CDZ Con Con Con Job or Rule of Law?

[Josf]

Some people are seeking the same goal of effectively defending innocent victims from injury done by every form of threat known to man: foreign or domestic. That can be called a moral goal, and it may be considered as a contender for the most important goal required for the continued survival and improvement of life. Perhaps other possible contenders include such goals as know thyself before endeavoring to "defend" anyone else.

Some people are seeking the same goal which is to satisfy their own special interests that they alone consider to be worth their time and effort to gain, while they do not willfully seek to gain at the expense of other people. That can be called an amoral goal, and it may be considered as a contender for the most important amoral goal so long as the individual is the authority commanding the power to know what his, or her, special interest is, in fact. Someone claiming to want to help someone else, as their special charitable interest and their happy place, while this same someone cares not to know if the one being helped actually wants that special interest help, does not fit into this category as an amoral goal, since false help, and false charity, is immoral due to the nature of falsehood; a misdirecting force.

Some people are seeking the same goal which is to satisfy their desire to gain at the expense of other people, which is a goal that can be understood as a threat to the quality of life of other people, and it can be understood therefore as a threat to life in general. This is a contender for the most destructive goal known to mankind out of many possible destructive goals known to mankind. Perhaps it can be argued that an even more destructive goal is to help people when those reaching to help people care not to know what anyone else thinks is helpful in their own individual judgment. This can be called the immoral goal shared by all who seek to reach for this immoral goal: to harm people overtly, or to harm people coverty.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Uh, so what's the "debate"?

 

[Josf]

Uh, so what's the "debate"?

Thanks for asking. I had a work order to complete. This is an open debate concerning the idea of a Con Con Con Job versus Rule of Law. I started to introduce my viewpoint on that question when the work order showed up and redirected my efforts temporarily.

The idea, or the inspiration, or the interest in this specific Debate is inspired in part by a few other Debates here in the Clean Debate Zone.

For example there is the topic concerning the limited powers of people employed at the State level compared to the limited power of the people employed at the Federal level in the topic asking why the states (people in the states) cannot decide on this that, or the other thing.

The Con Con Con Job took that question which was once a limit placed on the people running the federal level which limited those people to contain those people within certain limits, and the people in the states, at the state level, reserved their powers to decide this, that, or the other thing: took that question and turned it upside down.

It was once a matter of demonstrable fact that the people in the states can, at will, throw out government that was no longer working to secure safety and happiness of the people, also knowable as defense and general welfare. Why the wording was change from safety and happiness, and the wording was changed to "general welfare" and why words like "necessary and proper" were chosen, during the debates that turned the answer to the question up-side-down, is old news. The Con Con Con Job was a nefarious, fraudulent, criminal, usurpation, which inspired those who understood how a federation is supposed to work, to speak out against the fruits of the labors of the con artists running the Con Con Con Job, not to sign it, and to immediately amend it with the Bill of Rights.

Another correlating Topic in this Clean Debate Zone is the question concerning the possible employment of people in states where people in states process something knowable as an Article V convention, or what I want to call Con Con Con Job II. If it were not a confidence scheme, or fraud, then it is certainly not going to be based upon the original fraud that spawned something called an Article V convention. If it is not to be a new version of an old fraud, then the intended reason for assembling people into a room to amend the existing order (criminal order or rule of law) is the actual goal, and the actual goal cannot therefore be to throw out the existing order (criminal or rule of law) in place of the existing order.

In other words there is a time line that goes like this:

British (criminal) rule inspires an assembly of defenders who no longer agree to be ruled as victims of criminal rule. The official start date is July 4th, 1776 and the written declaration of independence written by Thomas Jefferson for the independent minded people who no longer accept their victimization by the criminal British.

Then the official paper worked including a constitution in the form of a number of people in a number of places called states (former colonies) whereby these people elect 10 presidents over a span of time between 1776 and 1787, and a number of delegates form a Continental Congress, and they debate, form, frame, draft, write, and sign a voluntary, unanimous, agreement called The Articles of Confederation.

That time line up to that point is the battle between criminal rule (British) no longer agreed upon by people who are willing to fight in defense of rule of law instead of rule by criminals. That time line includes a competitive (not perfect) example of rule of law within those people willing to defend rule of law, in towns, cities, counties, states, and a federal, free market, voluntary, agreeable, rule of law, union.

Then the time line changes, swinging decidedly the opposite way, in Massachusetts, during something that later became known as Shays's Rebellion explained well, and in few words, here:


That may or may not be sufficient to answer your welcome question.

 

[Josf]

Relevant information in the link to the lecture concerning a historical study of events that became known (by the false label) as Shays's Rebellion. The intended meaning of the words in the Declaration of Independence were realized as intention to be free turned into an actual response by the British (criminal) military aggression that became known (by false label) as The Revolutionary War. The aggressors criminally invaded a number of independent countries called States, which were formerly colonies (which then turned into free crime zones by the criminal British) and the aggressors invaded those States in order to subjugate (victimize) those free people in those States. It was a reaction to a declaration of independence, and the reaction was to aggressively attack, with malice aforethought, attack of a free people, with the intent of enslaving those free people, and then, in reaction to the aggressive assault, the free people defended themselves.

That was not a NEW thing. The information in the link above offers the historically precise label (not the false label) of "regulation" being done by free, voluntary, defenders, who act defensively so as to regulate the wrongs being done by criminals who may or may not pretend to be the authorities.

The regulators, historically, have had their fill of criminals running amok, and they effectively defend the victims of the criminals running amok, in the locations that are local to the regulators.

That is a historical fact. Regulators work effectively defending innocent people from criminal gangs, including criminal gangs that claim to be the authorities. The concept goes way back in history even before a number of Barons in England regulated the criminal behavior of a so called King John, which resulted in a document that recorded that regulatory event known as Magna Charta.

So regulators, as reported in the link, regulated band of criminals in the Carolinas, for one example, and that example exemplifies the history of American regulators regulating bands of criminals, and that clues the curious in on the true meaning of both the so called Revolutionary War, and Shays's Rebellion. In both cases the free people had their fill of criminals claiming to be the authorities, whereby the criminals were running amok, perpetrating crimes, and claiming that their crimes were authorized to be done by the authorities, who happen to be those same criminals.

What is starkly absent in the regulation done by the regulators in Massachusetts is trial by jury according to the common law. Instead of trial by jury according to the common law, in Massachusetts, there was a counterfeit version of "court" that worked precisely the same way as the British debt collection courts alternately known as Exchequer, Admiralty, Equity, Nisi Prius, and Chancery Courts, all of which are claims of authority to dictate summary "justice" based upon the say so, the opinion, the pleasure, of a despot, or an agent of a despot, known as a lesser magistrate, or other colorful names that constitute the color of law.

So a timeline helps with examples to show the timeline.

A Jury trial where rule of law works in setting a slave free from a criminal:
17C American Women 1650s Virginia Court Records - Elizabeth Key - Slave or Free
"That she hath bin by verdict of a Jury impannelled 20th January 1655 in the County of Northumberland found to be free by severall oathes which the Jury desired might be Recorded."

That exemplifies what was known as rule of law in England, also known as trial by jury, or the common law; however that was the American version exemplified in 1655.

Then the criminals took over Britain completely and to the point of issuing something called the Stamp Act. This was one of the last straws placed on the backs of the productive, good, moral, people in America. The idea that the criminals can extort everything of value from the producers of valuable things, with a fraudulent, and extortive device such as the example Stamp Act, was summed up in the literature that inspired the regulatory Declaration of Independence.

Example:
Of the Origin and Design of Government in General with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution

"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."

At some point the good, moral, people who produce anything worth stealing understand that there is a point at which the power to defend slips from their grasps, as the power stolen becomes greater. That is a physical law called the point of diminishing returns.

So the regulators regulate the criminals who prove to be stealing their investments invested for the defense against crime and the criminals spend that stolen loot on investments that increase the criminal power to steal even more defensive investments. The regulators first say NO.

Then the criminals spend their stolen loot on torturing and slaughtering the best men first, rape the women, and enslave all those who dare to question the order to obey.

This is not news.

In the case of the Revolutionary War (so called) the aggressive military loot and plunder crime, called war of aggression, managed to kill off many abled bodied defenders, rape a population, plunder a large amount of property, but the overt war failed to subjugate the regulators.

The regulation produced the Declaration of Independence, a number of State Constitutions, some better than others, and a voluntary, free market, agreeable federal union.

That leads up to the covert takeover by criminals of the formerly independent, free, and liberated people in Massachusetts.

