# 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:** 21
**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 23, 2015, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/401 "2015-08-23T23:41:25Z")
A tale, told by Joe, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Appologies to the Bard. ---
**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 24, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/402 "2015-08-24T03:32:16Z")
Tell us, Joe, how many federal judges have you and your sovereignist group succeeded in having arrested and removed from office? All three-thousand or so of them? A tenth of them? One in a hundred of them? One of them? Just give us the grand total, and back it up with the names of the specific judges whom you have had arrested and removed from the bench. > [@](#): > > [THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY JUDICIAL ACTION filed via U.S. Postal Service in all 94 Federal District Courts and > served upon all parties listed below by fax.](http://nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/writ_quo_warranto_0.pdf) > > . . . . > > We the People Decree by Quo Warranto all said unconstitutional legislation null and void and declare all > such subversives enemies of the Peoples of the United States of America and order all United States > Marshals, Bailiffs, County Sheriffs and Deputies to arrest all such federal and state judges for conspiracy, > treason and breach of the peace when witnessing the violation of Peoples’ unalienable rights from the bench, > 20 in violation of Article III Section 3 for levying war against the people, adhering to the enemy, giving aid and > comfort. ---
**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 24, 2015, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/403 "2015-08-24T03:52:02Z")
I skimmed through it **Muffin** - saw BAR in all caps, but didn’t see any reference to **Josf** - did I miss it? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/404 "2015-08-24T03:59:52Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I skimmed through it **Muffin** - saw BAR in all caps, but didn’t see any reference to **Josf** - did I miss it? It’s okay. The document is of no force now. I had a bunch of friends come over to the house and declare that we were the lawful common law grand jury of my state and we commanded the Supreme Court, Congress, and Sheriffs to withdraw the prior demand from Josf’s group. We passed a resolution saying that we are the lawful grand jury, the other grand jury is full of shit, and we disbanded. We are back to the status quo. 🙂 ---
**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 24, 2015, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/405 "2015-08-24T05:17:54Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I skimmed through it **Muffin** - saw BAR in all caps, but didn’t see any reference to **Josf** - did I miss it? Our [Joesf](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php) publicly advertises himself as > [@](#): > > [State Coordinator for California, San Bernardino County Organizer and elected Administrator](http://nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/623#comment-623) > > [josf.kelley@hotmail.com](mailto:josf.kelley@hotmail.com) > > [http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/forums/california-forum](http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/forums/california-forum) The document I quoted in my previous post #402 is[one of many](http://nationallibertyalliance.org/rico) from his National Liberty Alliance group’s website. > [@](#): > > We are not filing court cases we are filing Orders, we the People are the tribunal our “Writs” are the trial. We are setting our Jurisdiction in our courts as per the Constitution Article III, IV and VI. Now is the time for the People to stand and take back America, because only the People can save America. The following papers have been served upon the following respondents - All State Courts, all Judges/Magistrates, US Congressmen [435], US Senators [100], all State Assemblymen all 50 States, all State Senators all 50 States, all Governors, all County Sheriffs [3133]; all Federal Special Agent in Charge [94], US Marshals [94], Joint Chiefs of Staff, State Militia and news media. > > Writ\_Quo\_Warranto.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on Nov 10, 2014, refiled May 13, 2015 > Mandamus\_to\_Sheriff.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on May 20, 2015 > Mandamus\_to Judges.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on May 23, 2015 > Mandamus\_Martial\_Law.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on May 27, 2015 > Mandamus\_2nd\_Amendment.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on May 30, 2015 > Mandamus\_Terroism.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on June 2, 2015 > Mandamus\_subversion.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on June 6, 2015 > Mandamus to Governors.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on July 10, 2015 > Mandamus\_US\_Supreme\_Court.pdf - Filed all 94 Federal District Courts on July 20, 2015 Joe’s concept of the law is so alien that it is not possible for him to discuss his opinions with us using language that is comprehensible to us who are grounded in reality. Although we all are speaking English here, Joe’s legal discourse register is so radically different from ours that communication just ain’t happenin’, and since there is no communication, there can be no discussion or debate. Fortunately, his groups diatribe’s are marginally more comprehensible than Joe’s posts here. Bat shit insane, but at least linguistically somewhat comprehensible. His group’s website offers an interesting insight into their alternate version of legal reality. That’s why I made post 225, so that folks could read Joseph’s group’s materials, in the context of Meads v. Meads, so as to get a handle on teh crazy that underlies the sovereignist movement. > [@Muffin](#): > > 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:** ![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 24, 2015, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/406 "2015-08-24T05:19:46Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It’s okay. The document is of no force now. I had a bunch of friends come over to the house and declare that we were the lawful common law grand jury of my state and we commanded the Supreme Court, Congress, and Sheriffs to withdraw the prior demand from Josf’s group. We passed a resolution saying that we are the lawful grand jury, the other grand jury is full of shit, and we disbanded. > > We are back to the status quo. 