Why is this story significant? Because it shows how a body of government can be influenced by any ONE person, and by monetary powers. Smh.
I wonder how many bodies of goverment, use this type of corruption? I mean no body will be willing to play in any "game", if there is a sense that its rigged. So there's no wonder that there are so many individuals that seem to align with the "anti-america" theme (mostly leftist). While most of the right simply ignores that this sort of thing happens, just to maintain their conservative pro-America ideology. And I mean ignore, in that, they talk about it but don't seem to do much about it. It obviously still is happening.
I think if these sorts of scandals and corruption were dealt with more frequently, the anti-America agenda that people are seeing quite frequently, would fade from existence. Given that it would let it be known that the "game" wouldn't seem rigged any further.
But this is just a part of the game that has been rigged. So good luck fixing this system. We've allowed to many to slide. I'm not sure that this current system is worth keeping. I know that I could fix it, but I'm not the "chosen one". No one is. Only if we came together could changes be implemented. Good luck with that as well. But I remain optimistic that someone will figure it out. Fingers always crossed. Just me though.
1
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.It is not government in the context of free people maintaining their freedom: liberty. It is government in the context of what criminals do when they organized under a false flag. This whistle has been blown all throughout the history of America.
Look up the work of Walter Burien Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, or the work of Anthony Sutton earlier.
"But this is just a part of the game that has been rigged. So good luck fixing this system. We've allowed to many to slide."
If it cannot police itself, if it cannot keep the criminals from infiltrating it, and if it instead is a sanctuary for aiding and abetting criminals who steal, torture, and murder anyone it wants from The Public, then it is organized crime under a false flag: a thinning facade.
The whistle was blown a long time ago:
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together. (As to the lengthy writer in New-York you mention, I have attentively examined his pieces; he appears to be a candid good-hearted man, to have a good stile, and some plausible ideas; but when we carefully examine his pieces, to see where the strength of them lies; when the mind endeavours to fix on those material parts, which ought to be the essence of all voluminous productions, we do not find them: the writer appears constantly to move on a smooth surface, the part of his work, like the parts of a cob-house, are all equally strong and all equally weak, and all like those works of the boys, without an object; his pieces appear to have but little relation to the great question, whether the constitution is fitted to the condition and character of this people or not.)"
LETTER XIII.
JANUARY 14, 1788.
Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America, November 30, 1784 to June 3, 1785.
The former Independent people (free people free to nurture their own moral conscience, and defend their liberty as individuals) who formed Independent States, which were then formed into a Federation of Independent States of free people ended in 1789 when the criminals took over.
Some of the actual patriots left future generations with the fix.
"Only if we came together could changes be implemented. Good luck with that as well. But I remain optimistic that someone will figure it out. Fingers always crossed. Just me though."
The fix is already in, and it is not what must be figured out, it is what can be discovered, as a fact that matters.
Any one of these criminals in office can be accused lawfully. A lawful accusation, according to law, then moves to an independent grand jury in any county in any independent State where the common law is still enforceable (most if not all States), and those elected (most honest and discreet people in the county, elected by their peers) onto the pool of grand jurors wield all jurisdiction criminal and civil to discover the facts, if there are facts, pertaining to the accusation, to allow due process to proceed according to the facts, but to not try the case themselves, and if the independent grand jury discovers sufficient inculpatory evidence that indicates a clear and present danger, the independent grand jury (not the government, and not a modern version of a prosecutor) presents the accused with a court date, including anyone in or out of government from the President on down to the homeless veteran's child on the street. Then, if the public, through their independent grand juries, warrant a trial date to offer the accused their lawful remedy, redemption, or just punishment in front of the country in a pubic trial with transcripts, that presentment moves to the accused as a matter of fact. The trial before the country is Public so that the Public has a record from a court of record showing the trial and the verdict of the country as told by the representatives of the country (not representatives of the government), those members of the trial jury in a trial by the country, which is a trial by jury, according to the common laws of free people in a perishable liberty. If the country, through their juries, demands a trial, and determines judgment against anyone in government, then the guilty one determined in that lawful way is no longer trusted into government, another fact that matters.
That is how the swamp is drained lawfully. People can resort to violence out of ignorance instead.
Josf-Kelley
Level 8
Jan 3, 2020
0
I mean you stated exactly how the system should work.(I think
) But in many cases, it doesn't play out that way, or so it would seem.
And even if it is as straight as you say it is, the fact that you can see corruption in plenty of areas within the system, gives the impression that it ALL could be stacked against the "common folk". Which is where the displaced forms of society, such as its citizens, comes from. Because the lack of transparency, or the complexity of the "law", makes it all seem to fit into a facade. Hence the notion that the left continually leans towards, which is that capitalism is evil. I completely understand that I'm notion is an idiology that is held by few, but the few that hold those convictions, seem to be just a bit "smarter"(definitely useing that term loosely) then the systems common supporters, and are able to push legislation to try and nullify the system. While the rest of the population hold meme wars on fb, thinking that's going to solidify the systems current standings.
I would like to say, while reading your response to my initial comment, I have realized this issue is well beyond my capabilities of fully understanding. For even the complexity of your response was much more elaborate and articulated for me, then I care to admit( but I will). But I still believe my simplistic explanation as to why parts of this contry/society are wanting to rid America of it's current system and replace it with another, still rings true to me. And that would be a good place to start to rectify the current state in which america is holding with it's people. But by individuals much smarter then I, as you so obviously pointed out, with the prestigiously advanced response that left me digressed. Lol Kudos towards your intellect good sir. Or lass?
