A Message to the Liberty Movement

[Working Poor]

In this video the presenter talks about the people using the Grand Jury to investigate unconstitutional laws. It seems like a good option for us to start holding our elected officials accountable for passing unconstitutional laws. Can it happen? What do you think about this?

[CPUd]

If they have a sense of humor, here is how the real public officials will handle it:



http://www.ocala.com/article/2014012...9929?p=1&tc=pg

But usually they wait until the pretend officials file something in a real court, then charge them with simulating a legal process and impersonation:

[Working Poor]

bump...

[HVACTech]

sorry Love.
many here are against the "Constitution" as they understand it.

efforts to restore or defend our 2nd Constitution will be ignored or chastised.

I am here to defend and restore what we have lost. and I thank you for your efforts in this noble mission.

bump.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I've been aware of the grand jury potentials for about 18 years.

The real problem is that after the act of 1871 common law jurisdiction was abrogated. Doing such overtly is unconstitutional so it was pretty quiet. The courts of the infiltrated government and their law enforcement accessories just stopped recognizing the common law grand jury.

They are an EXCELLENT check on power and AFTER, a lawful and peaceful revolution, will be a very potent correcting influence on state courts that are so used to corrupt operations that they will actually have a hard time even realizing how to provide actual justice.

Citizens operating common law grand juries will set the proper example and keep if well defined.

[Working Poor]

Citizens operating common law grand juries will set the proper example and keep if well defined.

I hope so.

[osan]

In this video the presenter talks about the people using the Grand Jury to investigate unconstitutional laws. It seems like a good option for us to start holding our elected officials accountable for passing unconstitutional laws. Can it happen? What do you think about this?

I have been aware of the power of the grand jury for a while now, but not in any great detail. I will have to investigate further. If what is asserted in the video is true, then I will have to recant my assertion that the gun is the only option remaining to us.

However, I stand by my claim that the gun remains the absolutely necessary final word where enforcement is concerned. The question in my mind is this: how do we get enough people to care enough to take the necessary actions. For example, a GJ convenes, finds a cop to have committed a crime and seeks to indict. Showing up to the police station with a warrant is perhaps not that likely to receive the desired response. But if a literal posse of, say, fifty men far better armed than the police arrive to see that the warrant is duly served... see my point?

An aside: this is yet another example of the tragic weakness of the Constitution - that this power is neither enumerated nor explained in any depth. For heaven's sake, this is far more important a power than anything outlined in the first six Articles. This should have been the Final Article, superseding everything that comes before it. The planning of the Constitution was either terribly executed, or too subtle for the average man, not to mention a dolt such as myself.

I see a book here. A very good, very important book; a companion guide to the Constitution for all free men. I am dead serious, too. Sadly, I am too pig-ignorant to author such a tome on my own, though I would be more than willing to help if anyone here is game or knows someone that may be. Because civics courses are no longer common, the average man, myself included, is an ignorant fool WRT to matters such as these and this is something that must absolutely stop. It is time for a paradigm shift in American culture wherein the general attitude returns to that not of skepticism, but of hostile doubt toward anything related to "government". I am damned serious about this.

The mindset of lassitude and trust of that which is convenient, no matter how dangerous to our liberties, must go and never be allowed to return. We need to become a warrior people, which we are nowhere near to being; warriors who live their lives in vigil against that which threatens, ready to destroy at the drop of a hat anything or anyone who challenges individual sovereignty. This does not reduce us to paranoids who live their lives in a pathetic state of perpetual red-alert, but rather as those who understand the nature of the threats that never abate completely, always lying in wait for that weakness to show itself; people who know what is precious and are willing to go to the wall and beyond to defend it for themselves, family, friends, community, and nation; people whose sense of enlightened self-interest drives them to donate such sections of their care that they defend the rights of all men in return for the defense of their own. This is what we need - this is what stands to clarify that which is real and important versus that which is nonsense, serving only to divide us by keeping us at each other's throats. The "race" issue comes to mind first and foremost here. We'd better get right with each other or Theye will have us just where they want us - which is pretty well the current situation, what with police running as wild and rabid dogs in the streets and certain populations burning down their own places.

If indeed we have at hand this mechanism for defeating tyranny, then it is well past time we got our heads out of our colons and started learning how to put it into effective and unequivocal action.

My opinion - only not worthless this time.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Showing up to the police station with a warrant is perhaps not that likely to receive the desired response

Correct.

The District Attorney must be under the authority of the GJ. The DA delivers a warrant to the police station.

Until the Supreme Court is forced by constitutional amendment specific to re instituting common law, and orders superior courts of all state to observe common law jurisdiction, and a second branch of authority from all civil authority leading to the GJ properly formed, the GJ will not have the authority.

This is why the people must unify around constitutional intent to lawfully direct the states to convene delegates in 3/4 of them with the proposals for preparatory amendment. After preparatory amendment has had its effect, the entire issue of GJ overview UNDER THE CONSTITUTION can be properly presented to the people and by state votes be ratified as the law.

The act of 1871 pre empts the GJ authority until then.

State courts really do not want the complication and competition. They can challenge the GJ decisions, but a second GJ formed specific to the issue can properly reverse even appeals courts decisions. Literally any issue of law that the people feel is not handled properly by statute courts could and should be overruled by the Citizens Grand Jury. And the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction over the GJ as long as it's decision is clearly constitutional.

This makes the 10th amendment work properly.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[HVACTech]

If indeed we have at hand this mechanism for defeating tyranny, then it is well past time we got our heads out of our colons and started learning how to put it into effective and unequivocal action.

