# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/281 "2015-08-16T01:55:26Z")
Also, if majority rule is a “Fraud” (again capitalized for some reason) what do you propose we replace it with? A despotism that relies only upon your own conception of right and wrong? At this point, you will probably quote the Bible or John Adams, but must every man, woman, and child rely on your personal interpretation (or those in your organization) of the meaning of those words? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/282 "2015-08-16T01:55:31Z")
Hey **JosF** , ever hear of water under the bridge? You’re arguing about shit that happened hundreds of years ago. Doesn’t matter what you think, done is done. Nobody gives a rat’s ass anymore. Not one word you say on the matter makes the least bit of difference. ---
**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 16, 2015, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/283 "2015-08-16T11:40:01Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > The obvious examples can include an affiant claiming that Jane Doe murdered John Doe right in front of the affiant. Jane Doe goes through trial, based upon the affiants testimony, and it was determined by a jury, as a lawful fact, that Jane Doe was not in the same State when John Doe was murdered, and therefore the affiant’s testimony is inculpatory evidence that inculpates the affiant more so than a “she said, he said statement,” in the heat of the moment, something that may not be remembered very well by those who heard what she said when she said that Jane Doe murdered John Doe right in front of her. That’s not what criminal juries do. They determine whether the state has proved all elements of the crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt; they don’t make specific factual determinations as you suggest above. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/284 "2015-08-16T15:14:38Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s not what criminal juries do. They determine whether the state has proved all elements of the crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt; they don’t make specific factual determinations as you suggest above. But it was a “lawful” fact! ---
**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 16, 2015, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/285 "2015-08-16T16:21:51Z")
You know, Joe, all this voluntary stuff would only work if most people are agreeable. The world ain’t like that. Even if we were to set aside your organized pseudolegal commercial argument, set aside your Xian touchstone, and set aside your incomprehensible babble, the simple fact remains that without most people agreeing with your beliefs, you don’t have a chance in hell of being taken seriously by anyone other that fellow sovereignists. In short, you and your group are no more than proselytizers pitching yet another irrational belief system. Good luck with that, for although there are always exceptions, (e.g. Hubbard), you’re competing with many other religions in a market that is already saturated. Cult competition ain’t an easy life, for no matter how you pretend that you are rational, you are not, and most folks see through you. In short, you are not getting anywhere, and you’re not going to get anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/286 "2015-08-16T18:16:07Z")
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule are demonstrated well enough by those who choose personal attacks as their form of communication. Those on the aggressive side are also proving which side they are on when their communications aid the cover-up of the true meaning of federal, voluntary, association. Those on the aggressive side also prove their affiliation with the aggressors when they claim that only their members are allowed by their members to offer defensive services according to their exclusive versions of their Union law of their Union land which is clearly divided and separate from an independent version called Rule of Law. On the Criminal Rule side the members ensure their dominance through deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence, and once someone joins that side they add to the power that side commands. This is not news, and the past is instructive concerning the present and the future. In the past the federal, voluntary, relationship was destroyed by the aggressors and those historical facts were recorded in the first American federal statute known as a Declaration of Independence. When the aggressors surrendered, leaving much destruction caused by their aggression, those left alive in America were then able to continue the process of funding a new American form of Rule of Law. An example was offered in at least one court case linked in this thread. Again: > **[RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/)** > > RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER > [@](#): > > 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. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. 