From: legal_reality
Subj: There are no political solutions -- except maybe Prop. 8 (in CA)
Subj: There are no political solutions -- except maybe Prop. 8 (in CA)
27 June A.D. 2013
The banking cartel has managed to seduce us into a bank-friendly legal environment.
We're not (really) dealing with a "government." We're dealing, instead, with a bank that, oh by the way, provides a modicum of "governmental services" on the side. It's those "governmental services" that keep the myth going that we're dealing with a "government" instead of a bank.
Let's look at the reality wearing these glasses.
It was great for the bank, never mind the nation or the people, that JFK was assassinated. JFK would have ended the "funny money" scam before it got going, before it got a foothold, which is why they assassinated him, and so publicly. We can talk that same line of analysis on RFK, and, it makes sense to this author that we can explain both the existence and longevity of Teddy Kennedy's public service career and the death of John John Kennedy (in the plane that blew apart midair) by focusing on how each benefited (or not) the banking interests.
It was great for the bank to martyr MLK, Jr., without which martyrdom the communist movement might have floundered. It's marketed as an anti-communist assassination, and some of those involved may actually have been recruited under that marketing, but it was exactly the opposite of that.
Korea and Viet Nam, where the opium trade really got going and into new markets, was ecstatically terrific for the banks. All aspects of war are great for the banks, for they can loan to both sides during the war and then be the ultimate winner of the war by owning both sides through the debt generated.
It was great for the bank to murder the people in Ruby Ridge. That created "fear" in a lot of people. "Fear" causes economic activity that won't happen where the mind is substantially rational. "Fear" is essential for the successful running of a dictatorship. Where he was finally charged, those charged weren't murder, but manslaughter, and the case was dismissed. Why? Because it was good for the bank for those intentional murders to stand as "approved acts of state."
It was great for the bank to murder the people in Waco. One aspect of that matter has been sidelined as crackpot, but nonetheless raised, that someone, maybe Koresh himself, had the goods one several within the cia regarding drug-trafficking. Since drug-trafficking is terrific for the banks, that which opposes bank-approve drug-trafficking is "bad," so where someone or a group of someones within that group had "good evidence" exposing "government-sponsored" drug-trafficking, that someone or group of someones had just rendered himself/themselves in a commercially adverse position to the banks. So, that individual, those people, "had to go." And they went. Those who weren't murdered outright were charged with crimes they never committed, convicted, and sentenced. All of that happened interestingly promptly.
Speaking of drugs and drug-trafficking, it was ecstatically terrific for the banks to murder the people in the Murrah Building. Not only did they get to send the message, "Screw with me/us and die!" but also to test out a new directed energy technology, and then to set it up in such a way as to blame a particular group of people that had nothing to do with any such bombing plot. Since the reality has to stay hidden, Kenny Trentadue also had to die; the guy who they thought Trentadue was, but wasn't, also had to die; and Officer Terry Yeakey had to die, as well, and in such a way as to make very loud and clear, "Screw with us and die!" It was all for the good of the bank.
S-11 was euphoric for the banks. They took all the gold, applied their direct energy technology quite successfully, and got paid insurance to boot! And, that was nothing compared to then justifying a war against the Taliban, who had successfully shut down the opium trade. To reopen the poppy fields in Afghanistan, which the banks needed for the reasons that the banks need the drug-trafficking activity, the world was subjected to S-11.
The list of bodies falling like flies around the Clintons is already made manifest by many. The reason that insanity persisted and persists to this day is the reality that it's good for the banks; never mind the country. It's good for the banks.
Where we start to analyze the overriding banking interest in these matters, we get to the bottom of things a lot faster.
What does that have to do with Prop. 8 in CALIFORNIA?
Via Prop. 8, the people in CALIFORNIA said NO to gay marriage. It was political activity on a policy where political activity is actually relevant.
Where that policy was challenged, the STATE officers elected and/or appointed to advance the position asserted by the people refused to do their job, and the original ruling striking Prop. 8 stood. When that deliberately fumbled ball was recovered, the party doing the recovery couldn't stand in CALIFORNIA's shoes for that issue. For this reason, the Supreme Court could not address the Prop. 8 question.