My opinion - only not worthless this time.

you bashed me pretty hard for speaking in support of MY Constitution the other day.
many of your compatriots joined in.
Ronin Truth had the balls to suggest that I look up the "anti-federalist FOUNDERS"
so, I did.
bad news, can YOU make a reasonable argument..
that anyone who identifies with or as an "anti-federalist" is NOT in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the CONSTITUTION?

do the Pauls support the Constitution? can YOU spot the paradox?

who is the most popular member BY FAR at RPF's?

I parse my words and try to speak concisely. if my direct observation is correct..
how is this website NOT an embarrassment to the Pauls?

[Working Poor]

If indeed we have at hand this mechanism for defeating tyranny, then it is well past time we got our heads out of our colons and started learning how to put it into effective and unequivocal action.

My opinion - only not worthless this time.

For some reason I can't get any videos playing right now but I do know that the in the OP video the person speaking lays out a plan for working on your local level. I am going to look into this and learn how to help. The civics classes mentioned in the video is a great idea. Do what you can folks I think this could really help.

[Working Poor]

This makes the 10th amendment work properly.

We need to get on it.

[osan]

you bashed me pretty hard for speaking in support of MY Constitution the other day.

I don't bash anyone for supporting the Constitution. I merely point out repeatedly the fact that the Constitution is an endlessly insufficient document. In fact, I have begun an analysis of the Constitution just yesterday, which I may finish as time permits. The trouble starts from the very first sentence of the Preamble. The problems are real and they are severe. There is a real and eminently sound reason I refer to the Constitution as a specification for a nation of saints. We are were anything but that in 1789 and we are much farther from it today.

The very structure of the document is problematic, the error having been addressed and solved by my redesign when I undertook to write my own version. But that version is vapor and the one in effect is a mess. That is not to say it cannot be made to work, but that it cannot do so in good fashion with a population of doltish people. Freedom and stupidity cannot coexist. It is literally impossible for it to be so on an abiding basis. Yes, some statistically insignificant number of stupid/stoopid people will always manage to luck-out, at least for a time, and not be consumed by the flames of their mental inadequacies. But a truly free land would never be able to support the current levels of stupidity as now dominates the reality of America.

As I have mentioned prior, it may be the case that the Constitution was the best those men could produce at that time, and for that time and those people it was an admirable product. But a man can wander only so far from the plantation on which he was raised and every one of those men were raised as subjects to a crown. I am confident that there were certain assumptions from which they were able to walk away. Even they, however, should have seen the writing on the wall because it was there even at that time. A good example of this was the simple fact that many were ready to name G. Washington "king". Even then, even after that miserable war by which the new Americans barely scraped past the largest and best trained army on earth, there remained the mental constructs that remained in the minds of many, however temporarily. Certain brands of error, such as this, cannot be afforded even on the most momentary basis because the tyrants will take fullest advantage of it and the general nature of men to obey even the most ridiculous mandates placed upon them. Just look at people today - tolerating PATRIOT, NDAA, TARP, and all that rot.

Entropy of of mind is perhaps the greatest danger of them all.

that anyone who identifies with or as an "anti-federalist" is NOT in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the CONSTITUTION?

Who in their right mind would want to make such an argument in the face of the analytic reality that so glaringly exposes the Constitution as being so deeply flawed?

do the Pauls support the Constitution? can YOU spot the paradox?

There is no paradox. You are looking at the Constitution narrowly. There are at least two aspects by which the document must be assessed. One is the ideas contained therein. The other is the way in which the ideas are couched in terms of construction. A third way lies in judging the completeness of the document. This is no different than that which must be done for any argument or treatise. Ask these simple questions and drill down from there:

1. Is it clear?
   
2. Is it complete?
   
3. Is it correct?

At even the most cursory analytic levels we see that the Constitution fails miserably. It is neither clear in all cases, nor in any way can it be deemed complete, taken at the whole. As for correctness, that becomes a matter of deeper scrutiny, the highest-level answer being "partly". It can be said to be correct in the deeper sentiments and notions therein expressed. The notions of individual sovereignty and its attendant freedoms, liberties, and the single true obligation (non-aggression, in essence) are the jewels of that document. Those are the eternal truths that give it its value. But the valence, the central significance of them is occluded and obscured by all the endless bull$#@! about senates and houses and powers to tax. I would, in fact, have left ALL of that out of the document, leaving it to be worked out by the "states" in other bodies of work. Had the Founders concentrated upon treating the core principles of liberty properly, exhaustively, and with perfect clarity, the rest would have worked itself out in time. The structure of government is virtually irrelevant when the proper principles of governance are in place, understood, and loved by the people, from the haughtiest intellectual down to even the village idiot.

The Founders $#@!ed up in a very big way, having written the Constitution the way they did. Much noise is made about how pretty and compact a work it is. I don't give the least damn about pretty, diminutiveness, or elegance. I care about clarity, completeness, and correctness, which is the product of my 30 years as a systems engineer and computer scientist. Those of us in my field who have been properly trained and are well experienced and capable are well familiar with the challenges of the proper communication of ideas, which computer science and various engineering disciplines have discovered, contrived, and practice more frequently and with better capability than any other people on the planet, and by a vast margin. We do so because we understand the consequences of failure - we understand this better than even doctors and lawyers. The next best-endowed in such matters are trained combat soldiers who keenly understand the potentially disastrous results of not being C^3 in the transmission of ideas.