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. The Union of so called Lawyers or so called Attorneys routinely offer extremely high prices for their services because they routinely claim that only Union Members are allowed to compete in the free market of defensive services. That was explained well enough here: [http://www.ncpublications.com/colonial/bookshelf/Tracts/Nutbush%20Address/nutbush.htm](http://www.ncpublications.com/colonial/bookshelf/Tracts/Nutbush%20Address/nutbush.htm) > [@](#): > > Need I mention one instance to set forth the misery which we groan under? Does not daily experience shew us the gaping jaws of ruin, open, and ready devour us? Are not your lands executed your negroes, horses, cattle, hogs, corn, beds, and household furniture? Are not these things, I say, taken and sold for one tenth of their value? Not to satisfy the just debts which you have contracted; but to satisfy the cursed exorbitant demands of the Clerks, Lawyers and Sheriffs. Here they take your lands which perhaps are worth four or five hundred pounds, and sell them at public vendue for about forty or fifty pounds. And who buys? Why the same villians who have taken your negroes and other personal estate, and have the County’s money in their hands. This has furnished them with money to buy off the rest of your livings, at the same rates as you have heard. It is reasonable Gentlemen, that these Officers should be allowed such fees, as may give them a genteel maintenance, but then is it reasonable that they should rob the County to support themselves in such damned extravagancies. and laugh at us for being [189] such simpletons as to suffer it? No: Gentlemen, there is no reason that I know of; except they want to reduce us down to that despicable state whence they rose, and a pitiful estate it was, Gentlemen. There were none of our arbitrary Governors, whose descent were not as obscure, and dispicable, as their transactions in a public capacity have been base and illegal. When the immoral, illegal, base, despicable, evil people take over they create and maintain Criminal Rule as a rule. They maintain their rule by offering a deal, an offer that they say can’t be refused, to their targeted victims, and once the victim takes the plea bargain, the victim becomes one of the members joining Criminal Rule. The alternative is spelled out in a Declaration of Independence and many versions of what has become known as a Bill of Rights. However, the criminals, as a rule, do not obey moral laws, and anyone claiming that the criminals obey moral laws is someone demonstrating a lack of ability to respond effectively in defense of those innocent people who are destroyed by criminals. By their choice to initiate aggression the people who do so define the meaning of crime as their actions injure innocent people. To claim that the criminal who rules the victim criminally is not a criminal after or before the crime was perpetrated is another claim that demonstrates a lack of ability to respond effectively in defense of those innocent people who are destroyed by criminals. In time, and in place, the guilty criminal rules the innocent victim, as a matter of unlawful fact. Finding those facts to be facts is one effective way to volunteer to act effectively in defense of those innocent people from those guilty criminals. Why start the lawful process of accounting for the facts at the level of a forum when there are obvious cases involving very serious crimes perpetrated by criminals at the level of a Nation State crime spree? The answer is that the so called law (Consolidated, exclusive, Union “law”) of the land is in place to ensure that the Nation State criminals are protected from any application of true, voluntary, federal, law (moral law) enforcement. Where once the federal people offered their accountability, in a short time those same federal people turned a blind eye, or subsidized in fact, their own crimes. [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th\_century/artconf.asp](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp) “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 attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.” The crime of slavery was declared a crime in the first Statute of the federal association as such: > **[Jefferson’s “original Rough draught” of the Declaration of Independence -...](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html)** > > Transcription of Thomas Jefferson's 'original Rough draught' of the Declaration of Independence. > [@](#): > > he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & 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 to 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, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. Even during the worst of times, while the British Slave Trading criminals were perpetrating War of Aggression on all Americans who would not take the deal of servitude offered by the Criminal British, the crime of slavery was against the federal defensive military orders: > **[The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 1 | Online Library of Liberty](https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-1)** > > Vol. 1 of an influential early 19th century edition of key documents about the ratification of the US Constitution by the states. > [@](#): > > On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.” > > On the 20th day of October, the non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement was adopted and signed by the Congress. This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted. In general, the association expressed a determination to suppress luxury, encourage frugality, and promote domestic manufactures. The agreement was dated the 24th of October. The continuation of a crime (slavery) even after the crime is accurately identified as “trading with the enemy” during open war of aggression by aggressors, where defenders are defending at high cost, is also identified accurately in the historical record: > [@](#): > > Congress proceeded, the same day, to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported, and laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others. The debates, having taken up the greater parts of the 2d, 3d, and 4th days of July, were, on the evening of the last, closed; the Declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson.] There