But, the Supreme Court did address it! They spoke very plainly saying that marriage and "marriage licensing" is a STATE issue. What that means, then, is that the voice of the people in CALIFORNIA does matter.
One can very easily speculate as to the pressures on the office, and even on the sexual orientation of those officers charged with upholding Prop. 8 who basically refused to do so. But, we have to move through and beyond that aspect of things, even if there's validity in the speculation, and get to those judicial proceedings that now have relevance. Clearly, those elected or appointed officials who refused to assert STATE's position in court have some Bar Grievance matters in their future. Surely. And, perhaps some removal from office proceedings. Maybe even . . . , well, let's see how the facts develop before going too far down the road of relevant judicial proceedings, here. It will simply be mentioned that intentionally throwing a judicial matter in order that certain property be acquired is something that does ring up some statutes found not only in CALIFORNIA's book of discipline, i.e., is Penal Code, but also, since we're talking about "federal" benefits, as well, UNITED STATES's book of discipline, i.e., Title 18. Given the number of people involved in the decision to refuse to assert the position of the people, per their vote, we have to include the concept of "conspiracy." (Since it's only now "known" that such property could be acquired, that might not be a valid motive on which to move forward regarding past activities, but it's something to keep in mind from now and forward.)
The banks like, approve, support, finance, the Nazis, in part, because the Nazis are all about homosexuality. (Where this author's perspective on the Nazis has been for the longest that of seeing the Nazis as not condoning the practice or behavior at all, due to that very public "purge" of homosexuals, a recent study into revisionist discussions on the Nazi's purge of the homosexuals supports well the non-mentioned aspect that it was the pro-Hitler homosexuals who purged the anti-Hitler homosexuals from "the party." Thus, it wasn't a matter of "homosexuality" or not, but rather whether it was "good" homosexuality or "bad" homosexuality. For example, some preferred pedophilia, and those interested in which side was which may find some interesting information available on-line. Keep in mind that where the children are introduced to homosexuality, they consider it "normal," and that does tend to further the depopulation agenda.) Thus, where the banking agenda includes depopulation, then things such as war, and murder (whether justified or not), and diseases that cause (premature) death, especially if contagious, and, of course, homosexuality, which, "by definition," isn't a pro-creative relationship, are 100% within the approved list of behaviors. Homosexuality is good (great, fantastic, terrific) for the bank. Therefore, that's the policy being crammed down this country's throat (as just one of many such countries' throats).
Therefore, by definition, from the point of view of the banks, the vote of the people in CALIFORNIA is irrelevant, for it is bad for the banks.
You will hear this author say what he's said for many years: there is no political solution. Why is that? Because the problems that vex us are not political in nature. They're commercial in nature. For that reason, then, it matters not who the legislative officers are, or the executive officers, or, really, even the judicial officers. It sure helps to be dealing with informed judicial officers, but that which isn't found at trial will be found on appeal (for which reason it really, really matters that one know the reality at trial so as to preserve that Record, i.e., the burden always comes back to the individual).
There has been a long-standing exception to this rule, and that has to do with the decision period allowed to the rape or incest victim regarding carrying an involuntary pregnancy or not. That's a legislative matter, and where there's both state and national legislative activity on shortening that time period, there are reasons why that time period will never be allowed to be "zero." For more on all that, see the materials and discussions as http://www.when-pregnancy-is-theft.org .
There is now another exception in this author's mind. This is one that perhaps should have been self-apparent before, but in the grand scheme of things, the issue is now to the stage that the understanding matters, and the understanding exists in time for this to matter.
Prop. 8 is a political solution to a commercial problem. The reason for addressing this this way is to point out that this is an extreme rarity. Extreme rarity. So, we need to note it, for to understand the exception is to understand all that much better the (scope of the) rule.
"Marriage licensing" is commercial activity. Pure and simple. It came about originally as a result of the "church's" declination to approve interracial marriages. So, the STATE stepped in and allowed it. It did so by offering the "marriage license." (By so doing, it also acquired an "ownership" interest in the children produced in/by that "commercial family. By this mechanism, attendance at "bank friendly" schools can become compelled, as is now the situation, universally, i.e., to all who got married per a "license," whether interracial or not.)
