# 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:** 19
**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 19, 2015, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/361 "2015-08-19T23:45:42Z")
He’s trying to raise the bar. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/362 "2015-08-19T23:57:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Why do you capitalize the word “BAR”? He is clearly not going to answer that question. You are free to speculate why he refuses, (within the rules prohibiting insults). You are free to propose that his failure to answer indicates a fear of exposure of his motivation. However, you have now asked often enough that his refusal to answer is clear. You will refrain from asking again, as we do not permit stalking or harassment and continuing to repeat that question will fall into one or both of those categories. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/363 "2015-08-20T11:06:29Z")
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule include those divisions by which ineffectual offers of remedy were offered by some slave traders while other slave traders refused direct orders to discontinue the slave trade. Divisions may have included 3 possible categories of people offering remedy to other people, including slaves. 1. Masters who have mastered the procedures known as trial by jury according to the common law and these Masters generously give their knowledge and assistance to those who are either victims whose victimization cause an action at law in the form of an accusation, or Masters of Rule of Law give, generously, at their own cost (pro bono), knowledge, help, assistance, education, instruction, to those who are innocent yet accused of a crime. 1. Masters who have mastered the procedures known as trial by jury according to the common law and these people trade their services for just compensation. No giving, no generosity, no gift, (no pro bono), nor is there a profit, a price gouging, a leveraged pound of flesh taken, nor an unfair, unjust, unreasonable cost borne by the one in need of vital information concerning the realities of due process of law, or Rule of Law, among error prone, and flawed, human beings who are capable of abusing power when opportunity is afforded to people in the form of weak, innocent, easy to injure, easy pickings, ignorant, powerless, defenseless people. No giving help, rather just compensation for help in effective defense of the innocent, defenseless, in need of Rule of Law by common law procedures. 1. Masters who have mastered the procedures known as trial by jury according to the common law and these Masters refuse to educate, offer, inform, enlighten, or instruct the weak, innocent, easy to injure, easy pickings, ignorant, powerless, defenseless people. Any information concerning Rule of Law that is in any way useful to innocent victims, as accusers, or as defendants is restricted, censored, kept secret, and made scarce. The only time this scarce information is in any way transferred to defenseless people is reluctantly and only if the receiver of the information can be raped, pillaged, enslaved, purchased, overpowered, consumed, leveraged, where the Master makes a killing, as the power to set the price of access to Rule of Law is determined by an effective effort to keep a lid on the vital information concerning how Rule of Law actually works, and therefore the demand for Rule of Law defense against harm by criminals is very high and that, in turn, affords those few who offer the service an ability to set a very high price for the service. Again: [http://www.ncpublications.com/colonial/bookshelf/Tracts/Nutbush%20Address/nutbush.htm](http://www.ncpublications.com/colonial/bookshelf/Tracts/Nutbush%20Address/nutbush.htm) > [@](#): > > And therefore I shall proceed to the 4th proposal, which was to shew the mischief that naturally flows as a consequence from these cursed practices, and whatever I say Gentlemen, to illustrate this melancholy subject. 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? And again: > **[Argus tell us: How the FBI solves its cases](https://gerryspence.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/738/)** > > Argus tells us: How the FBI solves its cases Now let’s try to be serious just once.  Here is what Argus told me about his exposure to FBI deal-making methods as taught at the U. Wyoming Law School.… > [@](#): > > “Now when the guy is ‘ripe,’ as the Bureau likes to phrase it, when the pressure has been on the suspect for Lord-knows-how-long, and the poor bastard has laid awake for six months staring up at the ceiling wondering how to convince his wife and his kids and the old folks at home that he is really innocent, when he gets up in the morning and the first thing that hits him is a ghastly fear that makes his heart beat out of sync, then like the Chinese water torture, the fear dripping down, the terror of the unknown having captured his mind, the pain of it, minute by minute, hour by hour, day after relentless day, wearing away at him until he has endured one drip too many, well, then he disintegrates into an inglorious pile of blubbering fucking rubble at the feet of the FBI, and he’s ready for a deal!” At the conclusion of the longest sentence uttered by a professor in our law school career, we erupted in loud hoops and applause. > > Professor Jones bowed slightly and continued. “The FBI has several classes of deals available. The Class I deal is made with subjects who are guilty of nothing and against whom the Bureau has no case whatsoever. But they have been harassed so long they think they’re guilty, or still believing themselves innocent, they’re