were then and there are now people who excuse, rationalize, apologize for, protect, defend, aid, abet, subsidize, all forms of criminal acts under the color of law including modern forms of slavery. Those people are on one side, and they find ways to remain outside moral law. The idea that slavery was ever a benefit to anyone other than a very few criminals who profit from such crimes continues to this day. The only way that ignorance, that apathy, that criminal, destructive, information remains, in any way defended, is through deception, and through the BAR put in place to keep out anti-slavery court cases from due process of law according to the law of the land. [http://b-womeninamericanhistory17.blogspot.com/2009/05/elizabeth-key-slave-or-free.html](http://b-womeninamericanhistory17.blogspot.com/2009/05/elizabeth-key-slave-or-free.html) > [@](#): > > A Report of a Comittee from an Assembly Concerning the freedome of Elizabeth Key. It appeareth to us that shee is the daughter of Thomas Key by severall Evidences and by a fine imposed upon the said Thomas for getting her mother with Child of the said Thomas. 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 by the Comon Law the Child of a Woman slave begott by a freeman ought to bee free. That shee hath bin long since Christened. Col. Higginson being her Godfather and that by report shee is able togive a very good account of her fayth. That Thomas Key sould her onely for nine yeares to Col. Higginson with severall conditions to use her more Respectfully then a Comon servant or slave. That in case Col. Higginson had gone for England within nine yeares hee was bound to carry her with him and pay her passage and not to dispose of her to any other. For theise Reasons wee conceive the said Elizabeth ought to bee free and that her last Master should give her Corne and Cloathes and give her satisfaction for the time shee hath served longer then Shee ought to have done. But forasmuch as noe man appeared against the said Elizabeth’s petition, wee thinke not fitt a determinative judgement should passe but that the County or Quarter Court where it shall be next tried to take notice of this to be the sence of the Burgesses of this present Assembly and shall appear to be executed and reasons [original torn] opposite part Judgement by the said Court be given Charles Norwood Clerk Assembly. James Gaylord hath deposed that this is a true coppy. James Gaylord. 21 July 1656. Jurat in Curia Had the federation remained a federal rather than a Consolidated Nation State the former slaves would have had places like Rhode Island and Vermont to find sanctuary where the criminals did not rule with Criminal Rule. Focus of attention during peacetime would have been fixed upon those very few who still profited from the crime known as slavery, and the means by which all innocent victims were effectively defended against criminal slavers would have undoubtedly included more frequent cases tried by jury according to the common laws of free people. Today, as in the past, similar instances of effective defense against criminal rulers still process out factually; albeit much too late in the day. [http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf](http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf) > [@](#): > > James M. Lawson, Jr > Page 541 > > “The movement was aimed at reversing that. King’s motto was, the SCLC motto, it was not civil rights, it was redeem the soul of America. That was our motto. So you see right away that that is much larger than getting a hamburger at a lunch counter.” > > Arthur Jackson Haynes, Jr > Page 804 > “I have considered in my thirty-five-year career a jury is the best lie detector there is.” Those on the other side of moral law (Rule of Law) choose character assassination as a routine (not an exception). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/287 "2015-08-16T19:08:43Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Those on the other side of moral law (Rule of Law) choose character assassination as a routine (not an exception). I would regard the persistent false accusation of “criminal” throughout your repetitious screed to be a form of character assassination. Your continuous choice of idiolectic definitions of language would seem to be your routine position. As long as you continue to abuse the language and your correspondents with a misuse of the word “criminal,” your accusation says more about you and your position that it does against your opponents. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/288 "2015-08-16T19:11:47Z")
Can you simply answer the fucking questions? We have read your screed. We reject it. Please stop repeating it. Just answer the questions in English. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/289 "2015-08-16T19:26:38Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Can you simply answer the fucking questions? We have read your screed. We reject it. Please stop repeating it. Just answer the questions in English. After 287 posts, 55 by Josf, what makes you think that he is going to change his mode of posting, now? You might consider the “agree to disagree” process and let the thread die on its own. (It is not as though he has actually persuaded anyone of his beliefs. I doubt that anyone has understood what he has posted about his beliefs.