# Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009 "2015-08-04T21:07:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/221 "2015-08-13T13:20:17Z")
In sum: love it or leave it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/222 "2015-08-13T17:03:22Z")
**Ultra Vires** made the point I was going to make: how were the 13 states examples of a voluntary society between July 4, 1776, and the adoption of the Constitution in 1789? ---
**Author:** ![SantaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/da6949/32.png) [@SantaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SantaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/223 "2015-08-14T09:54:20Z")
But what about the gold fringe? Where’s the gold fringe? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/224 "2015-08-14T11:26:22Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > [. . .] > Which side am I on? You have no clue? > > You feel as if my viewpoint concerns typographical errors in the paper work? > > [. . .] > > Yet another example, and the divisions are not a question of typographical errors on pieces of paper. Why are former members of the United States of America military forces clashing with so called FEDS? I believe this was in response to an earlier mention that not all the i’s were dotted or the t’s crossed in some situation. His inability to recognize such a common idiom also makes me think he is a non-native English speaker. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/225 "2015-08-14T12:54:34Z")
Joe Kelly is deep in the National Liberty Alliance in California, which is a sovereign citizen organization. “[Mission Statement Our mission is to restore the people to sovereignty](http://nationallibertyalliance.com/mission-statement).” His incoherence ain’t an ESL thing. It’s a sovereign citizen thing. Like I said up thread, Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), \<[http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq>](http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq>), is required reading for this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/226 "2015-08-14T16:53:35Z")
My time was used up in other things until now. I read responses from the other side, and then I read the following: Czarcasm > [@](#): > > This “law of the land” of which you speak and wish us to follow-where might we read of it’s statutes? I’d like some details before I sign on. > > edited to add: A simple link or two that leads directly to what is requested, minus the usual wall of text, would be greatly appreciated. My wishes aside (the topic does not concern my wished): [http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html](http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html) > [@](#): > > “Per legem terrae.” > One other phrase remains to be explained, viz., “per legem terrae,” “by the law of the land.” > All writers agree that this means the common law. Thus, Sir Matthew Hale says: > “The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terrae, as in the statute of Magna Carta, chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terrae; as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III.” chap. 3 which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae, as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, “Nolumus leges Angliae mutari, ” &c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni (the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. --, and de quo warranto, and divers others. But most [\*35] commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas, cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes.” — 1 Hale’s History of the Common Law , 128. There are no statutes to “follow” as if the idea you share on your side is blind obedience to falsehood without question. The idea is easily understood as an application of Matthew: 7:12 in all human action and specifically concerning human action involving guilty criminals perpetrating crimes upon innocent victims. The link is not a condensed (sound bit style) as Matthew: 7:12, however the giant walls of text offer an answer to the inquisition as to what is, or is not, the law of the land involving trial by jury. Already offered were links to historical records of people in Athens and in the Roman Empire concerning how people invent, reinvent, use, and reuse basically the same Rule of Law process known as trial by jury, or known as the law of the land, as people invent competitive ways to effectively defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals in time and place. The best (highest quality and lowest cost) ways survive the test of time without having the process set in stone (so to speak) in written words. My time is limited again today. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/227 "2015-08-14T17:16:55Z")
It only takes a few seconds to name your first language, Josf. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/228 "2015-08-14T17:32:59Z")
1. “All writers agree that this means the common law”-Any treatise that starts with “All writers agree…” can usually be dismissed as delusional bunk. You would be hard-pressed to get all writers to agree on the page count of a single sheet of paper. 2. I didn’t ask for what “The law Of The Land” was called by other groups of people-I asked what it _was_. Are you saying that “The Law Of The Land” is the same as “Common Law” is the same as your pet Bible verse? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/229 "2015-08-14T17:52:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It only takes a few seconds to name your first language, Josf. Not if you have writer’s block. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/230 "2015-08-14T18:07:46Z")