helpless to defend themselves, and stupefied by fear, they’ll testify to anything or against anybody if the Bureau will only leave them alone. > > “But the FBI makes Class II deals, too. The Class II deal is for subjects who are actually guilty, but still running at large. Usually the more guilty you are the better deal you can make. The Class II dealee might be more guilty than the guy they’re after, but to nail the ‘target,’ the Class II dealee can walk or take ‘short time’ in exchange for his testimony against the target who will likely get twenty years to life. The target could be innocent. That is not the point. The point is the deal. The government isn’t in business to solve cases. It isn’t in the business of bringing criminals to justice. The government has but one function and one function only—to make good, solid, saleable deals!” > > “Amen,” some smartass in the back hollered. But Professor Jones paid him no heed. > > “Then there are the Class III deals—for inmates. Here the Bureau scrapes the bottom of the deal barrel. Everybody wants out of prison, and if an inmate can conjure up a good enough story against the target, the Bureau will make the inmate a fucking deal. I don’t use the word loosely but with legal precision, because…” He paused with perfect timing, surveying the class. We waited, our hearts pounding with excitement. “Because the deal is to fuck your brother. Deals! Buying and selling! That’s what life in America is all about today. After the Class III prisoner testifies he’ll be placed on the Witness Protection Program. A Class III deal is a peachy deal for convicts who have a good story and are good salesmen. Most crooks are. Most honest people are not.” > > We tried to write down every word the professor uttered. “The Class IV deal, the most common deal of all, is one in which the suspect is both the f_ckee and the fu_kor. He may be guilty or not. If he admits his guilt the government will be easier on him than if he makes the government prove its case by bringing in Class I, II or III deals against him. When you’re the target it’s pretty frightening. You’ve been rotting in jail awaiting trial for eight months without a single ray of sunshine once touching your sickly black hide, and they’ve got you charged with something that pulls ten to life, and you’ve got for a lawyer a honky public defender fresh out of law school with 150 other cases. You’re just one more n-word. You can get out in two if you plead guilty, and you get good time for the eight months you already spent in jail. You make a Class IV deal. I repeat: It doesn’t make any difference whether you’re guilty or not. The Bureau doesn’t care. It’s another case closed. What counts to the Bureau is that they made a deal! ” Divisions: 1. Give (pro bono) knowledge concerning effective methods of defending innocent people injured by guilty criminals, such as the knowledge required to form and present a lawful accusation, and knowledge concerning effective defense of innocent people charged falsely as a suspected criminal, such as the common law trial by jury voir dire process, and such as the reasoning why voir dire is afforded to the defense, and how easily a prosecutor can illegally stack the jury in favor of a guilty verdict. 2. Trade knowledge of common law due process for just compensation professionally: neither charity nor profit due to restricted access. 3. Unionize, or monopolize, the service of Master of Rule of Law, so as to restrict access to due process, to control access in such a way as to increase demand which thereby affords the few Masters of Rule of Law leverage to increase the price of the service beyond the affordability of the majority of the population. From this point the Debate on Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule can turn from the obvious division between poor (defenseless) and rich (oppressive) concerning the criminal practice of legalizing African slavery, and from that criminal slavery division (Masters and Slaves) the topic can turn toward the economic funding of criminals, known as subsidy, as those criminals then use the stolen loot to steal even more loot from the defenseless poor. Slaves did learn how to earn their freedom, some became Salve owners. Did any slaves learn how to present a lawful accusation in a form that constitutes a Redress of Grievances concerning any cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon the Slave by the Master? If not, why not? Could a Slave afford to take time off of work to read, learn, study, know, and Master the common law due processes? If not why not? 1. How many, if any, of the Masters of common law generously gave the poor, in any way, the knowledge required to become independent in matters of common law Rule of Law? 2. How many Masters of common law Rule of Law due process earned a living professionally, trading the service for just compensation, providing defense of the innocent from the guilty criminals through Rule of Law according to the common law? 3. Were any Masters of common law Rule of Law due process using their knowledge to price gouge defenseless, ignorant, victims of crime, or innocent people accused of crimes, due to the managed scarcity of the knowledge of common law Rule of Law due process? Three more divisions offered in an Economic sense. 1. Those who know and are generous with their knowledge about common law Rule of Law due process. 2. Those who know and are able to make a living (just compensation) with their knowledge about common law Rule of Law due process. 