5 thoughts on “The Word From the Trenches Live Broadcast 5-10-24”
It was interesting to hear what the caller was contributing to my understanding of the removal of the Common Law Courts and how the Common Law works. My understanding of it is that it is made up of a jury of 12 individuals and a judge who sits moot as the procedures outlined in the Bill of Rights are adhered to as the court is moved by the individual who is voicing his or her claim of the violations of his or her unalienable rights which include those enumerated in the Constitution as well as those others, not listed, which are retained by the individual. The role of the judge is to be fluent in his or her knowledge and understanding of the Bill of Rights and to make sure all the procedures are followed correctly. This is my basic understanding of how the common law works.
What happened along the line some time ago, is that the experts in the Common Law were removed from the court houses and replaced with members of the BAR, which is a private society that belongs to the king of England. It has never represented the People and it has never adhered to the procedures outlined in the Bill of Rights. The BAR includes lawyers and judges who now occupy the court houses which belong to the PEOPLE. To access their court houses, the people need to find a way of removing the lawyers and the judges and have them prosecuted for treason. The problem is that it’s the guns of the standing army and enforcement arms of the Corporate Admiralty, belonging to the king, now occupying the court houses, against the guns of the People who, under the LAW, have every right to access their court houses, for this particular purpose, originally intended under Article 2. Somehow, the people need to find a way to over-power the occupying forces which have taken over their court houses, take them back, and begin using them as was originally intended by the representatives of the PEOPLE and the anti-federalists who were instrumental in writing and fully ratifying the Bill of Rights.
That’s it in a nut shell, as I understand it at this point.
Some nice clear points, Diana. I do have trouble with the word Constitution, that document that always has and still does oppress us under a ruling hierarchy.
galen, I’m thinking, as guardians of the Bill of Rights for the 21st century, we ought to write it out and speak it out more clearly so that anywhere in that document the word, “Constitution” is mentioned, we always include the adjective, “phony” and after it, add the words, “that never was, because it was never ratified by the People,” or something to that effect.
It was interesting to hear what the caller was contributing to my understanding of the removal of the Common Law Courts and how the Common Law works. My understanding of it is that it is made up of a jury of 12 individuals and a judge who sits moot as the procedures outlined in the Bill of Rights are adhered to as the court is moved by the individual who is voicing his or her claim of the violations of his or her unalienable rights which include those enumerated in the Constitution as well as those others, not listed, which are retained by the individual. The role of the judge is to be fluent in his or her knowledge and understanding of the Bill of Rights and to make sure all the procedures are followed correctly. This is my basic understanding of how the common law works.
What happened along the line some time ago, is that the experts in the Common Law were removed from the court houses and replaced with members of the BAR, which is a private society that belongs to the king of England. It has never represented the People and it has never adhered to the procedures outlined in the Bill of Rights. The BAR includes lawyers and judges who now occupy the court houses which belong to the PEOPLE. To access their court houses, the people need to find a way of removing the lawyers and the judges and have them prosecuted for treason. The problem is that it’s the guns of the standing army and enforcement arms of the Corporate Admiralty, belonging to the king, now occupying the court houses, against the guns of the People who, under the LAW, have every right to access their court houses, for this particular purpose, originally intended under Article 2. Somehow, the people need to find a way to over-power the occupying forces which have taken over their court houses, take them back, and begin using them as was originally intended by the representatives of the PEOPLE and the anti-federalists who were instrumental in writing and fully ratifying the Bill of Rights.
That’s it in a nut shell, as I understand it at this point.
Some nice clear points, Diana. I do have trouble with the word Constitution, that document that always has and still does oppress us under a ruling hierarchy.
.
galen, I’m thinking, as guardians of the Bill of Rights for the 21st century, we ought to write it out and speak it out more clearly so that anywhere in that document the word, “Constitution” is mentioned, we always include the adjective, “phony” and after it, add the words, “that never was, because it was never ratified by the People,” or something to that effect.
Yeah, phony and UNLAWFUL!!
.
Exactly! Phony and UNLAWFUL it is!