In the previous effort to convey the facts that matter in the case against counterfeit governments a statement was made concerning a fork in the road for the English and the Irish people as a whole, as in The Public Thing. It may be difficult to grasp at first but the law, if it is genuine, is for everyone: for The Public as a whole, and that applies no matter the individual, family, church, corporation, town, city, county, state, or federation of states, or even federation of federations on Earth. If it is the law it is as good for English as it is for Irish, Indians, Africans, Slaves, or so-called Barbarians. If it is the law it is as good for one as it is for the other one, even if one was once a criminal.
The law is not good for a criminal planning a crime with the certain force of will, and malice aforethought, to perpetrate a crime, IN THE MIND OF THE CRIMINAL. In actual reality (outside the mind of a criminal in the process of being a criminal) crime is not good for the criminal any more than it is good for the victims targeted by a criminal, for the same criminal could have chosen the right fork in the road traveled by the individual before the individual ran into that fork in the road where the individual decided, by power of will, to take a bad turn down a bad road.
In this effort I will move from the obvious confession of malice, malevolence, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, and treason, concerning the English counterfeit government attempts to exterminate and enslave the Irish. I will move from the obvious turn down the wrong path by all the English who could have used English common law (actual not counterfeit) to completely remove any further consumption of Irish lives, so as to line the pockets and fill the bank accounts of English Empire Investors. I will turn also from the same failure of the Americans to do right by the Indians native to America when Europeans arrived, a failure to use actual law to avoid any further consumption of Indian lives, so as to line the pockets and fill the bank accounts of English Empire Investors. I will turn to the case against the consumers of African lives. Many people fought the good fight in America, a revolutionary fight against counterfeit governments, and among those many people were many people (certainly not enough people) fighting against African Slavery, very few (only 2 I could find so far) used the actual law power.
Cases in point:
Hold on, after searching again, I found a very good example from a Web Page that just now crossed my path:
Case 1:
"The celebrated Somerset ruling of 1772 concerned a slave's liberty and status as property. The slave James Somerset (or Sommersett) was the property of a Boston customs official, Charles Stewart. Somerset was brought to England. After two years he escaped, but he was recaptured on 26 November 1771 and was forced onto a ship bound for Jamaica. With help from Granville Sharpe, a humanitarian anti-slavery campaigner, a writ of habeas corpus was granted by Lord Mansfield, the Lord Chief Justice, ordering the captain of the ship on which Somerset was incarcerated to produce Somerset before a court.
The case was repeatedly adjourned. Somerset's legal team argued that although slavery was tolerated in the colonies, the Court of King's Bench was bound to apply the law of England. Mansfield ruled in 1772 that 'no master ever was allowed here (England) to take a slave by force to be sold abroad because he deserted from his service...therefore the man must be discharged'. And so James Somerset won his freedom."
This is another rabbit hole, but it serves a purpose in my current effort to make sense of the current battle between law based upon truth and opposing that is counterfeit law (crime) based upon counterfeit truth (fraud). So the case above makes sense in this context. People use the law - the truth - to set a slave free. That is the law in fact. That is the law demonstrated for what it is - the law - in fact. From the same link above is the following FINE PRINT:
"Lord Mansfield's judgment had a profound effect on slaves. Many of them misunderstood the ruling to mean that slaves were emancipated in Britain. This was not the case. The decision was that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain and sold into slavery.
Despite Lord Mansfield's ruling, slave owners continued recapturing their runaway slaves and shipping them back to the colonies. Numerous newspaper advertisements of the time show that Black slaves were still being bought and sold in England. A few years later, in 1785, Mansfield himself ruled that 'black slaves in Britain were not entitled to be paid for their labour' (free Black people were, however, paid)."
The case serves the current purpose in many ways, it shows as before stated, that it is in the power of people to use the actual truth based law to free victims from criminals, to free victims from all enemies foreign and domestic. Any one in England could have done the same for anyone soon to be exterminated or enslaved in Ireland before the pogrom and roundup started, and anyone in America could have done the same for any Indian before or since the criminals took over the government in America, saving countless Irish, and saving countless Indians since those solutions to those problems began much like the Nazi (counterfeit government Party) Final Solution to their so-called Jewish Problem.
Now moving to a message from that point in time when Americans could have turned down the lawful path but instead Americans were turned down the counterfeit lawful path, turned by the usurpation perpetrated by the so-called Federalist Party.
"Rhode Island Is Right!
"This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-American Intelligencer?)
"The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.
"They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.
"The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes - the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) - would be doubled or trebled.
"The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it - for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time-serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.
"The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds - That it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom."
At the fork in the road the right path is the path that converts tyranny into freedom, no matter how deeply people have allowed themselves to travel down the wrong path into Subsidized Slavery of Everyone; each rat at each other's throat for the last bit of cheese on the sinking ship that everyone sunk on purpose.
"Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous."
