slug.com slug.com

1 1

“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois 116 US 252), have been distinctly held NOT to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment by grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witness is, contained in the Sixth Amendment (West v. Louisiana, 194 US 258). In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon information and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were NOT privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment…the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because these rights were NOT within the meaning of the clause ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States’…We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is NOT a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States…It is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against State action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law…if this is so, it is NOT because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.”

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99, 29 S. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97

Melancton 6 Dec 9
Share

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.

0

Liars lie, a self-evident fact that matters to those not fooled. Fools - as a rule - don't know they are fooled.

@Melancton

The usurpation known as The Civil War (nothing civil about it) was a consequence of the usurpation known as the Con Con.

No. 3 - New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism


Like the nome de plume "Publius" used by pro Constitution writers in the Federalist Papers, several Anti-Federalists signed their writings "A FARMER. " While the occupation of the writers may not have coincided with the name given, the arguments against consolidating power in the hands of a central government were widely read. The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788. The true identity of the author is unknown.


There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.

Whether any form of national government is preferable for the Americans, to a league or confederacy, is a previous question we must first make up our minds upon. . . .

That a national government will add to the dignity and increase the splendor of the United States abroad, can admit of no doubt: it is essentially requisite for both. That it will render government, and officers of government, more dignified at home is equally certain. That these objects are more suited to the manners, if not [the] genius and disposition of our people is, I fear, also true. That it is requisite in order to keep us at peace among ourselves, is doubtful. That it is necessary, to prevent foreigners from dividing us, or interfering in our government, I deny positively; and, after all, I have strong doubts whether all its advantages are not more specious than solid. We are vain, like other nations. We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history. Should we not reflect, that quiet is happiness? That content and pomp are incompatible? I have either read or heard this truth, which the Americans should never forget: That the silence of historians is the surest record of the happiness of a people. The Swiss have been four hundred years the envy of mankind, and there is yet scarcely an history of their nation. What is history, but a disgusting and painful detail of the butcheries of conquerors, and the woeful calamities of the conquered? Many of us are proud, and are frequently disappointed that office confers neither respect nor difference. No man of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments - he will be respected in none. After all, what we call respect and difference only arise from contrast of situation, as most of our ideas come by comparison and relation. Where the people are free there can be no great contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter become slaves. In all governments virtue will command reverence. The divine Cato knew every Roman citizen by name, and never assumed any preeminence; yet Cato found, and his memory will find, respect and reverence in the bosoms of mankind, until this world returns into that nothing, from whence Omnipotence called it.

That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal. The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to the hardy Helvetians alone.

If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable - a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact.

Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.

That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. . . .

As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics . . . it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprizing ambitious.

That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated, will not now be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance. Gibbon relates that some Roman Knights who had offended government in Rome were taken up in Asia, in a very few days after. It was the extensive territory of the Roman republic that produced a Sylla, a Marius, a Caligula, a Nero, and an Elagabalus. In small independent States contiguous to each other, the people run away and leave despotism to reek its vengeance on itself; and thus it is that moderation becomes with them, the law of self-preservation. These and such reasons founded on the eternal and immutable nature of things have long caused and will continue to cause much difference of sentiment throughout our wide extensive territories. From our divided and dispersed situation, and from the natural moderation of the American character, it has hitherto proved a warfare of argument and reason.

@Melancton

Wow!

I think we need to compare more notes.

"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith

So far I have only read the following from your comment above:

"exactly. the CONstitution was a con for sure because for one, it did not limit the admiralty/maritime to the "high tide mark". "

I will read the rest and I will probably begin to look into the cases you are siting. I have a Group here on IDW called Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, and I have my own Web Page called Power Independence. In these places I store this type of inculpatory information which would lead any clear headed juror to the obvious conclusions, were there to be a common law challenge (such as Quo Warranto) to those currently in power by criminal means.

@Melancton

"They are not in power by criminal means, its done by CONSENT."

I'm not going to agree to something that is obvious fraudulent. You can believe (consent) to such nonsense as you wish. I have a working bullshit detector, so those fake cases of "Consent" (by fraud) does not work on me.

I thought you had an independent mind. Obviously not.

As to your finding, again, it is very important to me to know specifics concerning the ongoing fraud that has collected your mind into it.

I had thought to ask you (if you were to respond reasonably to my last comment) for greater details concerning the fraudulent versions of law that have be fraudulently labeled with lawful sounding names, such as, in your previous comments: Civil, Admiralty, Equity, etc.

Rules governing what criminals do, in order to facility cooperation among criminals, is "law" according to them, and you perhaps.

