LaVoy Finicum Analysis – NEW VIDEOS

14 Comments on LaVoy Finicum Analysis – NEW VIDEOS

1. Lavoy is Ed Harris. Great actor. The occupation was a spin off from TV show Under the Dome and used the same actors. Can we quit beating this psyop to death?

   • I met LaVoy, he and Ed Harris are different people. Met Shawna Cox, not an actress on ‘The Dome’.

2. Nobody should be surprised that PRAVDA/MSM was involved in the Finicum murder event along with FBI and OSP ! The local sheriff could have and should have circumvented the entire event and he went along with the killers and did not carry out his duties at all per his oath of office. He has blood on his hands forever !

   Also there was a conspiracy within Oregon government entities and I am researching it. There were very specific players who caused this event from the get go and they all lead back to Obama and crew via Oregon Democrats.

3. When a number of volunteers filled those positions in actual government in the Bundy trials the outcome was something resembling trial by jury according to the common law; meaning trial by the country. The criminals in government were not allowed to continue to use kangaroo courts to persecute the Bundy patriots, at least not at that time, in that place, for now.

   That is a serious precedent, as serious as the jury finding the government guilty of conspiracy murder in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, late in the day as it was.

   What I don’t get about modern patriots and their reliance upon counterfeit government is the lapses in moral conscience and the setting aside of Christian law (Mathew 7:12) in order to create (out of thin air) that reliance upon that counterfeit government power.

   When criminals persecute under the color of law as a rule, maybe it is time to question the color of that law power.

   Is Victoria Sharp afforded a remedy, or restitution, for having injury done to her by criminals with counterfeit badges? Shouldn’t the real cops be interested in the case, if not alarmed: “one if by land, two if by sea”? Are those who perpetrated those injuries – under the color of law – joined in a conspiracy to add further injury to Victoria Sharp by obstructing the justice owed to her by those who claim to wield the power of government, if so who are those other conspirators?

   Who is supposed to inform Victoria Sharp of her right to officially attest to the fact that she is, in fact, a victim of at least reckless endangerment in the first degree and depraved indifference to human life? Isn’t that the job of the county grand jury as they fulfill their duties, to care for those who are less versed in the law power? A presentment against the perpetrators by those common law grand jurors isn’t prevented by the absence of an accusation affidavit, but why not write one up, file it, and then present the counterfeit government perpetrators with their opportunity to face the country in the form of a jury? The country, not a dictator, can find fact, or innocence, or guilt, and offer redemption of some kind, to allow those found guilty to volunteer to return to civil society.

   Even if the victim is ignorant, confused, misguided, or guilty of any number of failures to do her own duty in a free country, isn’t it the duty of the government to protect and serve her, and since she was a victim of a crime perpetrated by a gang of criminals roaming the countryside, then isn’t it the duty of the government in that county to protect and serve all the other people in that county while that gang is rioting in the blood of the innocent in that county? Is it right to deport those criminals and allow those criminals to immigrate to another county without at least holding the perpetrators to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in the case? Those criminals might arm other criminals in other counties, doing so fast, and doing so furiously. Those criminals you set free may roam to other states, or other federations of states, or other dictatorships posing as republics. With a court of record documenting the facts about those criminals there is then a clear understanding of what is in store for those people in the other counties as those criminals are allowed to depart and immigrate hither. The facts are recording for public consumption, in courts of record, not fake news. Isn’t it the duty of the government to ensure that actual information that passes the actual will of the country through their representatives in a jury trial serve as a precedent for all?

   Obvious to me there is no law in America, so where is this victim Victoria Sharp going to go to secure her remedy? Will there be another exception to the rule (there is no law in America) as was the case when the country was represented by trial jurors during the persecution case of the Bundy Patriots: a miracle? Instead, will some dictator with a fake gavel take more stolen loot out of the criminal counterfeit bank account and attempt to bribe the victim, censoring further investigation into the criminal matter?

