National Liberty Alliance - Citizen Grand Juries

[truthmonger]

Their universal idea of heaven is more Lord of the Flies than Utopia. Your points are entirely valid. The thing is, the one common factor with most/all of these groups once you past their rhetoric verbiage spouting is the underlying theme of YOU'RE* NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!! and the corollary BUT I AM THE BOSS OF YOU!!!!

*Note: I just couldn't bring myself to spell it YOUR, although that is usually how I see it with that meme.

Your handle or assumed non-business name is incorrect! It is "Notorious dissident" or just plane old "Ate up with the DA"

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Looks like another Word Salad candidate!

Top tip I learned from the interwebs. Sites or handles that feel the need to include "truth" invariably have little resemblance to it

[noblepa]

Trufmonger was cute as clueless stagger bys go, but r4eally really needs to go back to basic English and writing and just start over, and then, maybe just then, he will win the much sought after title of mediocrity, but its going to take a whole heap o' studyin' to rise to the challeng.

And how is that helpful? Since you seem so persnickety on Kings English, perhaps you should "translate" it into readable Kings English. IN da mean time I'm gonna communicate with letters and words which communicate a thought to the people paying attention and those that have a bit of blarney in them to see the little digs and humor whitin.

I know I'm going to regret replying to this post.

You're right. You did use a lot of words and letters.

But I see very little evidence of original thought, just a lot of parroting of long-debunked FMOTL horse hockey.

[TBL]

Truthmonger,
There is just so much nonsense in your big wall-of-text. I would indulge picking it apart for the logical fallacies contained within it, however, you fail to communicate anything effectively. Part of why proper grammar and spelling are so important is to ensure that you actually convey the meaning of your thoughts so someone else can understand. Please feel free to pull out relevant individual pieces you would like to discuss, perhaps one by one, and we can respond. Your large screed posted earlier is just incomprehensible in its current form.

[noblepa]

Looks like another Word Salad candidate!

Top tip I learned from the interwebs. Sites or handles that feel the need to include "truth" invariably have little resemblance to it

Yeah, if you have to tell people that you are telling the truth, you probably aren't.

Just like if you have to tell people that you're famous, you aren't.

[noblepa]

Truthmonger,
There is just so much nonsense in your big wall-of-text. I would indulge picking it apart for the logical fallacies contained within it, however, you fail to communicate anything effectively. Part of why proper grammar and spelling are so important is to ensure that you actually convey the meaning of your thoughts so someone else can understand. Please feel free to pull out relevant individual pieces you would like to discuss, perhaps one by one, and we can respond. Your large screed posted earlier is just incomprehensible in its current form.

I tried to read both of Truthmonger's posts. My eyes glazed over after about 25 percent. I skimmed as much as I could.

I noticed a lot of repetition from the first to the second post. Perhaps TM believes that if he repeats his gibberish often enough, it will make sense and people will be convinced of his genius.

I'm not convinced.

[truthmonger]

Ok, Update... I came here looking for information which might help me form a better opinion of NLA because something just did not feel right, Instead of getting useful info allowing me to make up my own mind and make my own choice all I got was nasty, rude, accusatory, alleged statements of facts without substantiation so I went elsewhere..... Now "after sufficient inquiry" I come to the conclusion that it was a great idea, founded in truth and within the provisions of the Constitution and "good and proper", which is exactly why it was infiltrated and taken over and designed to fail. Think about it, once the people wake up and realize that they are the Grantors, Primary Trustees and the Beneficiaries and the "posterity" of this great Perpetual, Irrevocable, Express Trust from which "any From of Government" is derived from, purposed for, subject to and "bound thereby", it will all make sense and they will realize they are the Creditors in every lawful transaction and that legal entities are subject to them "to secure these rights" and "to effect their Safety and Happiness.
There is a lot more to share including what I learned when I went after a judge for acting without authority, ultra-vires of the office he presumed to hold and engaged in all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors along with the State Supreme Court, and how I (by the guidance of Creator only!). How by Creators guidance (knowing little but writing on faith and still studying just what went down) the State Supreme Court judges (9) were effectively forced to abide by the law as it is written, vacate all of the void orders of the judge and still managed to deprive me of rights but for now a win is a win.
Now knowing so much more I see many things "wrong" with our judicial system but more so in those who hold the offices of public trust being led to believe they have great and mighty power, power over the people and power to make law, to break laws, forge and fabricate counterfeit instruments, etc etc (see 18 USC 471-474) to name just a few, on a daily bases.
The Solution? Simple, Institute in every municipality, State, The State of ...., and all legal entities subject thereto, to be periodically Trained and Tested for Qualifications of the office and Competency to fulfill the requirements of the position they presume to hold. I call it "Continued Competency Training" (CCT). (there is not one in the legal realm that is qualified or competent to hold and to serve the offices they presume to hold. Some are capable of becoming Qualified and Competent but will reject it because they are not there for the purpose it was created but to use it for their own purposes (embezzlement). Others will delight in the opportunity to get it right and to be around others who do in fact "support this Constitution" and the "principles" it serves.
"— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Blessings to all who love Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and believe That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

[truthmonger]

Truthmonger,
There is just so much nonsense in your big wall-of-text. I would indulge picking it apart for the logical fallacies contained within it, however, you fail to communicate anything effectively. Part of why proper grammar and spelling are so important is to ensure that you actually convey the meaning of your thoughts so someone else can understand. Please feel free to pull out relevant individual pieces you would like to discuss, perhaps one by one, and we can respond. Your large screed posted earlier is just incomprehensible in its current form.