Some people today are waking up from the spell (it is devilish) they are navigating the world under, a darkness, an evil, with a light barely visible down a distant tunnel exit. As people today wake from this willful ignorance that is definable as stupidity, people may begin to see the current Slave Trade in all its manifestations, and see it for what it really is: our common belief in a huge stinking pile of falsehood. Once the affects of the truth begin to tear apart the shackles of such an oppressive conglomeration of falsehoods, people may begin to see the clearing peaceful path forward into Liberty, a path that goes opposite the current path of ubiquitous subsidized slavery. As each rat is at each other rat's throat one rat may wake up in time, then another, we may yet right the ship we collectively sink. A few rats can see down the long dark tunnel at the distant light indicating a way out, as a few saw in the past; exit stage left or right, bottom up, not top down. Will the truth be the truth, found the lawful way, because we woke up?
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The law can be very good for the criminal. Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment. The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens
DeJake
Level 6
Jan 2, 2020
0
If I may point out (if you acknowledge) that the original law is not as you say, it is not "very good" for criminals because "it" disarms the victims, aiding and abetting them, giving them "a safe work environment."
The original law is very good for everyone who volunteers to enforce the original law, but it does not do anything for people born or nurtured into hating life, hating people, hating themselves. The original law if very good for people who would turn down the road of hatred, which is the road of crime, expressed in the phrase malice aforethought, because the original law ensured potential haters, potential criminals, that enough volunteers would hold each criminal to account for each crime, which means that the original law made sure that crimes do not pay, certainly not a routine payment from everyone to the criminals running counterfeit governments in the form of extortion fees hidden behind the word tax.
I just picked up a useful book on this subject and in it I already found many corroborative statements based upon a demonstrable effort to study deeply into the matter.
Example:
"But how was the ownership of this great new land mass to be allocated? Basically, new and previously unowned land can come into ownership in two different ways: either the settler – the pioneer who, in the later phrase of John Locke, “mixes his labor with the soil” and brings the previously unused and fallow natural resources into productive use – is conceded ownership of the land he has in this way “created”; or his is not.
Footnote: “If it be objected that the pioneer has not really created the land, it is also true that no producer “creates” matter. The builder of a factory has not in the ultimate sense “created” the matter in the factory; he has rather transformed by the use of his labor the previously nature-given matter. He has shifted this original matter into other forms more useful to himself and to his fellow men: this shifting is the meaning of “production.” And this is precisely what the pioneer has done in transforming the land. Page 37
“The crucial question then becomes: Will the land pass after a time into the hands of the settlers, or will it remain permanently in the hands of privileged overlords dominating the settlers?”
Page 38
Footnote: “Defenders of presettler land speculation have claimed that speculators (such as the first charger companies) spurred settlement in the hope of profit. This is true, but it does not offset the net restrictions on settlement by virtue of the land grants and the consequent raising of the price of otherwise free land to the settlers. In a free market the same companies could simply have loaned settlement money to the colonists, and this productive credit could then have spurred settlement and earned them a profit without the arbitrary restrictions imposed by the land grants.”
Page 39
The Parliament of 1610 protested the imposition of increased taxes and deprivation of civil liberties by the prerogative courts, and refused to vote any taxes.
The government continued to gain its income by prerogative power, granting increased privileges in 1612 to such companies as the Virginia Company and the East India Company. Despite the financial manipulations of the government, its debt more than doubled and it sought to gain taxes by controlling elections in the House of Commons. But a House opposed to the government was elected, and by a unanimous vote it criticized the imposition of taxes by the government, that what in the past had been done only temporarily and in emergencies was now being claimed by right. The Parliament refused to pass any legislation or approve any taxation until the grievances of the people were redressed by the government. The government dissolved the Parliament, and over a dozen members were punished by the government by imprisonment or house arrest, including Sir Edwin Sandys.
Although the government continued to create and enlarge its inspections, regulations, controls, and monopolies, the rationalization of government power was further undermined in 1614 by common-law court decisions against monopolies. During the constitutional struggle of the seventeenth century, the common law was often used against the government’s positive laws. An important aspect of the struggle was the provision of Magna Carta guaranteeing complete freedom of trade as part of the protection of liberty and property. Any interference in economic activity by the government or by any group privileged by the government constituted restraint of trade contrary to the principles of common law. It became evident that there could not be any restraint of trade without government action, and the common-law courts refused to enforce the monopolies whenever the government did not interfere with the freedom of the courts.
Page 45
The contract was called an indenture because it was originally written in duplicate on a large sheet – the two halves separated by a jagged line called an “indent.” While it is true that the original contract was generally voluntary, it is also true that a free society does not enforce even temporary voluntary slave contracts, since it must allow for a person to be able to change his mind, and for the inalienability of a person’s control over his will and his body. While a man’s property is alienable and may be transferred from one person to another , a person’s will is not; the creditor in a free society may enforce the collection of payment for money he may have advanced (in this case, passage and maintenance money), but he may not continue to enforce slave labor, however temporary it may be. Furthermore, many of the indentures were compulsory and not voluntary – for example those involving political prisoners, imprisoned debtors, and kidnapped children of the English lower classes. The children were kidnapped by professional “spirits” or “crimps” and sold to the colonists.