🙂 You do realize, of course, that you just saved the USA. ---
**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 24, 2015, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/407 "2015-08-24T12:58:28Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > The indirect question was asked: > > Human Action > “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” > > Divisions along Rule of Law (Forum rules) versus Criminal Rule is exemplified when an individual misdirects focus from the subject matter of the Topic, and the subject matter is directed toward an imaginary fisherman who is a Man of Straw: the imaginary fisherman only exists in the imagination of the creator of this imaginary fisherman. The imaginary fisherman is fishing for imaginary fish, and then an imaginary fish claims that an imaginary fish is on an imaginary hook, biting down on the bait, and finding that the imaginary food is a trap, as the hook sinks into the mouth of the fish. > > Those who initiate such forms of a Man of Straw argument are on one side, and on the other side are those who recognize them for what they are, and those who initiate those types of Man of Straw arguments are accurately identified as individuals who initiate a turn of attention away from the subject matter of the topic, and the change of attention initiated by the individual is a change toward focus of attention upon an individual, who is, in this case, falsely claimed to be someone setting hooked bait out so as to trick someone into biting on the hooked bait. > > That is sometimes called marketing. That is often used in marketing terms. An advertisement is often created so as to hook potential customers into buying something for sale. > > 1. Some people know that the above is factual. > 2. Some people do not know that the above is factual. > > Getting past the misdirection away from the topic where I am being falsely characterized as someone setting bait with a hook, so as to get someone else to bite on the hooked bait, getting past that to the actual Topic question is next. I was done with directly engaging you, but if you’re going to respond to me in this derogatory way, I suppose I’m compelled to. Your interpretation of my phrasing is yours and yours alone. I intended nothing beyond signifying that I was engaging with you, in spite of the opacity of your OP. Anything beyond that is all you. > [@Josf](#): > > Human Action > “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” > > Question in red, and answer in blue: _Even if that were true_, it’s not a criminal act to want a unitary state, nor to work toward one using the system in space to do so. If you disagree, please provide the statute that criminalizes the behavior in question. Also, we can read the Constitution that resulted from the Convention, and it doesn’t, in fact, abolish and annihilate state governments. And hey, what happened to all this trial-by-jury talk? You seem quite comfortable calling people criminals, when they haven’t been charged or convicted with anything. > [@Josf](#): > > If, on the other hand the question concerns “why” is the crime of fraud a crime in fact, then common sense may help, and again the answer is in blue: All the Convention could do was draft a document, and send it to the states for ratification. There was no possible way to “covertly” ratify the Constitution. > [@Josf](#): > > Frauds cannot “openly and avowedly” accomplish the ruin of a voluntary association (federal union) of defenders, the criminals must “covertly” (fraudulently) do so, since the “marks” or the victims who are being hooked (monarchy) by the bait (false federalism) would not bite into the bait (false federalism) if they new (monarchy) was the hook that would sink in once they bite on the bait. Except the process _was_ open - extensive debate, followed by the completion of the draft, followed by yet more (nationwide, in fact) debate, followed by ratification conventions. There were no secret protocols in the Constitution, every word of it was publically available. You are factually wrong to assert otherwise. > [@Josf](#): > > Human Action > “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” > > Rule of law at that time was a voluntary federation as explained well enough by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, whereby those who are connected in a federal way are connected for their mutual defense, voluntarily, and when one member of the federal union perpetrates a fraud upon the other members, the nature of federation is ended because a crime scene replaces the former voluntary union. > > At the time the State governments were independent competitors where each defensive union supplied a different version of defense to many potential shoppers who are shopping for defensive services. Slaves, refugees, patriots, regulators, revolutionary war fighters, and veterans, can find sanctuary from criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law; and there were 13 competitors offering competitive versions of Rule of Law. > > That was explained here: > > [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) > Those are many words. > > The following is fewer words: > > The question was offered (after the “bite” comment): > > Human Action > “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” > > They (the criminals) “whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations” opposed the existing federal union