I tried to read both of Truthmonger's posts. My eyes glazed over after about 25 percent. I skimmed as much as I could.

I noticed a lot of repetition from the first to the second post. Perhaps TM believes that if he repeats his gibberish often enough, it will make sense and people will be convinced of his genius.

I'm not convinced.

Then it is NOT for you! But what have you contributed to what I wrote. considering most of what I wrote is quotes from cases, the "supreme law of the Land" and the founding document, it delights me that you find these peoples writing so "incomprehensible". It is clear from all your nastiness that you are so far gone you can;t even recognize how far gone you are.
I have already prayed for you so expect whatever Creator has for you like Saul on the way to Damascus...
BTW how many cases have you won? and how many people have you helped? and what do have that might be constructive in the slightest way?... so take a shill pill and empty the load you have in your pants like a good boy so that mommy can change your dirty dirty diaper, and then get upstairs to your dad for a good spanking for being so negative, and rude and out right nasty, despicable creature.... oh no daddy, no discipline, so sorry, makes sense....
So again I repeat, if you have a negative reaction then it is not for you.. move on and find someone who cares about you because you sure don't... evidenced by your deflections with insults and no substance while criticizing for no substance while admitting to not actually reading but "skimming". Ta Ta

[Pottapaug1938]

I have no intention of reading the steaming piles of... nonsense proffered by truthmonger. Even skimming it, I can see that he is cherry-picking and quote-mining, and throwing everything together in something which, to him, sounds sensible, but is nothing of the kind.

I'll pick one example from it all -- and then go sterilize my keyboard. At one point, truthmonger says:

"So the fact that the so called 'Justice Department' or DOJ fails to take action on these known crimes is prima facia evidence of their 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

Like all legal dilettantes of his stripe, he has come across the "aid and comfort" phrase, and thinks that it is some sort of Grand Legal Principle. In fact, it comes from Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, which defines treason; and the only way that anyone can be "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is if there IS an enemy, who is shooting at us, dropping bombs on us, firing torpedoes and missiles at our ships... you get the idea, and the person in question is knowingly and actively aiding in the enemy's war effort.

I'm not going to dignify truthmonger's writings any further. As to why, I summon Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), which stated, "[w]e perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent", and Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (U.S.T.C. 2011), which explained why it is a waste of time to try to respond to legal idiocies of the type offered by truthmonger.

[TBL]

...

I'm not going to dignify truthmonger's writings any further. As to why, I summon Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), which stated, "[w]e perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent"., and Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (U.S.T.C. 2011), which explained why it is a waste of time to try to respond to legal idiocies of the type offered by truthmonger.

I agree, but I do have one thing to say to you Truthmonger:
Feel free to ignore anything said on this board to you or any analysis proffered, but, do take the time to explore the historical pages showing the many real, cited examples of others following this path you set before yourself. Realize that right or wrong in your mind, each and every one of them end up in prison when confronting the government that is duly-elected and empowered to write laws and statutes. All of these legal aspects you hold in such contempt are legally enacted and enforced. Feel free to pontificate to your heart's content, but actions along these lines will have you behind bars. And I, for one, think that is how it should be.

[NYGman]

Ok, Update... I came here looking for information which might help me form a better opinion of NLA because something just did not feel right, Instead of getting useful info allowing me to make up my own mind and make my own choice all I got was nasty, rude, accusatory, alleged statements of facts without substantiation so I went elsewhere.....

so you came here to try to prove NLA is legitimate even though your gut felt something was wrong, and we're told outright, it is a scam you should avoid, but that answer didn't confirm what you wanted it to, so obviously it is not true, and you went to find a better answer from people who have no understanding of the law, outside their own made up constructs of trusts being the key to it all. Quick clarification, they are not relevant to you, or any individual. It is a failed position that has not won anyone anything in a court of law.

Now "after sufficient inquiry" I come to the conclusion that it was a great idea, founded in truth and within the provisions of the Constitution and "good and proper", which is exactly why it was infiltrated and taken over and designed to fail.

Now who is the one making alleged statements of facts without substantiation? You are wrong, very wrong, and twisting the law to support that position wont work. Go and try it in court. 100% fail rate, good luck with that. The reason it fails is that it lacks a basis in the law. By that I mean actual law, not made up psuedolaw.

Think about it, once the people wake up and realize that they are the Grantors, Primary Trustees and the Beneficiaries and the "posterity" of this great Perpetual, Irrevocable, Express Trust from which "any From of Government" is derived from, purposed for, subject to and "bound thereby", it will all make sense and they will realize they are the Creditors in every lawful transaction and that legal entities are subject to them "to secure these rights" and "to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Gibberish, quote mining and not a summary of any legal theory that works.