3. Those who know and are able to profit at the expense of those who do not know about common law Rule of Law due process. Reminder: [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/](http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/) 1774 > [@](#): > > On the 14th of October, Congress made a declaration, and framed resolves, relative to the rights and grievances of the colonies. > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/364 "2015-08-20T22:16:56Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule . . . This is a debate forum, not your personal blog. Wandering off to create hypothetical scenarios involving slaves as held in the British North American colonies is rather far adrift from your principal thesis that there was something “criminal” about the creation of the U.S. Constitution. Go back to trying to explain why you think the Constitution was “criminal” while the Articles of Confederation were not and make it easy on yourself by refraining from posting your constant errors of fact regarding slavery–which is not relevant to your central thesis in any event. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/365 "2015-08-20T22:20:03Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule . . . Your lengthy hijack particularly irrelevant when you have failed to identify any way in which the Articles of Confederation were less “criminal” than the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation recognized the reality of slavery while failing to remark on whether or not it was right or legitimate and while failing to take any action to suppress it. (The Constitution actually does more to oppose slavery in that it provides for the ultimate prohibition of importing slaves, something the Articles failed to do.) > [@Josf](#): > > Reminder: > [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/](http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/) > > 1774 > On the 14th of October, Congress made a declaration, and framed resolves, relative to the rights and grievances of the colonies. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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.” This is just silly, coming as it does at the end of your lengthy sidestep into hypothetical actions of slave owners. Your “Reminder” does not address slavery in any way. It notes that the (white) descendants of the original British settlers assert their right to be judged under English Common Law just as their (white, British) ancestors who were “free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England”–a description that does not apply to the enslaved Africans who were taken from their homes that were not "within the realms of England. First you confused actions against the (trans-Atlantic) slave trade with non-existent actions against slavery. Now you are implying that the enslaved Africans were being described by the slave holders as “free” within the realms of England. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/366 "2015-08-21T01:29:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Your lengthy hijack particularly irrelevant when you have failed to identify any way in which the Articles of Confederation were less “criminal” than the Constitution. Why is my character the topic for debate? I, me, an individual, never set out to accomplish what this individual claims I set out to do, and therefore I cannot have “failed,” so I am not a “failure,” and the subject matter of the Debate happens to be Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. There are people who have offered a viewpoint that suggests a relative difference (division) between The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787. If my opinion is offered, then my opinion is offered, but my opinion does not intent to WIN an argument, so there is absolutely now way I can “fail” to WIN an argument. Divisions along Rule of Law and Criminal Rule are divisions dividing people who think and act according to their divided thoughts and their divided actions. Some people claim to own slaves. Some slaves figure out how to stop being slaves, and then some of those former slaves figure out how to claim to own slaves, and my opinion is that their claims are false, as their claims of owning slaves are merely their rationalizations concerning their choices to perpetrate demonstrable crimes. > [@](#): > > The Articles of Confederation recognized the reality of slavery while failing to remark on whether or not it was right or legitimate and while failing to take any action to suppress it. Rhode Island, an Independent State federated with other States, outlawed slavery according to at least one source here: [http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom\_documents/anti\_federalist\_papers/anti\_federalist\_papers\_15.php](http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_15.php) > [@](#): > > The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free. After the change (my understanding is in line with George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, and Luther Martin, to name only 4 people) from Articles of Confederation, which was a federal, voluntary, union, to the Constitution of 1787, which was a Consolidated, involuntary, Nation State, the following was Declared by those individuals who had the power of involuntary association (once they managed to get their Nation State): [http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slaveact1793.htm](http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slaveact1793.htm) > [@](#): > > Chap. VII.