Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule

[Josf]

Someone claims that the link I provided is something other than what it is in fact.

Bonding Code, or bonding, is a form of insurance.

Bonding and any Bonding Code is not someone’s fanciful utopia.

The link offered maps out some remaining possibilities concerning remedy - in reality.

Those who work to cover-up remedy do so for reasons that they can explain in English, or if not then they merely keep on covering up without offering reasons.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Josf

“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.

None of this is responsive to my comment. I could offer constructive criticisms detailing the many English errors in your posts in this thread. Are you open to that?

[Josf]

None of this is responsive to my comment. I could offer constructive criticisms detailing the many English errors in your posts in this thread. Are you open to that?

That is an interesting twist.

I am open to an e-mail exchange, a new topic on this forum, a new topic on another forum, and many other possible connections (federal connections) that help us, or anyone, connected voluntarily for mutual benefit; or for charitable contributions having no benefit for the giver, where the giver only suffers costs.

On the other hand: this Topic is very well explained by John Adams as such:

That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which has long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:

Someone offering help in communication (with English) misses the point of this Topic.

The words offered by John Adams (in context) offer meaning that can, or cannot, transfer from John Adams, to anyone else. The problems associated with the transfer of meaning between John Adams and other people are their problems, not mine.

If no one has any thoughtful, reasonable, understandable, viewpoints concerning what John Adams offered (in English) concerning this Topic, then (or until someone does have Topic viewpoints) sure, why not, why not turn this Topic into my personal character and how someone might help me employ English more effectively?

1. My e-mail is josf.kelley@hotmail.com, and I can easily open that channel of communication expressly for the (pro bono) help someone thinks I need in the use of English language.

2. This or any other forum can be a public access medium of exchange used by anyone and myself as we help each other learn or teach English.

3. Stick to the actual topic, and explain what you think is meant by John Adams when John Adams is quoted in Elliot’s Debates Volume I during the Debates leading to the publishing of the Declaration of Independence; which has to do with this Topic concerning Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.

I can start a topic, if you do not want to start one. You can stick with this topic, when offering help in English, or you can choose any path you choose.

[UltraVires]

@Josf

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.

Assume the “remedy” is an appointed public defender with a trial by jury as prescribed by California law.

Would your answer be different if the “remedy” was a national (federal) public defender and tried under an identically worded national (federal) law?

But more importantly, the remedy portion isn’t really germane to my question. The fact that you were arrested for something that most modern day freedom loving people would believe is a basic right is what is most concerning. I would want to stop the arrest from happening in the future regardless if you were able to beat the charge in court.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Josf

That is an interesting twist.

I am open to an e-mail exchange, a new topic on this forum, a new topic on another forum, and many other possible connections (federal connections) that help us, or anyone, connected voluntarily for mutual benefit; or for charitable contributions having no benefit for the giver, where the giver only suffers costs.

On the other hand: this Topic is very well explained by John Adams as such:

Someone offering help in communication (with English) misses the point of this Topic.

The words offered by John Adams (in context) offer meaning that can, or cannot, transfer from John Adams, to anyone else. The problems associated with the transfer of meaning between John Adams and other people are their problems, not mine.

If no one has any thoughtful, reasonable, understandable, viewpoints concerning what John Adams offered (in English) concerning this Topic, then (or until someone does have Topic viewpoints) sure, why not, why not turn this Topic into my personal character and how someone might help me employ English more effectively?

1. My e-mail is josf.kelley@hotmail.com, and I can easily open that channel of communication expressly for the (pro bono) help someone thinks I need in the use of English language.

2. This or any other forum can be a public access medium of exchange used by anyone and myself as we help each other learn or teach English.

3. Stick to the actual topic, and explain what you think is meant by John Adams when John Adams is quoted in Elliot’s Debates Volume I during the Debates leading to the publishing of the Declaration of Independence; which has to do with this Topic concerning Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.

I can start a topic, if you do not want to start one. You can stick with this topic, when offering help in English, or you can choose any path you choose.

Is that a “yes” ?

[Human_Action]

@Josf

Someone claims that the link I provided is something other than what it is in fact.

Bonding Code, or bonding, is a form of insurance.

Bonding and any Bonding Code is not someone’s fanciful utopia.

The link offered maps out some remaining possibilities concerning remedy - in reality.

Those who work to cover-up remedy do so for reasons that they can explain in English, or if not then they merely keep on covering up without offering reasons.

I never said “fanciful utopia”, or anything like that. Please refrain from misrepresenting my statements, it’s becoming irritating.