In the concrete conditions of the colony, slavery, as always, robbed the individual of his incentive to work and save, and thereby endangered the survival of the settlement.
Conceived in Liberty, Murray Rothbard, 1979
I do not wish to discourage deliberation on this subject matter, but it is in my opinion vital to reclaim control over the meaning of words. If you speak about organized crime, such as the powers that disarm everyone so as to make it "very good for" criminals, then why do you call it the government? Why does anyone call organized crime (a Mob Rule example) government? To put it bluntly: did you drink the coolaid?
@Josf-Kelley I wasn't referring to the government as organized crime, that's another route to go down altogether, though not a bad one in my opinion. I can't see a direct response to my original point though, on how the existence of modern government in some, if not many ways creates and encourages crime.
Thanks for the history, reinforces my admiration for the principles of early America
You were referring to organized crime when you chose the word law instead. I don't know precisely why this is unclear, but you may be able to clear it up. When you wrote about organized crime, why did you use the word law to label it?
Here is where you wrote about organized crime:
"The law can be very good for the criminal."
If it is good for the criminal (in the eyes of the criminal), then it is not the law.
So why call it the law if it is not the law?
You also wrote:
"Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment."
If someone aids and abets a criminal, by disarming potential victims of crime, then that is a crime, it is not the law.
Also:
"The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens"
There is the reference to "government" in conjunction with your misuse of the word Law. If it is crime, not law, then it is enforced by criminals, not the government.
If you can't see it, then I can try to make it clear for you.
Government = voluntary association for mutual defense
Crime = guilty people causing injury to innocent people
If you think the opposite, then that explains your word choices. As such:
Government = subsidized slavery enforced by guilty criminals upon innocent victims including disarming innocent victims
Law = guilty people causing injury to innocent people
I hope that that helps as well as the messages recorded in history on this subject matter. It was not me who recorded history, I just find it in the piles of falsehoods that stink, and I reprint it.
@Josf-Kelley that does clear it up. It's not often you encounter someone that refers to the law as organized crime without clarifying. I completely agree.
@DeJake
I want to get into that phenomenon in greater detail as I work to communicate the obvious. If it is not obvious to the Majority of people, then the Majority of people are in the dark, so to speak. So to speak, the Majority of people are covered so deep in the stinking pile of falsehood that they cannot see a simple fact that matters.
"It's not often you encounter someone that refers to the law as organized crime..."
I do no such thing. If it is, as you said, then it is organized crime. It is not a single individual who is "good for criminals" and it is not a single individual who give OTHER criminals "a safe work environment," it is a criminal enterprise involving more that one criminal: therefore it is organized.
"It's not often you encounter someone that refers to the law as organized crime..."
You have encountered someone who refers to organized crime as organized crime.
You have encountered someone who does not refer to the law as organized crime.
You and the Majority of people refer to organized crime as the law. I do not.
See the difference? Why would that be at all difficult to see? It is easy to unsee in practice. One has to start seeing, as you have obviously chosen to do.
Recent Visitors 2
Photos 19 More
Posted by Josf-KelleyWanted for Treason That is all for lack of intelligence and moral conscience.
Posted by Josf-KelleyBorrowed from another IDW post is the pictured meme.
Posted by Josf-KelleyReal Reality A few people have purchased the exclusive power to add zeros to their Bank account balance, and they accomplish this feat by borrowing their spending from anyone who can produce ...
Posted by HeresiarchWhy you should close Social Media accounts you no longer use. (I shut down my LinkedIn account immediately)
Posted by HeresiarchI taught my daughter to shoot at ten years old. Now she's passing on the lessons she learned.
Posted by HeresiarchIt's taken us years to rehabilitate the soil on our Better Than Organic farmlet.
Posted by Josf-KelleyThat is a complex process viewed simplistically in two directions that appear, in simple form, to be opposites.
Posted by Josf-KelleyThe level of brainwashing or mind control, or spirit control, or body control, or behavior control is demonstrably on a sub-conscious level and it runs very deep.
Posted by HeresiarchHow do you sacrifice children?
Posted by HeresiarchHow's that Police State workin' out for y'all?
Posted by Josf-KelleyFrom a source:
Posted by Josf-KelleyTrump says Pence can reject criminal votes.
Posted by Josf-KelleyFrom another IDW post: Roadmap to re-inauguration:
Posted by Josf-KelleyAt a Pennsylvania State Hearing, widespread voter and election fraud is reported by witness testimony.
Posted by Josf-KelleyThe following link is immediately censored from Facebook, as I press the enter button, a warning page loads.
Posted by Josf-KelleyI was banished (for speaking the truth to power) from Culture War (IDW topics) and occasionally I am presented with posts in my feed that lead to that exclusive group, so I can't enter, and a I can't ...