Here is an explanation concerning one of the turn coats:


Here is another example :
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html

And yet another:
George Washington s Take On The Constitution

There were, in demonstrated examples, individuals who were on the criminal side against the defenders of innocent people.

During Shays's Rebellion (so called) there was a trial, but it was not an example of due process. It was summary "justice" and a record was kept of the proceedings.
http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539282.pdf

The accused in that case offered a valuable lesson in history concerning the difference between rule of law and rule by criminals.

The regulators lost the battle to nullify the criminal usurpation infesting the State of Massachussets, but there was no (not yet) dictator running a dictatorship at a false federal level as the defenders lost the last battle of the so called Revolutionary War.

 

[Josf]

Moving unto page 111 in a copy of Elliot's Debates Volume I the process of amending the federal union is shown to be established in writing and then processed in fact.

Each state has 1 vote. 9 of 13 (majority rule) is required for altering the perpetual federal union according to those people who wrote and agreed upon the perpetual union. That means that there was no, at this time in this historical record, established method of dissolving the perpetual union and replacing the perpetual union with an entirely different form of government.

Unfortunately one of the initial amendments was shown to be (not dated in this copy) an alteration of the mode of establishing payments of war costs which are known as debts (all the people of the United States in debt to investors who invest in the United States winning the war and therefore able to pay back the creditors, who are investors, the full amount, on par, with interest) whereby the former apportionment of which people in which state owed which portion of the debt, and how that proportion was calculated.

This is very odd from my viewpoint, having read some of the available records in opposition to the move to remove the perpetual federal union and replace it with a consolidated nation state. The opposition stressed the idea of financing government costs with the sale of land that was defended against criminal take-over by defenders who then care for that land.

This may be hard for other people to grasp, if your education is based upon the false idea that governments are no different than any other criminal organization other than the one difference being that government claims to be the most powerful criminal gang ruling over all the other criminal gangs. The fact of the matter is such that moral government remains voluntary, and immoral government (just like any other criminal issuing a demand upon any targeted victim) is involuntary. If land is seized for the purpose of exploiting people on that land, or exploiting people who will eventually be on that land, then that common practice is called theft. On a small scale, such as someone arriving where you live and by deception, threat of violence, or aggressive violence, the criminal takes over the land you were on at the time the crime occurred, the principle can be your actual experience in time and place as you then know very well what it is like to be a victim in this manner. The larger scale of the same crime (in principle) is "war of aggression" with plenty of examples throughout history, including the poster boy example whereby the Nazi criminals (and at the same time the Bolshevik criminals) invade Poland and take that land, and subjugate those people who have lived on that land for a long, long, time.

So there was tabled the idea, often enough to be a known idea, that one of the best ways to finance the defense of the people on the lands known as America was to offer the land at a market price to those private individuals who can afford to take care of that land productively as their private investment. The idea at the time was such that private individuals would then own land from a land patent and their ownership would be considered allodial. This idea, holding land in allodium, is one of the principle founding ideas behind the American dream - so called. A king in his castle on his land where he is responsible for defending his land and he is accountable for any injuries he does to anyone else who is also a king in his castle on his land in America where rule of law replaces rule by one King ruling everyone else at the pleasure of the one King no matter how criminal that King may actually be in demonstrable fact.

So the idea was to fix the boundaries of the unequal states (some large some small) and then proportion the costs of defense according to the value of the land protected by rule of law in that state. Big states can afford to add more to the unified defense fund (before purchases are made = investment, or after expenses = debt) and big states have more land to defend for people on that land, or for people who will buy into this (invest into) this mutual defense (voluntary) association.

That can be proven as a fact. Not only in the document titled Elliot's Debates Volume I, but in other records that are easily available with modern technology.

Land = value = method of financing defensive costs = calculated proportionally = no one is subsidized into gaining POWER at the expense of anyone.

The fixing of boundaries of the larger states, such as Massachusetts and Virginia, so as to avoid increasing an already disproportionate land quantity between large and small states was an idea and a practice in reality at those times when the federal idea (voluntary mutual defense idea and ideas reaching for the goal of figuring out a just, fair, proportionate, method of financing said defense) became a necessary invention while the British Red Coats were currently rioting in the blood of the innocent in what they considered to be their slave states owned lock, stock, and human being stock, by the one all powerful Divinity (so called) in the form of a single King among mortal slaves.

Instead of this common interest in the safety and happiness of all the people (rule of law) there were those special interests already at work putting into the flow of sound reasoning for all, an obvious, and accountable move to empower criminals seeking to pervert the concept of law as these criminals abused their power given to them, under the idea of rule of law (defense, safety, and happiness of all), to pervert the idea of rule of law, instead of promoting the idea of rule of law, and the perversion is to perpetrate war of aggression, to capture land, so as then to subjugate people already on that land, or to bond new people (involuntarily) into schemes that are designed to steal productive wealth from people on productive land.

The idea of employing land as the basis of proportionate defense cost liabilities, to be paid by defenders in each state was written, agreed upon, in the federal union before the process of altering the federal union was employed when a group of a few people changed the federal union from that land valuation process to the process of counting the number of free "white" people, and discounting the relative value of "other persons" at least according to Elliot's Debates Volume 1 page 111 on the copy I am reading.

There is no date for this alteration of this federal (perpetual) union of states (people in states) nor is there a record of the actual debates (the actual words spoken) when those intending to make this alteration explained the reasoning for doing so. There is also no record explaining opposition to such an alteration from land as the basis of proportioning costs to free "white" people, and "three fifths of all other persons" counted so as to increase the "fair" share to be paid by all those people in those states.

To be continued.

 

[Josf]

So the question that returns to my mind is the question concerning which master is served by any one or anyone representing any one.

1. All of mankind as if mankind were one individual.
2. Self interest at the expense of someone or at the expense of everyone other than the one whose self interest is to gain at the expense of other people.

The concept of helping all of mankind (as a self interest) is not a foreign concept for those who understand the concept, and those who act accordingly, responsibly, and accountably, as service is intended to be served in this way where service serves all of mankind: to help all of mankind as if mankind were one thing.

The idea is embodied with such words as: for good men to do nothing is to allow evil men to do evil, or for one innocent victim to be enslaved is to enslave everyone by that incremental amount.

The necessity of declaring independence (July 4th, 1776) in such an open (public) manner was a calculated event intending to inspire independent minded people to do something good, in a unified way, which was to stop paying the extortion fees (Stamp Act), as the flow of power was a direction of power flowing from those who do good with their own productive power as that power financed the armies that were currently rioting in the blood of the innocent people who could not, or would not, pay the extortion fees.

That situation, whereby the evil people claim to be "protecting and serving" the productive people, when in fact the evil people wearing the clothing of sheep are the wolves who devour the innocent productive people, turning innocent productive people into maimed, defenseless, weak, sheep-like, non-productive, slaves, whose inspiration to work is inversely proportional to the amount that the fruits of their labor are stolen and used to finance the high pay rate paid to the goon who cracks the whip anytime the slaves are not hard at work paying their "debt" to the master.

Why work more productively when each extra effort is returned with another sound whipping done to anyone daring to question the self interest of the master?

So the defenders were inspired to announce the fact that the defenders were going all in on defense and risking everything to reach the goal of independence FROM criminals posing as saviors. The document (declaration of independence) offers the idea that it is the duty of free people to fight against enslavement by criminals who pose as the government.

1. All of mankind as if mankind were one individual. Also known as rule of law, also known as independence from the alternative.
2. The alternative; which is self interest at the expense of someone or at the expense of everyone other than one individual seeking this self interest at the expense of other people, which ends up with the enslavement of everyone including those who claim to be the masters as the so called masters end up totally dependent upon ensuring that at least some of the slaves are allowed to produce enough to keep for themselves enough production to be able to produce more.

How is that done, that process of knowing, which individual is on one side, and which individual is on the opposing side?