   “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.” Conviction Factory, Roger Roots

   Is that not simple enough? A civil case is where an individual has a conflict with another individual and the whole country of people are not endangered by either individual. A criminal case is a case where someone who willfully injures innocent people – with malice aforethought – is running amok in the area where good people have jurisdiction civil and criminal. Good people don’t allow evil people to get away with crimes. Good people hold criminals to account, and the law affords guilty criminals an offer to redeem themselves; all according to scripture by the way.

   Evil is recognizable to some.

4. Joe Kelley,
   Roger Roots is a personal friend. So is Don Doig, founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). Thank you for posting that passage by Roots. Am guessing you know that Roger is Victoria Sharp’s lawyer, yes?
   I can be contacted: https://thementalmilitia.net/contact/

5. I sent a reply yesterday continuing the effort to improve the data flow on these facts that matter. That comment was not published after a warning of moderation loaded onto my screen. I have been censored often, for decades, I back up my posts on my own web page.

   • If it contains too many links it is held automatically for moderation.

     • The moderated post was not loaded on my end yesterday. The moderated post was not loaded on my end this morning. The moderated post that is now published on my end above does not contain any links.

       My interest in this transfer of data is very specific. The evidence in the videos is – to me – precisely what ought to be done by members of an independent (actual common law) Grand Jury in every single case that affects every individual constituting the group known as we the people. A threat to one individual that goes unaccounted for in fact is a threat to the next individual, and the next, on and on.

       Borrowing from Roger Roots:

       The Conviction Factory
       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 {notice the affect of misrepresenting here, as there were 13 nations that were founded, not one: nation supplants federation, or profitable monopoly supplants voluntary association for mutual defense} 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.”

       Borrowing from the ignored Bill of Rights:

       “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

       It does not say: “Someone seeking redress of grievances will be shot for failure to obey without question.”

       There are precedents.

       Example:

       THE COURT: Let me ask you, do all of you
       agree with this verdict?

       THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

       THE COURT: In answer to the
       question did Loyd Jowers participate in a
       conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther
       King, your answer is yes.

       Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by
       the defendant? Your answer to that one is
       also yes.

       And the total amount of damages
       you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is
       one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?

       THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

       It took how many days to decide to put Martin Luther King Jr. to death and then to execute that death sentence?

       It took how many days to decide to put Lavoy Finicum to death and then to execute that death sentence?

       How many days passed before a jury found the government guilty of conspiracy murder in the Martin Luther King Jr. case?

       If conspiracy murderers in the government go free in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, is it a precedent?

       • The moderated post was not loaded on my end yesterday. The moderated post was not loaded on my end this morning. The moderated post that is now published on my end above does not contain any links.

         The spam software also holds certain phrases for moderation, but only tells me to moderate it when I sign on. Not why. As far as how long it takes me to moderate it. Get over it or go elsewhere.

6. In order to comprehend a comprehensive reality, we the people can share our less than perfect viewpoints as we reach for the goal of weeding out the distortions in favor of clarity.

   In the founding generation, there were a number of people (less than the whole number of people) who constituted the worst of the worst, and this exceptional elite group of individuals did what those of their kind always do, which is well recorded, extensively studied, meticulously documented accurately, for those who may want to know, so as not to repeat the same path through man-made hell on earth. Some of those records are actually in the so-called law books.

   Example:
   “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
   RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

   Those who usurp the common laws of free people in perishable liberty commit treason against innocent people. Innocent people are targets, always, and without an effective defense, innocent people will be consumed rapidly, slowly, or very slowly.

   There is a law power (voluntary association for mutual defense) and then there is counterfeit. If a single individual takes absolute power from the people as a whole, is that not treason? If the dictator issuing edicts through a system of summary justice claims: “anyone failing to agree is a traitor,” is it a good idea to obey without question? When does a voluntary association for mutual defense turn into factions seeking to gain absolute power over factions, by any means necessary?