that was based upon mutual defense of Liberty done in a federal (voluntary) manner. A witness at the crime seen testified as to them “acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished,” which is called fraud. The crime was fraud, the crime scene was also called The Dirty Compromise. > > 1. Rule of Law = mutual defense associations called States, each with competitive forms of Rule of Law, federated, into one voluntary mutual defense association, under the Articles of Confederation. > > 2. Opposition = Those “whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations” and those who were caught red handed “covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.” > > The turn from the Topic to me personally is accurately identified as such, and the questions were answered. > > 1. Those who understand. > 2. Those who do not. Well, _there’s_ the problem - you use “rule of law” to mean “laws that you, **Josf** , personally like”. The rest of us use [the actual definition:](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rule%20of%20law?s=t) The principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law. At bottom, all you’re doing is pushing tyranny - rule by **Josf** ’s opinions. Sorry, but people aren’t going to find that to be an appealing system of government. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/408 "2015-08-24T16:34:38Z")
“Well, there’s the problem - you use “rule of law” to mean “laws that you, Josf, personally like”.” A baseless statement can compare to a statement based upon existing inculpatory evidence. My understanding of the meaning of Rule of Law was offered. Matthew 7:12 is not my personal (personal attack once again) definition. Those who initiate personal attacks are those who choose not to debate, and the inculpatory evidence is published in English for anyone caring to see how Rule of Law is set aside by those who initiate personal attacks. Doing onto others as you would prefer others do not do unto you is outside common understanding of Rule of Law. Expending energy initiating a personal attack targeting someone else (creating false images of someone else and claiming that the false image is true), instead of debating the actual topic, while at the same time expending similar energy defending against what you consider to be a personal attack against you, proves the case. You do onto others by initiating a personal attack (“…OK I’ll bite -…” creating a false relationship, a false image of someone who decides to “bite” something that does not exist: rather than a direction question pertaining to the debate), where the false image is based upon nothing, no basis of the false image, which you even deny later, as if you can erase the actual facts of your false image, and then you expend energy to defend against what you claim is a personal attack (which is my holding you to an accurate accounting of your false image, false portrait, false claim of you biting on something (instead of a direct question without the false image), so that proves that you do unto others (personal attack) what you do not want done to you. Of course all of what goes on in your thoughts are beyond my knowing if there is no way to trust what you say. Such as: “Well, there’s the problem - you use “rule of law” to mean “laws that you, Josf, personally like”.” What I actually wrote (not what the false image maker offers as a counterfeit version of me) is a very concise, very well written, and very well known explanation of the meaning of Rule of Law. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18576431&postcount=14](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18576431&postcount=14) > [@](#): > > Rule of Law has been exemplified in many forms. Here is an example: > > “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” > > Here is another example: > [http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html) > > Another example is exemplified by something called trial by jury; also known as legem terrae, the palladium of liberty, the law of the land, and common law. > > Another example is the Bill of Rights to the 1787 (fraudulent) Constitution. The above are my words offered during debate. The following is a personal opinion offered as a mischaracterization of what I actually did offer in debate: “Well, there’s the problem - you use “rule of law” to mean “laws that you, Josf, personally like”.” I can trust that people will do unto others in one of two example ways: Division 1: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets Division 2: Do unto others (initiate personal attack) as you would not allow them to do unto you. ---
**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 24, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/409 "2015-08-24T16:59:11Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > “Well, there’s the problem - you use “rule of law” to mean “laws that you, Josf, personally like”.” > > A baseless statement can compare to a statement based upon existing inculpatory evidence. > > My understanding of the meaning of Rule of Law was offered. > > Matthew 7:12 is not my personal (personal attack once again) definition. All your arguments to date are rooted in nothing more than your personal preference. You think that Matthew 7:12 is somehow the cornerstone of legitimate government, but have made zero attempt to explain why anyone _else_ should believe that. As you said, you think your argument is self-evident - meaning that it’s evident _to you_, not to others who don’t share your preferences, biases, life experiences, and so on. Furthermore, how can the rule of law be exemplified by both Matthew 7:12 and trial by jury, when those are totally unrelated concepts? Your definitions read like laundry lists of things you like, and nothing more. > [@Josf](#): > > Doing onto others as you would prefer others do not do unto you is outside common understanding of Rule of Law. Expending energy initiating a personal attack targeting someone else (creating false images of someone else and claiming that