accountable, but the people making up a state are individually responsible as well as all the individuals collectively measured are summed up as an entire collective force that can be directed toward reaching certain goals, such as tyrannical empire building, wars of aggression for the profit of a few at the expense of the many, and enslavement of all including those who consider themselves to be the masters.

If you are for the enslavement of all, then you certainly have a recipe book that works for you in that fraudulent constitution of 1787, or, on the other hand, if you do get around to working for defense of the innocent form the guilty, which is defense of liberty, then you may work that Article V process effectively to reach that goal, so long as you can overpower the very evil people who may show up in sheep costumes selling snake oil instead of actually helping you reach that goal during those steps taken step by step to process that Article V convention. More power to you, if you can get that done, please do.

"You are patently against the constitution and what it stands for."

After the criminals took over in 1787 and after the criminals enacted and enforced their kangaroo version of courts with their Judiciary Act of 1789, effectively weakening if not completely destroying common law trial by jury, there was amendments (improvements) attached to that fraudulent constitution of 1787; those are called the Bill of Rights. In those words in that Bill of Rights, as part of the fraudulent (now amended) constitution of 1787 (people can know, if they care to know) are words explaining the purpose, intent, and processes of common law trial by jury, which includes grand jury presentments.

I'm all for naming the current batch of criminals running the current fraudulent (counterfeit) federal crime spree, including the so called President, and every criminal member of the so called congress, by common law proceedings which include Grand Jury presentments, which lead to those presumed to be innocent accused defendants given their opportunity to defend against any inculpatory evidence offered to the jury as proof of guilt concerning the crimes perpetrated by the alleged perpetrators.

So...your claim is false in that light. Those claiming to have the authority to torture and burn babies alive in churches, as in Waco Texas, must also acknowledge the Bill of Rights as the same source of their pretentious authority to run amok, rioting in the innocent blood of Americans in any formerly independent republic, or state, or country, of formerly free, independent, people.

So again, why change the subject from the subject and why choose to tell lies aimed at assassinating my character?

Is your next move going to be to turn me in as a terrorist for the crime of telling the truth in your topic concerning information that I too have an interest in knowing?

 

[Josf]

The following is also false:
"You have stated in various different ways that the intent was to defraud the American people."

That is false by omission. The words published against the fraudulent constitution were found, understood, and offered as quotes here in this topic. The fraud of the constitution was known as a fraud while the fraud was perpetrated in time and place.

Here is the source:
https://www.wshein.com/media/samples/12389.pdf

Quoting again:
_________________________________________________
Page 4 Luther Martin
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.
____________________________________________

For those who prefer sound bites:

Quote:_________________________
Page 13 Luther Martin

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

For emphasis:

"...covertly endeavoring..."

Is that in line with "legalistic realm enables"?

 

[Christophera]

The following is also false:
"You have stated in various different ways that the intent was to defraud the American people."

That is false by omission. The words published against the fraudulent constitution were found, understood, and offered as quotes here in this topic. The fraud of the constitution was known as a fraud while the fraud was perpetrated in time and place.

Here is the source:
https://www.wshein.com/media/samples/12389.pdf

What you are failing to recognize is the environment in which the imposition of omission was a default condition that was the sabotage I've mentioned.

This precludes your capacity to work to reverse the omission effectively by amendment which cures the deficiency.

An inability to observe, understand and agree with the logical purpose of a prime right is integral to your failure and dysfunction. But, not recognizing that, you dismiss the effort of 1787 as something it is not, and have no defined alternative.

 

[Josf]

"...prime right..."

So far there is no example offered of what is (or is not) "legalistic realm enables" and now there is "prime right" which appears to be a wording that can mean anything the authority authorizing the words might want "prime right" to mean at this moment, and "prime right" might mean anything else (even something opposite) a moment later. Look up the word construction.

"...you dismiss the effort of 1787 as something it is not, and have no defined alternative..."

Any voluntary association of any kind is an alternative that I might "have" which renders your claim, or your accusation, or your deception, false.

An alternative to a fraudulent usurpation of an existing voluntary federation is a voluntary federation plain and simple without any need to muddy the waters with new terms that might mean anything under the sun one minute, and then the same new terms might have an opposite meaning the next minute.

A voluntary association that promotes the palladium of liberty, which is trial by jury, is something had by me.

"...you dismiss the effort of 1787 as something it is not, and have no defined alternative..."

Once again the resort to character assassination is preferred, which is against the rules of the forum, and it is possible, demonstrably possible, to return to the actual subject matter which includes an Article V convention that may include people like you who prefer to ignore the commonly agreed upon rules that are clearly stated in fact.