If it cannot have been said of any other epoch in human history, it must certainly be said of our current circumstance: humanity can no longer afford a cavalier attitude toward communication or ineptitude in its exercise. We live in an age where the single press of a button can kill people by the millions. The age of technological innocence is past us and we must rise to the new and ever-so-immediate challenges that our current technologies, taken in the context of the less flattering aspects of human behavioral habit, press upon us. We can no longer afford the naïvité of the past... "rah rah rah, 'Murka... we be free, rah rah rah..." like a nation of Charlie McCarthy's. Time is here to choose: wise up and survive as a free people, or remain the rankly doltish people we have allowed ourselves to become in terms of our understandings of what it means to be a free people and be crushed by tyrants whose lust for that end is boundless.

Just because the Constitution is in many respects an utterly miserable document, it does not follow that we should abandon it. It does, however, mean that we as a so-called "nation" can in no possible measure afford to be lazy and ignorant in our understanding of the principles of human liberty and of proper human relations. With such basic knowledge as the filter of perception and judgment, people will then be able to understand the poorly designed and constructed Constitution. They will be able to see how what is written there is to be interpreted against the standard set by the principles to which I refer, and that is all we really need, along with the attitude and will to see them made and kept real in their daily effect in the lives of all men.

who is the most popular member BY FAR at RPF's?

Could not say as I am not here to participate in a popularity contest. I am here to learn, to hone, and to help others see what I see. Oh, and to occasionally vent.

I parse my words and try to speak concisely. if my direct observation is correct..
how is this website NOT an embarrassment to the Pauls?

Nobody's perfect, but on the whole I see the site as anything but an embarrassment. While I find the flame wars and the frequency of lame-ass threads onto which so many seem to pile on unnecessary and at times irritating - perhaps for the same reasons you call the site and "embarrassment", that does not in any way detract from the fine intellectual exchanges and activism that resides here.

The Constitution is nothing more than a weakly constructed window dressing for the jewels it frames. I give it and the authors all due credit for recognizing the supremacy of individual sovereignty and the freedoms and liberties it so forcefully and directly implies. I equally call them out for the terrible job they did and the terrible errors they made in constructing the picture frame. The things that the Constitution needed to be the most were largely ignored in favor of the things we needed the least, which coincidentally just happened to be the things that best enabled the rise of the American tyrant. Funny, that.

Finally, if the site is such an embarrassment to your eyes, why do you remain here? There are plenty of others, perhaps far less embarrassing, to frequent. Why would you stay at a place that embarrasses you? I don't get it.

[osan]

This makes the 10th amendment work properly.

We need to get on it.

Being the ignorant pig that in some ways I am, could anyone explain to me the value of the 10th Amendment? I see nothing there but the door to tyranny standing widely ajar. The 9th was all that was needed and is correct. Semantically speaking, the 10th places the state above the individual, and puts them in competition for those rights to which reference is made. At the very least I would have reversed to order to say "to the people or to the States." This is just another subtle, but very serious error on the part of the authors.

Were the Framers out of ideas in a world where they just had to have a nice round number of Amendments, like ten? Clearly, I must be missing something.

All that said, how does the measure in question make the 10th work properly? What is its proper function? I see this as making the 9th work properly, or does the 10th speak to "the people" not as individuals but as a governing body? That last bit just came to me. It is correct?

[Christopher A. Brown]

This makes the 10th amendment work properly.

We need to get on it.

Yes, but osans points need consideration. The constitution obviously has flaws, but it is no where near as bad as osan portrays it.

I merely point out repeatedly the fact that the Constitution is an endlessly insufficient document.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.
Yes, elements have positioned themselves as usurpers and have overridden aspects making it appear less functional, and true, it was only because of deficiencies in the constitution they were able to do that.

But the valence, the central significance of them is occluded and obscured by all the endless bull$#@! about senates and houses and powers to tax. I would, in fact, have left ALL of that out of the document, leaving it to be worked out by the "states" in other bodies of work.

Recognizing that the basic constitution was a compromise between bureaucrats, tyrants and anarchists, goes quite a long ways to understanding the endless BS about taxes.

The oversight in your position is here.

"leaving it to be worked out by the "states" in other bodies of work."

Where are the people in that? Left out again. Assuring another form of deficiency.

My point is as always. Freedom of speech has a purpose. In the case applied to your position, it is preemptive to needing to "alter or abolish". IF things had been left to other bodies to be worked out. Without it those bodies could have made even worse errors, or formed a weaker alliance perhaps compromising the many.

The notion of one set of overarching principles that perpetually protect the people, with the caveat (Article V) that if they don't, they can be adjusted, is not a bad concept. As long as those principles sustain the unity of people to the point where they use the principles which apply to their safety and happiness to make the alteration or, if things are that bad, abolishment of the government charged to operate under the principles.

I suggest if the constitution were that bad, we would have been overrun long ago. In fact it's inclusion of Article V just after the preceding articles which appears to bear function for correction of the government formed by the preceding.

You've made the same mistake as the authors of the constitution. You've left out the mechanisms of unity by which the people actually unify and implement their unity to adjust, correct the system and defend their vital rights.

The aspect of creating and maintaining unity is what requires the constant vigilance, not the watchdog act over government. If the gov becomes too onerous or abusive a unified people will just slap them down and restructure.

It is the action of creating and maintaining unity that is slippery on each of our personal levels. It calls for agreement. Agreement call for understanding, understanding calls for information and open dialog upon it in the formation of informed opinion. Then, each can consider small compromises or sacrifices of their perceptions or perspectives leading to agreement.