"Gay marriage licensing" is no less commercial than "interracial marriage licensing."
But, "gay marriage licensing" promotes the bank's depopulation agenda, where "interracial marriage licensing" doesn't. So, of course, the bank-friendly agenda is to promote "gay marriage licensing." Of course.
Thus, where the people have exercised their rights/privileges of Suffrage and have said, in CALIFORNIA, of all places, "NO GAY MARRIAGE," and where certain STATE officials have taken it upon themselves to refuse to do their job and argue that position all the way through the judicial process, we've got shades of the foundational problems extant in Garcetti v. Ceballos. The subtle undercurrent in that one is this. Ceballos, a prosecutor, took the witness stand, in the alleged role of "whistleblower," and, as a prosecutor, testified against his client (STATE OF CALIFORNIA). He wasn't promoted, and he claimed it was due to his being a whistleblower. The reality is that he should have been compelled to turn in his "bar card" for violating one of the most sacrosanct areas of the concept of legal representation: no one testifies against his client or former client. That just flat out is never done. He was fortunate still have a "license" to "practice law" in "this state" (i.e., in exchange for "funny money"), at all. Here, in this Prop. 8 matter, it's way more than just testifying against one's client. It's a matter of flat out refusal to pursue the duties of representation. If/where there's a conflict in litigation, the lawyer must withdraw. He/She/They didn't withdraw, and he/she/they also refused to assert the STATE's position to the hilt, e.g., zealously.
The point about Prop. 8, then, is this. In this society in which the bank is still intending to seduce off us to sleep so as to produce a bank-friendly environment, which environment, in the old days, was called tyranny, the people of CALIFORNIA exercised their positions in the political process and said, "NOT JUST NO BUT HELL NO!" In other words, CALIFORNIA, as a STATE, through its procedures, established a policy on a STATE law issue. That position is "NO GAY MARRIAGE." Given the Supreme Court's solid confirmation that "marriage licensing" is a STATE-law matter, it renders all that much more wicked the deliberate, conscious inactivity of those licensed attorneys assigned to that case. There are all kinds of "money" matters now going one way that should be going the other way. (Will those attorneys have enough insurance to cover those damages?)
We don't have to agree that a bank-friendly environment is good for a STATE or for this nation. Where that's 99% a matter of individual commercial behavior, in this instance, in this rare, rare exception, it's a matter of political "group think." The bank has all kinds of "front" groups, which appear to be independent, that promote the bank's interests all the time. "No prayer in school" is the banking agenda. "Let's learn the muslim religion and fisting in elementary school" is the banking agenda. "Let's don't teach the actual history but rewrite it instead" is the banking agenda. "Let's tag all the schoolchildren as so much cattle with these ID cards" is the banking agenda. Well, it happens that the people in/of CALIFORNIA have taken a position that isn't in favor with the banking agenda, and for that reason, that case developed the way it has, so far.
Where the issue at hand is totally up to STATE policy to decide, and where the STATE policy is set, the banks are going to have to live with it, or, better, take their "funny money" and "go home." Where the policy is set and those charged with upholding that policy refuse to do so, those who were not being adequately represented are now charged with the duty of doing something about that.
As for remedies, if the time and process for appeal have been exhausted, then the "legal" remedies are now completed, which opens the door to "equity."
May these concepts be adequate for those in CALIFORNIA in a position to do something to get started on those next steps. And, may we all come to terms with the reality that the extreme vast majority of the problems are individual in nature, and that dependence on the banks'-infiltrated and corrupted "political process" is the last place on the planet where we want to find ourselves as dependents. There are a few, a handful, of issues for which the political process matters. Who holds what office is in no way on that list. It doesn't matter who holds what office, because that which vexes us cannot be compelled upon us. If we agree to be regulated, then that's our individual problem, not the STATE's. And, here, again, it doesn't matter who holds office, for when the failure to uphold the duties of that office are this stark, the remedies for removal are clear, and, again, the Prop. 8 case is in no way "lost." It's just now on a different track through the judicial process.
Congratulations to CALIFORNIA in its stand against the banking agenda, the agenda that intends to destroy this nation and establish tyranny, and may this be encouragement to proceed with the next step in asserting the validity and content of Prop. 8. Time may be important, here, so, no dawdling.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
The banking cartel has managed to seduce us into a bank-friendly legal environment.