 

[Christophera]

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

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

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

"...prime right..."

So far there is no example offered of what is (or is not) "legalistic realm enables" and now there is "prime right" which appears to be a wording that can mean anything the authority authorizing the words might want "prime right" to mean at this moment, and "prime right" might mean anything else (even something opposite) a moment later. Look up the word construction.

The quote of myself above is from the OP. Seems you missed the point of the OP and instead have been churning selective obfsucation.

Constitution:

1. 1.
   a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.
   synonyms: charter, social code, law;More
   bill of rights;
   rules, regulations, fundamental principles
   "the constitution guarantees our rights"
2. 2.
   the composition of something.
   "the genetic constitution of a species"

I've not seen you mentioning any social code, law, rules, regulations, fundamental principles etc.

You seem unable to recognize that I have done so.

...you dismiss the effort of 1787 as something it is not, and have no defined alternative..

Any voluntary association of any kind is an alternative that I might "have" which renders your claim, or your accusation, or your deception, false.

Yes it is true you volunteered nothing in the legal realm associated as an alternative to the American constitution or the rights it intends to confer upon Americans. Your pretense of actually having an argument is therefore false.

What you are doing is barely parallel conjecture of a philosophical nature that equates, more or less to effort of critical "rambling".

 

[Josf]

"The quote of myself above is from the OP. Seems you missed the point of the OP and instead have been churning selective obfuscation."

What "seems" like something to you is in fact not what something "seems" to you, so it might be a good idea to figure out why your expressed viewpoint is flawed. The Article V process is one of many methods by which people framed their ideas concerning how, when, why, where, governments (so called) are to be peacefully defended against when the people running the government do such things as making slavery legal for them to do while no one else is allowed to do it.

"...churning selective obfuscation."

That is more character assassination; this time it is nice that you restated something I already addressed concerning your original post. I sure would be nice if knowledgeable people who actually understand all the many competitive methods of defense were to give that Article V process a run for your money. Unfortunately most people have no money, unless the idea is to claim that the fraudulent money issued by the criminals who took over the working federation is money.

So a list of acknowledged methods of peaceful defense against criminals who take over voluntary government include:
1. Continental Congress creates a voluntary agreement to defend all the people in all the states on the continent (Declaration of Independence)
2. Present any aggressive military enemy with a deterrence of defensive military power that is powerful enough to deter military war of aggression
3. Frauds pretend to be a continental congress and they reinstate criminal government while writing an Article V process that might work if people understood it
4. Due process, or the law of the land, or trial by jury according to the common laws of free people, a process that worked for thousands of years and still works even today
5. Secession, or stop paying the extortion fee and declare that you are independent as a people in a country, state, region, or perpetual voluntary union
6. Reestablish competition in money markets and actual money replaces the fraudulent money that finances war of aggression for the profit of the few fraudulent central bankers at the expense of everyone.

So my effort to respond to your original post continues to be a repeat of the same message offered, the same message that you are ignorant of, the same message that may be the message that inspires you to resort to censorship in the form of shooting the messenger with repetitive personal attacks.

"I've not seen you mentioning any social code, law, rules, regulations, fundamental principles etc."

That is easy to fix.

The following will be acknowledge by all who acknowledge and understand the following, those who willfully ignore the following will be investors investing in ignorance concerning the following words that offer a message concerning the idea 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."

If the idea is to ignore every time I try to promote the Article V idea, please do that process, more power to you, go right ahead, it might work to accomplish your goals, so do it, please. If you ignore my message that offers a positive credit to your exclusive use of your idea, please process your version of an Article V, and I say so despite your obvious, demonstrated, repetitive personal attacks on me, your libelous falsehoods aimed at me, then all the more reason for you to actually recognize, and understand, something about yourself.

Go ahead, full speed ahead, with your version of an Article V convention, do so now, please do so. You have my subjective opinion helping you on your way. I think you will get what you pay for on that trail.

"I've not seen you mentioning any social code, law, rules, regulations, fundamental principles etc."

If in the future you ignore my response to that as you ignore my response that offers to you my help in urging you on your chosen Article V path, then I can certainly quote your words and my response again, so as to restate the accurate account: instead of your fictitious account.

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

That is one of the most competitive explanations of the idea of law known to much of mankind. It may be a good idea to not willfully ignore it.

"You seem unable to recognize that I have done so."

