Treason by Fraud IV
by Joe Kelley
3-8-2022

Crime scenes occur at precise times in precise places as determined by the criminal will power to contact the targeted victim so as to cause the injury to the victim at the precise crime scene location and time.

Call that crime scene the terrain.

Do not confuse the map for the terrain.

Treasonous Fraud can only work when the targeted victim confuses the map for the terrain.

To help illustrate this defensive effort for me to contact anyone anywhere at any time where and when these messages reach anyone, I will use some common words that may at first confuse those who read these words in this context. The point of using these common words that cause confusion is to illustrate how a victim of Treasonous Fraud can confuse the map for the terrain, and in so doing the victim is then made to believe that the victim is not a victim, instead the victim is made to believe that the victim is a slave.

Euphemisms Hypothecate Agreements

If someone finds themselves a victim of a fraud, in time, and in place, there is a crime scene, a place and time where the victim finds contact with a device created and employed by the criminal fraud, and at that crime scene, the victim fell victim to that attack by that device delivered by the criminal so as to cause injury to the victim, doing so with malice aforethought, or malevolence, or a guilty mind, which is mens rea in Latin.

The device used by the criminal is a map that suggests to the victim that a pot of gold can be found at a specific place shown on the map and natural laws dictate that the pot of gold will not be in that same place forever.

The victim would not be fooled by confusing the map with the terrain if the pot of gold was placed precisely at the same location as the victim, and the victim had a precise method of validating the fact that the pot was in reality full of confirmed gold, confirmed by standard tried and true measures, found to be real gold, and not found to be fools gold instead of finding real gold in that place at that time.

The map is a euphemism for reality.

Hypotecation is a euphemism for property, spell-checkers, and fact-checkers notwithstanding. 

For general purposes, for statistical analysis, for imprecise non-forensic calculations of facts that matter, in any case, I use Google, but for evidence beyond reasonable doubt it pays to make sure the gold in hand is not fools gold, by some forensic, tried and true, methodology; actually doing the hard work that pays off, rather than following the crumbs left by Hansel and Gretel.

hypothecate (v.)
1680s, "pledge (something) without giving up control of it; pawn; mortgage," from hypothecat-, past-participle stem of Medieval Latin hypothecare, from Late Latin hypotheca "a pledge," from Greek hypothēkē "a deposit, pledge, mortgage," from hypo- "beneath, under" (see hypo-) + tithenai "to put, to place," from reduplicated form of PIE root *dhe- "to set, put." Related: Hypothecated; hypothecating; hypothecation; hypothecary.

If Treasonous Frauds contacted each victim each time, each place, forensically at each location, and forensically at each specific time each Treasonous Fraud contacted each individual victim, with the whole truth as to the facts that matter in each case, what would constitute the matter flowing from Treasonous Fraud to the targeted victim in each case?

Picture a Treaonous Fraud, map it out in your central processing unit, then picture a Victim of Treasonous Fraud, both in the same place, both at that same time, and then picture physical matter flowing as the Treasonous Fraud creates physical matter and then the Treasonous Fraud shits out this matter, and then this matter flows rapidly toward the victim, and then the victim is covered with the shit that came from the Treasonous Fraud, and then accurately, forensically, measure the shit, smell it, for example. 

We are human beings, or living forms of independent perceptive beings capable of independent motion from birth to death as we alone choose each direction we take during life on this planet, given the fact that other people also travel from place to place on the terrain we called Earth in the English language, or whatever someone calls the same planet. It is a planet by any other name, as a rose smells the same if called a different name, and as human shit still stinks even if a Treasonous Fraud calls it delicious.

The matter that flows from Treasonous Fraud to victim at the first point of contact until the victim discovers the facts that matter in the case, is matter that matters to the Treasonous Fraud, and that matter flowing from Treasonous Fraud to the targeted victim is matter that matters to the victim.

Facts that accurately measure Treasonous Fraud matter, measuring that shit accurately, matters, because all lives matter, to those living, and because facts guide people to those places people want to go, going places that help people to help themselves create things that make people happy, or steal things from happy people, making people unhappy, disturbing their peace on purpose, making criminals happy perhaps, but probably not in the long run, and eye now for an eye later, when the victim tastes Treasonous Fraud shit.

The matter, the shit flowing from Treasonous Frauds to targeted victims have a factual basis, in reality, that Treasonous Fraud shit actually exists, really exists, and that matter that flows from a Treasonous Fraud to a targeted victim proves beyond reasonable doubt that the specific Treasonous Fraud who created that matter is responsible for creating that matter, and when that matter created by the Treasonous Fraud flows to the targeted victim that matter is traceable to the specific Treasonous Fraud so as to accurately account for the specific individual living being guilty of causing the injury to the victim of Treasonous Fraud. The shoe fits on shitty Cinderella because it is shitty Cinderella's own shoe. 

Shitty Cinderella owns the Treasonous Fraud shoe. 

Do facts matter in a Treasonous Fraud case?

"There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments" United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, 1878

Is that a fact?

What does the word incredulous mean?

What does Google say?

16th century: from Latin incredulus (from in- ‘not’ + credulus ‘believing, trusting’, from credere ‘believe&rsquo + -ous.

Do facts matter in a Treasonous Fraud case?

XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
"4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Is that a fact?

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

Is that a fact?

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property.”

Is that a fact?

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

At this point, I would like to point the reader to a contentious bit of wordplay having to do with a recent argument over the word Anarchy. Those claiming to be on the Right, which is arguably those who are buying the National Socialist Dogma, for fun and profit, for future benefits or current dividends, claim to support Free Markets. They claim that free people need free markets free from government regulations. Those on the farthest fringes of the right, but still invested in National Socialism, claim that no government at all is the best government, and they may label themselves as market anarchists.

Do they, meaning National Socialists on the Farthest Fringes of the Far Right, do they mean freedom from responsibility and freedom from accountability, or do they instead mean to suggest that without government we, meaning National Socialists on the Far Right, market anarchists, will be free from Treasonous Frauds, or other crooks who falsely claim to be protecting and serving The People as a whole, excepting no one, everyone, all the people, protected and serving, especially the criminals who need to be shown that crime does not pay?

Not here, and not on my watch, and not with my red pennies, and not on my dime.

Caveat Emptor