Unpacking The Golden Rule IV
by Joe Kelley
3-18-2022

The School of the Americas
[c-span.org];

The LEFT version of Unions to fight the war against poverty meets the RIGHT version of Monopoly to reduce the price paid for labor. 

The LEFT solution to the poverty problem is Union by Majority Rule to gain control of the blindly obedient and make everyone pay everyone equally or else, except those running the Union by Majority Rule, they pay themselves whatever pleases them to be their fee for running the Union. The Right version of Majority Rule is to gain control of the blindly obedient to make everyone else pay the few and everyone else can fight over who is allowed to survive in a wild rat race to be first to get the few scraps that fall from the Monopoly feasting table. 

When LEFT meets RIGHT in discussion no one welcomes the obvious Tar Baby that exposes the whole truth concerning so-called Majority Rule by Blind Obedience. The LEFT wants the power to enforce their rule by Unions of Slaves without Masters, except of course for those Elected to be the few Masters of all the Slaves, Masters elected into Top-Down positions of authority are those elites among the many made “equal” by those elites whose power, prerogatives, and privileges are absolutely not equal to their Unionized Labor Forces. The RIGHT merely wants the power to enforce their free access to their victims targeted for consumption with the same Tax Farm Plantation demanded by the LEFT.

Both LEFT and RIGHT fight for those seats at the Monopoly Feasting Table. The Monopoly Feasting Table is the Tar Baby. Both LEFT and RIGHT see the Tar Baby as their exclusive property to use for their goals, to give themselves whatever pleases them and send the bill to the rest of humanity. So neither SIDE can tolerate any discussion about the actual Elephant in the room, the Jackass Tar Baby, which is a two-sided Empire Coin, a Tax Farming Plantation run from Top-Down, not Left and Right.  

Give unto Caesar that which is the one purse. 

Petrodollar Hegemony or the next viable competitor?

Who wins the prize, how much does it cost, and who pays the bills? 

Not Left or Right, the actual battle for dominance of all the slaves on earth is to get the RING and have it to dictate the terms of world trade with the One World Currency Power currently in dispute, formerly unquestionably the Petrodollar Hegemony. 

How about a word from our sponsor, instead of the Tar Baby no one wants to discuss? 

Peer review concerns when trial by jury proceeds according to stare decisis, not Civil Rules according to Civil Rulers, peer review may warrant a few words offered into the Public Network of Data for your information or not. 

One likely has heard of peer review when speaking about hypothesis and test results repeating in science according to the rules governing the scientific method used by scientists according to past test results that confirm present test results, always questioning the test results in case the next test result no longer agrees with the unanimous agreements of the former test results. 

Peer review can have two opposing meanings. The scientists who are paid to lie about the test results, so as to pad their bank accounts as their compensation for lying, paid to them by their employers, whereby the employers are the Too Big to Fail Pharmacy Organs of The Deep State or Tax Farming Plantation. Those peers know how to lie for money, so they know how that science works, so long as their bank account continues to keep growing as they keep lying, so long will they lie, and do so without risk of unwanted peer review. 

Peer review of a different kind, an opposing kind, are those reviewers who strictly keep testing to keep repeating the data that supports the hypothesis, and those peers keep adjusting the hypothesis as new tests show disagreeable results, because willfully ignoring the scientifically arrived at data that shows an error in the hypothesis is unscientific in fact. 

The Science as a monopoly of liars paid to lie is contentious, does not agree with, scientific data that confirms a negative result to a tested hypothesis. The Science, and all those peers reviewing each other's lies, is a Monopoly known as Consensus Science, also known as Majority Rules. 

The same original peerage and the same counterfeit peerage apply to rule of law. To illustrate this fact that matters it is possible to unpack the following trial to prove the hypothesis with as many test results as might be needed to establish lawful peerage in the original form, so as to reject the counterfeit form of peer review by the peerage. 

Hypothesis: Original peers reviewing a criminal case in a Court of law were trial jurors selected by lot, or sortition, with voir dire proceedings to validate jurors or peers fit for the duty of adjudication of facts and the law of the land, and this was done to increase the benefits of a just adjudication of a conflict, doing so peacefully so as to avoid when possible the escalation of the conflict into destructive violence. 

Test case: 

“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

A judgment by peers called trial jurors in common law, the law of the land, also known as The Ancient Law, suggest a need to have like-minded people judge like-minded people since foreigners having no basis of the local situation would be incapable of sound judgment without the facts that matter in the case knowable to those put in place to judge the case. A scientist accused of lying to pad their bank account would be judged more factually by a scientist and not by a layman since a scientist is familiar with the scientific method factually by experience and not hypothetically by imagination. 