Again that is a fabrication of false history as the actual account of my recognition of your personal intent to do something along the lines of an Article V process is not only recognized by me, again, and again, but adding to my recognizing your intent is my offer of encouragement to send you on your chosen path immediately if not sooner.

"Yes it is true you volunteered nothing in the legal realm associated as an alternative to the American constitution or the rights it intends to confer upon Americans. Your pretense of actually having an argument is therefore false."

I go to jury duty. My son does too. I ran for congress, in 1996, was on the ballot and managed to speak freely during the campaign, including a few debates one of which was broadcast through AM commercial radio. Trial by jury worked for thousands of years before the original federal constitution, then the false federal constitution usurped trial by jury as the criminals restated their counterfeit courts with the Judiciary Act of 1789, and they managed to ram that through even before acknowledging the Bill of Rights.

So there are now operating in America the two competitive legal systems simultaneously whereupon the legal system I volunteer to invest my precious time and energy is the one described in the Bill of Rights, not the kangaroo versions alternately known as Admiralty, Chancery, Exchequer, Nisi Prius, Equity, and Summary.

"...you volunteered nothing in the legal realm associated as an alternative to the American constitution..."

There are at least 54 so called American constitutions, and many of those original versions of those many competitive constitutions ALSO promote, in writing, trial by jury as the means by which people find the truth which is necessary in defending against the criminals who so routinely resort to deception.

"Your pretense of actually having an argument is therefore false."

I do not argue; what would be the point?

If rule of law were afforded to all, then your "freedom" to libel anyone would be costly to you in the form of a common law trial by jury involving me as the accuser, and you as the defendant, where 12 people are in front of me reading your libel.

Why would you claim that I want to argue at all? What is your reasoning behind your claim that I have "an argument"?

If I have a lawful argument, which involves a trial by jury case, according to the common law, then I can state my argument to the jury in that case. Why would I argue on a forum?

You, please, proceed with your version of an Article V convention. Who is stopping you?

"What you are doing is barely parallel conjecture of a philosophical nature that equates, more or less to effort of critical "rambling"."

Repetitive resort to fabricating a false version of the target of character assassination: simple libel.

How about a list of steps followed in order to reach your Article V goals?

An alternative path is well established.

1. Decide to volunteer as a jurist in a trial by jury case conducted according to the common laws of free, independent, liberated, kind, good, moral, people, who defend each other by finding the truth through this idea known as the law of the land.
2. Understand the process according to the common law; before, during, and after each case where you volunteer as an individual capable of setting the accused free based upon your authority.

 

[Christophera]

I will try your technique of not using the quote function and instead using quotes to see if you apprehend and comprehend what the OP states.

THIS IS THE OP! Prime constitutional intent. Do you remember you said none was stated? HELLO(?)

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

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

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

Maybe you are not reading. This is prime constitutional intent in the OP.

"The quote of myself above is from the OP. Seems you missed the point of the OP and instead have been churning selective obfuscation."

What "seems" like something to you is in fact not what something "seems" to you,

1. Decide to volunteer as a jurist in a trial by jury case

It seem you write a great deal but never address any aspect of the OP. It's not even possible to determine that you are actually reading the OP. In fact most of what you write is almost off topic, ending up suggesting I join a grand jury is an example.

 

[Josf]

"Do you remember you said none was stated?"

My memory is such that I have asked for clarification on words choices (your word choices) that may have many opposite meanings and therefore a clarification is a reasonable request. If you can quote any words stated by anyone then those statements are those statements in fact.

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

What does "codified" mean to you? To me the concept of rule of law was already "codified" before the declaration of independence as proven in trial by jury cases, such as the case where a black slave was set free by a jury in the 1600s in America. The "codification" of rule of law is further exemplified in cased labeled Respublica versus so and so, exemplified in at least 2 cases, one during the working federation under the Articles of Confederation and the other after the state in which the trial was held was at that time one of those states (under specific protest) that "Ratified" the fraudulent Constitution of 1787. So all three examples offered exemplify the "codification" of the already existing method of processing due process, which is rule of law, was codified already, before the full RAT-ification of the fraudulent constitution of 1787.

The following might also help bring light to the idea that there is only one, monopoly, process that works in favor of defenders of liberty as defenders of liberty seek defense against criminals who perpetrate crimes upon innocent people under the color of law:

Bonding Code

The rule of law "codification" idea is such that:

"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 backed up in my current study on this specific topic as quoted in the Elliot's Debates Volume I text as such:

"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questions in any court or place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on, Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."

