We Can't Allow The "Clueless" To Stop The Rest Of Us From Getting J.A.I.L. Passed
- J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California April 15, 2005
Mission Statement JNJ Library PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L. FAQs What?MeWarden?
______________________________________________________We Can't Allow The "Clueless" To Stop The Rest of Us From Getting J.A.I.L. Passed----- Original Message -----From: ooglah.com/To: VictoryUSA@...Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:32 AMSubject: ?Re: The "Legal Reality" Must Be Brought In Line With the Declaration ofIndependence***The organic Constitution was written on behalf of the People (i.e., the governed) for the purpose of creating a government designed to protect the interests of the People"It was?HA!Then what is the excuse for the "governed" woman on the steps asking old BJ Franklin what type government she was GAVE?I don't know of any legitimate agency which can operate outside the knowledge and intention of the Principle. If the CONstitution issued out of the Principle that ought to be the GOVERNING woman, wouldn't you think?And she wouldn't have had that question, would she?So the question proves she was clueless....as every other "We the people" in the group.And the Clueless and aimless can not be Principle or governing.So the term "consent of the governed" is admission of an inferior status....akin to servants; The "consent" a slave gives his master.No, I think it can be shown Harmon is sufficiently right-on in his observation that it should cause thinking people to at least reinvestigate the "Experiment".But I wouldn't expect anything out of the Clueless for they do not know that they do not know and they do not have sufficient awareness even to question that they do not know.BTW, the Declaration of Independence is not mentioned in the CONstitution and is of no force and effect, if it could have been, because of the abandonment created in that international COMPACT called the U.S. CONstitution and at the very least proven by the expressed international servitudes in Article VI. The Judges would be bound by those international servitudes as so-called "law of the land", those prior Engagements and Debt, and where it does this would trump anything else the CONstitution purports to create. So the Judges could be following the CONStitution and be bound thereby but it wouldn't necessarily mean anything to "we the people".And because of the expressed servitudes in Article VI, the people are powerless to argue, because if they believe the CONstitution has force and effect they also must accept the controlling Principle. That Principle is implied by the express servitudes and it isn't we the people or any who might think they are. And it's the reason why any CONstiutional reliance for "rights" could be found to be "(1) frivolous, (2) without merit, (3) of no authority, and (4) ludicrous." Because where those rights tend to abrogate the international obligations or trespass Title those "rights" must yield.Yeehhp.They really did it to us good.Hook, line and sinker.OH, but did you get your license to do that?Because it's illegal to claim the King's Fish as your own.Oh Wait! It's WE that are the Groupers who Flounder.FISH ON!--ra
Dear "Ooglah"First, I appreciate all the interesting discussion that my correspondence with Harmon Taylor has brought to our screen. I'm sure we can all learn from it-- maybe even eventually become "clued in" or "informed." But we can't allow the "clueless" to stop our efforts in getting J.A.I.L. passed and implemented as soon as possible!Earlier today I put out a JNJ titled "WHAT? The Constitution Is An Ex Parte Restraining Order??" Therein I stated that the People must take matters about government and its relationship to the People back to the Declaration of Independence which sets forth, according to the Laws of Nature (which is universal and undeniable), that relationship. According to nature, mankind (the People) is created by the Creator and endowed with natural rights-- not asked for, but existing as being part of the human species. Again, this is according to nature-- regardless of religious belief, or any government-- domestic, foreign, or international.The Declaration describes the natural relationship between "man" (I'll use the term "People") and government thusly: "That to secure these [natural] rights, governments are instituted among men [among the People], deriving their [government's] just powers from the consent of the governed [the People]." AGAIN I say, this is according to the Laws of Nature. Now comes the question, "HOW do the People institute government?" The DOI doesn't direct the specifics on "how" but it does set forth that it's the People that are to institute (create) government FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of securing their natural rights. That much is established by the DOI.True-- the Constitution doesn't mention the DOI. Perhaps it should have. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the DOI is the authority FOR a Constitution by the People, since that is the manner by which the People (actually the states on behalf of the People-- and it has to be "on behalf of the People" since the People is/are the origin of authority for the Constitution) chose to institute its government. The Constitution is the "How" which the People have chosen to institute government in this country. It would have been nice if the Constitution mentioned the DOI as being the authority by which the People created it, but that isn't the only defect it has. Be that as it may, the facts are still there-- whether mentioned or not-- and we must deal with the Constitution as written and theoretically "ratified."The People can't really go beyond "ratification" because that's when the door opened up for the fraud to pour in, since there was no enforcement provision written into the Constitution as a specific spelled-out process by which the People could have independently prevented the government fraud from happening. "Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution"? Government wasn't "bound" at all, as it should have been.You get into "Principal/Agent" discussion. There can be no denying that by nature, the People would be likened as the "Principal" (the authority for government) and government the "Agent" (the protector, the guardian) of the People. While it is also the nature of people to be ignorant and lazy regarding legalities, even of their own natural status as being the true sovereigns over government, that does not take away from the fact that THAT IS THE PEOPLE'S NATURAL STATUS whether they exercise it or not-- that status is unalienable --inborn.You say I don't know of any legitimate agency which can operate outside the knowledge and intention of the Principal. That would be true in normal business. However, with reference to the People, we're dealing with the status of a naturally-created being in relation to the People-created government. Only human beings created by a Creator can take on that natural status, and only in relation to their People-created government. Relationships between Human A and Human B do not consist of that natural status-- a status that exists despite People's knowledge, acceptance, and exercise of it.That's why we need men (and women), among the People, to represent them and their interests. That's supposed to be the role of government, --and the ONLY role-- to protect the People's rights because they don't have the knowledge, awareness, or skills to protect themselves in society, whether because they are lazy or otherwise. There IS a proper place for government, but it's imperative that it be People-centered, not self-centered. The Framers knew that government would be prone to become self-centered, but they did not provide a means for the People-- not a government function-- to keep that from happening.And the Clueless and aimless can not be Principal or governing.So the term "consent of the governed" is admission of an inferior status....akin to servants; The "consent" a slave gives his master. No, that can't be, as a matter of nature. There has to be a minority of the People, operating independently as the People, knowledgeable and cognizant enough to be able to monitor the actions of government, to keep it in line with its fiducial functions for the People. It obviously can't be ALL of the People, because most of them ARE ignorant, lazy, "clueless," and "aimless." But that doesn't negate the fact that they are the governed, spoken of in the DOI, and their interests must be protected by the government, and that "government protection" must be monitored by a segment of the People who ARE informed, "clued in," astute, alert, aware, of what was intended for this country as established by the DOI. That segment cannot be brainwashed, intimidated, deceived, or fooled into thinking that "government is the friend of the People." (You know-- "We're the government, and we're here to help you!")Anything dealing with "international" this or that in the Constitution must be examined by the People. Is it in compliance with the principles set forth in the DOI? The People can't get wound up in the "Corporate U.S." trap. As I said, there's a ton of fraud that has taken over this country, and 200+ years of it is enough! We have to clean up the cobwebs of fraud and deception that has clogged our minds. For the sake of freedom in this country, get out of that deceptive thinking!THE EVILS ARE NO LONGER SUFFERABLE!-BarbieACIC, National J.A.I.L.
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USAfirstname.lastname@example.orgTo be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><