Achilles Heel IV
by Joe Kelley
2-20-2022

Establishing the fact that the Treasonous Fraud problem appears to be unstoppable, just ask them and they will confirm this fact, while not telling you that they depend entirely upon your ignorance of the whole truth, which, in turn, confesses that they have no power you do not give them, no power that they do not take by fraud from you, confessing that YOU are their master and that they are your slave, by their choice with their aggressive attack of Treasonous Fraud, and only after you suffer the attack, defenseless against it, are you then their slave, and they are then your master.

That is the factual whole truth that sets humanity free from devilish Treasonous Fraud.

Then what chicken butt?

How about taking a closer look at internal defenses, so as to identify the Achilles Heel of the defenders?

If one turns back into a former master in need of no slaves, because slavery is a very serious crime involving the complete rejection of moral conscience, demanding a lot of lies that demand more lies, enslaving the liar with the never-ending need for more convincing lies going on into absurdly accelerating volumes of complex interdependent self-enslaving lies, and aggressive violence, but if that is not enough, one must sacrifice ones only power to know happiness when one chooses a life of abject slavery, so what is that Achilles Heel within each former defender turned slave, master, slave, virtually the same thing?

The secret to the defenders Achilles Heel eludes me, but with more help, I may find it, and then I can write about it, as I am writing now, with one competitive defender giving back, passing forward, information that may be of interest to fellow defenders defending against the overpowering effects of Treasonous Fraud.

Clue:
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
Matthew 7:12

All true defenders in my opinion need to live by that operating system in defense. When merely having fun with friends, poking at them, pushing their buttons, in a competitive friendly way, this playful competition allows people to play with doing unto others that which they would defend against were others to dare to do the same, but when push comes to shove, for any real or imaginary reason, have a cooler head before resorting to aggression disguised as defense or the genuine need for assertive defensive force. Friends do not attack first, friends defend each other, foes attack first, foes have no friends, only fellow foes, and they attack from the shadows.

What is the Achilles Heel of the moral operating system?

Needing to know friend from foe appears to be of some vital importance at this juncture in the investigation.

If the answer is that offenders such as the worst offenders, who are those in that category of crimes against humanity, the Treasonous Frauds, are those who do onto others first, before others can be allowed to do the same to them, so as to overpower and steal everyone and everything, then finding that fact with the Golden Rule Operating System proves itself useful to find the Achilles Heel of the Treasonous Frauds. After closer inspection their claims of authority are false, case closed.

If that is proven true over time, each time, then can the same method be used to find the Achilles Heel of the defenders? I mean to ask if Mathew 7:12, The Golden Rule Operating System of Law, can be used to find both the Achilles Heel of the Treasonous Frauds, so The People can exploit that weakness of Treasonous Fraud aggressively with the sword of the common law, which is prosecution in Courts of Law, by private prosecutors, thereby taking down Treasonous Fraud, if that is true then can The People use the same Golden Rule Operating System of Law, which is that system of accurately identifying the facts that matter in the case, can that due process prosecution by private prosecutors also be used to find the Achilles Heel of the defenders, to then defend against exploitation of that weakness being exploited by Treasonous Frauds?

In other words, what are the defenders doing powerfully for each other in defense, what is it that is weak about it? Why is powerful defense something that is so easily turned against the defenders by the offenders, twisting the strength of the defenders against themselves, reversing the power of the defenders and twisting, turning, that defensive power into a power used by the offenders, a power so powerful that once stolen that power appears to be overpowering all effective means of defense?

Well, it must be, if you think about it, the truth that sets us free is also the truth that enslaves us, when the truth is but half true.

That only confirms the original diagnosis. Those enslaved are enslaved because they BELIEVE they know the whole truth and so they “Spread Democracy” by going around the word enslaving people.

The power to cooperate for mutual defense is unstoppable until defenders, each, in turn, have falsehood injected into their operating system, and that operating system is then working on half-truths which mislead, misdirect, and serve only those who produce that falsehood for that purpose.

XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
“4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

When did The People begin to see their well-earned well-placed, effective, expedient, moral investments in justified use of lethal force as their individual payment of Public Debt instead of their individual voluntary contribution to Public Duty? When did The People stop questioning those who are elected to spend The Public Fund in our voluntary mutual defense, turned to virtually allow, even ask for those elected to spend Public Investment Funds For Defense with no accountability for their chosen purchases of Public Duty Funding?

You and I owe each other a measure of defensive power or we are alone against many. Why has our equitable arrangement for our voluntary mutual defense turning, twisting, morphing, changing, into a few very powerful people demanding all that we produce so as to afford those very powerful people the power to take more from us as we grow weaker with each cut cutting into our power of life and our power to defend it?

The key word is voluntary. Public Duty became Public Debt when we the people were enslaved by our collective false belief in the system that gives those elected into power the power to police themselves exclusively.

Here are the keys to the kingdom of liberty, our power to defend ourselves voluntarily, each one of us on an equal footing at law, each one of us affording each other the power to prosecute the worst of us first, moving down the list to the lesser evil among us, take the keys and do whatever pleases you to do to us. We are now officially defenseless, thank you very much.

Do you really believe that no one is looking for those keys and working to take them to the dark dungeons of terrifyingly despotic Treasonous Fraud and keep them hidden?

"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.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Essay on The Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852

Caveat Emptor