   Back to Calhoun for another view from another angle:

   “But the difference in their operation, in this respect, would not end here. Its effects would be as great in a moral, as I have attempted to show they would be in a political point of view. Indeed, public and private morals are so nearly allied, that it would be difficult for it to be otherwise. That which corrupts and debases the community, politically, must also corrupt and debase it morally. The same cause, which, in governments of the numerical majority, gives to party attachments and antipathies such force, as to place party triumph and ascendency above the safety and prosperity of the community, will just as certainly give them sufficient force to overpower all regard for truth, justice, sincerity, and moral obligations of every description. It is, accordingly, found that in the violent strifes between parties for the high and glittering prize of governmental honors and emoluments—falsehood, injustice, fraud, artifice, slander, and breach of faith, are freely resorted to, as legitimate weapons—followed by all their corrupting and debasing influences.”

   The technological means to reach either goal (evil or good, counterfeit or the real thing) with voice, paper, or digital data, and a pointed stick, or an assault weapon’s ban, changes – the means to the opposing ends change – while the fundamental principles remain in force on both paths toward or away from both goals and all the assaults and defenses failed or succeeded in between can proceed slowly, rapidly, or now all at once in the evil, all-consuming, direction: Mutually Assured Destruction. What would an accurate lie detector app, applied to all digital data transfers, do to modern politics? Talk about weapons of mass destruction: destroy the power of lies. Why not destroy the power of lies? What is common law if not that very thing? Are too many people now preferring to be deceived? How did mass deception happen exactly?

   Either naturally born morally conscious individuals cooperate agreeably for our mutual defense in tried and true methods that are designed to adapt to fit each case – the law – or we allow the worst of the worst to do to us what they do best, in every single, individual, case, everywhere, every time, all the time. Those are the goal posts.

   Too many of those in the founding generation joined what I call the cult of might makes right, as oligarchs, aristocrats, central banking whores, warmongers, slave consumers, and other so-called tories or counterfeit patriots. They, like many of us today, fell victim to the involuntary association dogma – produced by members of The Cult of Might Makes Right – and too many then and now set upon the path that consumes all innocence. Technology accelerates the process in either direction.

   I don’t know what force is at work (other than to say generally the force of willful ignorance) which prevents people from understanding when, why, how, and by who specifically, these people in these places called America went from Liberty into Despotism. It happened in 1789 on the official record, available to anyone who cares to know. Few care to know, many are inspired to repeat obvious falsehoods. Some do their homework as they alone see fit.

   Perhaps there are too many words that mean the same thing, adding to the difficulty in presenting the facts that matter in that case when the true law power was outlawed in 1789.

   List of names for good government:
   1. Liberty
   2. Freedom
   3. Voluntary Mutual Defense
   4. Common Law (actual not counterfeit) – the people as a whole above the government
   5. Democracy (actual not counterfeit) – the people rule as one, not so-called might makes right
   6. Republic (actual not counterfeit) – the public thing, not the special interest’s legal fiction thing
   7. Federation (actual not counterfeit) – voluntary association for mutual defense, not Nation State for subsidizing slavery
   8. Anarchy (defined by modern-day proponents such as ancaps or libertarian socialists)

   List of names for evil government:

   1. Arbitrary
   2. Tyranny
   3. Despotism
   4. Empire
   5. Monarchy
   6. Aristocracy
   7. Oligarchy
   8. Plutarchy
   9. Communism (also known as Marxism)
   10. Socialism (also falsely known as communism)
   11. Nationalism (also known as National Socialism)
   12. Anarchy (as defined by anyone other than proponents of life without so-called – counterfeit – government)
   13. The Cult of Might Makes Right (my term)
   14. Organized Crime Under The Color of Law (my term)

   Many more labels circulate for the same principle things.