12 local farmers may have been involved in the common law process known as voir dire in that kidnapping case in 1781. Voir dire may have proceeded during jury selection so as to afford the private prosecutor and the private defendant their input concerning what is or is not a peer-reviewed criminal case involving both sides bringing their justifications to the trial jurors for adjudication, assuming that the defense has a defense for kidnapping.

Note that I have not played the race card, rather I play the common law card. The trial in question is a Civil Case, not a criminal case, which defies common law, it defies logic and reason, it defies moral conscience, and it defies basic lawful, legal principles. 

The Tar Baby is not about race in that example peer review case. The Tar Baby is right versus wrong. The case in question fails peer review, without a doubt, it does not even pass the laugh test. The kidnapper in question was forced by Civil Rules to pay the victim of the crime a few dollars to bribe the victim into a defenseless state, so as to allow the criminal to move onto easier victims to kidnap, thereby endangering the rest of The People for failing to account for the criminal kidnapper. That is a plea deal, and it is against all the peer review, stare decisis, evidence mounted in all trial by jury cases that have proceeded according to common law, moral, legal, lawful principles. You do not, as a rule, allow defendants to make deals with known criminals because doing so allows the criminal unobstructed access to more victims. Plea deals are known since Ancient Times as aiding and abetting criminals, which is known as obstruction of justice. 

Case in point:

"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. 

Plea deals in criminal cases involve fraud each time, each case, by basic lawful, moral, and legal principles. 

So the kidnap victim is the private prosecutor in her criminal kidnapping case if she is not fooled into a Civil Action and a Plea Deal. If the kidnap victim is not yet up to speed on the law of the land procedures, she may find a peer with experience in the science of law, such as a private prosecutor in the business of prosecuting criminals in criminal trials in County Courts of Law. Such a peer would know to refuse the plea deal, which is an obvious crime in a criminal case, and the case would then move to an independent county grand juror, which is then a meeting between a private prosecutor in a criminal case going to a county volunteer who has a measure of lawful county jurisdiction. The grand juror peer reviews the evidence against the accused, and the grand juror peer reviewer volunteer commands the County Jurisdiction powers of subpoena, mandamus, quo warranto, and posse comitatus. The private prosecutor demands a trial by jury in this obvious criminal case involving a kidnap victim. Since it is a kidnapping and forced labor case, complete with a possible bill of sale that documented the fact that the kidnapper bought a human being for the purpose of extracting value from the human being, alleged by the private prosecutor, then the grand juror assembles the grand jury to write a True Bill, the grand jurors know not to contact the defendant to "try the case" themselves, their only duty is to validate the case by probable cause, which in this case is the witness testimony of the kidnap victim reporting the kidnapping. 

The victim, or her peer-reviewing representative, is the private prosecutor.  The accused is the private defendant, or someone representing the defendant. 

The grand juror assembles the grand jury in this county criminal case for the safety of The Public, which is the safety of the Republic since a criminal case involves clear and present dangers to the public at large when a criminal is at large rioting in the blood of the innocent, on our watch, on our dimes. The grand jury writes up a True Bill, the bill is given to the accused, and between then and the Court date the private prosecutor and the private defendant have their say as to what validates or does not validate someone as a peer to review the case proceed through voir dire proceedings. Left prosecutor versus right defendant gets a say in the process of validating who is valid as a peer reviewer, who is up to speed as trial jurors, so as to ensure a just decision by those jurors as to fact and law. 

How about an Irish woman who was driven from her home in Ireland by The British Imperialists, she was captured, raped, sold to kidnappers who sold her as an “Indentured Servant” to people going to or living in America, and she is before the private prosecutor and the private defendant during voir dire proceedings in the criminal case proceeding according to the common law in 1781, instead of the plea deal that happened according to Civil Rules? How about that now? 

“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

11 white farmers and one Irish woman raped, beaten, made to work for her freedom in America, formerly an “Indentured Servant” and during the entire kidnapping, rape, forced labor crime scene she, the victim, never saw her experience as anything other than a crime scene, and she is before the private prosecutor (the former slave or her representative) and the Irish kidnap victim now free is before the kidnapping defendant, and who else is present to decide if the Irish kidnap victim now free is a peer to review the criminal case involving the former slave turned now into a private prosecutor in this now clear and present hypothetical criminal case proceeding according to the common law in a County Court of Law Criminal Kidnapping and Forced Labor Case? 

Crickets? 

Do unto others that which you would never allow others to ever do the same to you.

Can't we just all be slaves and be done with it? 

Caveat Emptor