—An Act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters. > Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the executive authority of any state in the Union, or of either of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, shall demand any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any such state or territory to which such person shall have fled, and shall moreover produce the copy of an indictment found, or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory as aforesaid, charging the person so demanded, with having committed treason, felony or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such person shall have fled, to cause him or her to be arrested and secured, and notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear: But if no such agent shall appear within six months from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged. And all costs or expenses incurred in the apprehending, securing, and transmitting such fugitive to the state or territory making such demand, shall be paid by such state or territory. > Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any agent, appointed as aforesaid, who shall receive the fugitive into his custody, shall be empowered to transport him or her to the state or territory from which he or she shall have fled. And if any person or persons shall by force set at liberty, or rescue the fugitive from such agent while transporting, as aforesaid, the person or persons so offending shall, on conviction, be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding one year. > Sec. 3. And be it also enacted, That when a person held to labour in any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the northwest or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the person to whom such labour or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, (b) and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or being any magistrate of a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labour to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour, to the state or territory from which he or she fled. > Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent or attorney in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labour, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or attorney when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given or declared; or shall harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labour, as aforesaid, shall for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars. Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by the action of debt, in any court proper to try the same; saving moreover to the person claiming such labour or service, his right of action for or on account of the said injuries or either of them. Free market forces (individual choices constituting a demand for higher quality and lower cost) work one way in a federation, and not as much (if at all) in a Consolidated Nation State as offered by the following explanation and link: > **[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... > [@](#): > > Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. > > Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely. The example of how that worked under The Articles of Confederation is provided for in the events known as Shays’s Rebellion: explained well in the following links: > **[Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle: Richards, Leonard L.:...](https://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701)** > > Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle \[Richards, Leonard L.\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle The "voting with your feet" concept, running (a runaway slave) from despotic enslavement, and running (a runaway slave) into sanctuary (effective defense against enslavement), is offered by the example of Daniel Shays. Massachusetts was one of the first independent states federated into a mutual defense association to move decidedly from Rule of Law and move decidedly into Criminal Rule as explained in great detail by Leonard Richards in his study, book, and lecture. If Rule of Law was applied at the federal level, which it was not, then the federal people, all of them individuals making their own individual decisions to act, or not act, could have stepped in and offered help to resolve the matter peacefully at any time during the incremental commencement of hostilities; beginning with the enslavement of Revolutionary War Veterans with fraudulent money debt. > [@](#): > > (The Constitution actually does more to oppose slavery in that it provides for the ultimate prohibition of importing slaves, something the Articles failed to do.) Many people at the time voiced an opposing view, and they did not necessarily distinguish between African slavery (subsidized by various forms of Criminal Rule) and white, or debt, or despotic, slavery. Slavery by anyone upon anyone is still slavery, white, black, Irish, Indian, women, children, whatnot. Another example of those not signing onto the Consolidated Nation State (enslavement) idea: [http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm](http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm) > [@](#): > > That the new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states, we shall now shew. I won’t quote then entire show. > [@](#): > > This is just silly, coming as it does at the end of your lengthy sidestep into hypothetical actions of slave owners. Currently there are salve owners. I do not consider the past, present, or future division of people into slaves and owners as a side step when the Topic is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. You have a opinion as you have clearly stated. My opinion is not your opinion. Our opinions are divided; as far as I can tell. > [@](#): > > Your “Reminder” does not address slavery in any