I have stumbled upon (my question that you will probably not want to address) a good working definition for what constitutes a lawful civil case as opposed to a lawful criminal case, and this has nothing to do with the fraudulent versions of so-called Civil Law.

Here:

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. 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."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

Clearly a lawful (common law) Civil Case involves individuals threatening each other to a point at which individuals seek arbitration by a third party, all of which happens voluntarily, no one is excluded by anyone, and those in the controversy agree beforehand (consent to) the decision made by the third party, a jury or a judge, as the parties in controversy consent. All involved reserve the right to acknowledge any abuse by anyone else as an aggressive move (by fraud or by overt force) which is thereby the cause of the nullification of consent.

This goes back to Ancient Law (common law) times:

"[4] 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, 1852

That is based upon the natural law principle (common law) Military and Commercial Lien Right, to defend against aggression by overt or covert means. In other words: a fool may be fooled into fraudulent consent, but once the fool wises up, natural rights based natural law affords the obvious justification for acknowledging the facts that matter in the case of fraudulent consent, and the self-evident fact that the victim has the power to defend against the aggression lawfully, if not mentally or physically.

You use the term Civil Law as would one of the criminals, such as the psychopath named Coke, in British Empire Building HIStory. That is certainly not the common law, natural law, version of Civil Law, meaning as a non-criminal case involving threats to everyone (The People, as in Republic) such as would be a psychopath like Coke.

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."

So...

Fraudulent Law (fraudulent "consent" ) includes the psychopath Coke's version of "Civil Law," which is clearly barbaric.

Natural law, for a civil case, is not a threat to The People as a whole, it is merely a case involving a dispute between individuals who agree (consent to) third party arbitration, and in the common law the third party is a jury of 12 people selected by lot, so as to avoid bias by either party in dispute.

Natural Law, for a criminal case, involves the use of Gate Keepers in the form of grand juries, as a grand jury commands all legal jurisdiction in a case where enemies of The People (felons at war with society, such as the psychopath Coke for example) warrant the efforts of all The People to organize in defense of all the victims threated by the criminal (or criminals) at war with society: felons. The grand jury is in place to keep the gate open, to afford all The People access to the defensive power of all The People, and if the grand jury finds cause to act in defense, they issue a court date inviting the presumed to be innocent (but as yet not found guilty by law, meaning by a jury) defendant to defend against all the proof of guilt presented by the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR.

I may yet go through the rest of your welcome DATA, but clearly you have been fooled on the "consent" fraud.

@Melancton

"The CONstitution is fraudulent, but the PEOPLE CHOOSE to acquiesce and consent, silence is consent."

How many times do you have to repeat that to yourself in order to get to the point that you start repeating it to other people?

People will be affected by Fraud in many ways not limited to:

  1. Join the Frauds, because they too see power and profit in the fraud. They may actually believe that their choice to join the Fraud is profitable on some level. They consent to be a fraud knowing that they are participating in a fraud. Their mind is thereby guilty of fraud: mens rea (guilty of mind)

  2. They are fooled by the Fraud, and they are captured into the Fraud, and as a victim of Fraud they are then fooled into investing in the Fraud, they aid and abet the Fraud, but they don't know that it is a Fraud. They are incorporated into the Fraud, paying the extortion fees, and thereby aiding and abetting the Fraud who know it is a Fraud, so these people are guilty of aiding and abetting the Fraud, but they are not guilty of mind: actus reus (guilty act) They are fooled into contributing to the Fraud, but this is no more consensual as would be a victim of The Prince of Africa Con Game. Of course the Prince of Africa Con Man is going to claim that the victim of the Con Game "consented." As a rule frauds lie.

  3. Those who are not fooled by the Fraud, but they are powerless of mind, or powerless of soul, or powerless physically, powerless in fact, in their own defense, they will be forced to pay the extortion fee, and they too aid and abet, empower, the frauds, they to are incorporated into the gang of thieves, they too are guilty of paying the extortion fee under duress, and they know it. Also actu reus, guilty in fact of empowering the frauds.

  4. Those who are not fooled by the Fraud, and they are powerful enough of mind, and powerful enough of soul, defensively powerful in fact, and they manage to keep very accurate records as to precisely how much they FOOL the frauds, to ensure that no power is ever give up to the frauds, yet these people do not actively work to bring the frauds to an accurate accounting of the fraud, doing so lawfully, legally, according to the common law. These people are guilty of failing their duty as defenders, guilty of mind, if they know that it is their duty, and guilty in fact of nonfeasance. In the face of Crimes against Humanity, the fools, and even those who are not foolish, tend to pay into the incremental movement from Liberty to Despotism, which is not news, and reasonable people can figure it out, even while the power already stolen funds massive coordinated frauds through organs falsely named Public School, Mass Media, and The JUST-US SYSTEM, which is merely False Debt Collection Agencies.