That means no immunity from rule of law for criminals even though said accused criminals are the highest members of the federal government agency (corporate charter).

"This is prime constitutional intent in the OP."

Your prime intent is your prime intent, and again more power to you, please move from whichever step 1 is according to your prime intent to step 2 according to your prime intent, on and on, please.

"It seem you write a great deal but never address any aspect of the OP."

What you "seem" and what is are two different things. You may find use in your version of an Article V process as far as that may go, one step at a time, and my input has been that you ought to find out sooner rather than later how well that works for you. At the same time my input has been that your claims of the Article V process as the ONLY way for people to defend themselves from criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law is a false claim demonstrated amply by the historical record, including current history here:



"In fact most of what you write is almost off topic, ending up suggesting I join a grand jury is an example."

Please, again, repeating the same plea over and over again, please go from step 1, whatever you thing step 1 is, with your Article V process, and describe how well that is working for you as you reach whatever goal you think you are reaching.

If you claim that I suggest to you that you join a grand jury then you can make such a specious claim, sure enough, but by what process is your claim any good, other than your say so?

 

[Christophera]

Pretending you cannot understand the question indicates you are not sincere, because it is plainly stated. And pretending you don't know which one is lame because they all have been. Such is consistent with your misrepresentations, really, "with your Article V process" for example, and efforts to change the subject.

The sincere people of this world simply answer questions, the rest pretend they cannot understand or pretend to hear different questions, or need the words of the questions explained although they present themselves as knowledgable.

A lawful and peaceful revolution will be a success for Americans who can agree upon the most prime constitutional intents. That Americans should have the right to alter or abolish through Article V succeeding because of unity enabled as the manifestation of the purpose of free speech, is natural law.

Simple as that, and pretending to not understand it only exposes a non argument as fraud in debate. Clearly, you have no plan and you are against a lawful plan.

 

[Josf]

"Pretending you cannot understand the question indicates you are not sincere..."

The problem with your statement above can be understood as the problem with your statement above if the idea is to understand the problem with your statement above, if you conclude that your statement above is "the truth" (when it is demonstrably false) before investigating why your statement above is problematic, is a commonly understood error.

Survival of a Fitting Quotation

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

"Pretending you cannot understand the question indicates you are not sincere, because it is plainly stated."

"... it is plainly stated."

I am going to ask, because I can investigate this accusation made by you, and the question is: Which question is plainly stated?

The use of words like "legalistic realms enables" to me is the use of ambiguous terms that can mean anything and therefore those terms are not plain English plainly stating an idea, so I ask for clarification; which is a reasonable way to find out precisely what you mean when you choose to use words like "legalistic realms enables," for one example of ambiguous wording that can mean just about anything.

"A lawful and peaceful revolution will be a success for Americans who can agree upon the most prime constitutional intents."

The many Americans who formed defensive governments in response to criminal British war of aggression did not all agree on writing constitutions, most people in most states agreed on preserving trial by jury according to common laws of free people. Your fixation upon the one constitution that was demonstrably fraudulent is noted.

"That Americans should have the right to alter or abolish through Article V succeeding because of unity enabled as the manifestation of the purpose of free speech, is natural law."

Are you going to claim that the above is a statement made in plain English?

"Simple as that, and pretending to not understand it only exposes a non argument as fraud in debate. Clearly, you have no plan and you are against a lawful plan."

The employment of forums as a means of injuring people with falsehoods that constitute libel is common place these days. The good part about life here on earth is the responsibility afforded to all who can respond to libel in their own defense: hold to an accurate accounting.

Your thinly veiled accusation is demonstrably false. My plan has been, is, and will continue to be an effort to help people inform themselves concerning the many avenues available to them in their own defense or in defense of the innocent. An example concerns military veterans who can now see clearly the stark differences between true defenders and those who work for criminal profiteers employing war of aggression as their means to gain profit at the expense of everyone.

That type of information is clearly demonstrated in the following example:


I have yet to watch that one, which is another one of many possible, competitive, examples.

My plan includes a determination to continue dutifully showing up for jury duty.

My plan includes a determination to continue encouraging you to go through with your Article V campaign one step at a time. My plan has just progressed 3 steps.

1. Defend myself from your attacks of libel against me on this forum.
2. Help other people see that there are more than one Monopoly way to reach the goal of defense against criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law.
3. Encourage you, once again, to return to the topic rather than employ the forum as your personal method of attacking people with libel.

 

[Christophera]

"Pretending you cannot understand the question indicates you are not sincere..."

The problem with your statement above can be understood as the problem with your statement above.

