Standing in Outlawry III
by Joe Kelley
9-3-2022

The most obvious line of demarcation between opposing independent individuals is NOT obvious when individuals are no longer independent.

Group A forms, founds, and maintains voluntary association for mutual defense, clearly presenting to each defender the evidence of dangers to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the power to object to criminal orders demanded by criminals with fake badges.

Group B is told not to see the criminals with fake badges, those WHO obey blindly form, found, and maintain involuntary associations.

Having established an obvious line of demarcation between two opposing groups in the above STATE - MENT, there are clearly in view those WHO suffer from a loss of independence, clearly in view only to those who have not suffered from that loss of independence.

Group A members remain in Group A voluntarily, they can see what is or is not attempting to remove their ability to see attacks forming in time to defend against those attacks.

Group B members embrace the loss of their vision, doing as told by those who take it.

Group A is therefore those who have not lost their independent power to see clearly those dangers that present themselves as forces that work to make people lose their independent power to see clearly.

Call Group A any name, such as Libertarian, but the only people belonging to Group A are those who clearly see those who clearly cannot see the loss of independent power to maintain independence of mind, body, and spirit.

Group B, by any name already in use or any name imaginable not yet in use, are those who have lost their independence of mind, body, and spirit, as a result of any number of factors, powers, controls, forces, conditions, experiences suffered by anyone exposed to, or in contact with, those powers that work to turn someone from someone with independence into someone without it.

Bribery works to remove a member from Group A, moving that member into Group B.

Extortion works too, and so does torture. Murder removes someone from Group A. Murder does not add someone to Group B.

Group A can see this power clearly, and therefore Group A members gain membership into Group A because they can see this power clearly despite all the forces that work to remove those powers that work to destroy, annihilate, remove, and replace independence of MIND.

Group B, on the other hand, have lost that power to see clearly those forces that have already destroyed their power to see clearly those dangers that present themselves in time and place.

If Group A begins to formalize their membership in any way, such as an example involving one of the members inventing a new name, a grass-roots, organic, inventive, adaptive, original name, such as Libertarian, each member of Group A knows, clearly, that forces are at work that will attempt to counterfeit the name, use the name to deceive, and the name becomes a false flag waved by forces that intend to force people to lose their minds, give up their independence, and follow the leaders waving the false flag, following whatever the leaders dictate, and follow those dictates without question.

Group A members are diligent, independent, vigilant, and armed with extreme prejudice against false flags flown by deceptive leaders, to a point at which Group A members preserve their unalienable, or un-a-lien-able, power to conscientiously object to any unjustified, unreasonable, dictatorial, tyrannical, criminal order issued by anyone, anywhere, or anytime, and again, doing so with extreme prejudice for the unalienable independence of an individual mind, because the source of moral judgment is internal to an individual human being, and the source of moral judgment is not external to an individual human being, by any name, such as a human soul, human will, human conscience, human body, human mind, or human individual.

By any name original, the counterfeit is always counter to the original, a rule of natural law.

It is positively inhuman for Group B members to fraudulently claim that their false God, their fraudulent State, their Fictional Being TRUMPS the soul of an individual human conscience, just because they say so, and more importantly, despite all evidence to the contrary.

All evidence I have found proves beyond doubt that the human individual power to judge right from wrong has been the foundation of human law going back as far as the available evidence I have found goes, including evidence that proves that this individual human power of law named The Unwritten Law shows beyond doubt that humans have preserved and brought forward this human law despite having no written way to do so, therefore some other forces, such as internal DNA memory, affords humanity the power to preserve our common law.

"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, 1852

Empire, Nation-State Legal Fiction, whatever name the criminal gang employs to remove the independence of mind from the targeted individuals subjected to these obvious counterfeit forms of law, are always recognizable as clear and present dangers to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to conscientiously object to them, the moment one of the criminals with a fake badge claims immunity from the rules that they also claim to be their source of authority to step outside those rules during their attempt to remove their next victim’s soul.

Caveat Emptor.