David Straight Day 1 AM

Determined to Listen Past Religious Dogma and Fraudulent Grants from Constitutional Rights
by
Joe Kelley

At time 23:20
“What I proved with Judge...that there is two governments...”

“We the people lay down the law...”

Before proceeding here, this narrative offered in the video linked, is fundamentally flawed when speaking about the 1787 Con Job that followed through to fruition with the 1789 Treasonous Fraud document known as The Constitution of 1789. Evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that those behind the Con Job were forbidden by their previous Federal agreement to Annihilate the previous Federal agreement, and then to fill the vacuum they create with a National Corporate Legal Fiction in place of the Annihilated Federal Agreement.

So this individual speaking about his opinion of the LAW bases his founding of knowledge on an easily proven treason. This individual founding his knowledge of Law on treason gives license to treason from then on. How can anyone credit this individual with anything other than aiding and abetting treason? The people did not perpetrate treason in 1787, the people did not “lay down the law” in 1787 behind closed doors, in secret proceedings, secreted away from the people, with gag orders issued to those present at the secret proceedings in 1787. To suggest that the people created, let alone enforce, the Constitution of 1789, hatched from the dirty deals made by human traffickers, central banking frauds, warmongers, aristocrats, and assorted other special criminal interests, is at least criminally negligent, and if it could be proven that this individual knows better, then his part in treason is mens rea willful crime, an act perpetrated from a guilty mind.

The individual speaking about de jure and de facto governments, two types of “government” spelled out by his testimony concerning the law of the land, is a narrative, a story, an opinion, with demonstrable falsehoods embedded into the message. Why employ de jure if the meaning is naturally right, moral, lawful, legal, on an equal footing, leaving no one excluded from due process of law, and why use de facto, if the meaning intended is to spell out a treason against moral right, natural right, and equal access to the same law afforded by each volunteer to each other volunteer, for mutual defense?

If there are criminals in government running a criminal version of government, why call it de facto? Why not call it what it is: treason?

Here is evidence of the treason of 1787. This evidence is a confession. This evidence is found in the notes taken by one of those present behind the closed doors in the secret proceedings that I call the Con Con Con Job of 1787, also called by others: The Dirty Compromise:

Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
“A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

“Legal” Elite Experts will spellbind the curious into rationalizing the treason of annihilating the confederation, as if it were anything other than treason, as if these assembled criminals had a right to enslave millions of people for decades, and as if these assembled criminals had a right to ensure a future war of aggression between a divided people divided by the treason that began in 1787 and followed through to the current situation facing yet another divided people divided by treasonous frauds at the top of their pyramid scheme created as a Legal Fiction in 1789 with the Constitution having the names of the treasonous criminals written on their confession of treasonous guilt.

The treasonous criminals actually signed the document that documented their act of treason against the people of the federated independent states.

George Mason, 1787
"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, 1788
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

George Mason attended the Con Con Con Job of 1787, he refused to sign the confession of treasonous guilt now falsely advertised as THE Constitution of The United States, and the records of his opposition to the ongoing treason helped ensure the process of Amendments attempting, but failing miserably, to put the treasonous genie back into the lawful binding of the bottle from which the treason was released by criminals seeking arbitrary, totalitarian, power.

I see a need to return to this pretend authority of law, as this type of Controlled Opposition out of ignorance or out of malevolent intent, demands an effort to expose it as misleading, damaging, and counter, or opposite, law based upon facts that matter in each case.

Either the people know the law or they are led into enslavement by treasonous frauds.