way. If a slave is, in fact, a victim of a crime, then Rule of Law (if it is in force) works to afford the victim a remedy. Common law trial by jury was, at least, voiced, and recorded on the official record. I think it is important to remind people of that fact when the Topic is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. Common law trial by jury was, at least, voiced, and recorded on the official record. Those on the side working for the end of slavery may want to understand how to offer victims of slavery a method of accessing Rule of Law, such as an accusation of cruel and unusual punishment while being enslaved by the slave master. Where can they turn in their accusation so as to then be afforded effective defense through common law trial by jury due process and Rule of law? Those on the side working for enslaving people may want to make sure that the victims remain ignorant of Rule of Law, and any known, knowable, effective, methods of defending innocent victims, such as slaves, from guilty criminals, such as people who claim (with Bill of Sale in hand) to own people. > [@](#): > > It notes that the (white) descendants of the original British settlers assert their right to be judged under English Common Law just as their (white, British) ancestors who were “free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England”–a description that does not apply to the enslaved Africans who were taken from their homes that were not "within the realms of England. It is the record that records the formation of the defensive federation. Your opinion of it is yours, not mine, and we are divided on that specific viewpoint. [http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black\_slave\_owners\_did\_they\_exist.html](http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html) > [@](#): > > In Savannah, Ga., between 1823 and 1828, according to Betty Wood’s Gender, Race, and Rank in a Revolutionary Age, Hannah Leion owned nine slaves, while the largest slaveholder in 1860 was Ciprien Ricard, who had a sugarcane plantation in Louisiana and owned 152 slaves with her son, Pierre – many more that the 35 she owned in 1830. According to economic historian Stanley Engerman, “In Charleston, South Carolina about 42 percent of free blacks owned slaves in 1850, and about 64 percent of these slaveholders were women.” Greed, in other words, was gender-blind. Those whose desire was to own people figured out how to make the right connections, those who preferred not to be criminals ended up being slaves of a different kind. It might be a good idea to know better. > **[Thomas Paine: Common Sense](http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm)** > > Full text of Thomas Paine's --Common Sense-- > [@](#): > > 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. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no power “given” to the federal office holders to directly tax people. When the federation was set aside and the Consolidated Nation State was (fraudulently) put in place, the National men set about their direct tax programs, as they do routinely. That is ongoing in a predictable way. > **[U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time](https://www.usdebtclock.org/)** > > US National Debt Clock : Real Time U.S. National Debt Clock > [@](#): > > First you confused actions against the (trans-Atlantic) slave trade with non-existent actions against slavery. People in Rhode Island, for one example, did what they did, said what they said, and all I did was cut and paste some of the information. > [@](#): > > Now you are implying that the enslaved Africans were being described by the slave holders as “free” within the realms of England. I do not know what is “the realms” of anything. If you think there may be an implication of some sort in my writing, then it might be a good idea to quote the words that lead you to that idea. ---
**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 21, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/367 "2015-08-21T01:48:36Z")
The quantity of your argument is not a replacement for its quality. ---
**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 21, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/368 "2015-08-21T02:12:09Z")
Yes, this is the debate forum, but it is also the witnessing forum. Joe is witnessing for the sovereign citizen movement. As with many other causes and religions, witnessing does not require rationality, usually rejects contrary opinions, and drones on ad nauseum. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/369 "2015-08-21T02:52:01Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Why is my character the topic for debate? It is not. Why are you trying to hijack the thread into a discussion of whether or not your character is under discussion when no reference to your character has been presented. > [@Josf](#): > > I, me, an individual, never set out to accomplish what this individual claims I set out to do, and therefore I cannot have “failed,” so I am not a “failure,” and the subject matter of the Debate happens to be Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. This is a debate forum. If you have not come here to debate an issue or to persuade others to your views, then you are posting in the wrong forum. Further, you recognized that this was a debate forum in your [Original Post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18574325#post18574325) in which you made multiple references to debate and repeated your recognition that this was a debate in your statement which I have quoted. If you have not set out to demonstrate that the Constitution was “criminal” while the Articles