We have almost none of that at our disposal. This "on topic" medium where there is no accountability is as good as it gets.

[Christopher A. Brown]

All that said, how does the measure in question make the 10th work properly? What is its proper function? I see this as making the 9th work properly, or does the 10th speak to "the people" not as individuals but as a governing body? That last bit just came to me. It is correct?

The GJ puts the people in a position, similar to that of jury veto power to adjudicate application of law in a particular case.

Since the people of a state are theoretically in control of a state, the states rights are upheld by the GJ.

However, since the act of 1871, a great deal of the original constitutions intent has been abrogated, common law as well, wherein the GJ has no authority and is left out of the official structure of law.

We need a lawful and peaceful revolution to reinstate that authority.

[CPUd]

For some reason I can't get any videos playing right now but I do know that the in the OP video the person speaking lays out a plan for working on your local level. I am going to look into this and learn how to help. The civics classes mentioned in the video is a great idea. Do what you can folks I think this could really help.

The group he is promoting is NLA, if you value your time and money, I'd advise staying far away from this group.

NLA is run by a couple sovcit grifters named "John Darash" (real name John Vidurek) and Gerard Aprea. John doesn't use his real name because he doesn't want the marks to look up his previous court cases that were thrown out. Like this one, where he tried the standard "tax protester" arguments and failed miserably:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/239707114...randum-Opinion

Or a more recent one that is largely gibberish, and as of yesterday, got thrown out for failure to pay the filing fee:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/260745081...-15-Cv-02188-1


Most of the people who genuinely thought this was a viable strategy, have quit the group. There are maybe 15-20 people across the country remaining. They rely on direct donations (and a percentage of the donations from state groups) and more recently, ad money from sponsors who sell junk silver, survival seeds and bleach enemas. This money goes directly into John and Gerard's pockets.

John and Gerard run a monday night call where John reads for 1 or 2 hours from whatever magic paper he has written (usually the same stuff, always cites US v. Williams and God), then takes questions from callers where people are getting increasingly agitated that nothing has been done in 2 years. Also, want to know when do they get their $70,000 jerbs (explained further below).

He will tell you he has a plan, but he will never go into specifics about the plan, just that he is going to "file" 7 or 8 more powerful papers, which means he will have the suckers on the call mail them to judges with 3-cent stamps so they will get sent back, or he himself will file with the court clerk without paying the filing fee. There are also leadership-only calls, where John explains in detail such complicated procedures, like mailing a letter, sending a fax, etc.


The original plan was to have CLGJs in every county, there were a handful of counties in FL that got to this point, and directed by John Vidurek, began requesting access to the courthouses at the county commissioner meetings. During this time, someone from the fake grand jury happened to get on a real grand jury and get elected foreman. After trying to "indite" Common Core, he got kicked off the real grand jury, but still filed papers from the fake grand jury with the county clerk. He (Terry is in the 2nd video in post #2) got charged with 14 felony counts and after that, John stopped telling people to go to the county meetings demanding space. He is very aware which states have laws against "simulation of legal process", and has since retooled the organization to be about "education", because John Vidurek is afraid of going to jail.


The "civics course" is a quiz thingy on their website that John claims cost around $10,000 to build. There are videos of G. Edward Griffin and Bill Thornton (most of John's "legal" theory is ripped off from Thornton), and the user has to watch those videos and answer questions based on what is said in the videos. Part of "the plan" is to have 4 administrators in each county who are getting paid $70,000 per year to administer grand juries.

For those who still want to look further into this group, listen to their monday calls. You will notice that there is a lot of talk about action, but all the actionable stuff is predicated on "getting into the courts", which has a 0% chance of happening.

[HVACTech]

Being the ignorant pig that in some ways I am, could anyone explain to me the value of the 10th Amendment? I see nothing there but the door to tyranny standing widely ajar. The 9th was all that was needed and is correct. Semantically speaking, the 10th places the state above the individual, and puts them in competition for those rights to which reference is made. At the very least I would have reversed to order to say "to the people or to the States." This is just another subtle, but very serious error on the part of the authors.

Were the Framers out of ideas in a world where they just had to have a nice round number of Amendments, like ten? Clearly, I must be missing something.

All that said, how does the measure in question make the 10th work properly? What is its proper function? I see this as making the 9th work properly, or does the 10th speak to "the people" not as individuals but as a governing body? That last bit just came to me. It is correct?

you sir, are FAR more than just an ignorant pig.
you are shameless in your ignorance and bellicose in your nature about a document that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

you have been here since 09, bashing the Constitution... and it is just now occurring to you that... you do not know what the $#@! you are talking about.

I warned you to Google HVAC/R before bullshitting me.
and then you have the audacity to blurt out this BS.

Entropy of of mind is perhaps the greatest danger of them all.

hey look! Osan can use a big word in a sentence!
he can also use it in a desultory and condescending manner!

I will go first. "cold" does not exist" your turn!
(psst, we are discussing Entropy.. )

our Constitution is an anti-statist document.
it functions as a contract between the states and the federal gov't.
it is in fact, the rule of law in our republic.
it is an enumerated powers document. as such, it does NOT apply to the people.
it can be argued that the BOR does, but not the federal constitution.
violation of a contract, does NOT indicate a flaw in the contract.

I question your IT credentials sir.
IF you truly are a high level IT guy, you should know by now who you are addressing.

I have demonstrated ability to understand complex operating systems. I can also use and apply this knowledge to different operating systems, under varying conditions.

you sir, are about as complex as a hair dryer.
~hugs~
lulz!!