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/290 "2015-08-16T19:43:24Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > After 287 posts, 55 by Josf, what makes you think that he is going to change his mode of posting, now? > > You might consider the “agree to disagree” process and let the thread die on its own. (It is not as though he has actually persuaded anyone of his beliefs. I doubt that anyone has understood what he has posted about his beliefs.) I understand what you are saying, but I don’t want him to be able to use this thread as some evidence of a victory by claiming we had no response for him. I reject his contentions. I don’t contract with him or otherwise post bond. I ask that he cite his legal rationale for his beliefs. As I am sure he cannot do so, and when he does not do so, I will consider the matter over and accept for value his inability to rebut as a recognition that our assertions are correct. I will submit a fee schedule, charging the OP for $100,000,000 each time he uses the word “competitive.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/291 "2015-08-16T20:24:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I ask that he cite his legal rationale for his beliefs. He denies that your version of “legal” is, in fact, legal. You deny his unfounded assertions, (along with his misuse of language, etc., etc.). There is no possible resolution to this contest. I am not telling you to quit, only pointing out the hopelessness of your quest. ---
**Author:** ![Scholar\_Beardpig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Scholar\_Beardpig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scholar_Beardpig)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/292 "2015-08-16T21:22:23Z")
This reminds me of when I was hashing out with **Kozmik** about the Illuminati… ---
**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 16, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/293 "2015-08-16T21:40:47Z")
Hey! Trigger warning, please! ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/294 "2015-08-16T22:25:22Z")
Returning to the topic (the topic is not my personal character): Examples of the abuse of language constitutes divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. That is exemplified here: > [@](#): > > There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. Those on the side of “abuse of language” (known as fraud) were those fraudulently calling themselves federalists. Those fraudulently calling themselves federalists were also those few who profit from the slavery trade. The divisions started then (1787) are the divisions that persist now: those on the side of Rule of Law, and those on the side where fraud is claimed to be “legal.” When people initiate violence upon innocent people the federal association ends; as explained well enough, in English, by John Adams. That above has been, is, and will be the subject matter of this topic. My personal character, on the other hand, is not the subject matter of this topic unless people initiate and maintain attacks upon my personal character instead of dealing with the subject matter of the topic. ---
**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 16, 2015, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/295 "2015-08-16T22:30:52Z")
How many people are calling themselves “Federalists” lately? Is it more than those identifying as Whigs? ---
**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 16, 2015, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/296 "2015-08-16T23:06:22Z")
I apologize for double posting but what I mean to ask is even if the US was set upon a path contrary to the intentions of our Founding Fathers, what actions do you propose at this late date to remedy this, ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/297 "2015-08-16T23:21:33Z")
DrFidelius offers: > [@](#): > > How many people are calling themselves “Federalists” lately? Is it more than those identifying as Whigs? The modern label currently used is FEDS; as exemplified in recent confrontations between those on the Rule of Law side and those who are called FEDS. Those on the side where aggression is initiated are those who end a federal association. Modern political parties are National (Consolidated Nation State) not federal according to the meaning of the word federal as explained by John Adams and as explained in the words of those who opposed the Consolidation of the federal association into a Nation State. National parties, such as the Democrat and Republican party are neither democratic nor republican, they are National as in Nation State, and they claim that their authority is derived through Majority Rule, as exemplified by so many people currently parroting the idea. The formation of the Democratic-Republican Party appears to have been a response to the obvious indictable crimes perpetrated by the so called Federalist Party members who included George Washington (Judiciary Act, Naturalization Act, Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation), Alexander Hamilton (Whiskey Excise Tax, First Bank of the United States), and John Adams (Alien and Sedition acts), inspiring Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to respond (caused to act by causes such as Alien and Sedition Act) with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and then those two took their turn as Executive over the entire Nation State of people, through Majority Rule processes. Those members of the Democratic-Republican Party were the nearest representatives of people bound by Rule of Law as exemplified in the true, strict, definition of the word federal; meaning we the people voluntarily association for our mutual defense: federal, voluntary, association. Today the closest I’ve seen to someone representing a truly federal government is Ron Paul. None of the current people “running” for the executive office of the Nation State (now a corporation) represent a federal government power; again by the true, strict, meaning of the word federal. At the time of the formation of the false “Federalist” Party those against such “abuse of language” considered those false “Federalists” to be “National men,” or aristocrats whose power accumulation was understood to be gained through close ties with “government funding” so the current crop of “candidates” (who in our current world actually believes that the U.S. “election” is legitimate?) include mostly aristocratic, National, oligarchs, or more commonly known know as fascists; whose power was accumulated through something called “subsidy,” whereby they gain “leverage” by enforcing restrictions to trade favoring themselves and costing their competitors a significant lack of “leverage.