of Confederation were not, then you have belabored the point at excessive length to no purpose. > [@Josf](#): > > If my opinion is offered, then my opinion is offered, but my opinion does not intent to WIN an argument, so there is absolutely now way I can “fail” to WIN an argument. So, now, after initiating a debate and repeating that this is a debate, you want to claim you are not engaged in a debate. Odd, but typical of your presentation thus far. Following the above quoted statement, you launched one more off-topic rambling series of ruminations on your odd views of slavery. Then, of course, you posted: > [@Josf](#): > > People in Rhode Island, for one example, did what they did, said what they said, and all I did was cut and paste some of the information. This is not accurate. You have also posted on several occasions that the Constitution overthrew Rhode Island’s abolition of slavery. > [@Josf](#): > > I do not know what is “the realms” of anything. If you think there may be an implication of some sort in my writing, then it might be a good idea to quote the words that lead you to that idea. If you do not know what the English realm was as addressed by the document **you** cited, then you had no business citing that document. ---
**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 21, 2015, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/370 "2015-08-21T09:48:19Z")
I think I’ve got it. Buried in that last screed was something about debt slavery. So Josef doesn’t have to pay federal taxes because they didn’t exist under the Articles and the Constitution did not abolish slavery right from the start something something Profit! ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/371 "2015-08-21T10:53:34Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is a debate forum. If you have not come here to debate an issue or to persuade others to your views, then you are posting in the wrong forum. Further, you recognized that this was a debate forum in your [Original Post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18574325#post18574325) in which you made multiple references to debate and repeated your recognition that this was a debate in your statement which I have quoted. If you have not set out to demonstrate that the Constitution was “criminal” while the Articles of Confederation were not, then you have belabored the point at excessive length to no purpose. > > So, now, after initiating a debate and repeating that this is a debate, you want to claim you are not engaged in a debate. If I had to guess, the semantics about not offering an opinion are couched in these various terms as to not create “joinder” or contract with us in some way. Typical FOTL nonsense. Note the language of how so and so poster “offers” a statement as if it is up to him to accept (presumably for value) or reject on his terms, like if I post a bond as an assurance for my opinion. The repeated references to slavery are likewise puzzling. There is no debate about slavery. Everyone thinks slavery is wrong and it has been outlawed for 150 years. Nobody is proposing to legalize it. So what is the purpose of debating which form of government had a better view of slavery nearly 90 years prior to that? Let’s just assume that the AoC took a better tack towards slavery and the current Constitution made slavery worse. I disagree for all of the reasons cited in this thread, but let’s just assume. Still, the Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery, so all of this should be meaningless. But I’m sure that “slavery” will somehow mean that the Constitution has permitted things like central banking, income taxes, or basically any law which the OP happens to disagree with and is thereby “criminal.” ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/372 "2015-08-21T19:23:17Z")
Damned if I do, damned if I don’t? > [@](#): > > So, now, after initiating a debate and repeating that this is a debate, you want to claim you are not engaged in a debate. When the subject is changed from Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule to me personally, then I’m damned for failing to confess that I am the one changing the subject from the subject to me personally. When I ignore the changes from the subject to me personally, I am damned as someone refusing to answer questions, and I am damned as someone (who must confess) who is using the Debate forum as a personal Blog. Now the subject turns to the Divided meanings of Debate. 1. Debate is whatever you think constitutes a Debate, and it is your forum to police as you see fit with any Rules you make up, or any Rules you already published. 2. Debate to me is a forum where competitive ideas are shared and the idea is to find the higher quality and lower cost viewpoint while the competition of ideas are ongoing during Debate. The winners (so called) are those who manage to gain the power of knowledge as the competition of ideas works to find the Division between higher and lower quality ideas, and the Division between lower and higher cost ideas. When my performance (me, I, the one typing right now) is unsatisfactory then someone can let me know and I can move on to another forum where competitive ideas are welcomed and debate is allowed on specific topics such as Division along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. Examples of Rule of Law: 1. People find sanctuary from people who claim to own people. 2. People can Debate so as to gain access to the power of free markets, such as the free market of ideas, where competition works to Divide higher quality ideas from lower quality ideas, and lower cost ideas from higher costs ideas: such as the idea of federation on one side, and the idea of enforced slavery on the other side. Examples of Criminal Rule: 1. People are prevented from knowing about, and therefore finding sanctuary from people who claim to own people. 