I anxiously await YOU to explain Entropy to me...
I will make it EASY for you pissant.
we will use YOUR Information tech definition.

[osan]

Yes, but osans points need consideration. The constitution obviously has flaws, but it is no where near as bad as osan portrays it.

Actually, it is every bit as bad as I claim. It fails structurally, as well as semantically, all of which I have outlined previously.

Recognizing that the basic constitution was a compromise between bureaucrats, tyrants and anarchists, goes quite a long ways to understanding the endless BS about taxes.

And in such contexts, "compromise" is perhaps the most vile of all the words.

The oversight in your position is here.

"leaving it to be worked out by the "states" in other bodies of work."

Where are the people in that? Left out again. Assuring another form of deficiency.

That is precisely why I put the term in quotes. There is no such thing as a "state". The "state" is the people - each and every one of us. As such, the term is naught but an expressive shorthand to denote all of us. That is has been so deeply perverted by those seek power does not alter its true meaning.

Here, my use of "states" might more precisely have been taken to mean that the PEOPLE of each of the states would have convened with each other to work out these irrelevant details of structure and procedure by which the functions of governance would be carried out and carried forth.

My point is as always. Freedom of speech has a purpose. In the case applied to your position, it is preemptive to needing to "alter or abolish". IF things had been left to other bodies to be worked out. Without it those bodies could have made even worse errors, or formed a weaker alliance perhaps compromising the many.

With the proper expression, understanding, and holding of the fundamental principles of human sovereignty and human relations, this potential would have remained vanishingly small. Smart people, imbued with the attitude of intolerant vigilance pursuant to their love and desire to be free, would flay and slay anyone who would date so much as suggest the adoption or imposition of anything that would diminish the Individual Prerogative. A nation of such übermenschen would be indomitable by would-be tyrants.

The notion of one set of overarching principles that perpetually protect the people, with the caveat (Article V) that if they don't, they can be adjusted, is not a bad concept. As long as those principles sustain the unity of people to the point where they use the principles which apply to their safety and happiness to make the alteration or, if things are that bad, abolishment of the government charged to operate under the principles.

Those principles have been worked out right here in the past few weeks. I'd begun work on them years ago and finally put them forth to the rest and we came up with this. From these principles, the entire body of objectively correct and complete Law may be derived, which I will add would manifest the compact elegance that appears to have charmed so many about our Constitution. With that in hand, the nation would right itself in short order, were it to be recognized as the supreme and immutable law of the land.

I suggest if the constitution were that bad, we would have been overrun long ago.

Not if the great majority fails to recognize it as such. I assert that they have so failed.

In fact it's inclusion of Article V just after the preceding articles which appears to bear function for correction of the government formed by the preceding.

Once again, the tool however present, serves no function if it will not be used. At this stage of the game, and Article V convention would be an unprecedented disaster for the entire world.

You've made the same mistake as the authors of the constitution. You've left out the mechanisms of unity by which the people actually unify and implement their unity to adjust, correct the system and defend their vital rights.

Read the article in the link I provided. It is not terribly long. It provides precisely the unifying mechanism needed. These are the lowest level, common denominator elements that define the nature, metes, and bounds of proper human relations.

The aspect of creating and maintaining unity is what requires the constant vigilance, not the watchdog act over government. If the gov becomes too onerous or abusive a unified people will just slap them down and restructure.

Both are required.

It is the action of creating and maintaining unity that is slippery on each of our personal levels.

It is far less so if you have in hand the right principles.

It calls for agreement. Agreement call for understanding, understanding calls for information and open dialog upon it in the formation of informed opinion. Then, each can consider small compromises or sacrifices of their perceptions or perspectives leading to agreement.

Exactly so, and the above referenced principles are universally applicable to all men. They are easy to accept, while rejecting them places onerous demands upon he who rejects them to provide a valid basis for his refusal. This quality alone recommends them with substance of force.

We have almost none of that at our disposal. This "on topic" medium where there is no accountability is as good as it gets.

Read and then get back to me on that point.

[osan]

you sir, are FAR more than just an ignorant pig.

Ad hominem - the final resort of the defeated man.

You have a good day.

ETA: you are now the sole resident of my ignore list, so post to your heart's content. I will not be seeing any of it.

Cheers.

[osan]

So, does anyone else have an opinion on what CPUd wrote on this? It seems to place a wrench into the gears, but knowing nothing of it, I cannot assess with any competence.

The group he is promoting is NLA, if you value your time and money, I'd advise staying far away from this group.

NLA is run by a couple sovcit grifters named "John Darash" (real name John Vidurek) and Gerard Aprea. John doesn't use his real name because he doesn't want the marks to look up his previous court cases that were thrown out. Like this one, where he tried the standard "tax protester" arguments and failed miserably:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/239707114...randum-Opinion

Or a more recent one that is largely gibberish, and as of yesterday, got thrown out for failure to pay the filing fee:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/260745081...-15-Cv-02188-1


Most of the people who genuinely thought this was a viable strategy, have quit the group. There are maybe 15-20 people across the country remaining. They rely on direct donations (and a percentage of the donations from state groups) and more recently, ad money from sponsors who sell junk silver, survival seeds and bleach enemas. This money goes directly into John and Gerard's pockets.

John and Gerard run a monday night call where John reads for 1 or 2 hours from whatever magic paper he has written (usually the same stuff, always cites US v. Williams and God), then takes questions from callers where people are getting increasingly agitated that nothing has been done in 2 years. Also, want to know when do they get their $70,000 jerbs (explained further below).