We're not (really) dealing with a "government." We're dealing, instead, with a bank that, oh by the way, provides a modicum of "governmental services" on the side. It's those "governmental services" that keep the myth going that we're dealing with a "government" instead of a bank.
Let's look at the reality wearing these glasses.
It was great for the bank, never mind the nation or the people, that JFK was assassinated. JFK would have ended the "funny money" scam before it got going, before it got a foothold, which is why they assassinated him, and so publicly. We can talk that same line of analysis on RFK, and, it makes sense to this author that we can explain both the existence and longevity of Teddy Kennedy's public service career and the death of John John Kennedy (in the plane that blew apart midair) by focusing on how each benefited (or not) the banking interests.
It was great for the bank to martyr MLK, Jr., without which martyrdom the communist movement might have floundered. It's marketed as an anti-communist assassination, and some of those involved may actually have been recruited under that marketing, but it was exactly the opposite of that.
Korea and Viet Nam, where the opium trade really got going and into new markets, was ecstatically terrific for the banks. All aspects of war are great for the banks, for they can loan to both sides during the war and then be the ultimate winner of the war by owning both sides through the debt generated.
It was great for the bank to murder the people in Ruby Ridge. That created "fear" in a lot of people. "Fear" causes economic activity that won't happen where the mind is substantially rational. "Fear" is essential for the successful running of a dictatorship. Where he was finally charged, those charged weren't murder, but manslaughter, and the case was dismissed. Why? Because it was good for the bank for those intentional murders to stand as "approved acts of state."
It was great for the bank to murder the people in Waco. One aspect of that matter has been sidelined as crackpot, but nonetheless raised, that someone, maybe Koresh himself, had the goods one several within the cia regarding drug-trafficking. Since drug-trafficking is terrific for the banks, that which opposes bank-approve drug-trafficking is "bad," so where someone or a group of someones within that group had "good evidence" exposing "government-sponsored" drug-trafficking, that someone or group of someones had just rendered himself/themselves in a commercially adverse position to the banks. So, that individual, those people, "had to go." And they went. Those who weren't murdered outright were charged with crimes they never committed, convicted, and sentenced. All of that happened interestingly promptly.
Speaking of drugs and drug-trafficking, it was ecstatically terrific for the banks to murder the people in the Murrah Building. Not only did they get to send the message, "Screw with me/us and die!" but also to test out a new directed energy technology, and then to set it up in such a way as to blame a particular group of people that had nothing to do with any such bombing plot. Since the reality has to stay hidden, Kenny Trentadue also had to die; the guy who they thought Trentadue was, but wasn't, also had to die; and Officer Terry Yeakey had to die, as well, and in such a way as to make very loud and clear, "Screw with us and die!" It was all for the good of the bank.
S-11 was euphoric for the banks. They took all the gold, applied their direct energy technology quite successfully, and got paid insurance to boot! And, that was nothing compared to then justifying a war against the Taliban, who had successfully shut down the opium trade. To reopen the poppy fields in Afghanistan, which the banks needed for the reasons that the banks need the drug-trafficking activity, the world was subjected to S-11.
The list of bodies falling like flies around the Clintons is already made manifest by many. The reason that insanity persisted and persists to this day is the reality that it's good for the banks; never mind the country. It's good for the banks.
Where we start to analyze the overriding banking interest in these matters, we get to the bottom of things a lot faster.
What does that have to do with Prop. 8 in CALIFORNIA?
Via Prop. 8, the people in CALIFORNIA said NO to gay marriage. It was political activity on a policy where political activity is actually relevant.
Where that policy was challenged, the STATE officers elected and/or appointed to advance the position asserted by the people refused to do their job, and the original ruling striking Prop. 8 stood. When that deliberately fumbled ball was recovered, the party doing the recovery couldn't stand in CALIFORNIA's shoes for that issue. For this reason, the Supreme Court could not address the Prop. 8 question.
But, the Supreme Court did address it! They spoke very plainly saying that marriage and "marriage licensing" is a STATE issue. What that means, then, is that the voice of the people in CALIFORNIA does matter.