  5. Those who are, to the best of their ability, actively working to bring down the fraud, but the system is so well constructed, that almost every effort to bring down the fraud is shunted in some way, and if there are ways that are still allowing defensive measures to bring down the fraud, the frauds are not at all morally bound to any moral code whatsoever, and they will execute anyone who does present to the frauds as a serous threat.

"The CONstitution is fraudulent, but the PEOPLE CHOOSE to acquiesce and consent, silence is consent."

Never is a victim of fraud guilty of consenting to fraud. It is an obvious position at law that a fraud does not, can not, constitute consent on the part of the victim of a fraud, again, no more than the victim of The African Prince Scam consents to being robbed by the Con Men perpetrating that fraud.

Your claims of authority over what someone consents to or not are part of the working, ongoing, fraud.

"So what you're saying is YOU can CONTRACT and CHOOSE to operate in other forms of human law, but you don't suffer any of the consequences or have to bear any of the burdens of what operating in those jurisdictions of law legally impose? Whose the one without the open mind? Don't be a fool."

That is called a Man of Straw. You create a fictitious opponent who says things that you say for your fictitious opponent, and then you put an actual person in place of your fictional personal, your legal fiction, your straw man. You ask (question begging) a question, which you have already provided the answer for, and then you convict your Man of Straw of being a fool.

The error here involves my ability to actually speak for myself.

So the begged question:

""So what you're saying is YOU can CONTRACT and CHOOSE to operate in other forms of human law, but you don't suffer any of the consequences or have to bear any of the burdens of what operating in those jurisdictions of law legally impose?"

Which "contract" are you attaching to your man of straw with my name on your man of straw? If you have a "contract" in mind, then spell it out. You can answer for your man of straw as you please. I'll answer for me, even if you mind, if you don't mind.

I see my "social contract" as a duty based first on my evaluation of life as something worth the investment in defending, and maintaining. Since life is good, then, I also see the wisdom of Mathew 7:12, which as far as I am concerned, is the best effort to date, that I have seen, to document natural law.

As my formation of my version of a "social contract" moves from "life is good" to "The Golden Rule," I can add other documents that follow the same principles contained in "life is good" and "The Golden Rule," such as:

" Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."
Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)

There is one more thing I'll add to the "Social Contract" as I see it:

"Responsibility must be individual, or there is no responsibility at all."
Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, 1852

If you have a different version of a social contract in mind, spell it out, and I can go on with documentation concerning the contract that I agree to follow, or if I don't follow, then in my estimate I agree that I deserve everything I get for not following the contract I agree to follow.

"Whose the one without the open mind?"

OK, sure, a fraud, according to you, constitutes consent. My mind is closed on that obvious fraud, why would I allow such a false claim to be believed in my working mind? Do victims of Stockholm Syndrome consent to being groomed after kidnapping? Are you serious?

"Don't be a fool."

The Straw Man (with my name on it) may be as foolish as I am, according to whatever you make your Straw Man do, or think, or say, but as far as I'm concerned a fraud does not constitute consent on the part of the victims, that is a contradiction in terms on par with calling evil good. Evil is evil. Fraud is fraud. Good is good. Consent is consent. Fraud is not consent.

"The common law jury is made up of 12 Common Law ALLODIAL FREE MEN, NOT civil persons who choose to abandon the common law."

Bias (for crime against liberty) can be programed into human beings, just as dogs can be programed to salivate when a bell is rung. That does not make fraud consensual.

"There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
"These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
"If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States - that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights - it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

"You're the one whose been fooled by not taking responsibility for your own actions."

Again you can give actions to your Man of Straw, and accuse your Man of Straw of many crimes as you see fit. How about telling me precisely what you claim to be my crimes as you see them? Name one, please.

"THERE is NO LAW forcing you do this."

Do what? Your Man of Straw may be guilty of doing whatever it is you want your Man of Straw to be guilty of doing, what exactly is it that you are referring to in reference to me?

"YOU can OPT OUT legally and lawfully at any time."

If you are referring to the rules governing criminals who agree to abide by those rules that govern criminals, so as to facilitate organized crime, then be specific about the precise rule you are referring to when referring to your Man of Straw. If you are referring to me, then you are referring to The Golden Rule, the law, and if I step outside of it, then I appreciate any help stepping back into it.