He will tell you he has a plan, but he will never go into specifics about the plan, just that he is going to "file" 7 or 8 more powerful papers, which means he will have the suckers on the call mail them to judges with 3-cent stamps so they will get sent back, or he himself will file with the court clerk without paying the filing fee. There are also leadership-only calls, where John explains in detail such complicated procedures, like mailing a letter, sending a fax, etc.


The original plan was to have CLGJs in every county, there were a handful of counties in FL that got to this point, and directed by John Vidurek, began requesting access to the courthouses at the county commissioner meetings. During this time, someone from the fake grand jury happened to get on a real grand jury and get elected foreman. After trying to "indite" Common Core, he got kicked off the real grand jury, but still filed papers from the fake grand jury with the county clerk. He (Terry is in the 2nd video in post #2) got charged with 14 felony counts and after that, John stopped telling people to go to the county meetings demanding space. He is very aware which states have laws against "simulation of legal process", and has since retooled the organization to be about "education", because John Vidurek is afraid of going to jail.


The "civics course" is a quiz thingy on their website that John claims cost around $10,000 to build. There are videos of G. Edward Griffin and Bill Thornton (most of John's "legal" theory is ripped off from Thornton), and the user has to watch those videos and answer questions based on what is said in the videos. Part of "the plan" is to have 4 administrators in each county who are getting paid $70,000 per year to administer grand juries.

For those who still want to look further into this group, listen to their monday calls. You will notice that there is a lot of talk about action, but all the actionable stuff is predicated on "getting into the courts", which has a 0% chance of happening.

[HVACTech]

Read and then get back to me on that point.

you seem to like to pick on Chris.

I was seriously enamored of your definition of Entropy. and yet sir,
you will NOT discuss it with me...

[HVACTech]

Ad hominem - the final resort of the defeated man.

You have a good day.

twas, not my words sir. twas your own admission.

[HVACTech]

Ad hominem - the final resort of the defeated man.

You have a good day.

ETA: you are now the sole resident of my ignore list, so post to your heart's content. I will not be seeing any of it.

Cheers.

yeah, it was a REALLY stupid idea to use the word Entropy in a conversation with me sir.

you have a nice day yourself sir..

[HVACTech]

can someone give me a clue, as to WHY I should play nice with this wise-ass?

[Working Poor]

can someone give me a clue, as to WHY I should play nice with this wise-ass?

Because it is the right thing to do. Come on babe.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Yes, but osans points need consideration. The constitution obviously has flaws, but it is no where near as bad as osan portrays it.

Actually, it is every bit as bad as I claim. It fails structurally, as well as semantically, all of which I have outlined previously.

You left out comment on the below. Such is not comprehensive and not competent in rational discussion.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Obviously structure and semantics are strong enough to last 226 years despite the act of 1871. You are wrong.

Recognizing that the basic constitution was a compromise between bureaucrats, tyrants and anarchists, goes quite a long ways to understanding the endless BS about taxes.

And in such contexts, "compromise" is perhaps the most vile of all the words.

Are you saying that violence is better? Is that constitutional? Are you constitutional by suggesting such a thing, or the effect of your ambiguity? And you have not defined which compromise is "vile". Cherry picking in ambiguous obfuscation. No wonder AF is slamming you.

The oversight in your position is here.

"leaving it to be worked out by the "states" in other bodies of work."

Where are the people in that? Left out again. Assuring another form of deficiency.

That is precisely why I put the term in quotes. There is no such thing as a "state". The "state" is the people - each and every one of us. As such, the term is naught but an expressive shorthand to denote all of us. That is has been so deeply perverted by those seek power does not alter its true meaning.

Oh, now your vague ambiguity is "shorthand"

Here, my use of "states" might more precisely have been taken to mean that the PEOPLE of each of the states would have convened with each other to work out these irrelevant details of structure and procedure by which the functions of governance would be carried out and carried forth.

But you have NO DESCRIPTION of how the people would have convened. Again, not comprehensive enough to be competent in this discussion BECAUSE I am defining HOW the people are to convene by describing how social unity can be created around "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all [resonable, honest] men".

Prime constitutional intent relating to the ultimate purpose of free speech is what Americans can unify around. Unity is convening in a social sense. When that escalates it becomes officially "convening". Accordingly, with your argument you are refusing to convene, to unify, to agree with "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all men" or at least those that are honest.

With the proper expression, understanding, and holding of the fundamental principles of human sovereignty and human relations, this potential would have remained vanishingly small. Smart people, imbued with the attitude of intolerant vigilance pursuant to their love and desire to be free, would flay and slay anyone who would date so much as suggest the adoption or imposition of anything that would diminish the Individual Prerogative. A nation of such übermenschen would be indomitable by would-be tyrants.

We have said almost exactly the same thing, except I have been specific and you have been vague. I specifically have stated that unity creates the power to defeat tyranny and I've defined that such statement IS constitutional intent but that one of the deficiencies of the constitution is that IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY state that fact.
It is by implication and inference. Both of which can be logically and competently made in this case.

IF the framers stated we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, THEN they intended for us to have power adequate to do so.

WHERE would that power come from?

Our unity is the only logical answer.

What would serve the purpose of creating that unity?

Freedom of speech is the only possible logical answer. CONCLUSION-Free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Now, if you cannot compromise at this point, you will forever be the bitch of the infiltrated government that you hate so much you've developed intellectual myopia.

