Also, if majority rule is a “Fraud” (again capitalized for some reason) what do you propose we replace it with? A despotism that relies only upon your own conception of right and wrong?
At this point, you will probably quote the Bible or John Adams, but must every man, woman, and child rely on your personal interpretation (or those in your organization) of the meaning of those words?
Hey JosF, ever hear of water under the bridge? You’re arguing about shit that happened hundreds of years ago. Doesn’t matter what you think, done is done. Nobody gives a rat’s ass anymore. Not one word you say on the matter makes the least bit of difference.
That’s not what criminal juries do. They determine whether the state has proved all elements of the crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt; they don’t make specific factual determinations as you suggest above.
But it was a “lawful” fact!
You know, Joe, all this voluntary stuff would only work if most people are agreeable. The world ain’t like that. Even if we were to set aside your organized pseudolegal commercial argument, set aside your Xian touchstone, and set aside your incomprehensible babble, the simple fact remains that without most people agreeing with your beliefs, you don’t have a chance in hell of being taken seriously by anyone other that fellow sovereignists. In short, you and your group are no more than proselytizers pitching yet another irrational belief system. Good luck with that, for although there are always exceptions, (e.g. Hubbard), you’re competing with many other religions in a market that is already saturated. Cult competition ain’t an easy life, for no matter how you pretend that you are rational, you are not, and most folks see through you. In short, you are not getting anywhere, and you’re not going to get anywhere.
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule are demonstrated well enough by those who choose personal attacks as their form of communication.
Those on the aggressive side are also proving which side they are on when their communications aid the cover-up of the true meaning of federal, voluntary, association.
Those on the aggressive side also prove their affiliation with the aggressors when they claim that only their members are allowed by their members to offer defensive services according to their exclusive versions of their Union law of their Union land which is clearly divided and separate from an independent version called Rule of Law.
On the Criminal Rule side the members ensure their dominance through deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence, and once someone joins that side they add to the power that side commands.
This is not news, and the past is instructive concerning the present and the future.
In the past the federal, voluntary, relationship was destroyed by the aggressors and those historical facts were recorded in the first American federal statute known as a Declaration of Independence.
When the aggressors surrendered, leaving much destruction caused by their aggression, those left alive in America were then able to continue the process of funding a new American form of Rule of Law.
An example was offered in at least one court case linked in this thread.
Again:
The Union of so called Lawyers or so called Attorneys routinely offer extremely high prices for their services because they routinely claim that only Union Members are allowed to compete in the free market of defensive services.
That was explained well enough here:
http://www.ncpublications.com/colonial/bookshelf/Tracts/Nutbush%20Address/nutbush.htm
When the immoral, illegal, base, despicable, evil people take over they create and maintain Criminal Rule as a rule. They maintain their rule by offering a deal, an offer that they say can’t be refused, to their targeted victims, and once the victim takes the plea bargain, the victim becomes one of the members joining Criminal Rule.
The alternative is spelled out in a Declaration of Independence and many versions of what has become known as a Bill of Rights.
However, the criminals, as a rule, do not obey moral laws, and anyone claiming that the criminals obey moral laws is someone demonstrating a lack of ability to respond effectively in defense of those innocent people who are destroyed by criminals.
By their choice to initiate aggression the people who do so define the meaning of crime as their actions injure innocent people. To claim that the criminal who rules the victim criminally is not a criminal after or before the crime was perpetrated is another claim that demonstrates a lack of ability to respond effectively in defense of those innocent people who are destroyed by criminals.
In time, and in place, the guilty criminal rules the innocent victim, as a matter of unlawful fact. Finding those facts to be facts is one effective way to volunteer to act effectively in defense of those innocent people from those guilty criminals.
Why start the lawful process of accounting for the facts at the level of a forum when there are obvious cases involving very serious crimes perpetrated by criminals at the level of a Nation State crime spree?
The answer is that the so called law (Consolidated, exclusive, Union “law”) of the land is in place to ensure that the Nation State criminals are protected from any application of true, voluntary, federal, law (moral law) enforcement.
Where once the federal people offered their accountability, in a short time those same federal people turned a blind eye, or subsidized in fact, their own crimes.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
“Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.”