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/298 "2015-08-16T23:25:22Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > My personal character, on the other hand, is not the subject matter of this topic unless people initiate and maintain attacks upon my personal character instead of dealing with the subject matter of the topic. As long as you persist in misrepresenting words in a way that results in you calling beliefs and actions of your opponents “criminal,” then you are introducing the topic of Character to the thread. Your choice; your problem. If you do not want your character attacked, stop attacking your opponents with ridiculous claims that their positions are criminal–an attack on their character. Your persistent choice of idiolectic language is an abuse of reasonable debate. As long as you continue to present your opponents as engaging in "criminal’ behavior and as long as you continue to pretend that the various state bar associations are “unions” and insist on presenting similar displays of well poisoning and and misdirection, your arguments fail. None of your arguments have been coherent. (Few of your statements have been coherent or even understandable.) Misusing words to make a point and evading direct criticism of such nonsense either by ignoring the arguments or pretending that the words have different meanings is not a legitimate form of debate. This is not an attack upon your character, but a simple description of your actuions. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/299 "2015-08-16T23:43:19Z")
DrFidelius kindly offers: > [@](#): > > I apologize for double posting but what I mean to ask is even if the US was set upon a path contrary to the intentions of our Founding Fathers, what actions do you propose at this late date to remedy this, There are many ways individuals, families, churches, corporations, cities, counties, states, and federations can work incrementally toward a return to Rule of Law instead of working incrementally toward deeper injury as measured by body counts and so called National Debt. Individuals can learn about trial by jury and volunteer as jurists when opportunity is realized in time and place; while remaining solvent themselves as independent people capable of sustaining and reproducing independent life here in America. That is an observation, not “my idea,” as many people are currently moving in that direction. An obvious State level tactic, offered by people in a few States already, such as Utah and Arizona, are moves away from fraudulent central banking, where the move is a return to sound money banking, whereby actual earnings are accountable in specie, or Gold and Silver. That is a direct competitor to the so called FED. Oath Keepers prove that Rule of Law can still work where probable cause to act in defense of the innocent against criminal aggression perpetrated by so called FEDS has already occurred in more than one place more than one time: The Bundy Ranch and the Ferguson meeting between Rule of Law and Criminal Rule. A very weak area concerns the concept of Redress of Grievances, which is a vital part of common law due process, concerning accusations charged against so called Federal employees. State prosecutors may soon get up to speed in such states as Utah and Arizona when further conflicts between so called FEDS and State employees ratchet up their respective actions aimed at defending their separate powers. As the FED may collapse the economy those who effectively preserve their wealth creation power in states may encounter demands from the FEDS to go down with the same sinking ship, and those in the solvent states may prefer to avoid such harm done by such criminals at the FED. Sheriffs may also find people in their jurisdiction demanding and backing the authority of the Sherriff again along the lines where current conflicts are erupting as so called FEDS are clearly overstepping their clearly defined boundaries as those so called FEDS end any true, strict, sense of federation when they clearly initiate violence upon innocent people. The most obvious battle for Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule, in my opinion, is between parents and children. So much of the modern media, in schools, in television, and even on the World Wide Web, favors the continued financing of Criminal Rule, and parents who know better can offer a competitive explanation of how life actually works when people volunteer to maintain rule of law. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/300 "2015-08-17T01:01:39Z")
You state that John Adams has committed “indictable crimes” by his support of the alien and sedition acts. Yet you continue to cite him (and take his words out of context) as a shining example of what freedom truly means. I would again ask for a legal cite for your claims instead of your repeated insistence that you are simply correct and use of capital letters. Your bald assertions do not prove your points to be correct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=16)