Counter to Morality II
by Joe Kelley
"We talk about Henry Kissinger - the 'Grey Man' - no one in the MSM or Alt Media seems to notice. It's all Fauci, Gates, Hillary, Obama, BLM, Proud Boys, Left Wing, Right Wing, Liberals, Conservatives, Soros etc...ad infunatim. Kissinger & Associates, Atlantic Council + 100 other foundations and Think Tanks leading all the way back to the UK/EU Banking Cartels. When will we learn?”
If one has allowed oneself to begin thinking counter to morality, then one proceeds down a path from that foundation of quicksand as progress progressively moves people straight down to hell on earth on purpose. Sure, the counter moral patriot is eager to get to the counter moral goal because the counter moral patriot can only see the well-dressed naked Emperor issuing orders that cannot be questioned.
Where do I go from my foundation of counter moral quicksand Fearless Leader?
"As the trial by jury is provided for in criminal causes, I shall confine my observations to civil causes — and in these, I hold it is the established right of the jury by the common law, and the fundamental laws of this country, to give a general verdict in all cases when they chuse to do it, to decide both as to law and fact, whenever blended together in the issue put to them. Their right to determine as to facts will not be disputed, and their right to give a general verdict has never been disputed, except by a few judges and lawyers, governed by despotic principles. Coke, Hale, Holt, Blackstone, De Lo[l]me, and almost every other legal or political writer, who has written on the subject, has uniformly asserted this essential and important right of the jury. Juries in Great-Britain and America have universally practised accordingly. Even Mansfield, with all his wishes about him, dare not directly avow the contrary. What fully confirms this point is, that there is no instance to be found, where a jury was ever punished for finding a general verdict, when a special one might, with propriety, have been found. The jury trial, especially politically considered, is by far the most important feature in the judicial department in a free country, and the right in question is far the most valuable part, and the last that ought to be yielded, of this trial. Juries are constantly and frequently drawn from the body of the people, and freemen of the country; and by holding the jury’s right to return a general verdict in all cases sacred, we secure to the people at large, their just and rightful controul in the judicial department. If the conduct of judges shall be severe and arbitrary, and tend to subvert the laws, and change the forms of government, the jury may check them, by deciding against their opinions and determinations, in similar cases. It is true, the freemen of a country are not always minutely skilled in the laws, but they have common sense in its purity, which seldom or never errs in making and applying laws to the condition of the people, or in determining judicial causes, when stated to them by the parties. The body of the people, principally, bear the burdens of the community; they of right ought to have a controul in its important concerns, both in making and executing the laws, otherwise they may, in a short time, be ruined. Nor is it merely this controul alone we are to attend to; the jury trial brings with it an open and public discussion of all causes, and excludes secret and arbitrary proceedings. This, and the democratic branch in the legislature, as was formerly observed, are the means by which the people are let into the knowledge of public affairs — are enabled to stand as the guardians of each others rights, and to restrain, by regular and legal measures, those who otherwise might infringe upon them. I am not unsupported in my opinion of the value of the trial by jury; not only British and American writers, but De Lo[l]me, and the most approved foreign writers, hold it to be the most valuable part of the British constitution, and indisputably the best mode of trial ever invented."
Richard Henry Lee
Federal Farmer XV
January 18, 1788
Moral examples create moral precedent which teaches morality when the evidence has not been tampered with by Treasonous Frauds who routinely twist the facts in ORDER to counter morality.
If one requires Lord Master Coke, for example, to lead the way fearlessly, instead of oneself bearing the responsibility and therefore the accountability of one’s own actions, religiously and secularly, then one is being led like sheep by wolves in sheep clothing, and one is risking being led by counter moral individuals or cults formed by counter moral individuals.
One might want to reserve the right to question ORDERS issued from Treasonous Frauds.
"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."
The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlin
Who exactly speaks for Christ, for Christ's Sake?
Witch Court does one allow oneself to be led into for a cause to act irresponsibly and unaccountably?
Where do the criminals go to get their get out of accountability cards charged to the Public Fund?
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."
"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."
Declaration of Independence, Redacted by Treasonous Frauds, July, 1776
"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."
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
If one has built their foundation on moral grounds, one may discover independently, validate independently, and then prosecute their discovered cause to act in defense of an innocent moral human being, a human being who is then being defended from injury persecuted and perpetrated by the guilty perp who is malevolently charged to cause injury to the innocent.
Who is charged with guilt by witch "CHRISTIAN" King or Lord or Master masterminding the enslavement of humanity within the codes that codify inhumanity?
Do as I say, not as I do, or else.
Your Honor is counter to morality by some hidden power or NOT so hidden behind a thin and thinning veil of Treasonous Fraud.
If one has built their foundation on counter moral grounds, they may discover independently, validate independently, and then persecute their independently discovered and validated cause to act malevolently as they then execute their sentence upon their innocent victim, doing so with malice aforethought. One taking the bait that builds the hidden foundation of quicksand goes down the same path albeit ignorantly.