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

'The Jurors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, upon their oaths and affirmations, do present, That Abraham Carlisle, late of the city of Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia, carpenter; being an inhabitant of and belonging to and residing within the State of Pennsylvania, and under the protection of its laws, and owing allegiance to the same State, as a false traitor against the same, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, the fidelity which to the same State he owed wholly withdrawing, and with all his might intending the peace and tranquillity of this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to disturb, and war and rebellion against the same to raise and move, and the government and independency thereof, as by law established, to subvert, and to raise again and restore the government and tyranny of the king of Great Britain within the same Commonwealth: On the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight, and at divers days and times, as well before as after, at the city of Philadelphia, in the county aforesaid, with force and arms, did falsely and traiterously take a commission or commissions from the king of Great Britain, and then and there, with force and arms did falsely and treacherously also take a commission or commissions from general Sir William Howe, then and there acting under the said king of Great Britain, and under the authority of the same king, to wit, a commission to watch over and guard the gates of the city of Philadelphia, by the said Sir William Howe, erected and set up for the purpose of keeping and maintaing the possession of the said city, and of shutting and excluding the faithful and liege inhabitants and subjects of this State and of the United States from the said city: And then and there also maliciously and traiterously, with a great multitude of traitors and rebels, against the said Commonwealth, (whose names are as yet unkown to the jurors) being armed and arrayed in a hostile manner, with force and arms did falsely and traiterously assemble and join himself against this Commonwealth, and then and there, with force and arms, did falsely and traiterously, and in a warlike and hostile manner, array and dispole himself against this Commonwealth; and then and there, in pursuance and execution of such his wicked and traiterous intentions and purposes aforesaid, did falsely and traiterously prepare, order, wage and levy a public and cruel war against this Commonwealth; then and there committing and perpetrating a miserable and cruel slaughter of and amongst the faithful and liege inhabitants thereof; and then and there did, with force and arms, falsely and traiterously aid and assist the king of Great Britian, being an enemy at open war against this State, by joining his armies, to wit, his army under the command of general Sir William Howe, then actually invading this State; and then and there maliciously and traiterously, (with divers other Traitors to the jurors aforesaid unknown,) with force and arms, did combine, plot and conspire to betray this State and the United States of America into the hands and power of the king of Great Britian, being a foreign enemy to this State and to the United States of America, at open war against the same; and then and there did, with force and arms, maliciously and traiterously give and send intelligence to the same enemies for that purpose, against the duty of his allegiance, against the form of the act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.'

That is a sentence.

 

[Josf]

The above court case (common law trial by jury) can be imagined to apply to all people who are accused of treason; such as one individual named Robert Morris, and another individual named George Washington, and yet another individual named Alexander Hamilton.

These words were written into the Articles of Confederation:
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrest or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on, Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."

Keep that in mind. Either rule of law applies to all the same, or the claim that one individual is immune against prosecution is a confession that it is not, in fact, rule of law.

An explanation of one of many possible methods of accusing anyone (including a George Washington, a Robert Morris, or an Alexander Hamilton) of "treason, felony, or breach of the peace" according to common law (unwritten or natural law) principles is found here:
Bonding Code
__________________________________________________________
9.2 - Escalation
Further:
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).

When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.
____________________________________________________________

File that in a FYI memory bank.

When rule of law is the law of the land then the law applies to all without exception. Where there is a will there must be a way. If there is no way (immunity commanded by criminals who claim immunity) then it is not rule of law, it is rule by criminals where criminals make the rules, and their first rule is that they are free to perpetrate any crime at their exclusive pleasure; such as, for example, making slaves work harder and harder to "subsidize" their own enslavement.

There is more than enough evidence, easy to find inculpatory evidence, to make a case that the so called "Federalists" were conspiring to TURN the federation (voluntary) into a criminal organization (subsidized slavery) on two counts.

1. Covert central banking fraud type slavery.
2. Overt enslavement of people kidnapped from Africa and other parts of the world forced into labor by criminal slave masters and slave traders.

Both crimes are crimes against humanity, not merely crimes against a number of people in America before, during, and after the Revolutionary War which inspired the formation of independent (defensive and voluntary) states, and the formation of a union of states knowable as a federation.

Those who financed the capturing, shipping, and sale at auction, not to mention those who financed the torture and forced labor, of people, as if people were worse than cattle, included those running a corporation known as The East India Company. The East India Company stock holders, investors, profiteers, had made a fortune in starting a Drug War in China just recently, and their slave trade opportunity was just beginning to blossom as the African population was ripe for this venture since many slaves could be captured cheaply, and sold at auction for a high rate of return on investment. Those investing in shipping make out like bandits. Those who are able to subsidize the trade through criminal employment of government (defensive) power also make out like bandits. While those bearing the costs include the kidnapped, tortured, and forced to labor Africans, and the people who work competitively (famers) adding value by producing farming goods are faced with paying so called "taxes" to have those so called "taxes" used to invest in buying slaves to then have those slaves work for "free" producing farming goods in competition with farmers who could have refused to pay those "taxes" and instead of paying those "taxes" to "subsidize" their competition, they could have invested in their own capacity to out-produce their competition.

In other words the so called yeoman farmers who actually fought (and often died, or were maimed) in the war ended up having to compete with criminal slave traders (a minority of the people who make up the whole country) whose productive output (subsidized slave labor) could be sold at a competitively lower price due to the FACT that the yeoman farmers were actually FUNDING the subsidized slave labor that put the yeoman farmers out of business.

Not many people piece those pieces together in their current time on this planet but the truth of the facts on the ground at the time this subsidized slave labor was going on was certainly intimate reality for those who were, in the words of Thomas Paine: "we furnish the means by which we suffer" as the criminal slave traders enforce an extortion fee that is then used to finance their criminal slave trade where the criminal slave traders make out like bandits on the backs of the obvious slaves as well as the less obvious slaves.

A slave knows when a slave is a slave. If Stockholm Syndrome, or some other mental sickness sets in, then, and only then, a slave is forced into "loving" their chains, and licking the boots that snuff out their spirit of liberty.

Which of the southern "gentleman" were voting in this turn of events from shared liability in paying war debts based upon land valuation, which was not contentious, to a criminal valuation of human beings as if human beings were personal (or public) property?

The northern "gentleman" (criminals) whose idea was demonstrably a criminal fraud known as central banking, included (at least) Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton.

Which of the yeas in that session of congress, amending the existing (perpetual) voluntary union (federation) of states, added their vote to the one vote for their independent state, were obviously (incredibly) criminal confessions of their criminal, guilty, minds?

Yes they are saying, with their publicly recorded vote, their official vote, their official mind set, yes, yes, let's force struggling farmers to pay an extortion fee that works to destroy their ability to make a living, as those payments are then invested into accelerating the number of people captured from Africa, tortured, and forced into labor, so as to line the pockets of a few very evil people whose claims of "righteousness" is demonstrably false as these evil people record their yea votes on parchment no less?

When faced with this type of inculpatory evidence proving the fact of criminal intent, beyond reasonable doubt, the idea in the individual mind is to shoot the messenger?

 

[Josf]

Returning to Elliot's Debates Volume I seeking to eventually get to the bottom of the Article V amending process, or any information that sheds light on the stark difference between rule of law (voluntary association in defense of people from criminals with or without false claims of authority) and the opposition to rule of law (criminals with or without false claims of authority) and returning to page 114.

Here in this text is an announcement to the States from the Congress of the United States, where the announcement is fabricated by James Madison (future false federalist), Alexander Hamilton (central banking fraud and also a future false federalist) and Mr. Ellsworth (someone I've heard about but whose affiliation is as yet unknown as to either siding with rule of law, true federation, or siding with rule by criminals and false federation); whereby the announcement is dealing with investors who invested in war for profit and there demands to be paid back their entire (bet) sum of initial investment (principle) plus a profit in the form of interest payments.

The curious thing about this happening in this time frame is the decision made by Robert Morris (at some point in time) to stop paying the war veterans who were not slaughtered outright in the actual aggressive attacks perpetrated by the criminal British Red Coats, and their mercenary armies. So get that picture straight in your mind please as those in control of the FUND (federal fund, not National Fund, since the United States as this time is still a voluntary federation of people in states bonded for mutual defense, for safety, and for happiness of people, not "national interest" and not "national debt" not yet), those in control of the FUND were refusing to pay the "boots on the ground" for risking all, risking their farms, risking their families, risking their arms, legs, and their lives, and the central banking fraud Robert Morris decides to stop paying the earned income earned by the soldiers as compensation for their valuable time and effort, and their risks to life and liberty. That is not enough to pay the actual defenders with fraudulent money, that becomes worthless to the actual defenders, so that the actual defenders are forced to trade the fraudulent money (by the wagon load) for supplies, where the fraudulent money just so happens to then accumulate into the hands of "speculators" who will eventually turn all that fraud money in "on par" or at original value, that is not enough to pay the war veterans with fraudulent money, the central banking fraud decides to incite a revolt by the war veterans when the central banking fraud, Robert Morris, stops paying the war veterans. That is not enough either, since all those who "loaned" fraudulent money they printed out of thin air, loaning that fraudulent money to Uncle Sam, were then demanding to be paid back all that money loaned, and paid back with a sizable profit in the form of central banking fraud interest payments, all "on par" with the original value denominated onto the fraudulent (inflationary) notes.