What this forum could do, or any gathering of people who volunteer to work efficiently for our mutual defense, which is the stated purpose of government (the sales pitch; the facade, the cheese in the mousetrap), is - what we the people can do - is already in the law, and it is simple, not complicated.
The complications (mountains of lies) confess that what is called the law is not the law.
Almost everyone is aware of the go-to process when dealing with, say, a lone-gunman shooting up a church. Call 911, and wait for the government to arrive like the Cavalry. Then there is the actual law, such as the example recently provided by the guy who shot the lone-gunman in the church.
One lie may suffice to prove the point. The lie often told, retold, and parroted by so many "true believers" in counterfeit government is: "He took the law into his own hands."
Now read this:
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
Conviction Factory
"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."
You deliberated (as if on a jury):
"But I still believe my simplistic explanation as to why parts of this contry/society are wanting to rid America of it's current system and replace it with another, still rings true to me."
There are two ways in which regime change occurs, one is the default, and the other is revolutionary in comparison. The default is for everyone to pick a side and go after the opposition before the opposition can enslave US, torture US, or murder US. So we (US) enslaves them first, tortures them first, or murders them first.
The revolutionary way is to publish a document that accurately accounts for the guilty people perpetrating crimes upon innocent people. The revolutionary way is documented in such things as Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and many efforts by many people in many states to write a Bill of Rights.
Side A is the aggressively violent side, call that The Cult of Might Makes Right.
Side B is also the aggressively violent side, and they are also members of the same Cult, just on different sides.
There is a hidden side, the side that inspires hatred, so as to create a Side A, and a Side B, that is a criminal tactic called Divide and Conquer. So now there are 3 sides.
Side A, going after side B.
Side B, going after side A.
Side C, making money off of both sides.
Side C also creates a Side C to go after Side A, and Side B, which complicates things even more, as Side C then changes to Side D.
The non-side is the revolutionary side, and all they want to do is live and let live, but they also must know that it is vital to keep accurate records of the facts that matter, such as the fact that violence begets more violence, even when the authorities claim that the only solution is violence. Also, lies beget more lies. A few laws worth knowing.
Side D cannot allow the non-side to spread like a virus, as Side D conceives that the non-side is cancer to their criminal process, and rightly so.
The revolutionary side, the non-side if you will, tears down the facade of authority when in fact the claims of authority are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false when it is the authorities who perpetrate crimes of aggression upon innocent people - it is these authorities - that are the criminals, they know very well how to perpetrate crimes upon innocent people. So, it pays to do the right thing, and hold those criminals who claim to be the authorities to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, and publish that vital information for all to see simply, clearly, and unambiguously.
Example:
"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:"
That was a statement of fact offered in the First Congress in 1776. Those assembled were deliberating on the need to publish a Declaration of Independence.
How about another lie exposed often enough? Criminals will obey another law so long as it is written, because we say so, and therefore we will write yet another law added to the mountain of laws that already exist. This type of lie should clue people in on the obvious, simple, fact that criminals do not obey laws, that is how they become criminals in fact. So, putting on a thinking cap, does it then make reasonable sense that laws are for non-criminals because non-criminals are the only ones who obey laws?
Then it stands to reason, given these simple facts, that people claiming to be the government, who don't obey the laws they claim to be the laws, are not the government. How can it be any simpler?
So which government does work, which system do you think will work? How about the one revolutionary one?
One more look into actual law:
Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)
Barrister.
"My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair.
Jurym.
"Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with.
Barr.
"I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray?
Jurym.
"I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour.
Barr.
"It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service.
Jurym.
"You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath been much to my loss.
Barr.
"I commend your tenderness and modesty; yet must tell you, these are but general and weak excuses.
"As for your time and trouble, it is not much; and however, can it be better spent than in doing justice, and serving your country? to withdraw yourself in such cases, is a kind of Sacrilege, a robbing of the public of those duties which you justly owe it; the more peaceable man you have been, the more fit you are. For the office of a Juryman is, conscientiously to judge his neighbour; and needs no more law than is easily learnt to direct him therein. I look upon you therefore as a man well qualified with estate, discretion, & integrity; and if all such as you should use private means to avoid it, how would the king and country be honestly served? At that rate we should have none but fools or knaves entrusted in this grand concern, on which (as you well observe) the lives, liberties, and estates of all England depend.
Your tenderness not to be accessary to any man's being wronged or ruined, is (as I said) much to be commended. But may you not incur it unawares, by seeking this to avoid it? 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."
It does not have to be reinvented, it works adaptively, it reinvents itself well enough, without the help of counterfeiters who claim to be the government while they rob, rape, torture, and mass murder with impunity.
There is a mountain of lies to crawl from under, so don't despair, it is your duty to know better, for your own good, and everyone else for that matter: except the criminals and they don't even know how to obey a simple law, so what good are they to themselves or anyone else?
So the intellectual conclusion is that, the system shall fix itself?
Three obvious paths (intellectual or not) are:
A. The Criminal System (arbitrary government) continues toward the inevitable last man standing, the last rat eating the second to last rat on the sinking ship sunk when this criminal system reaches the inevitable conclusion.
B. The Power Struggle between Rule of Law and the Criminal System booms, busts, booms, busts, indefinitely, and humankind moves indefinitely without ever reaching the limits of human prosperity
C. Rule of Law (accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case) overpowers The Criminal System, and humankind moves incrementally closer to the limits of human prosperity.
If that is too dumb, to simplistic, to "utopian," or otherwise too much to convey with words, then I can try other words, but it may help to acknowledge the fact (a fact that matters) that many words can mean anything any moment, and the opposite meaning the next moment, which is - in other words - the power struggle explained in A,B,C, above.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Leaning Left
192 members
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.