The crime of slavery was declared a crime in the first Statute of the federal association as such:
Even during the worst of times, while the British Slave Trading criminals were perpetrating War of Aggression on all Americans who would not take the deal of servitude offered by the Criminal British, the crime of slavery was against the federal defensive military orders:
The continuation of a crime (slavery) even after the crime is accurately identified as “trading with the enemy” during open war of aggression by aggressors, where defenders are defending at high cost, is also identified accurately in the historical record:
There were then and there are now people who excuse, rationalize, apologize for, protect, defend, aid, abet, subsidize, all forms of criminal acts under the color of law including modern forms of slavery.
Those people are on one side, and they find ways to remain outside moral law.
The idea that slavery was ever a benefit to anyone other than a very few criminals who profit from such crimes continues to this day. The only way that ignorance, that apathy, that criminal, destructive, information remains, in any way defended, is through deception, and through the BAR put in place to keep out anti-slavery court cases from due process of law according to the law of the land.
http://b-womeninamericanhistory17.blogspot.com/2009/05/elizabeth-key-slave-or-free.html
Had the federation remained a federal rather than a Consolidated Nation State the former slaves would have had places like Rhode Island and Vermont to find sanctuary where the criminals did not rule with Criminal Rule. Focus of attention during peacetime would have been fixed upon those very few who still profited from the crime known as slavery, and the means by which all innocent victims were effectively defended against criminal slavers would have undoubtedly included more frequent cases tried by jury according to the common laws of free people.
Today, as in the past, similar instances of effective defense against criminal rulers still process out factually; albeit much too late in the day.
http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf
Those on the other side of moral law (Rule of Law) choose character assassination as a routine (not an exception).
I would regard the persistent false accusation of “criminal” throughout your repetitious screed to be a form of character assassination. Your continuous choice of idiolectic definitions of language would seem to be your routine position.
As long as you continue to abuse the language and your correspondents with a misuse of the word “criminal,” your accusation says more about you and your position that it does against your opponents.
Can you simply answer the fucking questions? We have read your screed. We reject it. Please stop repeating it. Just answer the questions in English.
After 287 posts, 55 by Josf, what makes you think that he is going to change his mode of posting, now?
You might consider the “agree to disagree” process and let the thread die on its own. (It is not as though he has actually persuaded anyone of his beliefs. I doubt that anyone has understood what he has posted about his beliefs.)
I understand what you are saying, but I don’t want him to be able to use this thread as some evidence of a victory by claiming we had no response for him. I reject his contentions. I don’t contract with him or otherwise post bond. I ask that he cite his legal rationale for his beliefs. As I am sure he cannot do so, and when he does not do so, I will consider the matter over and accept for value his inability to rebut as a recognition that our assertions are correct.
I will submit a fee schedule, charging the OP for $100,000,000 each time he uses the word “competitive.” 
He denies that your version of “legal” is, in fact, legal.
You deny his unfounded assertions, (along with his misuse of language, etc., etc.).
There is no possible resolution to this contest.
I am not telling you to quit, only pointing out the hopelessness of your quest.
This reminds me of when I was hashing out with Kozmik about the Illuminati…
Hey! Trigger warning, please!
Returning to the topic (the topic is not my personal character):
Examples of the abuse of language constitutes divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
That is exemplified here:
Those on the side of “abuse of language” (known as fraud) were those fraudulently calling themselves federalists.
Those fraudulently calling themselves federalists were also those few who profit from the slavery trade.
The divisions started then (1787) are the divisions that persist now: those on the side of Rule of Law, and those on the side where fraud is claimed to be “legal.”
When people initiate violence upon innocent people the federal association ends; as explained well enough, in English, by John Adams.That above has been, is, and will be the subject matter of this topic. My personal character, on the other hand, is not the subject matter of this topic unless people initiate and maintain attacks upon my personal character instead of dealing with the subject matter of the topic.
How many people are calling themselves “Federalists” lately? Is it more than those identifying as Whigs?
I apologize for double posting but what I mean to ask is even if the US was set upon a path contrary to the intentions of our Founding Fathers, what actions do you propose at this late date to remedy this,
DrFidelius offers:
The modern label currently used is FEDS; as exemplified in recent confrontations between those on the Rule of Law side and those who are called FEDS. Those on the side where aggression is initiated are those who end a federal association.
Modern political parties are National (Consolidated Nation State) not federal according to the meaning of the word federal as explained by John Adams and as explained in the words of those who opposed the Consolidation of the federal association into a Nation State.
National parties, such as the Democrat and Republican party are neither democratic nor republican, they are National as in Nation State, and they claim that their authority is derived through Majority Rule, as exemplified by so many people currently parroting the idea.