   1. Voluntary Association
   2. Involuntary Association

   In my opinion, you ought to be a member of a true Grand Jury in your county, you do the work, why not get the credit? Why not act upon the information? Why not put the accused on trial according to common laws of free people? Counterfeit laws do what they are designed to do: disenfranchise. People can read the Constitution when it gives them the power to subsidize slavery, but people can’t read the Bill of Rights when a slave seeks equal protection under the law?

   “The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil.”
   Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

   You and people similarly constituted in capacity are vital parts of the device that nullifies all those who join the cult of might makes right. You merely hold people who probably cause injury to innocent people to account. If the criminals had not taken over in 1789, natural laws could work to bring those accused to a point at which they are afforded actual (not counterfeit) due process. Who on earth would not want that afforded to them too?

   Perhaps people have lost sight of actual, true, law, and perhaps the only thing most people can see when they look at the power of law is the criminal – counterfeit – product. They then see organized crime under the color of law, they see the work done by members of The Cult of Might Makes Right, and they see pending hell on earth; rightfully so.

   The accused can be either proven guilty or the accuser is, perhaps abusing power. Who is empowered to move an accusation from an individual into a process of finding the truth in that case?

   I will stop here; refraining from borrowing from Roger Roots in his book The Conviction Factory.

   I wish you well, and thanks for adding to the clarity.

7. @Joe Kelley —
   Joe, thank you for the poetic expression of scholarly contemplation. I shall prove to be unable to match your fluency in linguistic style – wish I had that talent.

   You stated: “We are at war in our minds first with those who deceive, which is often ourselves, and if we are going to win this war for the facts that matter in any case, such as the Finicum Case, then we ought to look for a process by which the actual goal is to discover and employ the truth, not to create and maintain a legal fiction that just so happens to enrich and empower very few evil people at the expense of everyone including their own dark souls.”

   In your comments are echoed the perceptive awareness of the founding generation, whose mental states were not so encumbered by entertainments, pleasure-seeking, creature comforts and quests of convenience; in other words, a generation not distracted from its roots in Natural creation. Well they knew the fields and forests, the sea shores and mountains, the very Nature which created them and on which their physical and spiritual bodies depend; the meaning moved by silent winds which accompany the eternally revolving four seasons of the Natural world and the ages of a man — birth as Spring; growth as Summer; maturity as Autumn; and colorless wisdom as Winter. Thus was man, before muscle cars, television, radio, professional sports, political circuses, mass-produced and sophisticated weaponry of war, air flight, and myriad relatable extensions of societal development, a sort of token of the Newtonian universe, in whom, man to man across all norms, north, south, east, west, left, right, up, and down all intersected in the individual’s mind. I find your observations to be focused in a vision of truth I’m pleased to share with you.

   The very culture of the founders has been morphed by devices of distraction, and because of that erosion the nature of truth itself is buried in the nonsense of empire, or that of authoritarianism and control in the name of “freedom”, and in the infrastructure of “command and control”, so that today our peace officers are unrecognizable as such, but are instead reduced spiritually to being mere gov-bots whose rising and retiring submission to the Statist’s whim is spoken with the auto-perpetuating phrase — “I don’t make the law; I just enforce the law.”

   That mental state is one example of an implanted unconscious mindset in compliance with a worshiped externalized source of authority, which in itself is the act of submitting one’s own conscience to the will of the collectivists’ government. The men who escalated the violence, by such as shots number 1, 5, 6, and 7, surely went home after the murder and avoided any impulse which might jeopardize respective careers and paychecks, turned on the tv sets and congratulated themselves on the execution of their sworn duties under intense threat of danger, personal risk, life-on-the-line confrontation with a violent, anti-government, radical Constitutionalist who was known to be armed and dangerous, a malcontent whose very blood thrived on bullets and insurrection. Thusly were those officers previously programmed, conditioned, trained, and mentally pressured to see LaVoy, and I fear they shall tarry life’s seasons well into their winter years e’re they come to see, as some of us who served in Viet Nam have come to see, the “truth” embodied in a now-famous line by the Poet Laureate of the Vietnam Veterans of America organization, the late Steve Mason:

   “Old soldiers with bad gums find out too late whom they really served.”

