He’s trying to raise the 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 ]
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.
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.
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.
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
And again:
Divisions:
-
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.
-
Trade knowledge of common law due process for just compensation professionally: neither charity nor profit due to restricted access.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
Those who know and are generous with their knowledge about common law Rule of Law due process.
-
Those who know and are able to make a living (just compensation) with their knowledge about common law Rule of Law due process.
-
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/
1774
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 ]
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.)
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.
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.
Rhode Island, an Independent State federated with other States, outlawed slavery according to at least one source here:
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
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:
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:
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.
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
I won’t quote then entire show.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The quantity of your argument is not a replacement for its quality.
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.
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.
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 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.
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:
This is not accurate. You have also posted on several occasions that the Constitution overthrew Rhode Island’s abolition of slavery.
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.
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!
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.”
Damned if I do, damned if I don’t?
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
People find sanctuary from people who claim to own people.
-
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:
-
People are prevented from knowing about, and therefore finding sanctuary from people who claim to own people.
-
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:
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:
English words on both sides Divided along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule:
-
Bill of Rights
-
“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.
That is one side.
Here is another (obvious) side:
Congress, so called, ignores Rule of Law and replaces Rule of Law with Criminal Rule at will. Who dares to question otherwise?
-
Some do
-
Some don’t
Show us an contemporary example of someone in this country who claims to own someone else.
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.
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.
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?
Does pwning count?
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.
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”?