One can very easily speculate as to the pressures on the office, and even on the sexual orientation of those officers charged with upholding Prop. 8 who basically refused to do so. But, we have to move through and beyond that aspect of things, even if there's validity in the speculation, and get to those judicial proceedings that now have relevance. Clearly, those elected or appointed officials who refused to assert STATE's position in court have some Bar Grievance matters in their future. Surely. And, perhaps some removal from office proceedings. Maybe even . . . , well, let's see how the facts develop before going too far down the road of relevant judicial proceedings, here. It will simply be mentioned that intentionally throwing a judicial matter in order that certain property be acquired is something that does ring up some statutes found not only in CALIFORNIA's book of discipline, i.e., is Penal Code, but also, since we're talking about "federal" benefits, as well, UNITED STATES's book of discipline, i.e., Title 18. Given the number of people involved in the decision to refuse to assert the position of the people, per their vote, we have to include the concept of "conspiracy." (Since it's only now "known" that such property could be acquired, that might not be a valid motive on which to move forward regarding past activities, but it's something to keep in mind from now and forward.)
The banks like, approve, support, finance, the Nazis, in part, because the Nazis are all about homosexuality. (Where this author's perspective on the Nazis has been for the longest that of seeing the Nazis as not condoning the practice or behavior at all, due to that very public "purge" of homosexuals, a recent study into revisionist discussions on the Nazi's purge of the homosexuals supports well the non-mentioned aspect that it was the pro-Hitler homosexuals who purged the anti-Hitler homosexuals from "the party." Thus, it wasn't a matter of "homosexuality" or not, but rather whether it was "good" homosexuality or "bad" homosexuality. For example, some preferred pedophilia, and those interested in which side was which may find some interesting information available on-line. Keep in mind that where the children are introduced to homosexuality, they consider it "normal," and that does tend to further the depopulation agenda.) Thus, where the banking agenda includes depopulation, then things such as war, and murder (whether justified or not), and diseases that cause (premature) death, especially if contagious, and, of course, homosexuality, which, "by definition," isn't a pro-creative relationship, are 100% within the approved list of behaviors. Homosexuality is good (great, fantastic, terrific) for the bank. Therefore, that's the policy being crammed down this country's throat (as just one of many such countries' throats).
Therefore, by definition, from the point of view of the banks, the vote of the people in CALIFORNIA is irrelevant, for it is bad for the banks.
You will hear this author say what he's said for many years: there is no political solution. Why is that? Because the problems that vex us are not political in nature. They're commercial in nature. For that reason, then, it matters not who the legislative officers are, or the executive officers, or, really, even the judicial officers. It sure helps to be dealing with informed judicial officers, but that which isn't found at trial will be found on appeal (for which reason it really, really matters that one know the reality at trial so as to preserve that Record, i.e., the burden always comes back to the individual).
There has been a long-standing exception to this rule, and that has to do with the decision period allowed to the rape or incest victim regarding carrying an involuntary pregnancy or not. That's a legislative matter, and where there's both state and national legislative activity on shortening that time period, there are reasons why that time period will never be allowed to be "zero." For more on all that, see the materials and discussions as http://www.when-pregnancy-is-theft.org .
There is now another exception in this author's mind. This is one that perhaps should have been self-apparent before, but in the grand scheme of things, the issue is now to the stage that the understanding matters, and the understanding exists in time for this to matter.
Prop. 8 is a political solution to a commercial problem. The reason for addressing this this way is to point out that this is an extreme rarity. Extreme rarity. So, we need to note it, for to understand the exception is to understand all that much better the (scope of the) rule.
"Marriage licensing" is commercial activity. Pure and simple. It came about originally as a result of the "church's" declination to approve interracial marriages. So, the STATE stepped in and allowed it. It did so by offering the "marriage license." (By so doing, it also acquired an "ownership" interest in the children produced in/by that "commercial family. By this mechanism, attendance at "bank friendly" schools can become compelled, as is now the situation, universally, i.e., to all who got married per a "license," whether interracial or not.)
"Gay marriage licensing" is no less commercial than "interracial marriage licensing."