Those principles have been worked out right here in the past few weeks. I'd begun work on them years ago and finally put them forth to the rest and we came up with this. From these principles, the entire body of objectively correct and complete Law may be derived, which I will add would manifest the compact elegance that appears to have charmed so many about our Constitution. With that in hand, the nation would right itself in short order, were it to be recognized as the supreme and immutable law of the land.

Okay, I've read some of your blog and find it quite good relating to the united nations which I do not trust anymore than you. However, the same deficiency exist here where you skip over the social mechanism that enables unity.

"The right of freedoms of speech and belief are positive rights. That is, they assert the right to act positively. You may speak and believe as you please, both of which are positive acts, whereas any right to be "free from" is negative in nature. A negative right means is that one entitled to be free from unwanted outside interferences or influences."

You assume that definition of the positive and negative aspects completes your analysis.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Not if the great majority fails to recognize it as such. I assert that they have so failed.

Now you assert this AFTER separating it from the original context AND ignoring that it is our failure to know the PURPOSE of free speech as a point of unity that is .

You continue with the failure.

Once again, the tool however present, serves no function if it will not be used. At this stage of the game, and Article V convention would be an unprecedented disaster for the entire world.

This is exactly what I say BUT, I explain how to use it starting with the very first step. Unity around the right that serves to engage the tool.

Read the article in the link I provided. It is not terribly long. It provides precisely the unifying mechanism needed. These are the lowest level, common denominator elements that define the nature, metes, and bounds of proper human relations.

If you cannot appreciate proper compromise and continue cherry picking, losing context for the sake of your argument, your words upon human relations are empty.

So I've shown exactly how you do this, which I describe below AGAIN.

You've made the same mistake as the authors of the constitution. You've left out the mechanisms of unity by which the people actually unify and implement their unity to adjust, correct the system and defend their vital rights.

The integrity required to make intelligent compromise in perspective relating to facts of law is not difficult for people that truly appreciate freedom.

The agents of the infiltrated government do not give a damm and will continue with obfuscation.

The aspect of creating and maintaining unity is what requires the constant vigilance, not the watchdog act over government. If the gov becomes too onerous or abusive a unified people will just slap them down and restructure.

Both are required.

Honesty in discussion is required too.

It is the action of creating and maintaining unity that is slippery on each of our personal levels.

It is far less so if you have in hand the right principles.

So will you continue to ignore the right principle, the ultimate purpose of free speech to pretend you actually have an argument rather than an agreement?

It calls for agreement. Agreement call for understanding, understanding calls for information and open dialog upon it in the formation of informed opinion. Then, each can consider small compromises or sacrifices of their perceptions or perspectives leading to agreement.

Exactly so, and the above referenced principles are universally applicable to all men. They are easy to accept, while rejecting them places onerous demands upon he who rejects them to provide a valid basis for his refusal. This quality alone recommends them with substance of force.

So what "onerous demands" demand does the acceptance of the ultimate purpose of free speech impose upon you? What is you valid basis for refusal to accept this "referenced principle(s) [that should be] are universally applicable to all men"?

Read and then get back to me on that point.

As you can see I've read enough and I'm getting back to you CORRECTING your obfuscation which I understand or see as being intellectual protectionism or an ego that that refuses to compromise intelligently.

You left out comment on the below. Such is not comprehensive and not competent in rational discussion.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Obviously structure and semantics are strong enough to last 226 years despite the act of 1871. You are wrong.

Recognizing that the basic constitution was a compromise between bureaucrats, tyrants and anarchists, goes quite a long ways to understanding the endless BS about taxes.

And in such contexts, "compromise" is perhaps the most vile of all the words.

Are you saying that violence is better? Is that constitutional? Are you constitutional by suggesting such a thing, or the effect of your ambiguity? And you have not defined which compromise is "vile". Cherry picking in ambiguous obfuscation. No wonder AF is slamming you.

The oversight in your position is here.

"leaving it to be worked out by the "states" in other bodies of work."

Where are the people in that? Left out again. Assuring another form of deficiency.

That is precisely why I put the term in quotes. There is no such thing as a "state". The "state" is the people - each and every one of us. As such, the term is naught but an expressive shorthand to denote all of us. That is has been so deeply perverted by those seek power does not alter its true meaning.

Oh, now your vague ambiguity is "shorthand"

Here, my use of "states" might more precisely have been taken to mean that the PEOPLE of each of the states would have convened with each other to work out these irrelevant details of structure and procedure by which the functions of governance would be carried out and carried forth.

But you have NO DESCRIPTION of how the people would have convened. Again, not comprehensive enough to be competent in this discussion BECAUSE I am defining HOW the people are to convene by describing how social unity can be created around "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all [resonable, honest] men".

Prime constitutional intent relating to the ultimate purpose of free speech is what Americans can unify around. Unity is convening in a social sense. When that escalates it becomes officially "convening". Accordingly, with your argument you are refusing to convene, to unify, to agree with "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all men" or at least those that are honest.

With the proper expression, understanding, and holding of the fundamental principles of human sovereignty and human relations, this potential would have remained vanishingly small. Smart people, imbued with the attitude of intolerant vigilance pursuant to their love and desire to be free, would flay and slay anyone who would date so much as suggest the adoption or imposition of anything that would diminish the Individual Prerogative. A nation of such übermenschen would be indomitable by would-be tyrants.

We have said almost exactly the same thing, except I have been specific and you have been vague. I specifically have stated that unity creates the power to defeat tyranny and I've defined that such statement IS constitutional intent but that one of the deficiencies of the constitution is that IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY state that fact.
It is by implication and inference. Both of which can be logically and competently made in this case.

IF the framers stated we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, THEN they intended for us to have power adequate to do so.