Either a sincerity problem or a mental problem.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

got a question for ya chris.check your pm box.

 

[Christophera]

Josf, I'm not discussing semantics, and I'm not depending on any court until after a lawful and peaceful revolution.

Posting video of Rhodes of OK means nothing except that you've been taken in by their rhetoric. They do not keep the oath. They only refuse to violate selective aspects.
The Bundy ranch appeared as theatre to me, trying to demonstrate that armed confrontation was functional. It's not.

Your efforts to minimize my strategy which is posted, by calling it "your article V plan" is transparent and you completely miss the point that the plan is first about American unity around natural Law.

 

[Josf]

The Article V in the Articles of Confederation is an example of an Article V. Another example of an Article V is the one in the fraudulent Constitution of 1787. When you get around to implementing ONE step of what you think is ONE step of an Article V process, as you may (or may not - how can anyone know what your first step is) follow what you think is the first step you intend to do as you interpret the words written in the fraudulent Constitution of 1787, which is precisely why I started using the word "you" since your plan and your first step is so far a plan where you attack other people personally for the crime of asking you what you mean when you use words like "realistic realm enables" instead of proceeding with whatever you are going to do when you take the step you will take according to the way you interpret the fraudulent Constitution of 1787.

"Josf, I'm not discussing semantics, and I'm not depending on any court until after a lawful and peaceful revolution."

Your plan is to not do some things you will not do, and then your plan is demonstrated as attacking my personal integrity by putting my question concerning what you actually mean with your word choices into an unfavorable light, as your claims continue to be that I am doing some type of effort to distract you from YOUR goal.

Other people have similar plans as YOUR plan.

The Plan - Wolf PAC

People often claim there is only one way, or two ways, to reach a specific goal. Some people then go on to explain, in detail, how they are going to accomplish their goal.

http://www.patriotcoalition.org/docs/Convention-of-Snakes.pdf

People make counter-claims.

I just began looking and found 2 plans, instead of returning to my original plan of looking through Elliot's Debates where the original fraudulent Constitution was debated, to see what the original frauds claimed to be their intent, and what the original defenders claimed to be the true meaning of the frauds claims.

Your version of your plan is as yet a difficult thing to understand since your use of words, as far as I am concerned, are one source of communication trouble, as your use of words like "legalistic realm enables" can mean anything.

"Posting video of Rhodes of OK means nothing except that you've been taken in by their rhetoric."

Your estimate of what I may or may not think has already been proven to be unknown (because you lie when you write) or false (because you believe the falsehoods you write about me) so more of the same character assassination attempts of me are duly noted once again as the Topic is turned by you to my personal integrity.

"They do not keep the oath."

An oath to a fraudulent Constitution without a Bill of Rights is ONE oath possible. An oath to a fraudulent Constitution where a Bill of Rights amends the fraudulent Constitution is another possible oath. Obeying a criminal order issued by a criminal perpetrating a crime under the color of law is a decision made by an individual in time and place where the individual making the decision is the lawful authority in that case, at that time, in that place.

Such as:
An Account of the My Lai Courts-Martial

Quote:_____________________________________________
An army helicopter piloted by Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson arrived in the My Lai vicinity about 9 a.m. Thompson noticed dead and dying civilians all over the village. Thompson repeatedly saw young boys and girls being shot at point-blank range. Thompson, furious at what he saw, reported the wanton killings to brigade headquarters[THOMPSON'S STORY].

Meanwhile, the rampage below continued. Calley was at the drainage ditch on the eastern edge of the village, where about seventy to eighty old men, women, and children not killed on the spot had been brought. Calley ordered the dozen or so platoon members there to push the people into the ditch, and three or four GIs did. Calley ordered his men to shoot into the ditch. Some refused, others obeyed. One who followed Calley's order was Paul Meadlo, who estimated that he killed about twenty-five civilians. (Later Meadlo was seen, head in hands, crying.) Calley joined in the massacre. At one point, a two-year-old child who somehow survived the gunfire began running towards the hamlet. Calley grabbed the child, threw him back in the ditch, then shot him.

Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. (One account reports Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians, but Thompson later said he did not remember having done so.) He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.

By 11 a.m., when Medina called for a lunch break, the killing was nearly over. By noon, "My Lai was no more": its buildings were destroyed and its people dead or dying. Soldiers later said they didn't remember seeing "one military-age male in the entire place". By night, the VC had returned to bury the dead. What few villagers survived and weren't already communists, became communists. Twenty months later army investigators would discover three mass graves containing the bodies of about 500 villagers.
________________________________________________________________________________

Finding the truth through trial by jury is a common understanding of common laws going back thousands of years before criminals created fraudulent oaths that may, or may not, be understood as fraudulent oaths by those whose authority to otherwise do the right thing is as yet still working fine.