The formation of the Democratic-Republican Party appears to have been a response to the obvious indictable crimes perpetrated by the so called Federalist Party members who included George Washington (Judiciary Act, Naturalization Act, Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation), Alexander Hamilton (Whiskey Excise Tax, First Bank of the United States), and John Adams (Alien and Sedition acts), inspiring Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to respond (caused to act by causes such as Alien and Sedition Act) with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and then those two took their turn as Executive over the entire Nation State of people, through Majority Rule processes.
Those members of the Democratic-Republican Party were the nearest representatives of people bound by Rule of Law as exemplified in the true, strict, definition of the word federal; meaning we the people voluntarily association for our mutual defense: federal, voluntary, association.
Today the closest I’ve seen to someone representing a truly federal government is Ron Paul. None of the current people “running” for the executive office of the Nation State (now a corporation) represent a federal government power; again by the true, strict, meaning of the word federal.
At the time of the formation of the false “Federalist” Party those against such “abuse of language” considered those false “Federalists” to be “National men,” or aristocrats whose power accumulation was understood to be gained through close ties with “government funding” so the current crop of “candidates” (who in our current world actually believes that the U.S. “election” is legitimate?) include mostly aristocratic, National, oligarchs, or more commonly known know as fascists; whose power was accumulated through something called “subsidy,” whereby they gain “leverage” by enforcing restrictions to trade favoring themselves and costing their competitors a significant lack of “leverage.”
As long as you persist in misrepresenting words in a way that results in you calling beliefs and actions of your opponents “criminal,” then you are introducing the topic of Character to the thread. Your choice; your problem. If you do not want your character attacked, stop attacking your opponents with ridiculous claims that their positions are criminal–an attack on their character.
Your persistent choice of idiolectic language is an abuse of reasonable debate. As long as you continue to present your opponents as engaging in "criminal’ behavior and as long as you continue to pretend that the various state bar associations are “unions” and insist on presenting similar displays of well poisoning and and misdirection, your arguments fail.
None of your arguments have been coherent. (Few of your statements have been coherent or even understandable.) Misusing words to make a point and evading direct criticism of such nonsense either by ignoring the arguments or pretending that the words have different meanings is not a legitimate form of debate. This is not an attack upon your character, but a simple description of your actuions.
DrFidelius kindly offers:
There are many ways individuals, families, churches, corporations, cities, counties, states, and federations can work incrementally toward a return to Rule of Law instead of working incrementally toward deeper injury as measured by body counts and so called National Debt.
Individuals can learn about trial by jury and volunteer as jurists when opportunity is realized in time and place; while remaining solvent themselves as independent people capable of sustaining and reproducing independent life here in America.
That is an observation, not “my idea,” as many people are currently moving in that direction.
An obvious State level tactic, offered by people in a few States already, such as Utah and Arizona, are moves away from fraudulent central banking, where the move is a return to sound money banking, whereby actual earnings are accountable in specie, or Gold and Silver. That is a direct competitor to the so called FED.
Oath Keepers prove that Rule of Law can still work where probable cause to act in defense of the innocent against criminal aggression perpetrated by so called FEDS has already occurred in more than one place more than one time: The Bundy Ranch and the Ferguson meeting between Rule of Law and Criminal Rule.
A very weak area concerns the concept of Redress of Grievances, which is a vital part of common law due process, concerning accusations charged against so called Federal employees. State prosecutors may soon get up to speed in such states as Utah and Arizona when further conflicts between so called FEDS and State employees ratchet up their respective actions aimed at defending their separate powers. As the FED may collapse the economy those who effectively preserve their wealth creation power in states may encounter demands from the FEDS to go down with the same sinking ship, and those in the solvent states may prefer to avoid such harm done by such criminals at the FED.
Sheriffs may also find people in their jurisdiction demanding and backing the authority of the Sherriff again along the lines where current conflicts are erupting as so called FEDS are clearly overstepping their clearly defined boundaries as those so called FEDS end any true, strict, sense of federation when they clearly initiate violence upon innocent people.
The most obvious battle for Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule, in my opinion, is between parents and children. So much of the modern media, in schools, in television, and even on the World Wide Web, favors the continued financing of Criminal Rule, and parents who know better can offer a competitive explanation of how life actually works when people volunteer to maintain rule of law.
You state that John Adams has committed “indictable crimes” by his support of the alien and sedition acts. Yet you continue to cite him (and take his words out of context) as a shining example of what freedom truly means.
I would again ask for a legal cite for your claims instead of your repeated insistence that you are simply correct and use of capital letters. Your bald assertions do not prove your points to be correct.