The next link is a YouTube published lecture titled: Shays Rebellion: Revolution's Final Battle - Leo Richards

The lawful meet the unlawful because the unlawful incrementally consume the lawful. To some people the events documented by Leo Richards will be out of their world, or in other words the information will have no relevance to some people. To other people there will be familiar routines - patterns of behavior - that occur today and these behaviors will be shown by Leo Richards to have been routine behavior during what Leo calls the Revolution's Final Battle.

People gain power over other people through abuse of the government. I call it counterfeit government because the abuse constitutes demonstrable crimes, crimes that would be obvious crimes if the facts that matter were presented to a lawful jury. Crimes are crimes because they are crimes, not because some government agent dictates what is or is not a crime. Crimes perpetrated by government agents are crimes added to the crime that is called malfeasance, or treason, because the criminal perpetrates a crime while holding an office of government.

Criminals remain criminals before, during, and after a war is planned, perpetrated by an aggressor upon a defender, and after the war is over criminals are still criminals. A type of criminal is know as a warmonger. A warmonger can be accurately accounted as such, as a criminal, and that can be done with little trouble, since warmongers create detailed documentation - inculpatory evidence - as warmongers finance wars; often both sides. Criminals funding both sides in a war are often found to be those who start those wars by any means available to them.

There is extensive documentation concerning the causes of the Revolutionary War in which the criminal aggressors included people - individuals - within the British Aristocracy, which was a Nation-State, an Empire, and a Criminal (counterfeit) Government - guilty in fact - as exemplified in the war initiated upon Americans.

There is documentation concerning the people who financed both sides of the Revolutionary War, and if these people did so for personal gain, then how is that different than any other form of treason, even if each individual invested only on one side winning? This financial side of war can be very complicated for many reasons including a known financial instrument called short selling, or put options, or placing a bet on which side will lose, and the investor wins a profit if in fact that side did lose.

What happens - for example - if someone invests in land in America expecting the British Criminals winning the war? Suppose the individual pays (gold) to someone in the British Government for clear title of 100 Acres in Western Massachusetts? This may be too difficult (above many pay grades) for many people to ponder. I am leading into a very well communicated situation in America involving people who are on 2 opposing sides, and on one side people know very well how to incrementally consume people on the other side, and that works fine until those who are victim to these incremental injuries being done to them have had enough.

So keep in mind if you care to listen to the lecture that the two sides are fighting over control, control of purchasing power (money), control of land, control of people, and control of the thoughts that drive people to act. Those who act deceitfully, so as to aggressively consume other people, and those who threaten aggressive violence so as to consume other people, and those who initiate aggressive violence so as to enslave other people are on one side, demonstrably so, as a matter of fact, and this is a self-evident fact that matters. Those who are defending against attack are those forced to either be slaves or defend against the attack successfully, or die in the effort.

I will link the lecture and I will then quote a relevant message from Leo Richards concerning what I call counterfeit law.

“See what happens at the end of the Rebellion is you have all these people who rebelled against the State, thousands, and what the State offers them is what we call now plea bargaining: you give up certain rights and we will not (garbled) you, we will not fine you, and we will not hang you. And ahhh, what those rights are: you give up the right to vote for 3 years, the right to serve on a jury for 3 years, the right to be a Tavern Keeper, ...” “That’s the penalty, but you have to confess...”

Now the context:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Declaration of Independence (and common – or now uncommon – sense)

“Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury.” Conviction Factory, Roger Roots

"The government isn’t in business to solve cases. It isn’t in the business of bringing criminals to justice. The government has but one function and one function only—to make good, solid, saleable deals!”
Argus tell us: How the FBI solves its cases, Gerry Spence’s Blog, 2009

“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.” Amendment XIV, National Constitution (illegal since 1789)