the false image is true), instead of debating the actual topic, while at the same time expending similar energy defending against what you consider to be a personal attack against you, proves the case. You do onto others by initiating a personal attack (“…OK I’ll bite -…” creating a false relationship, a false image of someone who decides to “bite” something that does not exist: rather than a direction question pertaining to the debate), where the false image is based upon nothing, no basis of the false image, which you even deny later, as if you can erase the actual facts of your false image, and then you expend energy to defend against what you claim is a personal attack (which is my holding you to an accurate accounting of your false image, false portrait, false claim of you biting on something (instead of a direct question without the false image), so that proves that you do unto others (personal attack) what you do not want done to you. I haven’t made any personal attacks against you, nor have I posted anything that I wouldn’t want written in response to something I posted. I am fully in accord with the Golden Rule with my posts in this thread. > [@Josf](#): > > “Well, there’s the problem - you use “rule of law” to mean “laws that you, Josf, personally like”.” > > What I actually wrote (not what the false image maker offers as a counterfeit version of me) is a very concise, very well written, and very well known explanation of the meaning of Rule of Law. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18576431&postcount=14](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18576431&postcount=14) > > The above are my words offered during debate. To reiterate - all your words on the subject are, to date, based in nothing but your personal preferences. ---
**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 24, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/410 "2015-08-24T17:42:51Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > . . . > My understanding of the meaning of Rule of Law was offered. > . . . Your understanding of the meaning of Rule of Law is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/411 "2015-08-24T18:20:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Your understanding of the meaning of Rule of Law is incorrect. The subject of Debate is not my subjective opinion. Offered are documents that serve to distance (divide) me (personally) from documented examples of Rule of Law, such as: 1. > **[Matthew 7:12 ESV - “So whatever you wish that… | Biblia](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/matthew/7/12)** > > “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. > [@](#): > > The Golden Rule > > 12 “So ewhatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. The first example offered was offered well before I was born; therefore it cannot be my personal subjective opinion. 2a. Elliot’s Debates Volume I page 44 (page 60 in pdf) > [@](#): > > 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.” 2b. > **[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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. That is offered by those offering those words on this specific subject in this specific Debate. That above compares to this: > [@](#): > > Your understanding of the meaning of Rule of Law is incorrect. My personal understanding is another topic, having to do with me personally, and again there are Divisions along Rules of Forums versus ignoring, repeatedly, Rules of Forums when the topic is willfully changed from the topic to me personally for reasons that may or may not be self-evident. 1. Those who read, understand, and apply Rule of law as offered in many examples such as the examples re-offered in this Debate Forum concerning the subject matter of Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. 2. Those who turn the topic subject matter into my personal character, or my personal opinion, which is an opinion that was not possible (since I was not even alive yet) when the other 2 examples of Rule of Law were offered to mankind in those forms as they existed when they were formed well before I was born. ---
**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 24, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/412 "2015-08-24T18:24:00Z")
Your understanding of the use of quotes in support of a position is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/413 "2015-08-24T18:48:05Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > The subject of Debate is not my subjective opinion. The subject of the debate is the opinions that you espouse. That is what posters are trying to understand. ---
**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 24, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/414 "2015-08-24T18:52:23Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > The subject of Debate is not my subjective opinion. > > Offered are documents that serve to distance (divide) me (personally) from documented examples of Rule of Law, such as: > > 1. > > [Matthew 7:12 ESV - “So whatever you wish that… | Biblia](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mt7.12) > The first example offered was offered well before I was born; therefore it cannot be my personal subjective opinion. > > 2a. > Elliot’s Debates Volume I page 44 (page 60 in pdf) > > 2b. > [RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER | 1 U.S. 236 (1788) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/) > > That is offered by those offering those words on this specific subject in this specific Debate. > > That above compares to this: > > My personal understanding is another topic, having to do with me personally, and again there are Divisions along Rules of Forums versus ignoring, repeatedly, Rules of Forums when the topic is willfully changed from the topic to me personally for reasons that may or may not be self-evident. > > 1. Those who read, understand, and apply Rule of law as offered in many examples such as the examples re-offered in this Debate Forum concerning the subject