Human Action restates an already well defined division of the whole: > [@](#): > > Whether it was voluntary or coerced isn’t part of the definition. There is clearly enumerated “coercion” written into the indictment known as a Declaration of Independence as such: > [@](#): > > He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. Those are some of the enumerated “coercions” charged against the one who initiated violence upon targeted victims: ending the federation spoken of by John Adams again: > [@](#): > > That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: > That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: > That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which has long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn: Side A is offered by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the two quotes above. Those English words offered above have nothing whatsoever to do with me personally. Anyone can read those quotes and interpret those words as they can, as they will, as they might. Side B offers: > [@](#): > > Whether it was voluntary or coerced isn’t part of the definition. It is not a secret. If you see it, you do, if you don’t: you don’t, whenever Side B works to cover up the employment of coercion they use English words too. Side B coerces. Deception, by definition, requires someone who is the deceiver, and not until there is someone deceived can deception work as an example of deception. A few Royal Princes are selling a Great New Deal from Africa these days, all someone has to do is open an account in a bank and then someone will receive millions of dollars from a Bone Fide Prince. That is not new. > **[Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and...](https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037)** > > Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their Legacy \[Watkins, William\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their... > [@](#): > > But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year’s interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government’s discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt’s benefits. “In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence,” explained Hamilton, “it assumes most of the purposes of money.” Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton’s debt program. > > To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because “[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law,” such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter." > **[U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time](https://www.usdebtclock.org/)** > > US National Debt Clock : Real Time U.S. National Debt Clock The method by which the common legal fiction idea works was spoken about, warned about, in great detail in the words already offered, not words written by me, so this idea that the Topic concerns my personal character is exposed for what it is by anyone caring to know. Human Action offers a question: > [@](#): > > Are you at least conceding that “federation” applies to countries, and not any association a person could have? Concessions with me are overrated. If you are speaking about the relationship between people and their connections to each other, then, and again, there are two obvious divisions that people belong to when people form “countries” or any other type of association. My connection here on this forum is based upon performance. If I do not perform then the connection is severed by whoever commands the power to judge my performance and either maintain or sever the connection. Since I have that same power at my fingertips, based upon my exclusive power of will, the forum membership relationship is a voluntary association belonging in a free market of ideas. As far as I know there is no third party anywhere on this planet ready, willing, and able to step in and OVERRULE, or rule over, this voluntary association right here and now on this forum. Concessions with me are overrated. When those people in Africa were forcefully enslaved and sold in America, that was reported by Thomas Jefferson as one of the worst crimes perpetrated by the former federal associate named The King of England. When the British commenced hostilities against the federal members in America, that ended that federation that way. Human Action redirects focus of attention back upon me personally as if my character and only my character is the boundaries of this Topic in this Forum: > [@](#): > > I will argue with your idea that all federations must be understood through the prism of your ideas about the American Revolution. I see no point in arguing. If Side B has an argument with the words of John Adams (in context) then that is what Side B does by their individual, or their collective power of will. > [@](#): > > …we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities. I did not write those words. Those words are written by someone in command of the English language. Someone reading those words may, or may not, be able to understand the meaning of those words too. Earlier UltraVires offered: > [@](#): > > I agree, provided that person is given a trial by a common law jury, not the fake juries we have today. Despite much work done by those on the other side (covering up trail by jury due process according to the law of the land) those on the side giving trial by jury manage to get a few words recorded into the National record: [http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf](http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf) > [@](#): > > 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.” > > 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. Repeating words for effect: > [@](#): > > I agree, provided that person is given a trial by a common law jury, not the fake juries we have today. Those conspiring to TAKE the life of someone daring to speak out against those conspirators are not often those who GIVE someone accused of a crime (such as conspiracy murder) a trial by jury according to the common law. Why was that trial given to that single conspirator so late in the day? What ever happened to the idea of a speedy trial? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/231 "2015-08-14T18:20:38Z")