2. People are inspired to “win” an argument at any cost so as to somehow appear (in their own mind) as dominating someone else. Moving onto other claims: > [@](#): > > Let’s just assume that the AoC took a better tack towards slavery and the current Constitution made slavery worse. I disagree for all of the reasons cited in this thread, but let’s just assume. Still, the Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery, so all of this should be meaningless. In the Bill of Rights are words that constitute a means to end slavery. People cannot be held against their will legally without the holder having followed due process. As to later amendments there is this: > **[14th Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv)** > [@](#): > > 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. English words on both sides Divided along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule: 1. Bill of Rights 2. “Shall not be questioned.” How many contradictions are self-evident to anyone caring to see the contradictions? To those on the side that prefer not to see the contradictions there are none; and that too shall not be questioned. At the time of the publishing of the Bill of Rights any person could figure out how to accuse anyone else of wrongdoing, any kind of wrongdoing, and due process would be set in motion as due process works for all people. Any slave could sue for damages, unless of course the criminals took over the government, and in that case, the Bill of Rights, as far as the criminals are concerned, mean nothing. No one can hold anyone against their will (slavery) without due process, again according to the English words in the Bill of Rights. No, in English, means no. Criminals, on the other hand, prefer the whip when anyone dares to question the order to obey, to pay, and to be subjected to criminal orders without question. Amendment #1 is almost a mirror (of ideas) of Statute #1 (Declaration of Independence) as people question absolute, dictatorial, criminal, power, and provide the means to do so. Redress of Grievances is the means by which criminal orders are questioned lawfully. Any victim (victim of Human Trafficking for example) is afforded sanctuary of Rule of Law. > [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That is one side. Here is another (obvious) side: > [@](#): > > 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. Congress, so called, ignores Rule of Law and replaces Rule of Law with Criminal Rule at will. Who dares to question otherwise? 1. Some do 2. Some don’t ---
**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 21, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/373 "2015-08-21T19:38:54Z")
Show us an contemporary example of someone in this country who claims to own someone else. ---
**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 21, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/374 "2015-08-21T19:42:03Z")
The 4th Amendment restrained the federal government (until passage of the 14th Amendment), not state governments and not (as today) non-state private actors. There was no way for a slave to use the 5th Amendment to secure his or her freedom. ---
**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 21, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/375 "2015-08-21T19:50:08Z")
Also, recall that amongst the notable Anti-Federalists were: Patrick Henry - slave owner George Mason - slave owner Richard Henry Lee - slave owner James Monroe - slave owner Luther Martin - slave owner These men weren’t sneaking crypto-abolitionism into the Bill of Rights. ---
**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 21, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/376 "2015-08-21T20:09:52Z")
Has anyone at this lat date figured out what the debate is supposed to be? Something about how the Constitution isn’t valid, except when it is? ---
**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 21, 2015, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/377 "2015-08-21T20:10:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Show us an contemporary example of someone in this country who claims to own someone else. Does pwning count? ---
**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 21, 2015, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/378 "2015-08-21T20:32:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Has anyone at this lat date figured out what the debate is supposed to be? Something about how the Constitution isn’t valid, except when it is? My money is on taxation equals slavery and the criminals are the ones who want to punish Josef for not paying taxes. I always comes down to taxes with the SovCits, ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/379 "2015-08-21T20:39:12Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > My money is on taxation equals slavery and the criminals are the ones who want to punish Josef for not paying taxes. I always comes down to taxes with the SovCits, Since actual slavery has already been outlawed, you may be right. ---
**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 21, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/380 "2015-08-21T20:46:57Z")
**Josf** -Can you please, _without using a wall of text with multiple quotes and/or links and using your own words only_, tell us simply if, by “slavery”, you are also referring to economic or debt “slavery”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=20)