But, "gay marriage licensing" promotes the bank's depopulation agenda, where "interracial marriage licensing" doesn't. So, of course, the bank-friendly agenda is to promote "gay marriage licensing." Of course.
Thus, where the people have exercised their rights/privileges of Suffrage and have said, in CALIFORNIA, of all places, "NO GAY MARRIAGE," and where certain STATE officials have taken it upon themselves to refuse to do their job and argue that position all the way through the judicial process, we've got shades of the foundational problems extant in Garcetti v. Ceballos. The subtle undercurrent in that one is this. Ceballos, a prosecutor, took the witness stand, in the alleged role of "whistleblower," and, as a prosecutor, testified against his client (STATE OF CALIFORNIA). He wasn't promoted, and he claimed it was due to his being a whistleblower. The reality is that he should have been compelled to turn in his "bar card" for violating one of the most sacrosanct areas of the concept of legal representation: no one testifies against his client or former client. That just flat out is never done. He was fortunate still have a "license" to "practice law" in "this state" (i.e., in exchange for "funny money"), at all. Here, in this Prop. 8 matter, it's way more than just testifying against one's client. It's a matter of flat out refusal to pursue the duties of representation. If/where there's a conflict in litigation, the lawyer must withdraw. He/She/They didn't withdraw, and he/she/they also refused to assert the STATE's position to the hilt, e.g., zealously.
The point about Prop. 8, then, is this. In this society in which the bank is still intending to seduce off us to sleep so as to produce a bank-friendly environment, which environment, in the old days, was called tyranny, the people of CALIFORNIA exercised their positions in the political process and said, "NOT JUST NO BUT HELL NO!" In other words, CALIFORNIA, as a STATE, through its procedures, established a policy on a STATE law issue. That position is "NO GAY MARRIAGE." Given the Supreme Court's solid confirmation that "marriage licensing" is a STATE-law matter, it renders all that much more wicked the deliberate, conscious inactivity of those licensed attorneys assigned to that case. There are all kinds of "money" matters now going one way that should be going the other way. (Will those attorneys have enough insurance to cover those damages?)
We don't have to agree that a bank-friendly environment is good for a STATE or for this nation. Where that's 99% a matter of individual commercial behavior, in this instance, in this rare, rare exception, it's a matter of political "group think." The bank has all kinds of "front" groups, which appear to be independent, that promote the bank's interests all the time. "No prayer in school" is the banking agenda. "Let's learn the muslim religion and fisting in elementary school" is the banking agenda. "Let's don't teach the actual history but rewrite it instead" is the banking agenda. "Let's tag all the schoolchildren as so much cattle with these ID cards" is the banking agenda. Well, it happens that the people in/of CALIFORNIA have taken a position that isn't in favor with the banking agenda, and for that reason, that case developed the way it has, so far.
Where the issue at hand is totally up to STATE policy to decide, and where the STATE policy is set, the banks are going to have to live with it, or, better, take their "funny money" and "go home." Where the policy is set and those charged with upholding that policy refuse to do so, those who were not being adequately represented are now charged with the duty of doing something about that.
As for remedies, if the time and process for appeal have been exhausted, then the "legal" remedies are now completed, which opens the door to "equity."
May these concepts be adequate for those in CALIFORNIA in a position to do something to get started on those next steps. And, may we all come to terms with the reality that the extreme vast majority of the problems are individual in nature, and that dependence on the banks'-infiltrated and corrupted "political process" is the last place on the planet where we want to find ourselves as dependents. There are a few, a handful, of issues for which the political process matters. Who holds what office is in no way on that list. It doesn't matter who holds what office, because that which vexes us cannot be compelled upon us. If we agree to be regulated, then that's our individual problem, not the STATE's. And, here, again, it doesn't matter who holds office, for when the failure to uphold the duties of that office are this stark, the remedies for removal are clear, and, again, the Prop. 8 case is in no way "lost." It's just now on a different track through the judicial process.
Congratulations to CALIFORNIA in its stand against the banking agenda, the agenda that intends to destroy this nation and establish tyranny, and may this be encouragement to proceed with the next step in asserting the validity and content of Prop. 8. Time may be important, here, so, no dawdling.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
No comments:
Post a Comment