Let it be know that it was Patrick Henry, a staunch defender of federal union for defense, who was then labeled as an "Anti" for speaking the truth, in opposition to the "nationalization" of the former voluntary federation, where there was said to be an awareness of a rat smell. The man smelled a rat. The rat in question may have been Robert Morris, or the rat may have been Alexander Hamilton, or perhaps both rats stank equally as ratty.

So the committee of 3, being James Madison (who would later recant his affiliation with the rats as James Madison later joins with Thomas Jefferson in penning the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in a vain attempt to put the criminal genie back into the bottle), Ratty Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. Ellsworth, the committee, pens an announcement announcing the demand to pay back the gamblers who gambled on winning big with the Revolutionary War. So...this is called insider trading. Meanwhile the veterans who didn't get slaughtered are, or soon will be, starved out with a freeze on the pay owned to them for the costs they bore in fighting the defensive war.

Does it get any rattier?

Yes it does. The competitive idea was still well known, yet ignored, concerning two very good ways to pay off the ransom claims deceptively couched as "national debt" to save the honor of the nation state, as a legal fiction that offers war profits to war profiteers at an incredible discount. You pay the cost of printing paper lies, and you get a criminal bank full of gold and silver in return for your investment in paper lies.

Who can beat that deal?

Slave traders? Yes, of course, since this inventive process of kidnapping innocent people in Africa, forcing them into labor, enables those willing to buy people as if people were less than cattle, enables them buyer to then monopolize specific agricultural industry, so that the veterans returning to their neglected farms, and their all too often raped families, have a vanishing market share to contend with while they are taxed (extorted) into paying for the labor of their criminal, monopoly, slave trading, slave labor, "subsidized competitors."

Free Labor for the insider traders?

Nothing but hard labor for everyone else?

How can that ever pass muster?

Land for sale! People can gain title in allodium? The proceeds from the sale of land goes to satisfy the demands made by speculators, criminals, central banking frauds, war profiteers, and slave traders whose demands amount to nothing more than, but nothing less than war profits for the well connected aristocracy in America?

Of course good people did, in fact, smell the awful rat smell, and damn right they spoke out about it, and they did so despite the fact the most of the major media of the time period was owned and controlled by the false federalist party membership.

 

[Josf]

Condensing information may be in order.

There were a number of competitive methods possible in financing the costs of defense against a formidable army of criminals, slaves, and mercenaries called Red Coats as the war of aggression began to work in favor of those investing in winning that war of aggression for profit.

So that makes things already complicated since there were a number of competitive methods possible in financing BOTH sides in the war of aggression.

1. Invest in, finance, and pay the costs required in defense against war of aggression for the defense of everyone at the expense of the few war profiteers.
2. Invest in, finance, and pay the costs required in perpetrating war of aggression for the profit of a few at the expense of everyone else.

So two sides above are explained numerically, and yet it my help to know that the same group of people (central banking frauds) invest in both sides, and this is called hedging your bets, or it is called diversified investment portfolios.

1. How much have we invested into gaining a return on our investment if and when the defenders win the defense of all at the cost of the few war profiteers who perpetrate war of aggression?

2. How much have we invested into gaining a return on our investment if and when the few war profiteers who perpetrate war of aggression win and everyone pays those costs associated with that type of financial investment?

One way to finance both sides at once is to convince the leaders of both sides that they can borrow money from central bankers (at interest) and in that way, if they win, they can pay back the central bankers the entire total amount of money borrowed, at the original value on the notes, and pay the central bankers back an additional amount of money, which is a tip, like tipping a waitress, for being such a good, helpful, well serving, central banker, ready, willing, and able to loan money to any military power in need of money.

It may be a good idea to understand the need to pay people who actually stand in front of cannons where the people on the other side are going to take part of your body off of you with that cannon.

That is one expense. Pay soldiers. Soldiers need food, or they are not soldiers. Food costs a lot of time and effort to make, just ask a farmer, ask the farmer if food is free for all who want food when eating food sounds like a good idea.

So central bankers say, here you go, this is the money we are going to lend to you, on your side, so that you can pay the farmers to not grow food, so you can pay the famers to stand in front of cannons, or behind cannons, to shoot other farmers on the other side, where we also finance their national debts.

Independent farmers reduce the cost of food when independent farmers compete with each other to grow the best quality food at the lowest price, and independent farmers are keen on the idea of defending the land where they work to turn raw land into productive, competitive, farms.

Independent farmers holding title of farms in allodium are free from any police powers according to common law ideas where there is no longer a Divine King financed by a central banker, who is often consuming people in wars of aggression for the profit of a few at the expense of all.

So you wonder, don't you, about just how true, how accurate, is this report to you on the nature of fraudulent central banker buddies?

They, these frauds, put numbers on paper, and they use these papers to finance aggressive war for profit. If the aggressor wins, then all the farmers on all the farms in the target location are slaves who must pay off the "national debt" imposed by...?

Who claims to be owned the National Debt?

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Government of the fraudulent central bankers, by the fraudulent central bankers, and for the fraudulent central bankers?

How much of the enormous National Debt is owed to you personally?

Did you buy a war bond?

How much did you pay when you invested in your war bond investment?

Did you counterfeit the "money" so as to then be in a position to invest in winning a return on your investment no matter which side wins?

If you counterfeited the "money" you used to buy a war bond from one side, and another war bond from the other side, then you will be owed "national debt" from both sides unless one side totally destroys every productive (slave farmer) on the other side. If there are any slaves left alive on the losing side then those slaves will be forced to labor to pay off their "national deb" and you get paid back on your investment.

Is that simple enough yet?

You pretend to be a central banker fraud. You invest in ink, paper, and a few very good liars who are charismatic people. Now you have a way to create national debt. You sell this money idea to the side that attacks, and you sell this idea to the side that defends. Both sides must pay you back or else another war is started because one side refuses to pay you back.

No, you think that is too simple, too basic, too evil, and there is no way possible that it can be true, because you know better than the actual information that is easily found as a matter of demonstrable fact?

 

[Josf]

Before diving back into the Con Con Con Job (crime under the color of law) versus Rule of Law (voluntary association which effectively empowers people to defend people from harm) Debate, and before specifically diving back into Elliot's Debates Volume I, and before specifically diving back into the time-line just before the crime knowable as the Con Con Con Job of 1787, also known falsely as "The Constitutional Convention," a recap is in order.

Criminal gangs finance their work through 3 major devices knowable as deception, threat of violence, and aggressive violence upon the productive people who produce anything worth stealing. That was the case with the British Red Coats as the British Red Coats were enforcing a (deception) known then as a so called tax, in various forms such as The Stamp Act, and enforcement mechanism included kangaroo court proceedings under something called British Admiralty "Law," whereby a British "National War Debt" collection process was employed by the criminal British to steal everything known to be valuable from those known to produce anything of value in America.

The British had to pay for troops on the ground that included military slaves (conscripts), military mercenaries (assassins for hire), volunteers volunteering to work for the criminal British for some form of benefit that may or may not be monetary (pecuniary), counterfeit government agents such as judges, lawyers, mayors, and governors, and the price of paying all those costs had to balance out due to the enforcement of natural laws that include something called the law of diminishing returns.

In order to keep up the counterfeit money system run through a counterfeit government system which included a counterfeit defensive military, and a counterfeit court system, the true, accurate, financial accounts have to, must, irrefutably must, balance, or favor the return on investment relative to the cost of investment. The crime business, like all economic business, must bear fruit, and food, and all the necessary commodities, services, values added, productively produced by producers who actually are responsible for, and accountable for, that productive of value, by their willpower, and by their hands.

The most powerful criminal gang that can consolidate all the lesser criminal gangs into working cooperatively on the one side, the monopoly crime syndicate side, has the same problem facing their own small minority of profiteers as does every other business facing natural laws such as the law of diminishing returns.

If the productive people required in financing any criminal gang wise up and say no, then crime bears no fruit from that point on, and it is only a matter of time before the last criminal individual is consuming the second to last criminal individual since there are no longer any producers who will agree to be victims of criminals.

So people in America polarized under this idea of just saying no. No thanks, not today, perhaps never again, will we the people finance another criminal gang, like the British Red Coats, since doing so is the fast track towards the law of diminishing returns. That is the message here:

"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."

Paying an extortion fee to the local Mafia is LESS (not more) destructive to life on earth compared to paying the extortion fee to the largest, most powerful, criminal gang currently on the planet running amok, rioting in the blood of the innocent, then known as The British Red Coats, who were in command at the time, of something called World Reserve Currency. If you want to stay alive in Word Reserve Currency, then you must subject yourself to the costs (to you) associated with that dominant version of fraudulent currency. You pay. You pay more, or you pay less, but you will pay one way or the other.

