Fraudulent Federalist False Flags I
by Joe Kelley
10-12-2022

Alexander Hamilton: The Worst of the Worst?
By: Michael Boldin, Oct 5, 2022
[blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com]

“A national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing; it will be powerfull cement of our union. It will also create a necessity for keeping up taxation to a degree which without being oppressive, will be a spur to industry; remote as we are from Europe and shall be from danger, it were otherwise to be feard our popular maxims would incline us to too great parsimony and indulgence.”

The Nation-State Legal Fiction Limited Liability Corporate Being Fraud is used to “create a necessity” that never existed until it was created by Nationalists with their Fraudulent Flag of Federalism. The Tax Farmers from The British Nation-State Legal Fiction Loyal Royalty Elite Prerogatives, Privileges, and Immunities from prosecution by common law equal footing foundations, wanted to satiate their lust for innocent blood and the Deep State Deep Pockets affording them the unlimited Purchase Orders for the necessary expenditures required during defrauding procedures, costly as effective defrauding is, along with the necessary expenditures required to bribe, extort, and torture into submission those other persons with their conscientious objections to fraud, bribery, extortion, torture, and of course, paying for all the costs of murdering the resolutely disobedient when facing criminals with criminal ORDER.

So much to be done, so little time, and no Power to Purchase, without the Deep State Deep Pockets provided by the Central Banking Fraud Money Laundering Counterfeit Cartel member's signatures.

Just sign here, Mr. Hamilton, and we the elite people will buy the blind obedience demanded from all those other persons. They will work energetically to earn our Monopoly Money, because failure is no longer an option, not with an army of slaves ready to enforce a National Tax in less than a minute.

Tax Farmers farm other persons so as to create the demand for the funny money, not the other way around, Mr. Hamilton.

No “need” to pay the National Tax means, no means, in real terms, means no. The people in a republic can invest in actual rule of law locally, with local money, fit for the countryside, as determined by those fit for that duty, because they offer the best products at the lowest cost, in a republic, under accurate accountability for all those who are responsible, from their equal footing standing on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which means, no Counterfeit Tax, which means no Counterfeit Money. No ways and means to inspire people to invest in Counterfeit Money, no National Tax Extortion Demand, means no desire to work for National Debt Money.

But, Joe, bad, bad, bad Leroy Brown shot Hamilton dead because they were both evil white misogynist racists.

Actually, Aaron Burr was in competition with Alexander Hamilton for a higher position within the growing American Empire, after the Nationalists took over with their coup in 1789. Hamilton was working the standard practice of deception known as slander, or a covert effort to discredit Burr, spreading fraudulent messages to key insiders in positions of power that influence corporate policy, such as which Caligula wannabe rises to the throne of Empire, and which Caligula wannabe merely licks the boots of the anointed ONE, with the one purse, and the Deep State Deep Pockets digging deeply into the productive power of all those other persons being Tax Farmed on the Plantation.

Since Nationalism removes rule of law, on schedule, there was no power available to Burr to take Hamilton to a Court of Law accused of slander, so as to thereby avoid any violence that may spawn in the minds of Caligula wannabes.

Trial by Combat, or duel, is chosen by the accuser as a public challenge to the accused, unless the accused retracts the material evidence of slander, affording to the public all that juicy public information that informs the public about the slanderous Caligula wannabe resorting to fraud as a means of gaining power within the growing American Empire, growing over the ashes of the federated republics annihilated by the Nation-State Loyalists WHO hid behind their Fraudulent Federalist Flags.

If you do not confess, Aaron Burr declares to Alexander Hamilton, we move to Trial by Combat.

Rather than admit to being a fraud, Hamilton accepted the terms of the deal, facing Burr in an open field, where Burr shot Hamilton as dead as the real Caligula.

Et tu Brute!?

Poser.

No Country for Old Men with fake badges?
Coin Toss Scene

What are we fighting for?

National Interest.

So, then, whatever happened to that Spirit of Liberty?

"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."
Papers of Dr. James McHenry at the Federal Convention of 1787

Glossing over the “change” from federated republics under common law jurisdiction and instead diving Deep into the Deep State of Nationalism, as if the “change” changed nothing of interest to any tribute-paying American, is, well, un-American, and also unconstitutional.