You do realize that you are not getting paid by the word, right? ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/232 "2015-08-14T18:21:19Z")
> [@](#): > > It only takes a few seconds to name your first language, Josf. Please consider the possibility that the topic is not my personal character. English ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/233 "2015-08-14T18:24:00Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Please consider the possibility that the topic is not my personal character. Please consider the possibility that the rest of us might find this to be utter gibberish, then. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/234 "2015-08-14T19:13:03Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Human Action restates an already well defined division of the whole: > There is clearly enumerated “coercion” written into the indictment known as a Declaration of Independence as such: > > Those are some of the enumerated “coercions” charged against the one who initiated violence upon targeted victims: ending the federation spoken of by John Adams again: > > Side A is offered by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the two quotes above. Those English words offered above have nothing whatsoever to do with me personally. Anyone can read those quotes and interpret those words as they can, as they will, as they might. I’m going to have to cry “foul” here. The remark of mine you quoted was clearly referring to the question of the meaning of the word “federation”, as in a country made up of separate states. You asked me a question: > [@Josf](#): > > Is the nature of the formation of a federal union a voluntary association or an involuntary association? I answered that question. In your reply above, you have either totally misunderstood that answer, or have shifted the “goalposts” of the discussion beyond all recognition\*. Perhaps this is a function of the limited time you have available, or a language barrier, or some other innocent explanation. Otherwise, it’s totally indefensible. - In case it’s unclear - we were discussing whether a federation could be formed only voluntarily, or under coercion as well. You twisted my reply into a statement about whether _any_ activity undertaken by the government of Great Britain was coercive to anyone. The coercive nature of slavery has nothing to do with whether the American Colonies joined Great Britain by choice or not. Great Britain going to war with the American colonies has nothing to do with whether the Colonies joined Great Britain voluntarily or not. > [@Josf](#): > > Side B offers: > > It is not a secret. If you see it, you do, if you don’t: you don’t, whenever Side B works to cover up the employment of coercion they use English words too. Side B coerces. Deception, by definition, requires someone who is the deceiver, and not until there is someone deceived can deception work as an example of deception. Again, you are begging the question. Your argument assumes that this “deception” exists, then uses the “deception” as evidence. First, you must establish that the “deception” is real, and not the product of ignorance, wishful thinking, or a political agenda. A few Royal Princes are selling a Great New Deal from Africa these days, all someone has to do is open an account in a bank and then someone will receive millions of dollars from a Bone Fide Prince. That is not new. > [@Josf](#): > > [Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their Legacy: Watkins, William: 9781403963031: Amazon.com: Books](http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037) > > [http://www.usdebtclock.org/](http://www.usdebtclock.org/) Public debt pre-dates the Articles, and public debt issued by the several states is no more or less oppressive than debt issued by the federal government. > [@Josf](#): > > The method by which the common legal fiction idea works was spoken about, warned about, in great detail in the words already offered, not words written by me, so this idea that the Topic concerns my personal character is exposed for what it is by anyone caring to know. Again, warnings are cheap. Things that happen are meaningful, warnings are not. > [@Josf](#): > > Human Action offers a question: > Concessions with me are overrated. If you are speaking about the relationship between people and their connections to each other, then, and again, there are two obvious divisions that people belong to when people form “countries” or any other type of association. My connection here on this forum is based upon performance. If I do not perform then the connection is severed by whoever commands the power to judge my performance and either maintain or sever the connection. Since I have that same power at my fingertips, based upon my exclusive power of will, the forum membership relationship is a voluntary association belonging in a free market of ideas. As far as I know there is no third party anywhere on this planet ready, willing, and able to step in and OVERRULE, or rule over, this voluntary association right here and now on this forum. Concessions with me are overrated. I guess that means that you consider all voluntary human relationships to be federations. That explains the issues with communication; we aren’t speaking the same language. > [@Josf](#): > > When those people in Africa were forcefully enslaved and sold in America, that was reported by Thomas Jefferson as one of the worst crimes perpetrated by the former federal associate named The King of England. When the British commenced hostilities against the federal members in America, that ended that federation that way. This shows us the value of political rhetoric - Jefferson uses slavery as an issue to attack the UK, while owning hundreds of slaves himself. After independence, (some of) the states go right on practicing legal chattel slavery. > [@Josf](#): > > Human Action redirects focus of attention back upon me personally as if my character and only my character is the boundaries of this Topic in this Forum: That is not an attack on your character, and can’t reasonably be construed as one. It is a discussion about your ideas. That’s what threads in this forum are supposed to be. It’s not a blog where you post your ideas unchallenged. > [@Josf](#): > > I see no point in arguing. If Side B has an argument with the words of John Adams (in context) then that is what Side B does by their individual, or their collective power of will. As stated, I fully agree with the John Adams quote you keep using. I disagree with the unrelated inferences you draw from it. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/235 "2015-08-14T22:20:29Z")