A modern version of that order to pay, or else pay more, is demonstrated here:
The Constitution of the United States Amendments 11-27

This tyrannical edict specifically:
"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."

Pay the extortion fee and less economic power is invested into competition to increase competitive production of higher quality life and less investment is invested in competitive productive activity reducing the cost of life while more economic power is spent by the criminals as the criminals invest in destroying all competition, or incorporating all competition into their criminal gang (who produce only destruction), and that lost economic power is consumed in the work required to maintain effective criminal deception, effective criminal threat of violence, and destructive aggressive war for profit of the few, at the expense of everyone. Otherwise known as perpetuating crime until there is no longer anything worth stealing.

So Americans said no, and enough who said no fought and won enough battles to increase the cost of doing business (extortion collection) beyond the point of diminishing returns in America by aggressive war, forcing the British Red Coat boots off the ground in America. The central banking frauds had managed to slaughter the best and brightest defenders who were also the most productive people in America; making millions of claims of debt owed to their group, from both sides, aggressors and defenders alike.

So that brings things up to this date where someone is demanding debt payments so as to thereby collect on their claims of ownership of National Debt.

That is the summation, the recap, as a very small, exclusive, group of criminal frauds investing in wars of aggression, investing in both sides, by the common practice of loaning counterfeit money to both sides at interest, and then demanding from both sides that the small cabal of frauds are paid back "on par" with "interest," which often meant an actual loan of paper in return for repayment in Gold, Silver, and land titles held in Allodium.

Get that straight. The central banking frauds loan paper with inked numbers, they claim to be as valuable as Gold, Silver, mining, water, forest, and other Allodial titles of land, upon the moment the fraudulent paper is "loaned" to the "borrower" and when these criminals demand repayment for their "loaning" counterfeit money, they demand repayment in Gold, Silver, and Allodial titles of land, and they do not demand the worst land, they demand the best land that counterfeit money can buy. Get that straight when you hear how these people make these demands to be paid "on par," with interest, as they demand their profits for their investing counterfeit money, to both sides, in aggressive war for profit.

 

[Stephanie]

 

[Josf]

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."
Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)

That is worthy of note. Along with that, submitted to the kangaroo court in Massachusetts during one of the so called trials of one of the defenders of "essential Liberty" is a quote that I will not repeat here at length, just a short quote along with a link. The relevance to the topic is then summed up again in two Youtube Lectures whereby the case of Dr. William Whiting (trial of a defender of essential liberty) is put in it's proper light = accurate accounting (truth telling) versus cooking the books (fraudulent government).

So this Is a doctor who said something that put a negative light on the existing criminals running the existing Massachusetts government, and the doctor reported the truth, so the claim of wrongdoing is then the crime of speaking the truth about criminals taking over governments. The trial is obviously not a common law trial by jury, the trial is obviously a summary JUST-us case. The doctor adds the quote I am about to quote to his response to these charges.

http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539282.pdf

Introductory quote____________________________________
APPENDIX
It is the Duty as well as peculiar previlege of us Who live in these
Latter Days, to profit by the Experience of former ages. I therefore
beg Leave to Lay before the Convention the following Extract from the
antient Roman History;" and to this I am Induced from the Great
annalogy there is between the Commonwealth of Rome When those
transactions took place, and the present State of the Americans. The
following occurrences took place in Rome about Two hundred and
fifty years after its first Settlement, and Ten years after having banished
their Kings and formed themselves Into a Commonwealth. Which
almost Exactly Corresponds With the time Since the first Settlements
began in America and Likewise their Renownceing the authority of the
British King.

It is also Remarkable that the Transactions Related in the following
Narrative Took place at the Conclusion of a Sore war Which their
Bannished King (having Stirred up their other Ennemies and Joined
With them) had for a number of years Carried on against the Romans.

Dureing the Course of Which war The Senate and Patritions (a Set of
men Very much Resembling our Lawyers and attorneys) had Ingrossed
almost all the Power and wealth in the Nation. For Whilst the Lower
orders of the people left their Little farms uncultivated and Went into
the War to Defend the Commonwealth (and that Without pay as ours
have Done) The Senate and Patritions Ingrossed all the advantages to
themselves and Left the poor plebeans nothing but Servitude Goals and
Stripes as appears by the following Narrative (viz)
__________________________________________________

If you read what is reported in the whole document AND you read what is reported in that historical account, then it may begin to become understandable as to the criminal treatment of defensive war veterans (the good guys joining for the right reasons) once they are used up, consumed, and ruined by the criminal abuse of a defensive military power.

Follow the fraudulent money!

Youtube search for Shays Rebellion: Revolution's Final Battle - Leo Richards (if link will not load)


Youtube search for "The Biggest Game In Town" about the Government CAFR wealth shell game (if link will not load)

 

[Josf]

Back to the days just before the Con Con Con Job done to Americans by criminal central banking frauds and slave traders and back to the Articles of Confederation which constituted the existing federal (voluntary) agreement at the time the criminals began to hatch their plan to employ their fraudulent takeover of the existing rule of law:

No one claimed to be above the law when rule of law is the voluntary agreement.

From Article 5 of the Articles of Confederation are the following words in print taken from Elliot's Debates Volume 1:

"Freedom of speech and debate in Congresss shall not be impeached or questioned 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."

The idea of rule of law is simpler when examples are shown in time and place. Such as:
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE 1 U.S. 35 1778 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Someone, anyone, becomes aware of criminal acts and there is then probable cause to act in defense. A cause of action is said to be warranted in time and place. We the people must defend we the people from criminals in time and place, and someone found evidence of a criminal perpetrating injury upon people in time and place; so it is warranted that action is taken because of that cause for that action. An authority such as a sheriff (one that is not on the take) is contacted and the sheriff historically does not decide to act on his own say so, especially in capital cases where the crimes often cause people to act by killing the one found guilty of a capital crime; such as hanging by a rope, or firing squad, or other capital punishment for having perpetrated a capital crime such as treason in time of war.

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

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

AND

"For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him."

Up until the criminals took over the rule of law applied to everyone including federal congressmen; which included federal congressmen who presided (president) over the federal congress, such as the 6th president named Richard Henry Lee.

So the witness, or witnesses, file a written complaint, or merely alert the sheriff who then acts in a lawful manner based upon the cause of action; which is the alleged crime perpetrated by the alleged criminal upon the alleged victim or alleged victims. Often in history, going back before Magna Charta, there were sheriffs, and judges, on the take, as part of the gang of criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law, so common practice in capital crimes were the random selection of a grand jury of 25 people who would then advise the sheriff concerning the right or wrong of defending the people in the specific case of the specific accusation made by the specific witnesses or the specific list of many witnesses, concerning the specific alleged crime in time and place in this one case.

Confirmation:
Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Amendment V
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

There you have lined up in a row the Article V quote from the Articles of Confederation whereby those in power acknowledge that among those in power there may be criminals capable of capital crimes and there is a method by which those criminals can be defended against because rule of law is the idea that works in defense against criminals who infiltrate and take-over defensive government, and then lined up in a row is an example of rule of law going step by step from accusation, to grand jury presentment, and then onward to trial by jury, and the date is 1778, BEFORE the Articles of Confederation or the fraudulent Constitution of 1787 were ratified.

People have learned since ancient Greece that the majority rule idea, and the dictatorship idea, and the tyranny idea, are all based upon criminal ideas where the criminals take over defensive government, so people have learned to randomly select from the whole body of people as a more effective method of deciding matters of defensive government especially when the criminals elect (by majority rule) their favorite liars to lord over everyone, subject everyone to criminal orders, and everyone is supposed to obey criminal orders without question. The competitive process that is opposite so called "majority rule" is called sortition, trial by jury, common law, the law of the land, legem terrae, due process, and rule of law.

Confirmation:
The Athenian

Quote:_________________________________________________________________
In the Athenian state, as in any other, we can distinguish legislative, judicial, and executive functions. The Athenian legislative branch consisted of two bodies, a Council of 500 and an Assembly of 6000. At first glance, this system resembles the American bicameral legislature, with a small, select upper house and a larger, more popular lower house. But this appearance is deceptive.

To begin with, neither the Council nor the Assembly consisted of elected representatives. The members of the Council were selected not by election but by sortition — i.e., by lot. In other words, the 500 Councillors were selected randomly from the (male) citizen population. (And no Councillor could serve more than two terms.)

The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.

Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.

That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority.
________________________________________________________________

So those who formed the original federation in America confessed their liability in subjecting themselves to rule of law, in the Articles of Confederation, a process exemplified in the Respublica versus Carlisle trial by jury case, according to the common laws of free people; where rule of law dates back at least to Athens Greece.

