slug.com slug.com

2 2

Will the worst criminals currently destroying America face America in lawful public trials in my lifetime?

"Joe,
What are you doing on April 14th?
For the first time EVER, I’m hosting an online event with Kimberly Guilfoyle to answer questions submitted by American Patriots from around the Nation.
My father has asked me to reach out to only his TOP supporters, like Joe from California, with this opportunity because we feel like you could offer valuable insight into what REAL Americans are thinking.
This is your chance to talk directly to the Trump Campaign and hear the TRUTH straight from the source. We’re only able to answer a limited amount of questions, so make sure you submit yours by 11:59 PM TONIGHT.
The top 10 questions that are submitted I’ll answer. Don’t wait! I can’t wait to read your question, Joe."

[action.donaldjtrump.com]campaign-livestream?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ET_16&utm_campaign=20200411_28414_campaign-livestream-questions-nd_donaldtrumpjr_tmagac&utm_content=gop_direct-ask_header_submit_box_other_all

Josf-Kelley 8 Apr 11
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

It takes just a few days' work to determine the patterns of illegal behavior by the previous justice department.

How can we accelerate the decision to prosecute or not?

One at a time each individual can decide on their own power to investigate the facts that describe the TRUE (based upon facts) Law power. An example is that the TRUE (based upon facts) Law power was called the Ancient Law, and there was a difference between a Court of Law (Ancient Law) and any other court such as a Court of Equity. The Law is one thing, and the other thing was not the Law.

The Law was a process afforded to all without exception, because - as a matter of fact - those who except themselves are by their willful choice an OUT-LAW. In other words the law is like gravity, each individual is accelerated at 9.8 meters per second per second, with no exceptions. Someone rich accelerates the same rate as someone poor, just as someone heavy accelerates the same rate as someone light.

Evidence abounds for those who care to look:

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."

If enough people find the TRUTH, we can be set free, and that is another natural law. If we all blindly follow criminal orders without question, and those orders - because they are criminal in nature - demand an eye for an eye, soon we are all blind, or someone decides to take a less destructive path, and that is one less individual who is willfully blind.

@Josf-Kelley I think we're rediffer is this:

if you believe the highest good is the individual, you will have a different perspective on policy than someone who believes the highest good is the group.

That's the problem on the left these days, they want to champion the individual using group tools.

The problem on the right is they want to champion the group using individual tools.

both have merit, both are essential. they are crossing paths right now, each sees the other is going in the wrong direction. can you see what I mean?

@SupraLibrix

Some individuals arrive on their own willful path of discovery to conclude that "the highest good is the group," and of those individuals are some that employ that conclusion to specific phenomena such as, for example, the phenomenon inclusive in the phrase: the wisdom of crowds. Some individuals use that conclusion as "leverage" (fraud) to fool people into giving up power to the deceiver employing the counterfeit conclusion of "the highest good is the group" as interpreted by the deceivers.

An example of the criminal use of that particular falsehood is the so-called mandate claimed to be a fact that is factually based upon a percentage of numbers of people claiming to "vote" on a piece of paper or on a machine that "counts" votes: "this many people ("majority) voted for me, I said I would infringe upon the right to bear arms (a crime), and therefore I am proceeding according to that "mandate:" here are your orders that must be obeyed without question, and examples will be made of the disobedient; they will be sent to rape chambers to be tortured for years, or the rest of their miserable lives."

The jelly bean jar experiment can test "the wisdom of crowds," and a "mandate" can be tested with a trial by the country - proceeding according to the common law - where randomly selected representatives of the country must unanimously agree on said "mandate."

Example:

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

I can refind and quote two examples of slaves being freed by the mandate of a jury, which can be compared to the "mandate" where slave traders subsidized their profit-making venture for 20 years.

I will quote this:

"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.

"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."
Garrison's Constitution
The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made
By Paul Finkelman, 2000

[archives.gov]

4

Deviant lifestyles we do not want children exposed to, illegal criminal trespassers into our sovereign nation and lives. Legal (illegal drugs), Judges making policy, Illegal attacks on the 1st and 2nd amendments.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:90480
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.