The Electoral College Will Meet December 14, 2020. Here’s what you should know now.

[sites.lib.jmu.edu]

"Creating a procedure for how the country’s executive would be chosen was a consequential task for the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College was born out of a compromise of ideas between the election of the president by popular vote and the election of the president by the Congress."

"The Northern states and Southern states had roughly an equal population size when including enslaved people from the south. However, since enslaved people could not vote, the North would have had a larger amount of voting power than the South due to its larger population size. The Electoral College was created to address this issue."

FALSE CHECK

The above wishes away the entire moral struggle in America between advocates of common law, rule of law, truth based justice, independence, responsibility, and accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case of conflict - on one side - and on the other side are the despots, the tyrants, the liars, the frauds, the thieves, the torturers, the murderers, the mass murderers, the consumers of slaves, the kidnappers who kidnap slaves, the buyers and sellers of slaves, and all of those in the business and industry of fraudulently subsidized slavery.

All of the history of that great battle between good and evil in early America is suspiciously swept under the rug in the above report which pertains to the current treasonous crimes known as Election Fraud.

Why is it important to get history straight, rather than swallowing whole the crooked versions of history?

At the time of the Revolution in America the common law was demonstrated as the method by which any slavery is accurately identified for what it is - crime - and that fact that matters is then published as a lawful cause to act - at law - in defense of the innocent from the guilty.

But no one today cares to even see the evidence?

Repeat the words you are told to repeat until you embody the CULT membership requirements. You must become a fellow of the CULT. You must blind yourself. You must muzzle yourself. You must not hear any evidence of the facts that matter in the case, ever.

"There is no evidence."

Repeat!

"There is no evidence."

Louder, slave, repeat!

"There is no evidence."

While you are at it, while you muzzle yourself, I'll repeat the evidence that was evidently good enough to set the slaves free.

“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.”

While you are obeying the command to hear nothing, because you believe the lies you are told, I'll republish the words that were good enough to publish during the criminal take-over of America in our collective past.

June 17, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."

While you are obedient to the cause of self censorship, I will remind those who refuse to succumb to the sirens song, their historical founders words:

March 23, 1775
Patrick Henry
"For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

And while ONE SIDE is selfishly digging their own grave to hell, refusing to acknowledge the facts that matter in the case, I will let Thomas Jefferson confess the horrible truth, while you remain diligent in your refusal to admit precisely which side you choose to be on.

On the 20th day of October 1774
"This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."

On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence (CENSORED, REDACTED, portion)
"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."

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."

Why is it important to get history straight, rather than swallowing whole the crooked versions of history?

As in the past so it is today. The law provides the means to protect the innocent from the guilty. Those who are guilty of election fraud today are as numerous as the slave traders who pushed forward their Constitution in 1789 as a percentage of the total population.

Those pushing forward the Slave Subsidizing (for 20 years) Constitution of 1789, were few in number, but too many compared to those for freedom. The slave traders won, then. Will the slave traders, now called Human Traffickers (Jeffery Epstein, Maxwell, et al.) win now? The central banking fraud won then. Will the central banking frauds win now? The warmongers profiting by investing in both sides won then. Will the warmongers win now? The treasonous propaganda press won then. Will the treasonous propaganda press win now?

If there is no employment of the actual law now, as it was then, during the crucial moments of usurpation, then what are the odds, if you were to bet on it, for the good side to win against the evil side?

Why is there no grand jury (see bill of rights) formed in any county in any state in the federation of states, where that grand jury by probable cause warranted by the self-evident facts that matter in this Election Fraud case, issuing a presentment or indictment to put the self-evident leaders of the fraud on the schedule for a Trail by Jury in a Court of Law?

If they can set a slave free in 1781 America utilizing the law of the land, the common law, then why can't anyone, from sea to shinning sea, the home of the brave and the land of the free, see clearly the path to peace, harmony, and justice for all?

Because it is, since 1789, the home of the stupid and servile mass minions.

Prove me wrong, please.

""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." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots

"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."
Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)