A tale, told by Joe, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Appologies to the Bard.
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.
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. 
Our Joesf publicly advertises himself as
The document I quoted in my previous post #402 isone of many from his National Liberty Alliance group’s website.
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.
You do realize, of course, that you just saved the USA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
To reiterate - all your words on the subject are, to date, based in nothing but your personal preferences.
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:
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Your understanding of the use of quotes in support of a position is incorrect.
The subject of the debate is the opinions that you espouse. That is what posters are trying to understand.
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, which defines the phrase.
Also, disagreement is not a personal attack. It’s part of debate, and an essential part, at that.
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.
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, 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.
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.
You know, Joe, arresting people because you disagree with them 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.
“Your understanding,” i.e., your interpretation. Yet, now you want to claim, erroneously, that it is not your personal interpretation.
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.