I said it describes a voluntary society, and it does just that, albeit in a legalistic fashion.

[Human_Action]

Tell you what, though - if you disagree with my summation of what I think your position is, the easiest way to clear that is to clearly state your position, not to nitpick my summation.

[UltraVires]

@Human_Action

I said it describes a voluntary society, and it does just that, albeit in a legalistic fashion.

Emphasis added. Please STOP doing that shit. Use regular words to describe what type of society you want to accomplish. Quit quoting 1770s texts. Just state in your own English words what you think is wrong with society and the ratification of the Constitution or income taxes or whatever.

Stop spewing drivel. There is nothing “legalistic” about what you are saying. I am a practicing lawyer. None of what you say has any support in case law or statutory law. It is a bunch of impressive words mashed together.

Please explain in common, ordinary words what you would like to see society as in 2015 America.

[Muffin]

@UltraVires

Emphasis added. Please STOP doing that shit. Use regular words to describe what type of society you want to accomplish. Quit quoting 1770s texts. Just state in your own English words what you think is wrong with society and the ratification of the Constitution or income taxes or whatever.

Stop spewing drivel. There is nothing “legalistic” about what you are saying. I am a practicing lawyer. None of what you say has any support in case law or statutory law. It is a bunch of impressive words mashed together.

Please explain in common, ordinary words what you would like to see society as in 2015 America.

That’s not how Joe and his group operate. Have a boo at their website.

[Human_Action]

@Muffin

That’s not how Joe and his group operate. Have a boo at their website.

That outfit seems pro-Constitution, though:

The difference between Common Law and the Law practiced in our courts today, called Statutory Law, is simply as follows: Common Law upholds the Constitution for the United States of America with its capstone Bill of Rights above all Statutory Law; Whereas Statutory Law is held above the Constitution for the United States of America and its capstone Bill of Rights, and therefore your rights are whatever our elected servants may choose it to be for you at the time. This is what NLA is endeavoring to change in our courts and thereby bring all our elected and appointed servants back under the chains of the Constitution because right now you are under the chains of your servants, this is the definition of tyranny.

Quite a contrast with the idea of the Constitution as criminal rule.

[Muffin]

Don’t expect rationality or even logical consistency. It’s nutter territory.

[Human_Action]

Good point.

[Josf]

UltraVires offers:

Assume the “remedy” is an appointed public defender with a trial by jury as prescribed by California law.

I know someone very well versed in current activities in California having to do with the offers currently being offered to people who are accused of crimes. I can give you his name. I can give you his number. He is much better at answering this type of question with specific cause and effect answers concerning the current California version of enforcement. I won’t waste his time with frivolous things.

You use quotes to fence-in the word remedy. That is a dead giveaway to me. A “public defender” is an individual. If you can tell me who I am dealing with, then I can speak to him or her. If the individual is a member of the BAR, then that is a dead giveaway to me.

If you can state, in writing, with your affidavit, and your bond, as to what you think is California Law, then your claim of what “California Law” is (according to you) is you putting your credit on the line in a tangible way.

1. You site the law.
2. You affirm that the law is the law with an affidavit.
3. If you are wrong then you have a bond that picks up the costs of your error since the chances of you having the funds to pay damages of great magnitude are slim to none and slim already took the bus out of town; along with the Bona Fide African Prince.

UntraVires presumes:

Would your answer be different if the “remedy” was a national (federal) public defender and tried under an identically worded national (federal) law?

The question presumes that the principle of agreement has been satisfied concerning the true meaning of federal.

May I remind anyone who cares:

http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_03.php

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.

UntraVires highlights:

But more importantly, the remedy portion isn’t really germane to my question. The fact that you were arrested for something that most modern day freedom loving people would believe is a basic right is what is most concerning. I would want to stop the arrest from happening in the future regardless if you were able to beat the charge in court.

The point of the topic is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule: therefore it might be a good idea to accurately identify which court is the “court” you wish to know better.

[Czarcasm]

@Josf

The point of the topic is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule: therefore it might be a good idea to accurately identify which court is the “court” you wish to know better.

Czarcasm offers: The one that is going to throw your ass in jail if you try to play silly word games with the judge.

[Josf]

Human Action claims:

I said it describes a voluntary society, and it does just that, albeit in a legalistic fashion.

You claim that the term federation is this:

Whether it was voluntary or coerced isn’t part of the definition.

