Cut and Paste. This belongs here too:

Rule of Law versus Rule by Criminal Means?

Are innocent people injured by aggressive people intent on causing injury to innocent people?

Once upon a time someone “at war with society” was considered a Felon, and as such the Felon who was at war with society was considered an outlaw, which is someone who decides to begin causing injury to innocent people.

Rule of Law returns when criminals are no longer allowed to injure innocent people with impunity.

Rule by Criminal Means happens when Criminals overpower defensive forces constituted from moral people who will not stand idle while criminals run amok in the playground.

An analogy I like to use is a fictional pack of Mad Dogs tearing through a playground full of children, where the pack of Mad Dogs rip children apart in the playground until there are no more children in that playground, and then the pack of Mad Dogs move to the next playground.

Some people have enough of it, so some people do something about it, such as (at the very least) Publicly indict the pack of Mad Dogs, describing their crimes in detail, and acknowledging the fact that the pack of Mad Dogs are, in fact, criminals, even if the pack of Mad Dogs have not yet been found guilty in a Court of Law.

I will show a non-fictional account of this very process by which some people reach a point at which they have had enough of the crimes perpetrated by the pack of Mad Dogs, and these people who have had enough of the crimes perpetrated by the pack of Mad Dogs join forces in defense against the aggressive, attacking, criminal, pack of Mad Dogs.

You can ride along as a passenger as we travel through this example of a time and place where some people begin down the path of effective defense, and a return to rule of law, a return to rule of law clawing their way back as they find themselves deep in a despotic hole dug by the pack of Mad Dogs. The children’s bodies pile high in the deep despotic holes dug by the pack of Mad Dogs as they happily move from one playground to the next, destroying all good things as they go.

“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Source:
[loc.gov]

I link the source because some people are going to claim that my narrative here is a pack of lies told by someone working for the pack of Mad Dogs.

That ought to be understood by those who truly need to return to rule of law and dig themselves out of the deep state we are in, a hole dug deep on the backs of human independence, human freedom, human liberty, where people are free to find their bright star in liberty, rather than people being robbed, extorted, raped, horrified, tortured, enslaved, murdered, and murdered en masse, murdered by the builders and those who maintain Subsidized Slavery (of everyone): the pack of Mad Dogs. It ought to be understood that those who build and maintain Subsidized Slavery (of everyone) lie. One of their lies is routine, and that ought to be understood. The routine lie is the lie that their victims are guilty of what they are doing to their victims. So...when I tell this narrative, I will be accused of telling lies, so I am linking my sources.

The good guys defend against the bad guys, and in the case mentioned the bad guys are The British Aggressors whose intent is to enslave everyone in America, and the cost of enslaving everyone in America will be paid from the productive work done by Americans: Subsidized Slavery.

What about the following?

“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

Is it important to accurately discriminate the difference between someone challenging criminals who claim to be government authorities and someone perpetrating crimes while claiming to be challenging criminals who claim to be the government?

It is important to me, perhaps not to anyone else.

In the above text are words that are relevant to the current situation in America as some people are obviously (self-evident facts that matter) inciting a war between White and Black people: Race War.

So...again, is it important to accurately discriminate the difference between good and bad people?

Case in point (riding along as passengers in a historical account of a power struggle between good and bad people):

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

The British incited Race War (according to Thomas Jefferson) in order to subject all Americans to their form of Subsidized Slavery of everyone subject to British Rule. The means to the end is criminal means to criminal ends when the criminals like the British Monarchy fund their “government” with “legalized” slavery.

If it were Rule of Law, not Subsidized Slavery, then the slaves would be on juries, and the slaves would set each other free, because when there is Rule of Law the people, not the government, decide facts at law.

You think not? If you think not, they you are possibly an innocent victim of the lies so often told by the pack of Mad Dogs.

Tomas Paine
Rights of Man
Page 52.
"A government on the principles on which constitutional governments arising out of society are established, cannot have the right of altering itself. If it had, it would be arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shows there is no constitution."

“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
That above is a quote from a 1788 Supreme Court Case. The judge in that case is Thomas M’Kean, who was also a President of The United States of America:
Thomas McKean (DE)
2nd President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
July 10, 1781 to November 5, 1781

1. Good side: Rule of Law, the people as jurors decide, the government does not decide.

2. Bad side: Rule by Criminals means, the criminals do whatever they want, they have 2 sets of rules, one set is enforced upon the slaves, the other set is the rules that keep their criminal organization from eating itself.

If you think you are on the good side, you may be deceived.

If the good side was in power then the worst of the worst would be offered a court date. The court would be a Court of Law, not a Court of Admiralty or Equity, or a Military Tribunal.

The Court of Law where the accused was the worst of the worst criminal currently running amok in the playground, and the trial would proceed according to the common law, but the trial would be a formality, so as to Transcribe the Facts that matter in the case, so as to inform the public of those facts that matter, because all lives matter, so it matters when some lives are being destroyed willfully by criminals.

Where is the publication of the court date in a Court of Law where the good side is represented, and the facts that matter according to the good side are brought to the jury, for the jury to decide on behalf of The Public, on behalf of the good side (assuming of course that there is anyone left in the country capable of representing the good side), where is this court date?

Where is the publication of the court date where the accused is afforded the opportunity to state their case before the jury, so that the jury can decide if the actions of the accused warrant (probable cause) a guilty verdict?

Who exactly is inciting Race War?

Where is the court date?

I submit to you that Rule of Law left America some time ago.

If it returns there will be a Court of Law where those most guilty are before The People in a Trial by The Country; a trial by jury according to the common law.

Once upon a time in America the people commanded the power of prosecution (the sword) not merely the power of defense (the shield) at law, because the law was determined by the people, not the government.

Think about that, please. Consider, please, the fact that there is no court case, yet there are prima facie (self-evident) perpetrators inciting Race War, and there is an obvious central power (puppet masters pulling the strings behind the curtain) at work, so discovery during investigation (independent grand jury, populated by non-government officers: the people, not the government) of one puppet would certainly lead to discovery of their masters, and then additional charges, additional court dates, at law (not Admiralty or Equity or Military).

The absence of a court date (before the people, before common law juries) proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no law in America.

What do you expect to happen in a land where there is no law?