No one at that time was officially claiming to be above the law; not until the Dirty Compromise in Philadelphia in 1787. Everyone was subjected to rule of law, including federal congressmen: in their own official words written in the federal constitution.

Confirmed again in the Bill of Rights which amended some of the wrongs in the fraudulent Constitution of 1787.

All that above is simple in natural principles. All that above is universally known accurate accounting of the facts in every case where controversy may inspire conflict, and instead of failing to defend innocent people, people hold each other to an accurate accounting, find the criminals before they perpetrate further injury and defense is acted out effectively beCAUSE the cause of action in defense is caused by the criminal, and defense against further injury - even if the criminal is a federal congressman - (rule of law) is acted out in fact, in time, and in place.

 

[Josf]

I wanted to get right back to work with the Con Con Con Job history concerning Article V of the fraudulent Constitution of 1787, but instead I went to the above to see another angle of view offered by someone named Rhodes.

Time: 11:03 is a moment when Rhodes answers a second attempt by Jones to "credit" George Washington (a known criminal) and Rhodes responds with the name Patrick Henry.

So that clues me in. That may not clue anyone else in. Someone else may not know about the two groups, not ONE MONOPOLY group, known as "founding fathers" which were split on two sides of the moral fence.

1. False Federalists (actually criminals working for central banking interests, slave traders, arms dealers, and profiteers of war of aggression).
2. True Federalists who like Patrick Henry were falsely called Anti-Federalists.

Jones appears to be the sell out in this case, siding with the central banking cabal, out of ignorance, which is not likely, and more than likely out of willful ignorance publicly presenting a monopolistic viewpoint instead of a moral one.

Rhodes, on the other hand, is quick minded, and able to respond to the thinly veiled credit given to the opposition where the opposition sides with falsehood, threats of violence, and profiting while investing in both side in a aggressively violent war.

Patrick Henry stands toe to toe with George Washington in modern times.

Oops, I spoke too soon, as Rhodes drops the names of John Adams, who was a false Federalist working to reinstate British rule with such Acts as The Alien and Sedition Acts, and Sam Adams who rapidly turned his coat from good guy to bad guy when his power to dictate war profits were threated by the regulators in Massachusetts during what became known as Shays's Rebellion.

So...ignorance is precisely what is it, even when people who ought to know better don't.

 

[Josf]

I'm going to try to explain a competitive viewpoint concerning the stark demarcation line between rule of law and rule by criminals in the examples to be offered as a few landmark cases, to blend them together in a cohesive way to help understand the take-over in 1787 from rule of law to rule by criminal means.

1. 2 Kennedy, Jack Nov 22, 1963, and a man named Martin Luther King Jr, April 4th, 1968, then Bobby on June 6th, 1968.
2. Waco the Big Lie
3. Bundy Ranch and Ferguson Stand-offs between militia forces (oath keeper) and false FEDs.

In the case of conspiracy murders of presidents (and one potential president) of free people, no matter who they may preside over including free people, there was one actual conspiracy murder trial held almost according to the common laws of free people.

Here:
Assassination Conspiracy Trial The Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change

The jury was offered witness testimony from various sources, some of which was not allowed to be offered to the jury, but the actual court transcripts include the following:
Quote:___________________________________________
Page 1582

William Schaap

“Because when year, after year, after year you hear that something was the case, one story -- one day saying, hey, the whole thing was a lie, and it doesn't register on their brain.”

Page 1614

“Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, you've described an awesome power that exists in government influenced and controlled, sometimes owned, media -- print, audio, visual media entities -- and how that infrastructure gets focused on opponents of the United States such as Martin Luther King.”

[Defenders of the innocent are not opponents of the many (50 or so) Republics which are united into a voluntary federation, the Legal Fiction known as U.S. Inc., is a false front, so people who are opposed to frauds are opponents of frauds, not opponents of the false word]

Page 1632

A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be deafening. Disinformation is not only getting certain things to appear in print, it's also getting certain things not to appear in print. I mean, the first -- the first thing I would say as a way of explanation is the incredibly powerful effect of disinformation over a long period of time that I mentioned before. For 30 years the official line has been that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King and he did it all by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing like the short period when the line was that the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for 30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King, did it all by himself.

And when that is imprinted in the minds of the general public for 30 years, if somebody stood up and confessed and said: I did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99 percent of the people wouldn't believe him because it just -- it just wouldn't click in the mind. It would just go right to -- it couldn't be. It's just a powerful psychological effect over 30 years of disinformation that's been imprinted on the brains of the -- the public. Something to the country couldn't -- couldn't be.
______________________________________________

There are a few obvious problems with the conspiracy murder trail effort to defend conspiracy murder victims from conspiracy murderers. One problem is the often repeated claim that someone daring to speak about an obvious conspiracy murder, of a president no less, is someone who is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and other labeling is often offered to discredit, to censor, to injure, the "conspiracy theorist" so as to nullify the meaning of the information offered by someone who cares enough to actually investigate the inculpatory evidence that exists in fact.

Someone claiming that John and Bobby Kennedy were murdered by a lone assassin, is someone who is basically claiming that those two murders were perpetrated by a lone assassin who is himself a "conspiracy theorist" and anyone else who is labeled a "conspiracy theorists" is also a potential murderer of presidents, or potential presidents.

On the other hand, there was an actual trial by jury case in the conspiracy murder of the other potential president named Martin Luther King Jr., so those who want to use the false label "conspiracy theorist" has now a more difficult time making that fraud good, or making that mud stick, as that claim would amount to a claim that the trial by jury (due process of law) in this case amounted to a "conspiracy theory" instead of an established fact at law; established the lawful way.

Rule of law in four easy steps (with the above information readily at hand):
1.
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE 1 U.S. 35 1778 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
2.
Articles of Confederation
3.
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
4.
Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Step 1 above shows a working Grand Jury sending an accused criminal to his trial by jury according to the common laws of people in America during the desperate times of invasion by a criminal army of OVERT aggressors.

Step 2 above shows at least this:
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."

Step 3 above shows at least this:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

and this is Step 3:
" For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him."

Step 4:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Had people NOT been brainwashed into a fraudulent idea where there is only one source of truth reigning down from the one and only source of monopolistic authority, then one individual aware of just how common law works would start the process with a claim. Instead of "you are a conspiracy theorists" ending the claim, the claim is processed in fact, and according to the common laws of free people.

A Grand Jury (not one lone voice claiming "conspiracy theorist") is randomly selected (by lot) to represent the whole country and to look at the legitimacy of the claim of wrongdoing. If the claim of wrongdoing is an accusation that a member of government, such as a congressman, has perpetrated a capital crime, such as conspiracy murder, then a Grand Jury of randomly selected members of the whole country are assembled in the place where the crime occurred.

Follow that through in the first Kennedy conspiracy murder in Texas. No, the lone libeler claims, you are a "conspiracy theorist," and therefore your claim of authority to initiate due process of law is assassinated along with your individual character. Now there are two claims, not one. Conspiracy murder of a president of the United States, one who may or may not follow rule of law, and slander if the one claiming "conspiracy theorist" is only speaking the counter claim, or libel if the character assassin is printing the false accusation. According to the common laws of free people an accusation is a lawful cause of action. If the assassins and their minions manage to censor rule of law when Jack Kennedy was murdered by conspirators, then the patsy is more easily murdered by the conspirators, then the murderer who murdered the patsy, if he is not put on trial, is murdered by the conspirators. So there are Jack Kennedy, the patsy, and Jack Ruby, now it is conspiracy serial murder. No trial other than a television movie much later in time. Much too late to defend the patsy, or Jack Ruby, or Martin Luther King Jr., or Bobby Kennedy, or the 80 plus people in Waco, or the people in those buildings in New York and Washington D.C. on the eleventh of September 2001.

The inspiration to perpetrate conspiracy serial murder is not to murder your way to the top position in rule of law.

The top position in rule of law is everyone since everyone is on an equal footing, a foundation of fact finding, so as to settle any controversy in a peaceful manner.

If someone accuses a congressman of breach of the peace, then that works the same way as a congressman counter-claiming otherwise.

The accuser does not hand pick his preferred Grand Jury, nor does the congressman have that power with his counter claim concerning the charge of Libel against the so called "conspiracy theorist" who dares to question the perfected immunity (from rule of law) of the congressman.