Who needs help in either direction to either the Witch Court or a County Criminal Court of Law?
WWJD for Christ's Sake?
“We also know that, by Magna Carta, amercements, or fines, could not be imposed to the ruin of the criminal; that, in the case of a freeman, his contenement, or means of subsisting in the condition of a freeman, must be saved to him; that, in the case of a merchant, his merchandise must be spared; and in the case of a villein, his waynage, or plough-tackle and carts. This also is likely to have been a princple of the common law, inasmuch as, in that rude age, when the means of getting employment as laborers was not what they are now, the man and his family would probably have been liable to starvation, if these means of subsistence had been taken from him.
"We also know, generally, that, at the time of Magna Carta, all acts intrinsically criminal, all trespasses against persons and property, were crimes, according to lex terrae, or the common law.
"Beyond the points now given, we hardly know anything, probably nothing with certainty, as to what the “legem terrae” of Magna Carta did authorize, in regard to crimes. There is hardly anything extant that can give us any real light on the subject.
"It would seem, however, that there were, even at that day, some common law principles governing arrests; and some common law forms and rules as to holding a man for trial, (by bail or imprisonment; ) putting him on trial, such as by indictment or complaint; summoning and empanelling jurors, &c, &c. Whatever these common law principles were, Magna Carta requires them to be observed; for Magna Carta provides for the whole proceedings, commencing with the arrest, (“no freeman shall be arrested,” &c., ) and ending with the execution of the sentence. And it provides that nothing shall be done, by the government, from beginning to end, unless according to the sentence of the peers, or “legem terrae,” the common law. The trial by peers was a part of legem terrae, and we have seen that the peers must necessarily have governed the whole proceeding at the trial. But all the proceedings for arresting the man, and bringing him to trial, must have been had before the case could come under the cognizance of the peers, and they must, therefore, have been governed by other rules than the discretion of the peers. We may conjecture, although we cannot perhaps know with much certainty, that the lex terrae, or common law, governing these other proceedings, was somewhat similar to the common law principles, on the same points, as the present day. Such seem to be the opinions of Coke, who says that the phrase nisi per legem terrae means unless by due process of law.
"This, he says:
“Nisi per legem terrae. But by the law of the land. For the true sense and exposition of these words, see the statute of 37 Edw. III., cap. 8, where the words, by the law of the land, are rendered without due process of law; for there it is said, though it be contained in the Great Charter, that no man be taken, imprisoned, or put out of his freehold, without process of the law; that is, by indictement or presentment of good and lawful men, where such deeds be done in due manner, or by writ original of the common law.
“Without being brought in to answer but by due process of the common law.
“No man be put to answer without presentment before justices, or thing of record, or by due process, or by writ original, according to the old law of the land.” - 2 Inst. 50.
"The foregoing interpretations of the words nisi per legem terrae are corroborated by the following statutes, enacted in the next century after Magna Carta.
“That no man, from henceforth, shall be attached by any accusation, nor forejudged of life or limb, nor his land, tenements, goods, nor chattels, seized into the king’s hands, against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the land.” - St. 5 Edward III., Ch. 9. (1331.)
“Whereas it is contained in the Great Charter of the franchises of England, that none shall be imprisoned, nor put out of his freehold, nor of his franchises, nor free customs, unless it be by the law of the land; it is accorded, assented, and established, that from henceforth none shall be taken by petition, or suggestion made to our lord the king, or to his council, unless it be by indictment of presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighborhood where such deeds be done in due manner, or by process made by writ original at the common law; nor that none be put out of his franchises, nor of his freehold, unless he be duly brough into answer, and forejudged of the same by the course of the law; and if anything be done against the same, it shall be redressed and holden for none.” - St. 25 Edward III., Ch. 4. (1350.)
“That no man, of what estate or condition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of law.” - St. 28 Edward III., Ch. 3. (1354.)
“That no man be put to answer without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process and writ original, according to the old law of the land. And if anything from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in law, and holden for error.” - St. 42 Edward III., Ch. 3. (1368.)
"The foregoing interpretation of the words nisi per legem terrae - that is, by due process of law - including indictment, &c., has been adopted as the true one by modern writers and courts; as, for example, by Kent, (2 Comm. 13,) Story, (3 Comm. 661,) and Supreme Court of New York, (19 Wendell, 676; 4 Hill, 146.)
"The fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States seems to have been framed on the same idea, inasmuch as it provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.*”
“*Coke, in his exposition of the words legem terrae, gives quite in detail the principles of the common law governing arrests; and takes it for granted that the words “nisi per legem terrae” are applicable to arrests, as well as to the indictment, &c. - 2 Inst., 51, 52.”
Essay on The Trial by Jury
Lysander Spooner, 1852
If one allows someone to counter the law of the land with a counterfeit Witch Court, then which way will we go in Union under One Purse?
Don’t answer a question forbidden to be asked.