Does one ask permission from the one perpetrating a crime to publish their crimes so as to thereby warn anyone who may be targeted by the same criminal?

You may continue to think that I am the stupid one here, and go ahead, see how it continues to work so well for you on into the future.

Dialogue
V = Victim
C = Criminal

V: “Please confess your crimes and post that confession on every public access recording device you can find, so as to warn every other victim you may stumble upon along your chosen path of crime.”

C: “Sure thing.”

Taking a Treason Case before a member of the Treasonous Gang (The Angry Mob) as pro se, pro per, or with yet another member of the Treasonous Gang, to ask permission for those Gang Members to confess publicly is what to you?

With that in mind, consider the following 2 quotes, and I am not intending to speak to members of The Angry Mob, because I know better. I ask this on a public forum to those who still have the power of reason working in their minds founded upon a still working foundation of moral principle.

1. "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.”

2. “When the constitutional procedures of the common law were applied, there could be few convictions for smuggling by juries of ordinary people, who shared in the common interest as sufferers from taxes and monopoly, and hence in the common enthusiasm for smuggling. To circumvent the constitutional courts of common law, the prerogative High Court of Admiralty was established to absorb the jurisdictions of the maritime courts of the seaports, which had administered the traditional sea law and law merchant.”

That answer is, that it is stupid and servile to even consider the possibility that the criminals currently counterfeiting government are going to confess publicly if asked to do so by you, yet people are trained like Pavlov’s Dogs to go right back to the counterfeit government seeking justice.

The words in a Declaration of Independence are publicly published words documenting the futile attempts to ask the criminal gang to stop rioting in the blood of the innocent, please, and having done all that work on that well worn hamster wheel, the victims finally, and publicly, publish their fact findings concerning the clear and present dangers caused by criminal gangs rioting in the blood of the innocent under the false flag of legitimate, legal, lawful, moral, voluntary, government of, by, and for the people in defense of each other.

No?

I’m the one who is stupid?

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

The LAW is often confused with RULES, and why is that happening?

If they are the same, then why are there two words instead of one word?

Pro se or pro per?

Statutes, Edicts, Regulations, Proclamations, Constitutions, Bills, Bills of Rights, Amendments, Ordinances, and every other word is a word that describes a message authorized by an individual and either agreed to by other individuals or not agreed to by other individuals.

If, over time, a RULE does not ever change, it always stays the same, then it could be reasonable, logical, to consider that RULE to be a LAW that governs the behavior of people, such as:

Do unto others that which you would have others do unto you.

A criminal will not follow that rule, as a rule, every single time a criminal perpetrates a crime, as a matter of demonstrable fact, every single time.

Why?

Mens rea or actus reus?

Guilty of mind or guilty act?

Can you claim that a criminal willfully injured an innocent victim, doing unto the victim that which the criminal would defend against were the victim to dare to do the same to the criminal, if the injury was the result of an accident?

It is an accident of birth that you were born into a time and place in which the deceivers kidnap you from birth and feed you outrageous lies, such as the lie that they, these criminals, are authorities authorized to protect and serve you, to protect you from harm done by criminals acting alone, or criminals formed into criminal gangs, including criminal gangs foreign to this area called America.

You do not have to be stupid and servile your whole life, not when clearly expressed data proves that there are clear and present dangers in the counterfeit governments warranting due process of law employed by any member of the people (the victims) in defense against any one of those criminals currently counterfeiting government.

If there is a member of the whole people, an individual, who can help any other member gain access to rule of law, due process of law, in defense against any member of the counterfeit government gang, any place, any time, in America, will that member of the whole people be wearing a badge, waving a license, claiming authority to do so, or will that member of the whole people merely show the steps required to be taken?

Where are the private prosecutors?

Where are the independent grand jurors?

Where are the independent trial jurors?

Has anyone even read the Bill of Rights with a working brain capable of reason from a solid foundation of moral principle?

No?

God help us, we are not helping each other.