 

[Josf]

Elliot's Debates Volume I page 117:

At this point there are words offered in reply to objections recorded into the official federal record by people representing the people of Rhode Island. The people of Rhode Island are people who have offered the world sanctuary in the form of a country, a republic, within a federation, whereby slavery is not "legal," in other words these people in this State call out the criminals who claim that slavery is legal. This is not insignificant in American history concerning the battle between the criminal confidence schemers, which included The British and their central banking fraud, and which included the false Federalists and their central banking fraud, criminals on one side hiding under the color of law, hiding behind crafty deception, and on the side of rule of law, people do not believe in the idea of kidnapping, torturing, and forced labor as "legal."

The subject matter turns to the concept of financing defensive war costs through taxation. The people in Rhode Island smell a rat, and added to the exposing of slavery as a crime, now the exposing of extortion payments as a crime is offered. If the tax (so called) works to extort more productive value out of Rhode Island, where the people in Rhode Island are extorted into paying all of the defensive war costs themselves, and no other people in any other state in the voluntary union pay any defensive war costs, then the PRINCIPLE would be unmistakable, and the PRINCIPLE would be accurately accountable as the PRINCIPLE at work when con artists are creating lies that transfer COSTS to some people so as to transfer BENEFITS to other people involuntarily.

Get that straight please. If the people in Rhode Island were told by crafty criminal con artists that the people in Rhode Island had to pay all the costs of defensive war, past, present, and future, and everyone else, every other person in every other state, were protected, defended, and happy without having to pay any cost, then the concept of this topic for debate would be clear, unmistakable, and accurately understood as a wrongdoing in demonstrable fact. In essence the people of Rhode Island would bear all the costs of investing in the defense of the people of Rhode Island, as the people of Rhode Island, by this trickery, would be sending their hard earned productive wealth, their hard earned productive economic power, to a central location that would then be used to benefit those who make decisions to spend that wealth where those decision makers are outside the State of Rhode Island.

So the people of Rhode Island, where slavery is expressly not legal, are asked to voluntarily send their defensive investments to people who are now engaging in deceptive words that clearly confess their guilty minds as these slave traders and central bankers spin a web of lies that turn an obvious PRINCIPLE up-side-down.

The tax that is clearly the least destructive to the home team is the import tax on three very obvious criminal "goods."

1. Slaves
2. Military Arms
3. Counterfeit Debt Money

The profits from the slave trade do not transfer wealth to the slaves. That is another way to understand the same PRINCIPLE. The profits from the slave trade transfer wealth to criminal slave traders. Those continuous transfers of wealth...

 

[Josf]

I had work to do...

Returning to the 3 obvious criminal markets that offer a least destructive TAX to finance defensive expenses for everyone in the Federation; leaving no one, not a single moral, free, individual outside the protection of rule of law:

Tax the importation of slaves as slaves are flowing from Africa to America, and scare money is flowing out of America to Slave Traders who demand gold, silver, and real money instead of demanding fraudulent money printed by the fraudulent wannabe central bankers in the former colonies, and that draining of good money out of an area due to fraudulent money issued by fraudulent central bankers perpetrating that fraud under the color of law, that flow of purchasing power out of America, that way, is called Gresham's Law.

The criminal central bankers loan fraudulent promises to pay (pay nothing but lies = empty promises) in the form of counterfeit money (under the color of law) to their conspirators in government, and that money circulates side by side with real money such as Gold, Silver, and any paper money backed by actual assets, and even commodities that serve as money such as whiskey, hemp, etc. Gresham's Law operates in a way that inspires people who are receiving imported goods (or "bads" such as slaves) to pay those suppliers offering imports in gold because those suppliers offering imports refuse to be paid with the fraudulent money used by the home team. Gold leaves America, starving Americans out of real money, as the counterfeiting central banker criminals collect gold, silver, and land titles when they eventually work to collect their "loans," and these counterfeiting central banking criminals are also intimately connected to the slave traders who also demand gold and silver as payment for their service of kidnapping, torturing, and selling human beings as if human beings were less than cattle.

So Gresham's Law starts as a result of the circulation of counterfeit promises to pay as the home team unwittingly use the fraudulent money for trade at home while the criminal central bankers and the criminal slave traders demand payment in Gold and Silver; hence the saying bad money driving out good money, as the home team, over time, end up without an honest, accurate, high quality, and low cost, circulating medium, because Gold and Silver become more, and more, scarce at home, while gold and silvers supplies flow into treasuries owned by the criminal central bankers and slave traders.

So tax the import of slaves and tax anyone wanting to buy people as if people are less than cattle and that least destructive tax will accomplish more than one thing good even if the concept of taxation (involuntary payments) is not really a good idea, since involuntary association is, in fact, crime.

This focuses the debate back, squarely, on the division of power, the boundaries of power, and the true nature of a federation compared to a false federation. The states, not the people directly, agree to, and pay for, a federal defensive union, and if the states agree, then the states agree to pay. If the states do not agree, then the states do not pay, and the decision to declare independence, to reserve that option always, was already declared in the first official federal statute known as a Declaration of Independence.

So arguments focusing on a supposed involuntary association among state governments, where those choosing to argue that law demands that no state can secede from the voluntary union, are only worth anything if the one arguing willfully ignores the very first federal Statue known as a Declaration of Independence.

If those arguing for involuntary association among states win their argument, they do so because they willfully ignore the meaning of federation as it existed when a Declaration of Independence signified the start of the American Federation of INDEPENDENT people in INDEPENDENT States.

The agreement to join, and pay for, rather than not join, and not pay for, or secede from, and not pay for, a federal union is this focal point where people representing people in States negotiate said agreement specifically focusing in on who pays and how much is paid by which people in which States.

If people representing people in Georgia say no way, we want to keep our slave trading crime going, then the idea of taxing the importation of slaves will be a deal breaker according to those people who are representing people in Georgia.

Which people in Georgia are being represented by the representatives who refuse to remain members of the voluntary federal union if a federal tax on the importation of slaves is one of the competitive methods of financing the costs of mutual defense of all people in America?

The minority of people in Georgia dealt with slaves. The fix was already in, where the criminals took over, in any case where representatives were themselves criminal slave traders or employees of criminal slave traders, or any other minority of criminals. The minority comprised of criminals is still criminal. The majority comprised of criminals is still criminal. Rule of law is the opposite of rule by criminals, even criminals who constitute any number of criminals in the criminal minority or in the criminal majority; minority participating in crime, or majority participating in crime is still crime: crime by any number of criminals from 1 to infinity is still crime; even under the color of law, especially under the color of law as explained well enough in Statute Number 1 bookmarking the formation of a voluntary federal defensive union of states.

So a State where the criminals have already taken over State government ought not be encouraged to be a voluntary part of a voluntary defensive union of states; unless criminals also take over at the federal level, at which time government is a criminal monopoly, not a voluntary defensive union.

 

[Josf]

In American History at the time after the British troops invading America were sent packing by people in States Federated, where the decisive battles were NOT fought and won by the British sympathizer George Washington, whose conduct as a military leader were reprehensible at best, and criminal at worst, and in this timeline before Shays's Rebellion (so called) in Massachusetts, the swing of power has already been reported in Elliot's Debates Volume I to have swung decisively back toward tyranny and despotism as the influence of central banker frauds, such as Alexander Hamilton, another British sympathizer, and British sympathizers known as slave trade profiteers infiltrated the seats of federal government in order to protect their criminal turf.

That was knowable as the shift from TAX liabilities shifting from an evaluation of land as the basis of TAX liabilities (defensive war finance costs, past, present, and future) to shifting the basis of defensive war finance cost liabilities to the number of people in each state; which caused a shift of power to the central banker criminals and the slave trade profiteer criminals. That was documented in the text of Elliot's Debates earlier offered in this Clean Debate Zone Topic. That is uncontroversial, as a matter of obvious, demonstrable, fact.

Get that straight please. A shift of evaluating the fair, just, honorable, reasonable, and understandable Voluntary Mutual Defense COSTS based on land value in each State (more land to defend = higher cost in defense of more land to defend) was shifted to a very controversial concept of evaluating the productive output of human beings based upon head count, and add to that already controversial problem of counting each individual and basing value on "collective" productivity the additional problem of basing value on the criminal profiting of capturing, torturing, trading, and forced labor of people from Africa, and the shift from fair, just, honorable, reasonable and understandable Voluntary Mutual Defense COSTS INCREASE dramatically. Get that straight please. The costs of defense were already high, very high, as famers had to stop farming and start fighting. These same farmers were already fighting HIGH COSTS as they had to compete with slave trade profiteers, which are criminals, infesting their free states; states that had just been agreeably, welcomingly, been declared free and independent states by mutual agreement, inspiring farmers to stop farming (increase costs) and start fighting (increase costs) and since the British were sent packing as a result of all that defensive fighting by all those famers, why not get back to farming so as to have a means by which to pay for food, and pay for defense costs, and other necessities of life? Why would someone want to INCREASE COSTS of doing business in America when the business is mutual defense of all the people in all the states that are all federated voluntarily into one mutual defense organization? Why increase costs by altering the method of easy, cost-less, land evaluation, to a much more controversial, and much more costly, evaluation of individual productivity which just so happens to be the method used by central banker frauds? Whose ideas are moving from fair, just, honorable, reasonable, and understandable DISTRIBUTION of costs (distribution of wealth) based on land as someone's (or some groups) ideas are moving to subsidizing the criminal slave traders (tied intimately with the British through the East India Company) and the criminal British Central Banking Frauds who must eventually TAX each individual at the "value added" point of production?

