In sum: love it or leave it.
Ultra Vires made the point I was going to make: how were the 13 states examples of a voluntary society between July 4, 1776, and the adoption of the Constitution in 1789?
But what about the gold fringe? Where’s the gold fringe?
I believe this was in response to an earlier mention that not all the i’s were dotted or the t’s crossed in some situation. His inability to recognize such a common idiom also makes me think he is a non-native English speaker.
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.” 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>, is required reading for this thread.
My time was used up in other things until now. I read responses from the other side, and then I read the following:
Czarcasm
My wishes aside (the topic does not concern my wished):
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
There are no statutes to “follow” as if the idea you share on your side is blind obedience to falsehood without question. The idea is easily understood as an application of Matthew: 7:12 in all human action and specifically concerning human action involving guilty criminals perpetrating crimes upon innocent victims.
The link is not a condensed (sound bit style) as Matthew: 7:12, however the giant walls of text offer an answer to the inquisition as to what is, or is not, the law of the land involving trial by jury.
Already offered were links to historical records of people in Athens and in the Roman Empire concerning how people invent, reinvent, use, and reuse basically the same Rule of Law process known as trial by jury, or known as the law of the land, as people invent competitive ways to effectively defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals in time and place. The best (highest quality and lowest cost) ways survive the test of time without having the process set in stone (so to speak) in written words.
My time is limited again today.
It only takes a few seconds to name your first language, Josf.
- “All writers agree that this means the common law”-Any treatise that starts with “All writers agree…” can usually be dismissed as delusional bunk. You would be hard-pressed to get all writers to agree on the page count of a single sheet of paper.
- I didn’t ask for what “The law Of The Land” was called by other groups of people-I asked what it was. Are you saying that “The Law Of The Land” is the same as “Common Law” is the same as your pet Bible verse?
Not if you have writer’s block.
Human Action restates an already well defined division of the whole:
There is clearly enumerated “coercion” written into the indictment known as a Declaration of Independence as such:
Those are some of the enumerated “coercions” charged against the one who initiated violence upon targeted victims: ending the federation spoken of by John Adams again:
Side A is offered by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the two quotes above. Those English words offered above have nothing whatsoever to do with me personally. Anyone can read those quotes and interpret those words as they can, as they will, as they might.
Side B offers:
It is not a secret. If you see it, you do, if you don’t: you don’t, whenever Side B works to cover up the employment of coercion they use English words too. Side B coerces. Deception, by definition, requires someone who is the deceiver, and not until there is someone deceived can deception work as an example of deception.
A few Royal Princes are selling a Great New Deal from Africa these days, all someone has to do is open an account in a bank and then someone will receive millions of dollars from a Bone Fide Prince.
That is not new.
The method by which the common legal fiction idea works was spoken about, warned about, in great detail in the words already offered, not words written by me, so this idea that the Topic concerns my personal character is exposed for what it is by anyone caring to know.
Human Action offers a question:
Concessions with me are overrated. If you are speaking about the relationship between people and their connections to each other, then, and again, there are two obvious divisions that people belong to when people form “countries” or any other type of association. My connection here on this forum is based upon performance. If I do not perform then the connection is severed by whoever commands the power to judge my performance and either maintain or sever the connection. Since I have that same power at my fingertips, based upon my exclusive power of will, the forum membership relationship is a voluntary association belonging in a free market of ideas. As far as I know there is no third party anywhere on this planet ready, willing, and able to step in and OVERRULE, or rule over, this voluntary association right here and now on this forum. Concessions with me are overrated.
When those people in Africa were forcefully enslaved and sold in America, that was reported by Thomas Jefferson as one of the worst crimes perpetrated by the former federal associate named The King of England. When the British commenced hostilities against the federal members in America, that ended that federation that way.
Human Action redirects focus of attention back upon me personally as if my character and only my character is the boundaries of this Topic in this Forum:
I see no point in arguing. If Side B has an argument with the words of John Adams (in context) then that is what Side B does by their individual, or their collective power of will.
I did not write those words. Those words are written by someone in command of the English language. Someone reading those words may, or may not, be able to understand the meaning of those words too.
Earlier UltraVires offered:
Despite much work done by those on the other side (covering up trail by jury due process according to the law of the land) those on the side giving trial by jury manage to get a few words recorded into the National record:
http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf
Repeating words for effect:
Those conspiring to TAKE the life of someone daring to speak out against those conspirators are not often those who GIVE someone accused of a crime (such as conspiracy murder) a trial by jury according to the common law.
Why was that trial given to that single conspirator so late in the day?
What ever happened to the idea of a speedy trial?
You do realize that you are not getting paid by the word, right?
Please consider the possibility that the topic is not my personal character.