WHERE would that power come from?

Our unity is the only logical answer.

What would serve the purpose of creating that unity?

Freedom of speech is the only possible logical answer. CONCLUSION-Free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Now, if you cannot compromise at this point, you will forever be the bitch of the infiltrated government that you hate so much you've developed intellectual myopia.

Those principles have been worked out right here in the past few weeks. I'd begun work on them years ago and finally put them forth to the rest and we came up with this. From these principles, the entire body of objectively correct and complete Law may be derived, which I will add would manifest the compact elegance that appears to have charmed so many about our Constitution. With that in hand, the nation would right itself in short order, were it to be recognized as the supreme and immutable law of the land.

Okay, I've read some of your blog and find it quite good relating to the united nations which I do not trust anymore than you. However, the same deficiency exist here where you skip over the social mechanism that enables unity.

"The right of freedoms of speech and belief are positive rights. That is, they assert the right to act positively. You may speak and believe as you please, both of which are positive acts, whereas any right to be "free from" is negative in nature. A negative right means is that one entitled to be free from unwanted outside interferences or influences."

You assume that definition of the positive and negative aspects completes your analysis.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Not if the great majority fails to recognize it as such. I assert that they have so failed.

Now you assert this AFTER separating it from the original context AND ignoring that it is our failure to know the PURPOSE of free speech.

You continue with the failure.

Once again, the tool however present, serves no function if it will not be used. At this stage of the game, and Article V convention would be an unprecedented disaster for the entire world.

This is exactly what I say BUT, I explain how to use it starting with the very first step. Unity around the right that serves to engage the tool.

Read the article in the link I provided. It is not terribly long. It provides precisely the unifying mechanism needed. These are the lowest level, common denominator elements that define the nature, metes, and bounds of proper human relations.

If you cannot appreciate proper compromise and continue cherry picking, losing context for the sake of your argument, your words upon human relations are empty.

So I've shown exactly how you do this, which I describe below AGAIN.

You've made the same mistake as the authors of the constitution. You've left out the mechanisms of unity by which the people actually unify and implement their unity to adjust, correct the system and defend their vital rights.

The integrity required to make intelligent compromise in perspective relating to facts of law is not difficult for people that truly appreciate freedom.

The agents of the infiltrated government do not give a damm and will continue with obfuscation.

The aspect of creating and maintaining unity is what requires the constant vigilance, not the watchdog act over government. If the gov becomes too onerous or abusive a unified people will just slap them down and restructure.

Both are required.

Honesty in discussion is required too.

It is the action of creating and maintaining unity that is slippery on each of our personal levels.

It is far less so if you have in hand the right principles.

So will you continue to ignore the right principle, the ultimate purpose of free speech to pretend you actually have an argument rather than an agreement?

It calls for agreement. Agreement call for understanding, understanding calls for information and open dialog upon it in the formation of informed opinion. Then, each can consider small compromises or sacrifices of their perceptions or perspectives leading to agreement.

Exactly so, and the above referenced principles are universally applicable to all men. They are easy to accept, while rejecting them places onerous demands upon he who rejects them to provide a valid basis for his refusal. This quality alone recommends them with substance of force.

So what "onerous demands" demand does the acceptance of the ultimate purpose of free speech impose upon you? What is you valid basis for refusal to accept?

Read and then get back to me on that point.

As you can see I've read enough and I'm getting back to you CORRECTING your obfuscation which I understand or see as being intellectual protectionism or an ego that that refuses to compromise intelligently.

[Anti Federalist]

can someone give me a clue, as to WHY I should play nice with this wise-ass?

Because osan is a genuinely sincere and intelligent poster who has a brilliant way with words.

I don't make my case with as much wordsmithery, but the facts of the matter are simple, at least to me:

1 - The anti federalists were correct in their warnings and concerns about the 1787 constitution.

2 - And so was Lysander Spooner when he said: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

3 - Therefore, we have the right to alter or abolish this form of government and institute a new one, better suited to protecting and enhancing liberty.

4 - Certainly a peaceful sort of change is desired, but that needs to be spontaneous, like the Berlin Wall falling, which did not rely on large amounts pre planning and "free speech providing unity" beforehand. But in the end, I believe that only a credible display of force and the willingness to use it will result in the massive shift needed from our current trend to absolute despotism.

[Anti Federalist]

So, does anyone else have an opinion on what CPUd wrote on this? It seems to place a wrench into the gears, but knowing nothing of it, I cannot assess with any competence.

Based on just cursory examination, and unable to view videos where I am, it seems like they (the NLA) are yet another one of these "fly by night" patriot outfits that end up getting people thrown in jail following their bad advice.

Can't say if that is what the video in the OP is talking about though.

I can say with some confidence that appealing to the system's courts for protection and justice from the system is more often than not a losing cause.

[CCTelander]

Based on just cursory examination, and unable to view videos where I am, it seems like they (the NLA) are yet another one of these "fly by night" patriot outfits that end up getting people thrown in jail following their bad advice.

Can't say if that is what the video in the OP is talking about though.

I can say with some confidence that appealing to the system's courts for protection and justice from the system is more often than not a losing cause.

Kind of like appealing to Don Vito Corleone in a dispute between yourself and Sony Corleone. The likely outcome of such a proceeding is hardly in question.

[Anti Federalist]

Kind of like appealing to Don Vito Corleone in a dispute between yourself and Sony Corleone. The likely outcome of such a proceeding is hardly in question.

Yeah, no kidding.

Either my signature or my brains will be on that contract.