Get that straight before I quote again from Elliot's Debates Volume I where the Congress of the Untied States is figuring out what to do with the British conducting a Trade War after having conducted a War of Aggression which COST people in America the lives of so many of the best and brightest defenders of Liberty, in one fell swoop, not to mention all the property, and the lost productivity, and the turmoil, the rape, the pillage, and other destructive ACTS done by the criminal British and their East India Company. The British had spend a fortune of their stolen loot on making sure that America was weakened to a point of desperation, and then the British began both a Trade War and a covert war which became obvious in Massachusetts with Shays's Rebellion in 1786, and 1787.

So meanwhile in 1784 and 1785 (timeline):

The report, being amended was agreed to as follows:
The trust reposed in Congress renders it their duty to be attentive to the conduit of foreign nations, and to prevent or restrain, as far as may be, all such proceedings as might prove injurious to the United States. The situation of commerce at this time claims the attention of the several states, and few objects of greater importance can present themselves to their notice. The fortune of every citizen is interested in the success thereof; for it is the constant source of health and incentive to industry; and the value of our produce and our land must ever rise or fall in proportion to the prosperous or adverse state of trade.

Already has Great Britain adopted regulations destructive to our commerce with her West India Islands. There was reason to expect that measures so unequal, and so little calculated to promote mercantile intercourse, would not be preserved in by an enlightened nation. But these measures were growing into a system. It would be the duty of Congress, as it is their wish, to meet the attempts of Great Britain with similar restriction on her commerce; but the powers on this head are not explicit, and the propositions made by the legislatures of the several states render it necessary to take the general sense of the Union on this subject.

Unless the United States in Congress assembled shall be vested with powers competent to the protection of commerce, they can never command reciprocal advantage i trade; and without these, our foreign commerce must decline, and eventually be annihilated. Hence it is necessary that the states should be explicit, and fix on some effectual mode by which Foreign commerce not founded on principle so equality may be restrained.

That the United States may be enabled to secure such terms, they have

Resolved, That it be, and it hereby is, recommended to the legislatures of the several states, to vest the United States in Congress assembled, for the term of fifteen years, with power to prohibit any goods, wares, or merchandise, from being imported into, or exported from, any of the states, in vessels belonging to, or navigated by, the subjects of any power with whom these states shall not have formed treaties of commerce.

Resolved, That it be, and it hereby is, recommended to the legislators of the several states, to vest the United Stats in Congress assembled, for the term of fifteen years, with the power of prohibiting the subjects of any foreign state, kingdom, or empire, unless authorized by treaty, from importing into the United States any goods, wares, or merchandise, which are not the produce or manufacture of the dominions of the sovereign whose subjects they are.

Provided, That to all acts of the United States in Congress assembled in pursuance of the above powers the assent of nine states shall be necessary.

[The following is the report referred to. It was afterwards further considered; but Congress did not come to any final determination with respect to the constitutional alterations which it proposed. It was deemed most advisable, at the time, that any proposition for perfecting the Act of Confederation should originate with the state legislatures.]

The time line is right there brought to the focal point of who has the power to amend the voluntary perpetual union of the union members? The question is obviously such that the union members (the states) decide, not the so called FEDS deciding for the states.

You might try to find out why the people known as representatives of states were writing those words down at that time; whereby "any proposition for perfecting the Act of Confederation should originate with the state legislatures."

The brainy, wise, knowledgeable, honorable (?) people making up Congress accurately identify how a Trade War works and they accurately identify the CONTINUED enemy of America as Britain.

Check the next link out concerning the State of Massachussets:
George Bancroft A Plea for the Constitution of the United States

Quote:________________________________
In the autumn of 1690 an expedition, sent by Massachusetts to capture Quebec, returned without success. To defray its cost, which amounted to forty thousand pounds, and to satisfy complaints of "the want of an adequate measure of commerce," the general court, in December, 1690, ordered the issue of "seven thousand pounds of printed bills of equal value with money;" and of the remainder in May, 1691. In July, 1692, within nineteen months of the earliest emission, the first legislature under the new charter which transformed the self-governing colony of Massachusetts Bay into a direct dependency of Great Britain, made "all" these "bills of public credit current within this province in all payments equivalent to money, excepting specialties and contracts made before the publication" of this new law. Their credit was supported by receiving them in all public payments at a premium of five percent.

Immediately all the coin then in Massachusetts was exported to England, and the new stock followed as fast as it came in from abroad. The vain sorrow of the province expressed itself in December, 1697, by the prohibition of "the export of coin, silver money or bullion." In June, 1700, a joint committee of the council and representatives, to be aided by the advice of merchants and others, was appointed to consider how to revive trade, and find out some suitable medium to supply the scarcity of "money;" and it is to be noted, that the word "money" in all colonial legislation was used exclusively for gold and silver coin.
________________________________________________________________________

If you do not yet "get it," then you ought to read the following book AT LEAST:
Amazon.com Shays s Rebellion The American Revolution s Final Battle 9780812218701 Leonard L. Richards Books

If you can't read that book, but you would like to get closer to getting this knowledge of the link between Massachusetts, Britain (the enemy), and Central Banking Fraud, then the following lecture by the author of the book just above may be worth the care required in understanding the information offered in the lecture:


The criminals who take over voluntary defensive government know what they are doing when they perpetrate those crimes. How can you understand that fact better?

 

[Josf]

While re-reading the above and editing it, it occurs to me to hammer home, if at all possible, the significance of the alteration done to the voluntary federal enabling ACT (Articles of Confederation) concerning land based costs, going from land based costs, and going to basing costs on the productive value (value added) of individual people.

That was a power grab engineered by the crafty criminal cabal which included local (state) central banking frauds, British central banking frauds, and local slave trade profiteer criminals, and British (and Dutch) slave trade criminal profiteers.

All that power shifted the "tax" liabilities (who pays the costs, and who receives the benefits) of VOLUNTARY MUTUAL DEFENSE from one group (the aforementioned criminal cabal) to the yeoman farmer who happened also to be the rank and file military forces as individual farmer/militia, and as a collective sum total of individuals. So what you see, if you care to look carefully, is precisely how the criminals make their war of aggression for profit work for them so well in time and place. The same routine still works today, and you have been clued in.

Many Nazi's claimed that they too were just following (criminal) orders.

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/marshal/1 US Marshals and the Constitution.pdf

Quote:______________________________
As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one
of the most roundly hated and violently opposed laws in
American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals
in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the
South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the
institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of
slave rescue cases.
But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no
choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return
fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that
Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law,
meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced
the law.
____________________________________

If there is no longer any place on earth where slaves can declare their independence from criminal slave traders (including central banking frauds who enslave everyone indiscriminately) then the slaves must make their land free from such evil criminal ACTS.

 

[Josf]

Elliot's Debates Volume 1 page 131.

Herein lies the demarcation line between justice and JUST US.

The people have declared their independence from JUST US (the British dominating the JUST US criminal organizations) and they backed up their claim with an agreeable, welcome, voluntary, mutual defense association or two, or three, or thirteen, and they called these mutual defense associations States, and they joined each state with each other state into a federation of states. From that voluntary union a formal Declaration of Independence became Statute Number One, and then Articles of Confederation were agreed upon, including the article explaining how Congressman are LIABLE to be charged with crimes according to the common laws of free people.

Now people in Virginia, including George Mason (Bill of Rights), and James Madison (fraudulent Constitution of 1787, and then the Virginia Resolutions of 1798), assemble on January 21, 1786, to appoint commissioners to meet "to take into consideration the trade of the United States: to examine the relative situation and trade of the said states;" and herein lies the lies.

States are states, and states are united as United States. Who is the boss? Is the boss a legal fiction known as a limited liability corporate entity going by many aliases such as The FED, U.S.A, The FEDS, The BOSS? No. Facts are found and either judged true or false by each individual who is duty bound as an integral part of the voluntary mutual defense association.