Bonding Slavery II
by Joe Kelley
FOR THE WIN
“Every Government Elected Official since 1792 is obligated to obtain a PUBLIC OFFICIAL SURETY bond before he can take the oath of office.”
The obvious problem to some, and the problem oblivious to others, on this path of chasing these Treasonous Frauds down and then holding them accountable for their crimes against humanity, is that the Acts, Statutes, Codes, and Rules are written by Treasonous Frauds, for Treasonous Frauds, because the signs and symbols on that path are of Treasonous Fraud.
Civil is a word, a sign, and an arrangement of symbols.
People are led to believe that the word “Civil” means civilized, peaceful, advanced, moral, productive, lawful, legal, defensive, responsible, and accurately accountable people who agree to defend each other from all enemies of civilized people, both foreign and domestic.
If that is not true, then would someone ever trust someone using the word “Civil” again?
If the word “Civil” is used to deceive people into giving up their peace, productivity, and defensive responsibilities, and this deception works in fact to remove accurate accountability, then is it therefore stupid and servile to trust people who misuse the word “Civil” as a form of Treasonous Fraud?
This is a serious question for those who have a deep concern for the future of humanity now run by The Deep State, not IT (not THE LEGAL FICTION) itself, rather actual people running IT, each having names, each wearing clothes in public.
The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
“Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."
"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."
"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World, both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both, a soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."
"By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which, at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."
"Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For in America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law."
Note: "In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law."
There is the confession. "Civil" means uncivilized, as in "Civil War," and other in-your-face examples of just how uncivilized those Rulers Rule by Civil Rules. "Civil" means Treasonous Fraud in fact.
That is a fact, and it matters.
No standing doctrine, out with global warming and out with civilizing people, out with subsidized slavery too, now “we” (The Club) are facing Climate Change by Democratization as Human Traffickers.
The readers of my work here and now may have thought that Bonding Code Litigation would bring down the house of cards and drain the swamp of corruption in towns, cities, counties, states, and THE ONE NATIONAL government, and I agree, but only after one more straw is placed on the back of TRUST in Treasonous Frauds.
One more straw breaks the spell of deception by word magic.
Efforts by all defenders who attempt to defend humanity by holding Bond Holders to account for their Bonding Codes lead inevitably to an accuser, a defendant, and a form of adjudication by one or more human beings empowered to adjudicate the matter placed before the adjudicating power.
A Treasonous Fraud system places a Treasonous Fraud judging in favor of Treasonous Fraud, or failing to do so, that Treasonous Fraud who Rats on fellow Treasonous Frauds will face a death sentence for that RAT in those Ranks.
All of the governments at all levels in America have been run by Treasonous Frauds knowingly and unknowingly since 1789, and that is because the federated republics under the common law were overruled by Treasonous Frauds who placed “Civil Law” back on top of common law. The arbitrators and adjudicators were no longer of, by, and for the people, as it is in common law, instead the arbitrators and adjudicators became a legal fiction entity, a Collective Power by Fiat, an arbitrary “government” prerogative and privilege, with claimed checks and balances, sureties, bonds, and Fail-Safe mechanisms to keep criminals out of government offices, all of which are empty promises placed in a bag where the people, who are considered property by their masters, get the empty bag, while the masters of slaves get all the power and profits, all that they can steal from their stupid and servile slaves, while their stupid and servile slaves are mislead by Treasonous Fraud, defenseless, powerless, and growing less powerful by each measure of power flowing to their masters, as those masters grow ever more powerful by the same transfers of power.
So that is the bad news, and it isn’t comforting, but from what lineage are true American Patriots born?
Hearing bad news brings one to stop listening? Seeing bad news brings one to blind obedience? Having one's voice stolen brings one to silence oneself?
Is that a fact?
Accusations move from private prosecutors to independent county grand jurors for validation. Valid accusations are written on True Bills, with the defendant named and the defendant invited to a Criminal Court of Law in any of over 3,000 American County Jurisdictions according to the law of the land, in federated republics.
When bonding codes are exposed as yet another rabbit hole placed in the path of true patriots, like hamsters on a hamster wheel, the evidence proving the facts that matter mounts ever higher, eventually reaching a tipping point, and as massive numbers of people fall over that tipping point, each individual will be looking for redress and remedy to restore humanity back on a prosperous path for posterity. Some will have signs and symbols in their memory that can lead them on the accurate accountability path. Some will not. Some will read deceptive signs and symbols leading back into Civil Law Courts, Exchequer Courts, Chancery Courts, Equity Courts, and Human Traffic Family Courts.
Military Courts are similarly divided by true and false motives inspiring people to action in either direction.
The accurate accountability path, the responsible and moral path, is in part exemplified and eluded to in a Declaration of Independence, which is a common law defiance, and any of many Bills of Rights, along with any of many well-hidden common law trial by jury Trial Transcripts.
Qui Non Prohibet Cum Potest Jubet
Sua Jura Libertates Suas
Judicium Parium Suorum
Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello, Jus Post Bellum