Truth Warrant III
by Joe Kelley
1-23-2023

Know Your Constitution Carl Miller Part 1 of 3

“You must know your rights and timely assert them; that is your burden. If you do not, then a legal term called “latches incurs in full force. “Latches” is a species of action wherein a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity, having a right to take an action as prescribed by law, and having failed to timely do so loses all right to proceed.”

The authorized LAW is found in CODE and agreed to be followed or NOT.

If NOT the independent individual self-evidently authorizes a choice to move forensically into OUTLAWRY.

Born human on the third planet from a newer STAR, each independent individual has authority at LAW according to CODE known as DNA.

Some humans have attempted to make the LAW as simple as humanly possible.

Where we go one, we go all.

If there is a better example, to be authorized by any human anywhere at any time, independently confirming the facts that forensically matter in any case of any contest where contestants battle to offer a better CODE, then have at it, and let the best LAW win, or let OUTLAWRY win.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

What would Jesus do about claims being made by kidnappers grooming children to be servants to their kidnappers?

Food for the False Gods!

The Six Purposes of Schooling - John Taylor Gatto

“Now you are ready to hear the six purposes of modern schooling taken directly from Dr. Anglisse’s book.”

“The first function of schooling is adjustive. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. It is fixed habits of reaction. Notice that this precludes critical judgment completely. Notice too that requiring obedience to stupid orders is a much better test of function one than following sensible orders ever could be. You don’t know whether people are reflexibly obedient unless they will march right off the cliff.”

“How can you establish whether someone has successfully developed this automatic reaction, because people have a proclivity when they are given sensible orders to follow? That is not what they want to reach. The only way to measure this is to give stupid orders, and people automatically follow those. Now you have achieved function one.”

Volumes of confessions of Organized Kidnapper Union members exceed the authorized Universally Agreeable versions of The Law of The Land by a margin that escapes the boundaries of believably.

Frauds expand more rapidly than the whole truth about fraud by Natural Laws.

Let this be a lesson to those groomed by groomers into a fraudulent belief in the unbelievably evil.

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 our 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."

Ignorance of OUTLAWRY is a costly price to pay for freedom from moral duty.

Latches, so-called, is JUST another way to say I’m not sorry about your belief in being a slave to The ORDER. Feed them bullshit for generations, and these mushrooms will never grow up to be self-evidently self-governing patriots capable of holding the first to the last and the most to the least evil criminal to an accurate accounting of their choices that move humanity closer to Omnicide.

Patriots don’t let patriots take the bait of freedom from moral duty in Witch Courts run by Witch Hunters.

Latches in Civil Rules only work when the slaves are rendered defenseless in ignorance about Treasonous Fraud Parasitic Predators WHO are fully capable of removing the hearts and minds of their kidnap victims faster than the kidnap victims can muster an expedient defense against Evil.

Ignorance is bliss for WHO?

Blame
the victims for being victimized because otherwise, the victims know better than to affix the guilt upon the truly guilty after the demand for the whole truth is supplied to the criminal trial jurors in a Court of Law with speed justifiable according to JUST what Jesus said he would want US to do.

Caveat Emptor