"I said, I'm a lawful Denizen, I OPTED OUT, and they accepted that opt out. I don't get ANY BENEFITS or any kind like because I am NOT entitled to those corporate benefits."

Some people make deals with criminals and they somehow get the clean end of the stick. Some do not. That is not my business.

"What I see all these patriotards doing is they want all the goodies of BOTH systems, but don't want to bear any of the duties or responsibilities."

You have a number of people in mind, each having their own name, and all those people each having all those individual names, are now, according to you, patriotards. One might not like your name calling, said to their face, doing so without specific facts backing up your "justification" for calling them names. Perhaps everyone in that group of yours is also a Man of Straw, a fictional entity.

I've spelled out duties as I see them. You can still fictionally claim anything done by your Man of Straw, and you can still fictionally claim that I did what you say your fictional Man of Straw has done, or not done, anywhere, anytime, not bound by physical reality.

"For instance, under the common and natural law the MAN must practice STRICT LIABILITY all the time, NO LIMITED LIABILITY allowed. All limited liability is within the jurisdiction of the civil commercial law."

I prefer to call the fraud you refer to as the rules agreed to by the criminals as they cooperate to reach the goal of enslaving mankind. You can go on calling it "civil commercial law," as you please, for reasons that you adopt. Calling a fraud something other than a fraud limits the liabilities accountable to the frauds.

"And all STATES recognize this principle."

A "STATE" can't see, hear, touch, think, act, know, or perform any human process unique to humans, such as recognizing a principle, or recognizing a fraud hidden behind a fake principle. The "legal fiction" dogma is turned from a useful convenience (speaking about a group of people without having to name each individual by name) into a fraud, a crime scene, one that is ongoing, due to the fact that people are fooled into believing that a STATE can be responsible, accountable, and a being unto itself, and other complete fictions.

"Look at your State's "PROOF of FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY" statutes under the State's Motor Vehicle Code. Iowa's is posted below as an example:"

Some people deconstruct the crime scene forensically, and as the paper trail of inculpatory evidence is thereby inspected, specific criminals can be named along the way, actual criminals who willfully perpetrate the fraud, doing so treasonously.

Edie Craig for example:

"ALL insurance policies, have always been under the Maritime commercial law, because that's the form of civil law that created limited liability. The common law and natural law have always demanded STRICT liability."

Criminals perpetrate fraud under false claims of lawful authority, kill all Mormons for example, the claim made by a "legal fiction" is still a crime scene even with the "legal fiction" dogma attached. Actual people agree to be lawful, and at their disposal are methods of helping each other defend each other, those methods since ancient times have names, like Legem Terrae, the law of the land, and the common law. The common law cannot demand anything, a human being can demand that people believe their lies, and a human being can demand to be left out of the fraud, please.

"Again this was all done voluntarily."

Again, if someone is programed to believe a fraud, then someone is a victim, they can't know it is a fraud, a natural fact, and if they can't know it is a fraud, because they are victim to the fraud, it is categorically not voluntary, it is not consent.

You need to sell your snake oil to the gullible. This by the way, is biblical.

"Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird" Proverbs 1:17

"And all men are free to do this too. Quit playing the Adamic Blame game and take responsibility for your choices and CORRECT them, start operating under the common and natural law in all that you do."

Why would I ever take advice from someone selling the lie that fraud is consent? If you have your way of living in a world full of captured people captured into an ongoing fraud, then more power to you, I hope you continue to do well.

"Expatriate the 14th Amendment federal citizenship. lawfully and legally rescind your contracts with the State under civil commercial law: Birth Certificates, Licenses, Social Security, etc. Close and cancel all your commercial accounts: banks, credit, insurance, etc. AVOID commerce like you avoid contracting AIDS, Herpes and VD?"

Many people do this, and more power to them, as far as I am concerned. There is a group calling themselves The Lawful Bank. They have a similar pleading. You go to the criminals and ask the criminals to stop being criminals. You say, here, here, here, are my papers. Sometimes they say OK, we have plenty of sheep to sheer, you have jumped enough hoops, be on your way. Criminals, as a rule, don't obey rules, so sometimes they just lock your ass up, torture you into a confession, and then murder you. Go figure!

""You'll KNOW them by their FRUIT"

Common Law Fruits Example 1:
“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

This is going on too long, even for me. I'll attempt to read the rest of your reply and attempt to comment on it. I think there is much more that we probably agree on, while the claims of how a fraud somehow becomes consent, well, that is the definition of disagreement, a self-evident lack of agreement. I have a very good additional example of "the fruits of common law agreements" extracted from the Secret First Congress documents, but for my part the common law that is needed is the part called the sword, not the shield.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:160124
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.