AWARE V WOKE V
by Joe Kelley
9-18- 20 2 2

Dr.SHIVA CALL-IN: IS Ron DeSantis, Trump 2.0 the New “Savior”? Martha’s Vineyard Theater & Hypocrisy. Today, saturday, 8pm est.
[facebook.com] 2513690011

I called in and despite a feedback problem from my end, my question was received, a short exchange, and then I was cut-off.

Time 1:35:40

Me,
“How does the system approach the factor of the common laws.”

Dr. Shiva,
“Ok, so someone wants, someone wants to talk about the systems approach for common laws, Ok, let’s just talk about it this way, you’re talking about it from the constitutional standpoint, right?”

Me, after moving away from the feedback source:

"Yea, ah, the original common law, also called the ancient law, before it was called the ancient law it was called the unwritten law, and the unwritten law, ancient law, law of the land in Latin, Legem Terrae, was a voluntary association, and, if you don’t know what that is, then you can’t factor it into a systems approach.”

Dr. Shiva,
“Well, I think what you need to do is you need to get up into the modern times, and first take the course, before, because you are sort of sitting in ah, talking about Latin and stuff, and we’re in 2022, and we’re living in a world of systems, complex systems, so why don’t you study that, and then we’ll have a conversation. Thank you.”

Me: “Yea” CUT OFF by Dr. Shiva,

The comment cut-off was, but not recorded and not now verbatim:

If someone is claiming that morality is antiquated, and morality is no longer factored into modern systems, and then the claim is that I need to get up to speed by learning a system that factors out morality, then how can a system that factors out morality be any different morally than the current system that is completely infected with Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities?

A voluntary system has existed since before people preserved written documents, and that is why it is called the unwritten law.

It is probably a good thing that I have had an opportunity to sleep on this “conversation” (one-sided equals dictatorial) involving what appears to me to be a publicly announced antiquating of the common law.

According to some people, voluntary association for mutual defense, or the common law, is no longer worthy of discovery, and validation, and therefore not worthy of prosecution. 

Common law is dumped conveniently down into the memory hole, never to be seen again. 

The unwritten law is carried forward in human DNA, human personal contact, humans handing down their hard-earned experiences fighting Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities, doing so well before well-preserved written history. Even the hard-to-find written history has to be discovered with care and a bias toward the whole truth, so as to learn from the past, learn how to get past Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities, and learn how not to have to make the same mistakes again, and again, and again. 

Case in point:
“Hallam says, "The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. If a, vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long-enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects' swords to abandon any pretension, would be supposed to have ceased to reign; and the express recognition of such a right as that of insurrection has been justly deemed inconsistent with the majesty of law. But ruder ages had ruder sentiments. Force was necessary to repel force; and men accustomed to see the king's authority defied by a private riot, were not much shocked when it was resisted in defence of public freedom." - 3 Middle Age, 240- 2.”
Essay on The Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 185 2

The system used in the Middle Ages included the option to opt out of a morally justifiable system that has been turned into a system that operates outside of morally justifiable boundaries, turned immoral by Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities. That type of systematic moral capacity to conscientiously object to paying criminals for their “protection” from them was carried forward in writing by moral human beings.

When criminals take over, YOU publish your remedy, publish your defiance, stop paying for your own march to Omnicide, for Heaven's sake, don't you know that it is immoral to aid and abet known criminals?

But, I didn't know they were criminals, they were Not-So-Obvious. 

Case in point:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
First Congress, July, 1776, America

As the people in America were forming republics, debating over the need to publish a document from common law precedent, which is a defiance, or a Declaration of Independence, against the invading British Empire criminals, they also federated the republics into a federal voluntary mutual defense association under the common law, each republic reserving the moral duty to cut ties in case the federal government turns despotic, and doing so on their official records as they formed an effective, expedient, defense against formerly Not-So-Obvious Established Personalities. 

The federation lasted until 1789, and then the Not-So-Obvious Established Personalities Not-So-Obviously annihilated the federation of republics, and those Not-So-Obvious Personalities over-ruled the common law with a Witch Hunt Witch Court System copied from The British Empire model, which was copied from the Roman Empire Model, also known as Civil Law. 

Before the Not-So-Obvious Establishment personalities from The East India Company, British Empire, Human Trafficking Cartels, Central Banking Frauds, and Warmonger Cartel members created their Slave Trade deal in 1789, also known as The Dirty Compromise, also known as The Constitution of 1789, before that coup, there was a version of history that is now censored, cut off from the people currently living today.

The Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities in 1787 overruled the then-existing federal constitution of 1781, there was a federation of republics under the system of justice known as the common law operating between 1774 and 1789. 

Case in point:
14th of October, 1774
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

Moral principles carried forward in human DNA are inclusive in common law precedent, and include the following principles, but are not limited to the following short list:

1. By defiance, declaration, or notice of liability, each independent individual can opt out of a system turned immoral by Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities.

2. The system is a systematic method of charging each independent defender with the moral duties of discovering Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities, validating the cause to prosecuting them, and prosecuting them, making them Obvious to all the people with Public Notices taken from Trial Transcripts recorded during the criminal trial by jury process that proceeds from beginning to end with a verdict and a remedy offered to the defendant when found guilty by the independent jurors representing the people as a whole. 

3. No one can be punished for any crime unless the accused has passed a validation process conducted by independent grand jurors to then pass the threshold of probable cause according to those independent grand jurors, not government employees, in the county jurisdiction where the injury was caused by the criminal upon the victim, the crime that threatens the public as a whole, a concern currently of concern to the people as a whole, but only if the Not-So-Obvious criminals are somehow, systematically, made obvious to the public as a whole, or at least made obvious to those who are concerned for the safety of the public as a whole, or their own self-interest. 

4. All moral human beings, to the extent of their capacity, are duty-bound to prosecute all criminal cases warranted by the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that must be discovered, validated, and prosecuted to protect the next victim before the next victim falls at the hands of those lusting for innocent blood, such as those Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities.

A short list, to be wished away into antiquated human history, to make room for more Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities. 

The tried and true system that holds all criminals to account for the injuries that they cause upon innocent victims is curiously censored by every single Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personality, because, as a rule, that systematic approach to uncovering those criminals uncovers those criminals and they are no longer able to be Not-So-Obvious.

Dr. Shiva:
“Let’s talk about the relevant issues here, because you have a lot of the people start talking about, you know, Medieval crap and stuff like this, and common laws, these have nothing to do with the legitimate issues that we’re dealing with now, so this is sort of the mistaken thinking, its sort of being told what to think, not how to think.”

Case in point:
“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.”
Mathew 7:1 2, also known as The Golden Rule.

That is a suggestion by a human being to other persons as to how one might think about their next actions as their next actions may “cut off” someone offering a better moral way to think and then act responsibly.

Adaptability is built into the unwritten law, charging each independent individual with moral duty as a fellow defender of humanity. 

The opposite way to think is to do to other people those things that you would defend against were other people to dare do the same to you such as cutting off your voice midway through a counterfeit conversation solicited by the dictator choosing to cut off the voice of a competitive version of how to think.

Then the actor acting upon the impulse to cut off a competitive voice chooses to speak for the voice, like a ventriloquist speaking as the voice that was cut off by the ventriloquist, as if the dictator can dictate what someone else is thinking and do so without their permission. 

Dr. Shiva:
“The bottom line right now is, we need to recognize, to see the whole, not just look at common law, or constitutional law, or this law, many of those systems were set up 200, 300 years ago, the universal principle of System Science goes beyond any of these, you know, issues of, of a set of human laws that were created for a particular time. The concepts that we discussed, these principles are time immemorial.”

That which you the reader, assuming anyone does read this far, that which was cut off during the counterfeit conversation, are messages that you can read now, as my version of “these principles” contend with those as “time immemorial” and any other claims made by anyone else. I do not cut off the valuable voice of Dr. Shiva. Why?

Why do I spread the messages from Dr. Shiva? I do so because those messages from Dr. Shiva are vital messages offered to mankind in my opinion, except for the obvious problems documented during an attempted conversation. 

Why would someone throw out the baby along with the bath water? 

Those who volunteer to help defend humanity from Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities constitute a number of individual defensive powers adding to a sum total collective power and if that sum total of defensive power is less than the sum total of the Not-So-Obvious Establishment Personalities with their Not-So-Obvious lust for innocent blood, then humanity accelerates rapidly to the logical goal in the minds of the Not-So-Obvious Establishment personalities, a goal now called Omnicide.

How does one reinvent the wheel?

Is it a rule that one must cut off all the voices of those who point out that the wheel already exists if one were to choose to ignore the past experience of humanity? 

A systematic approach to conscientiously objecting to being made to work toward Omnicide now, in Modern Times, includes something called a Notice of Liability. Where do you think systematic defensive action at law originated?

Look in the mirror if you are the least bit curious about a competitive adaptive and unique answer to that, or any moral question facing humanity, including YOU. 

Caveat Emptor