matter of Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. > > 2. Those who turn the topic subject matter into my personal character, or my personal opinion, which is an opinion that was not possible (since I was not even alive yet) when the other 2 examples of Rule of Law were offered to mankind in those forms as they existed when they were formed well before I was born. Those are just instances of the word “law”. Note that none of them define, or even use, the phrase “rule of law”. Compare to [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule%20of%20law), which defines the phrase. Also, disagreement is not a personal attack. It’s part of debate, and an essential part, at that. ---
**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 24, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/415 "2015-08-24T18:53:22Z")
The inability to divide objective information (what is written on a page) from subjective information (the personal interpretation of what those words mean and how they relate to other written material) is noted. ---
**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 24, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/416 "2015-08-24T19:17:07Z")
But Joe, the supreme law of the land in the USA is its Constitution, which makes a clear point of separating church and state. Christianity is not part of the USA’s Constitution, Matthew is not the law, your Christian bible is not the law. Specifically, your [Constitution](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html), declares itself to be “the supreme Law of the Land,” prohibits religious tests for qualification for office, and prescribes affirmations and oaths, not just oaths. > [@](#): > > Article. VI. > > . . . . > > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. > > The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Well guess what, Joe? The rock upon which the USA built its laws is the Constitution, not Matthew. The legal house of cards that you have built on sand does not stand, for it pretends that the law in the USA has a biblical foundation when in fact it does not, and no endless repeating of gobbledygook by you will change the USA’s legal fundament – its Constitution. Listen to what Matthew 7:26-27 tells you: "And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/417 "2015-08-24T19:34:37Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > But Joe, the supreme law of the land in the USA is its Constitution, which makes a clear point of separating church and state. Christianity is not part of the USA’s Constitution, Matthew is not the law, your Christian bible is not the law. > > Specifically, your [Constitution](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html), declares itself to be “the supreme Law of the Land,” prohibits religious tests for qualification for office, and prescribes affirmations and oaths, not just oaths. > > Well guess what, Joe? The rock upon which the USA built its laws is the Constitution, not Matthew. > > The legal house of cards that you have built on sand does not stand, for it pretends that the law in the USA has a biblical foundation when in fact it does not, and no endless repeating of gobbledygook by you will change the USA’s legal fundament – its Constitution. Listen to what Matthew 7:26-27 tells you: "And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” Not to speak for Josf, but I believe that is part of the reason why he believes the Constitution is invalid: It supplants the true law (the Golden Rule) and removes religion and something something, now we have criminal rule. Where jury trials figure into it is beyond me. It seems that Josf believes that two universal principles, and ONLY THOSE TWO principles, are valid in a law meant for free people: 1) the golden rule, and 2) trial by jury. Anything other than that is criminal rule. I think. ---
**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 24, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/418 "2015-08-24T19:38:15Z")
Just because the form of government you _wish_ had come into being over 200 years ago _didn’t_ come into being, for whatever reason, doesn’t make our current form of government illegal/illegitimate. It doesn’t matter what Mr. Adams wrote, or who he wrote it to. It doesn’t matter what Bible verses you want to quote. It doesn’t matter what arcane capitalization rules you follow, what non-standard definitions you want to pull out of your hat, or what groups of people you want to assign to your arbitrary “LAW/CRIMINAL” lists-_none_ of these things are going to change reality. ---
**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 24, 2015, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/419 "2015-08-24T22:37:13Z")
You know, Joe, [arresting people because you disagree with them](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18625927&postcount=402) is a BAD THING. Arresting judges and federal officials because you disagree with them is a TREASONOUS BAD THING. You want to make your country a better place? Don’t do BAD THINGS and don’t do TREASONOUS BAD THINGS. In short, don’t be a CRIMINAL. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/420 "2015-08-25T01:38:52Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > “Well, there’s the problem - you use “rule of law” to mean “laws that you, Josf, personally like”.” > > A baseless statement can compare to a statement based upon existing inculpatory evidence. > > My understanding of the meaning of Rule of Law was offered. “Your understanding,” _i.e._, your interpretation. Yet, now you want to claim, erroneously, that it is not your personal interpretation. > [@Josf](#): > > Matthew 7:12 is not my personal (personal attack once again) definition. Yes. It very much is. Mt 7:12 is not a rule of law, but an admonition for personal behavior that does not set itself up as a law, (a rule set forth by a government or society.) Any attempt to pretend that it is a “rule of law” is very much a personal interpretation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=22)