   Those cops who were willing to shoot a man who had been mis–characterized by the media and the press and the illusion of a chain of governmental command knew no better, and indeed, I’m sure, felt it their proper duty to eradicate a life whose mission in spreading the message of Constitutional rule of law would upset the Wall Street and Madison Avenue and Washington D.C. financial feast, perpetuating and energizing the very beast whose evil mission is to subjugate the individual mind away from its “Unalienable Rights” and sovereignty as a soul, away from the personal responsibility of its own inherent “will”, and direct it to obey an externalized fiction of “authority”. Their later learning in life, if they chance to reflect on subtle realities at all, is forestalled at present time in the hustle and bustle of modern life. Some may never come to know the true price of a sold soul.

   But Jeanette Finicum’s quest for justice is in my opinion based in undiluted truth, and even as a worn and weary world wobbles its way across a maze of meandering Centuries, truth always outs.

   The man had no criminal record. There was no warrant for his arrest. His crime was simply speaking out against criminality within our allegedly representative government. The first pull-over stop at which cops shot LaVoy’s truck while he was stopped on the road betrays eternally the illusion of externalized collectivist “authority”. Shots number 5 and 6 taken by the FBI, who would later lie about those shots and be indicted for those lies, also betray the illusion under which so many law enforcement officers today labor.

   Yet, were “we the people” to awaken from somnambulistic daydreams, we could undo injustice by rising above appearances conveyed by governmental authority and media bias in our daily lives, by intentionally willing the individual soul to higher levels of awareness and open-mindedness, and by finally seating ourselves on juries as real people.

   Seems to me that I can sense a very wide-spread general awakening to a feeling that something is wrong in America today, and that possibly it is futile to attempt to heal the ills generated by politics by adding yet more politics to the fray. I’m seeing people abandoning the mass media, questioning a decadent foreign policy, taking a second look at the Corporate Dynasty which thrives on what George Washington dubbed “foreign entanglements” and what Gore Vidal dubbed “perpetual war for perpetual peace”.

   Truly, knowledge is being increased, while at the same time the tired old illusions of statism are being nurtured by the global elite’s media and governmental proclamation. How shall it turn out? Mrs. Finicum’s lawsuit shall watermark time’s, and justice’s, paper with finality.

   The lament runs thusly and was written long ago, in the 1960s, by a pair of musicians, “Simon and Garfunkel”. It is now revived in a powerful way by a band which has over 500,000,000 individual clicks online. The phrase –

   “And the people bowed and prayed
   to the neon god they made.”

   Add your click to the half-billion awakening individuals who have witnessed this song, “The Sound of Silence”, by “Disturbed”.

   https://youtu.be/u9Dg-g7t2l4

   Thus the plight of modern “law enforcement”, which itself will punish lives in the name of forced vaccination and un-Constitutional malum prohibitum laws of prohibition, such as he fictive “War on Drugs”. We pray that cops learn to see through the political illusion implanted in their minds by an improper state-sponsored training system. “Just following orders” is a short price for a sold soul. “The words of the prophets” have truly been “written on subway walls”. Sin stalks streets in the Cities of Man, seducing souls in the name of government. That’s not an air I wish to inbreathe. Collectivism itself shall bring down the false god named Empire as “external authority” supplants the individual soul’s sovereignty with subserviency. LaVoy revealed that in his teachings, which is why the state (government) murdered him. His murder was more than mere murder. It was assassination. Its message borne — do not dissent.