14th of October, 1774
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

From where does authority at law spawn in the eyes of the wicked?

"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”
English Liberties, Henry Care, 1721

I declare independence from criminals demanding tribute to their twin gods of innocent blood lust and all the deception demanded to keep from the innocent the whole truth about those WHO are responsible.

WHO sucked the Liberty out of Humanity?

Like a good Nazi...

I know nothing.

“...lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England.”

Is that the same “Lord” from Calvinist infamy?

"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm. All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."

"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit
to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "If a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World, both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both, a soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."

They confess, you see, that they are evil, not merely by their malevolent actions perpetrated to satiate their lust for innocent blood, in fact, their words trace back to their black hearts.

This demand for innocent blood “is, for the most part, only declaratory”, someone actually has to inject the poison into the next living body, so as to turn the next living body into a Legal Fiction Corpse, creating the walking dead, with artificial intelligence, becoming a predator drone, no longer in command of the power to conscientiously object to being such a good Nazi.

National Socialism Baby!

The white hat federated republicans responsible for driving off of the land those blood-lusting British Nationalists, from 1774 to 1789, for the public defense, under common law jurisdiction, as declared in 1774 by the representatives representing federated republics, had a Constitution for each republic, written or not, published or not, and they also had a Federal Constitution BEFORE the “change” to a Nation-State Legal Fiction Corpse, of limited liability, with National Interest, RAT-ified illegally, unconstitutionally, in 1789.

Glossing over the facts that matter in the case is not merely forgetful for those professing authority at law, from an assumed moral low ground.

Nonfeasance is a crime.

Misfeasance is a crime.

Malfeasance is a crime.

Misprision of treason is a crime.

In both Empire Rules Civil Law and the common law due process, those criminals warrant defensive actions at law because the defensive causes agree despite the opposing nature of the two causes.

Defend the people as a whole in a republic.

Defend the National Interest.

WHO is LEFT to obstruct with contempt for either cause?

When even Nationalists admit a crime to be a crime, in agreement with federated republicans, WHO is LEFT to disagree with those opposing groups when those opposing groups unanimously judge a crime to be a crime on both accounts in UNION?

In Nationalism, the crime of nonfeasance is summarily predetermined by a summary judge, from a Summary Justice Bench, and the guilty one found guilty before the fact, is punished by executive order for having been predetermined to be guilty of nonfeasance, and the punishment to be inflicted upon the Nationalists found guilty of Nationalism nonfeasance is a predetermined punishment dictated by statutes written to ensure that the dictated punishments are inflicted upon the predetermined guilty criminals prejudged to be guilty of nonfeasance.

Nationalists agree in UNION.

Except for those who prejudge nonfeasance as nothing special, harming by nonfeasance is no foul to them in their UNION.

In common law, of, by, and for the people as a whole on an equal footing foundation, the suspect suspected of nonfeasance is NOT presumed to be guilty until the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth warrants a justifiable verdict and remedy found by the trial jurors in the criminal County Court of Law proceeding.

Except for those who prejudge nonfeasance as nothing special, the harm is done by someone guilty of nonfeasance, but there is no foul.

Not “No Harm: No Foul”, rather, Harm Done: No Foul.

The Criminal UNION of no reason, no mercy, no moral conscience, no foul.

Lust for innocent blood.

“Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.
Englishman’s Right, John Hawles, 1762

The Empire Rule for those predetermined to be guilty of treason is capital punishment for a capital crime.

Enemies of The State.

Common law jurors, as a rule, offer remedy even though the whole truth warrants private justice.

Killing murderers before they slice and dice the next victim is justifiable to some in that UNION of those capable of killing murderers before they slice another limb off of their next victim, after being caught red-handed, dead-to-rights in the act, with no time LEFT to say no twice, or three strikes, and one limb LEFT.

Why would anyone “change” morally justifiable government, based upon nothing but the truth, turning common law jurisdictions, federated republics, of, by, and for the people as a whole on an equal footing foundation, into the exact opposite?

Caveat Emptor