Shodan asks: “Thanks very much, Human Action. Josf, is this accurate?” That is not accurate for many reasons. Example: “Josf has linked to a few writers who’ve undertaken the onerous task of sussing out how such a society would actually work;…” In fact I have found a quote by John Adams in Elliot’s Debates Volume I where John Adams is speaking as one of the newly formed members of The Unites States of America in Congress Assembled while debating the right or wrong of writing, publishing, and distributing a Declaration of Independence. In the words of John Adams the meaning of the word federal is offered by John Adams in context to a former federation between American people in American Colonies and British people in a British Kingdom. Why ask anyone else what I have done when what I have done is published as a matter of fact? Now you ask if my interpreter is accurately reporting what is still published for anyone to read, not read, understand, not understand, etc.? “Josf has linked to a few writers…” No, that is not accurate. The few writers include John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee, and what they wrote (not me) is clearly stated in English. I have to go back to work. Why not concentrate on what John Adams wrote in context with divisions (aggressors dividing formerly federated people) along Rule of Law (federal connections) and Criminal Rule (aggressors destroy the peace as they start hacking people up)? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/236 "2015-08-14T22:30:45Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Shodan asks: > “Thanks very much, Human Action. Josf, is this accurate?” > > That is not accurate for many reasons. > > Example: > > “Josf has linked to a few writers who’ve undertaken the onerous task of sussing out how such a society would actually work;…” Perhaps you’ve forgotten, but you did, in fact, link to works on a voluntary society. See post 85 (where you linked to [this](http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm)), and post 145 (where you linked to [this.](http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html)) > [@Josf](#): > > In fact I have found a quote by John Adams in Elliot’s Debates Volume I where John Adams is speaking as one of the newly formed members of The Unites States of America in Congress Assembled while debating the right or wrong of writing, publishing, and distributing a Declaration of Independence. In the words of John Adams the meaning of the word federal is offered by John Adams in context to a former federation between American people in American Colonies and British people in a British Kingdom. In context, it means “pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states.” > [@Josf](#): > > No, that is not accurate. The few writers include John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee, and what they wrote (not me) is clearly stated in English. Those fellows weren’t writing about voluntary societies, and thus were not the writers I was referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/237 "2015-08-14T22:54:13Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Please consider the possibility that the topic is not my personal character. > > English Well, then I have to point out that your writing style is unclear at best. I’m making no comment on the quality of your thesis, only that it is not clear to me what your thesis actually is, and English is my first language. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/238 "2015-08-15T00:00:48Z")
Would you answer my last question? Suppose you are taking a Sunday drive through the countryside. A policeman stops you, handcuffs you, and puts you in jail to await an arraignment to post (reasonable) bond. He charges you with the crime of travelling on the Sabbath day. Is it somehow better or worse if that police officer works for the state government instead of the national government? ETA: And may I ask you to voluntarily, as a free person, to limit your reply to three sentences? ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/239 "2015-08-15T00:52:37Z")
UltraVires asks: > [@](#): > > Is it somehow better or worse if that police officer works for the state government instead of the national government? I can’t answer the question you ask since you do not give me any information concerning remedy in the case you describe. That is one sentence. That is three sentences. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/240 "2015-08-15T00:58:14Z")
“Well, then I have to point out that your writing style is unclear at best. I’m making no comment on the quality of your thesis, only that it is not clear to me what your thesis actually is, and English is my first language.” Well, in the course of over a year speaking with a Christian woman whose career included a position as English speaking editorial work, the result of which turned in to a cooperative book publishing effort lasting almost another whole year of editing the exchange of words between us on a forum, your words go in a file. Your words go in the criticisms of my personal character file. The Christian woman actually offered constructive criticisms detailing some of the many errors made by English writers. The effort to know better from worse was a cooperative mutual goal shared; a federal idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=13)