   Thank you for the passage from Calhoun. I’d not read that one.
   Salute!
   Elias Alias

8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owra-6dKbr8

   “The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states.”
   Robert Yates, 1787

   “The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.”
   George Mason, 1787

   “A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.”
   Patrick Henry, 1788

   “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?
   George Mason, 1788

   If I’m not mistaken counterfeit justice is designed to cost too much.

   • @Joe Kelley — Pardon me for blurting forth, but I must say that your term “counterfeit justice” hits home in my soul very nicely.
     Additionally, I truly appreciate the quotations you have attached to the above article.
     In good turn, I will offer you one of my favorites as repay:
     ****Quoting****
     “The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature; and though, in reality, a government, with all the rights and authority which belong to any other government, within the orbit of its powers, it is, nevertheless, a government emanating from a compact between sovereigns, and partaking, in its nature and object, of the character of a joint commission, appointed to superintend and administer the interests in which all are jointly concerned; but having, beyond its proper sphere, no more power than if it did not exist.”
     ****End quotation from 7th Vice President of the USA, John C. Calhoun, in his famous “Fort Hill Address”, of 1831. ****

     The first paragraph in the introduction by
     to the archived speech by Calhoun is also worth reading, but I won’t pack that much into this brief reply. I would however encourage readers here, who may not be familiar with the principles of sovereign nation-state republics in compact for creating a federal monolith, to read that speech here —

     https://thementalmilitia.net/2017/02/08/john-c-calhoun-fort-hill-address-1831/

     The law enforcement officers who served the intention of corrupted governmental power shall one day awaken to the great deception to which their training had pre-disposed them. That is sad enough; but at present their training, conditioning, programming, and mind-controlled perceptions shall spur them on to defend the sin they committed in the name of “the law”, as we can plainly see by comparing, (after viewing all the videos listed above), to this masterpiece of prevarication, obfuscation, and deliberate deception of the public perception regarding the assassination of LaVoy Finicum as set forth in the media by this press conference which was presented to justify murdering LaVoy–

     https://youtu.be/iXt8O7LCmao

     Thank you Joe Kelley.
     Salute!
     Elias Alias

     • This is perhaps one of those wild coincidences as I nearly added a quote from Calhoun in the previous reply. I had just started reading the work of Calhoun 3 days ago.

       Example:
       A DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT
       “But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal interpretation of the major, when the one would have all the powers of the government to carry its construction into effect—and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction? In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. At first, they might command some respect, and do something to stay the march of encroachment; but they would, in the progress of the contest, be regarded as mere abstractionists; and, indeed, deservedly, if they should indulge the folly of supposing that the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution.”

       In my effort to communicate I find that I use some of the tactics used by Calhoun, such as adding terms and words to the effort to communicate accurately. Calhoun invents (or borrows) the term Concurrent Majority in his effort to warn against a very serious deception concerning this false idea that the thing called the Majority is a thing unto itself. This thing unto itself – according to the deception – takes over voluntary defensive government and turns voluntary defensive government into Mob Rule a.k.a. dictatorship.

       There is another, older, term for this thing that is created by deception so as to fool people into moving into a powerless and defenseless state. That older term was offered up in the warnings of the 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled Richard Henry Lee.

       “The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .”

       My warning then is such that the Legal Fiction in Richard Henry Lee’s words is the same fraud as the Numerical Majority in the words of John C. Calhoun’s warnings.

       We are at war in our minds first with those who deceive, which is often ourselves, and if we are going to win this war for the facts that matter in any case, such as the Finicum Case, then we ought to look for a process by which the actual goal is to discover and employ the truth, not to create and maintain a legal fiction that just so happens to enrich and empower very few evil people at the expense of everyone including their own dark souls.

       The common law fought over in the Revolutionary War is not a trademarked gift handed down to the angry mob by the established elite. The common laws of free people in a perishable liberty is a direct result of the fact (a fact that matters in any case) that we the people have been created with the capacity for moral conscience, a force that only works when it is fed facts, not falsehoods.

       Take care, and thanks for the reply.