English
Please consider the possibility that the rest of us might find this to be utter gibberish, then.
I’m going to have to cry “foul” here. The remark of mine you quoted was clearly referring to the question of the meaning of the word “federation”, as in a country made up of separate states. You asked me a question:
I answered that question. In your reply above, you have either totally misunderstood that answer, or have shifted the “goalposts” of the discussion beyond all recognition*. Perhaps this is a function of the limited time you have available, or a language barrier, or some other innocent explanation. Otherwise, it’s totally indefensible.
- In case it’s unclear - we were discussing whether a federation could be formed only voluntarily, or under coercion as well. You twisted my reply into a statement about whether any activity undertaken by the government of Great Britain was coercive to anyone. The coercive nature of slavery has nothing to do with whether the American Colonies joined Great Britain by choice or not. Great Britain going to war with the American colonies has nothing to do with whether the Colonies joined Great Britain voluntarily or not.
Again, you are begging the question. Your argument assumes that this “deception” exists, then uses the “deception” as evidence. First, you must establish that the “deception” is real, and not the product of ignorance, wishful thinking, or a political agenda.
A few Royal Princes are selling a Great New Deal from Africa these days, all someone has to do is open an account in a bank and then someone will receive millions of dollars from a Bone Fide Prince.
That is not new.
Public debt pre-dates the Articles, and public debt issued by the several states is no more or less oppressive than debt issued by the federal government.
Again, warnings are cheap. Things that happen are meaningful, warnings are not.
I guess that means that you consider all voluntary human relationships to be federations. That explains the issues with communication; we aren’t speaking the same language.
This shows us the value of political rhetoric - Jefferson uses slavery as an issue to attack the UK, while owning hundreds of slaves himself. After independence, (some of) the states go right on practicing legal chattel slavery.
That is not an attack on your character, and can’t reasonably be construed as one. It is a discussion about your ideas. That’s what threads in this forum are supposed to be. It’s not a blog where you post your ideas unchallenged.
As stated, I fully agree with the John Adams quote you keep using. I disagree with the unrelated inferences you draw from it.
Shodan asks:
“Thanks very much, Human Action. Josf, is this accurate?”
That is not accurate for many reasons.
Example:
“Josf has linked to a few writers who’ve undertaken the onerous task of sussing out how such a society would actually work;…”
In fact I have found a quote by John Adams in Elliot’s Debates Volume I where John Adams is speaking as one of the newly formed members of The Unites States of America in Congress Assembled while debating the right or wrong of writing, publishing, and distributing a Declaration of Independence. In the words of John Adams the meaning of the word federal is offered by John Adams in context to a former federation between American people in American Colonies and British people in a British Kingdom.
Why ask anyone else what I have done when what I have done is published as a matter of fact?
Now you ask if my interpreter is accurately reporting what is still published for anyone to read, not read, understand, not understand, etc.?
“Josf has linked to a few writers…”
No, that is not accurate. The few writers include John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee, and what they wrote (not me) is clearly stated in English.
I have to go back to work. Why not concentrate on what John Adams wrote in context with divisions (aggressors dividing formerly federated people) along Rule of Law (federal connections) and Criminal Rule (aggressors destroy the peace as they start hacking people up)?
Perhaps you’ve forgotten, but you did, in fact, link to works on a voluntary society. See post 85 (where you linked to this), and post 145 (where you linked to this.)
In context, it means “pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states.”
Those fellows weren’t writing about voluntary societies, and thus were not the writers I was referring to.
Well, then I have to point out that your writing style is unclear at best. I’m making no comment on the quality of your thesis, only that it is not clear to me what your thesis actually is, and English is my first language.
Would you answer my last question? Suppose you are taking a Sunday drive through the countryside. A policeman stops you, handcuffs you, and puts you in jail to await an arraignment to post (reasonable) bond. He charges you with the crime of travelling on the Sabbath day.
Is it somehow better or worse if that police officer works for the state government instead of the national government?
ETA: And may I ask you to voluntarily, as a free person, to limit your reply to three sentences?
UltraVires asks:
I can’t answer the question you ask since you do not give me any information concerning remedy in the case you describe.
That is one sentence.
That is three sentences.
“Well, then I have to point out that your writing style is unclear at best. I’m making no comment on the quality of your thesis, only that it is not clear to me what your thesis actually is, and English is my first language.”
Well, in the course of over a year speaking with a Christian woman whose career included a position as English speaking editorial work, the result of which turned in to a cooperative book publishing effort lasting almost another whole year of editing the exchange of words between us on a forum, your words go in a file.
Your words go in the criticisms of my personal character file.
The Christian woman actually offered constructive criticisms detailing some of the many errors made by English writers.
The effort to know better from worse was a cooperative mutual goal shared; a federal idea.