"They do not keep the oath."

The above accusation on this forum is one thing. Someone making that same accusation in a "legalistic realm" might be another thing entirely. Having that accusation in print constitutes libel if it turns out that the (ambiguous) accusation is false.

"The Bundy ranch appeared as theatre to me, trying to demonstrate that armed confrontation was functional. It's not."

The word you can't seem to find is deterrence.

The idea of a defensive military deterrence never becomes an armed confrontation because no fool would go up against an effective defensive military deterrence. The point was proven more than once.

"....American unity around natural Law..."

Hence: trial by jury, and the original defensive deterrence effort called "statehood," and then the original defensive deterrence effort called federation which originally led to confrontation BECAUSE the war of aggression by the British was a criminal order issued by the criminals for their fellow criminals to obey without question, as the war of aggression commenced, as either fools who do not know better obeyed, or slaves who took the deal to fight for the criminals instead of against the criminals, or fellow war of aggression profiteers sought their fair share of the expected LOOT once the LOOTERS "won" their war of aggression.

Then the criminals took over in 1787 and started issuing new criminal orders to be obeyed without question.

Then the Bill of Rights amended the fraudulent Constitution of 1787 which caused a clear and obvious demarcation line dawn between those who were the criminals employing the fraudulent federal government, initiating aggressive war for profit, and those who were otherwise managing to remain within the common laws of free people such as trial by jury.

"...American unity around natural Law."

Fixating on words written by frauds as frauds usurped natural law in America is one possible method of processing a plan to accomplish a goal in time and place.

 

[Christophera]

The Article V in the Articles of Confederation is an example of an Article V. Another example of an Article V is the one in the fraudulent Constitution of 1787. When you get around to implementing ONE step of what you think is ONE step of an Article V process, as you may (or may not - how can anyone know what your first step is) follow what you think is the first step you intend to do as you interpret the words written in the fraudulent Constitution of 1787, which is precisely why I started using the word "you" since your plan and your first step is so far a plan where you attack other people personally for the crime of asking you what you mean when you use words like "realistic realm enables"

Fixating on words written by frauds as frauds usurped natural law in America is one possible method of processing a plan to accomplish a goal in time and place.

Fixating on words is an evasion. Labeling without proof is a cognitive distortion. Proof in the presence of denial of other proof undermining or discrediting proof, renders that proof not valid.

This was posted BEFORE the legitimate phrase you object to. That phrase was an effort to get you to be accountable to the reality of what the constitution is and the fact that the American people have the right to perfect it.

I would link to the actual post but haven't figured out how to get a post specific url off this forum yet.

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/danielmarks/2013/04/30/congress-needs-to-comply-with-state-demands-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/']http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2013/04/30/congress-needs-to-comply-with-state-demands-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]

Petition has already been covered by many people acting in unison.

A competitive example was offered by:
Peition for Redress -- War Powers

Your words confirm something important:
2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?

Those words are ambiguous, failing to identify the name of someone perpetrating a crime, failing to identify a name of a victim, or a list of names of victims, and so where does that claim of wrongdoing proceed to the obvious next step in order to defend the past victims, the current victims, and the future victims of that specific crime?

Here is an example of a congressman:


Here is what happened to that congressman:
http://www.dcdave.com/article5/080406.htm

Here is another example of a congresswoman (women are no longer considered property by the criminal powers that were):


So the point that might become obvious here is the point at which someone realizes that the criminals who take over governments are not fond of obeying rule of law.

How does the (if not your) plan go to the next step from this point forward while knowing, as a matter of fact, petitions are ignored when petitions are given to criminals who are not fond of obeying rule of law?

 

[Christophera]

A through G are my plan to assure that all amendments from an Article V convention are constitutional.

The plan at "E" leaves the political realm and enters the sociological, legal realm of discourse between a group of Americans and officials. These are Americans who reasonably, absolutely can prove that they have the right to alter of abolish through Article V and that the purpose of free speech is what enables that right.

This petition is on the state level where accountability is easier to gain. Herein is the reason that Article V is actually a good legal mechanism. However, nothing works without the unity of the people if fraudulent criminals will not act lawfully.

Do you think we can petition God to strike the criminals dead?

No, I think not. God will not help those that will not help themselves.