A.I. II
by Joe Kelley
5-31-2022

MILLENNIAL MILLIE’S SHADOWGATE
2 years ago
[vimeo.com]
“A VERY INTERESTING EXPOSE' ABOUT CERTAIN FOLKS IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WITH SOME OUTSIDERS INFLUENCED TO DO CERTAIN DIRTY DEED'S FOR THEM, AND VICE VERSA.”

Google says:
Data analytics (DA) is the process of examining data sets in order to find trends and draw conclusions about the information they contain. Increasingly, data analytics is done with the aid of specialized systems and software.

The concept of humans agreeing to defend each other against clear and present dangers foreign and domestic is as old as humans, for without this agreement working expediently and effectively, the inhumans take over and cause humans to develop into inhumans.

The concept has been documented or codified since language was invented and used by humans in their human ventures to prosper despite the influences of inhumanity.

Google says:
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

That is an example of one individual's effort to codify the meaning of the legal term LAW.

The CODE is unambiguous, specific, and easy to read for anyone alive and competent enough to make their own way through life as a fellow defending human being, rather than an offensive outlaw.

Human beings being human defend each other with simple codes that become laws as the means to reach the goal are discovered to be tried more than once and true each time, every time, so long as the defenders do not subject themselves to the lies, bribes, tortures, and murders of inhuman beings, specifically the lies that have earned a name that is forensically more dangerous than mere lies, and that word is FRAUD.

If the people subject themselves to FRAUD, they are sent off the moral path and onto the immoral path, going from defending human beings being defensively human to inhuman beings filled with malevolence.

A very commonly known FRAUD unknown to the subjects subjecting themselves to this particular FRAUD is called many names over time by the frauds who use this particular fraud as the old names wear out and become more commonly known, so the new names must be invented and used to keep the targeted victims in the dark.

Google Search Result:
“Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them.”

Note how effective that message is as a means by which FRAUDS continue to operate outside of the law, immune from prosecution, as the targets just follow the orders issued to them by the FRAUDS as the victims subject themselves to these messages that work on the victims subconsciously.

Google Search Result:
Projection
“In psychology, projection refers to placing your own negative traits or unwanted emotions onto others, usually without reason.”

Once a human being has heard or read clearly the code that is the foundation of LAW, one can then clearly understand, by reason, the code that is the foundation of CRIME.

Therefore all things whatsoever that YOU do to others, blame them for what YOU do to them, including blaming them for defending themselves from YOU, as YOU do to them what YOU would defend against if your victims dared to do to YOU what YOU do to them first.

Codes of outlawry are written down.

The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.

"Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."

"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."

"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World, both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both, a soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."

"By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which, at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."

"Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For in America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law."

When FRAUDS target defenders defending with defensive powers of LAW, as a rule, those FRAUDS call their victims traitors, rebels, outlaws, and often they are murdered as convicted outlaws summarily found guilty of treason before, during, and after
the fact, in the News Papers, and in the Kangaroo Courts. Men are always bad, from birth to death, always outlaws, always guilty, so "we" are doing them a favor by killing them or making them work for JUST US. 

If FRAUDS have counterfeited due process of law, replacing the codes that make-up defensive LAW with codes that make-up offensive OUTLAWRY, is that not truly treason by simple deductive reasoning of the facts that matter in the case?

Google says:
Outlawry,
act of putting a person beyond the protection of the law for his refusal to become amenable to the court having legal jurisdiction.

Do not defend yourself in a Court of Law, goes the order hidden behind a thin veil of Treasonous Fraud, go instead to a Court NOT of Law, and plead your case before your tormentors, as they love it when their victims squirm like stupid, servile, defenseless inhuman beings caged within an Infantile State of their own making.

Caveat Emptor