John Adams claims this:

That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which has long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:

John Adams constructs a voluntary association when John Adams employs the words “we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only…”

So the Division along Rule of Law and Criminal Rule in this case is your words claiming one thing and John Adams claiming another thing. The two things claimed by two people on two sides are mutually exclusive things as the one claims no and the other claims yes.

No, you say, no, you say, no, you say, a federation, so you say:

Whether it was voluntary or coerced isn’t part of the definition.

While you say no, and no, and no, others say yes, John Adams, and many other people during the formation of a federation or two say, yes, yes, yes, they say, the federation is “…acquiescence only…”

To pretend to be able to move from that contentious disagreement, as if the matter was settled agreeably, is false, as the pretention of agreement exists as a factually proven disagreement proven to be disagreement by those who lash out, resorting to coercion in the many forms coercion is formed by those who lash out.

Federal = voluntary association = contained in the meaning of the useful word.

Anti-Federal = who knows what = the meaning of “federal” (for example) does not mean voluntary association = do what I say, when, how, where, and how much, or else unusual punishment will commence when failure to obey is perceived by the punisher.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Czarcasm

Czarcasm offers: The one that is going to throw your ass in jail if you try to play silly word games with the judge.

But it’s true - a cartoon frog says it is!

[UltraVires]

Why must I sign an affidavit or post bond to proffer an opinion on an internet message board? I think that interferes with my rights as a free person. I do not consent to such an offer.

And, yes, this public defender will be a member of the California Bar as required by the duly enacted laws of that state.

[Human_Action]

@Josf

Human Action claims:
You claim that the term federation is this:

:smack: Come on, man. I’ve said a federation is “a country made up of separate states” about a dozen times by now.

@Josf

John Adams claims this:

John Adams constructs a voluntary association when John Adams employs the words “we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only…”

So the Division along Rule of Law and Criminal Rule in this case is your words claiming one thing and John Adams claiming another thing. The two things claimed by two people on two sides are mutually exclusive things as the one claims no and the other claims yes.

No, you say, no, you say, no, you say, a federation, so you say:

While you say no, and no, and no, others say yes, John Adams, and many other people during the formation of a federation or two say, yes, yes, yes, they say, the federation is “…acquiescence only…”

I’m even more confused now. When you say that the federation of the British Empire and the American Colonies was voluntary, do you mean that the colonies joined the Empire voluntarily? Or are you, like Adams, referring to the concept of legitimate government being dependent on the consent of the governed? *Because those are not the same idea. * When I say a federation can be voluntary or coerced, I mean exactly and only this: a state can join other states in forming a country by their free choice (as in, say, the United States), or by force (as in, say, Imperial Germany). The resulting nation of either process can be accurately called a federation.

Consider the following scenario: by means of royal charters, colonies of the British crown are started in America. Many years later, a series of political disagreements results in a schism between the crown and the colonies, leading to independence for the colonies.

Were the colonies in a voluntary federation, or not?

@Josf

To pretend to be able to move from that contentious disagreement, as if the matter was settled agreeably, is false, as the pretention of agreement exists as a factually proven disagreement proven to be disagreement by those who lash out, resorting to coercion in the many forms coercion is formed by those who lash out.

Federal = voluntary association = contained in the meaning of the useful word.

Anti-Federal = who knows what = the meaning of “federal” (for example) does not mean voluntary association = do what I say, when, how, where, and how much, or else unusual punishment will commence when failure to obey is perceived by the punisher.

I only wish I knew what we were actually disagreeing about. Every time I think I have a handle on it, your next post upends my understanding of your position.

[Northern_Piper]

@Josf

I can’t answer the question you ask since you do not give me any information concerning remedy in the case you describe.

@Josf

You use quotes to fence-in the word remedy. That is a dead giveaway to me. A “public defender” is an individual. If you can tell me who I am dealing with, then I can speak to him or her. If the individual is a member of the BAR, then that is a dead giveaway to me.

If you can state, in writing, with your affidavit, and your bond, as to what you think is California Law, then your claim of what “California Law” is (according to you) is you putting your credit on the line in a tangible way.

1. You site the law.
2. You affirm that the law is the law with an affidavit.
3. If you are wrong then you have a bond that picks up the costs of your error since the chances of you having the funds to pay damages of great magnitude are slim to none and slim already took the bus out of town; along with the Bona Fide African Prince.

I agree with Muffin: this is Meads territory.

[Muffin]

As Josf’s website sets out: 2 Tim 2:15-19 ". . . shun profane and vain babblings . . . . "