There is a lot more to share including what I learned when I went after a judge for acting without authority, ultra-vires of the office he presumed to hold and engaged in all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors along with the State Supreme Court, and how I (by the guidance of Creator only!). How by Creators guidance (knowing little but writing on faith and still studying just what went down) the State Supreme Court judges (9) were effectively forced to abide by the law as it is written, vacate all of the void orders of the judge and still managed to deprive me of rights but for now a win is a win.

Can you provide some proof of this win? Sounds like a loss to me if they deprived you of your rights dispute your "win". Perhaps we could see proof of this victory based on your argument and not because or another reason.

Now knowing so much more I see many things "wrong" with our judicial system but more so in those who hold the offices of public trust being led to believe they have great and mighty power, power over the people and power to make law, to break laws, forge and fabricate counterfeit instruments, etc etc (see 18 USC 471-474) to name just a few, on a daily bases.

Really, I think this is only because the courts don't follow your flawed logic and non-critical thinking process. Not correctly, they are right and you are wrong.

The Solution? Simple, Institute in every municipality, State, The State of ...., and all legal entities subject thereto, to be periodically Trained and Tested for Qualifications of the office and Competency to fulfill the requirements of the position they presume to hold. I call it "Continued Competency Training" (CCT). (there is not one in the legal realm that is qualified or competent to hold and to serve the offices they presume to hold. Some are capable of becoming Qualified and Competent but will reject it because they are not there for the purpose it was created but to use it for their own purposes (embezzlement). Others will delight in the opportunity to get it right and to be around others who do in fact "support this Constitution" and the "principles" it serves.

They know what they are doing, you don't. The solution would be for you to get a real law degree and learn how to read laws and interpret cases, and perhaps don't try to understand something that seems clearly over your head. There are processes to address wrongdoing, and they work well.

"— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Blessings to all who love Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and believe That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

Don't like the government or system, vote or run for office. Also don't ask a group of legal minded folk to prove the NLA or any psuedolaw group is legit. It isn't and never will be. You should have respected your hunch. This has been addressed over and over, it never works, it always fails, do your research correctly and you can prove this. Go in with the mindset that you want to convince yourself it is true then you probably will make your research validate that. I don't think your mind was ever open to an answer other than the NLA is legit, and wanted to convince us or at least get validation from us, so you could feel good about it.

Not going to happen.

One more thing, while I did respond to this one, the last l long past was just incoherent, for us legal people. It made no sense, jumped all over the place, lacked proper citation, and strewn with incorrect facts and assumptions. If this is what you are relying on to believe the NLA is legit, it won't end well.

Good luck to you sir, you are going to need it. If you truly had doubts in the NLA, all we can say is trust those, if somethin is to good to be true, it usually isn't. This applies here.

[Dr. Caligari]

Think about it, once the people wake up and realize that they are the Grantors, Primary Trustees and the Beneficiaries and the "posterity" of this great Perpetual, Irrevocable, Express Trust from which "any From of Government" is derived from, purposed for, subject to and "bound thereby", it will all make sense and they will realize they are the Creditors in every lawful transaction and that legal entities are subject to them "to secure these rights" and "to effect their Safety and Happiness.

First, please define the terms "grantors," "primary trustees," "beneficiaries" and "perpetual, irrevocable, express trust."

Second, please cite any authority for the proposition that "any from [sic] of government" is "derived from" any of those terms.

Then we'll talk.

[notorial dissent]

Trufy seems to have ingested a thesaurus along with his Wheatabix and Bosco this morning. Pity he didn't digest the meaning of the words as well or the function of context while he was at it. Still doesn't comprehend basic grammar, paragraph breaks, or most importantly writing for clarity. The last one just flat out kills him.

Trufy, you have to understand and be able to communicate in BASIC Kindergarden English, or really American English, before you attempt the hard stuff. You haven't managed that let alone gotten up to Primary School yet. And as to the King's English, since that is what we've been speaking since we bid Fat George adieu in 1783, is well beyond you at this point.

You strained yourself this time around at something like 23 paragraphs, near as I can determine. 23 paragraphs of the purest of very old and very tired copy pasta, which partly explains your allergy to paragraph breaks and clarity, with the rest chalked up to you not knowing where they belong let alone understanding what you were copypasta-ing. Sad, just sad. I will give you points though for hitting most of the sovcit bingo spots, but you missed a few key ones that I'll just put down to ineptitude and ignorance of your subject. This by the way, and for clarity's sake, is NOT a good thing.

Note for future reference and edification, when you are busy plagiarizing, that means copying wholesale, at least have the decency to plagiarize from someone whose grammar and writing is better than your own. Not that you'll get away with it, but at least you'll be easier to read.

I know you are striving mightily for the coveted title of wordsalad master, but alas, earwax.

[rogfulton]

Give TM a break for using paragraphs in one post and almost doing so in another.

[notorial dissent]

Give TM a break for using paragraphs in one post and almost doing so in another.

Nah, if he's going to bore me and waste my time with the same old tired old twaddle that is just so not and so long ago debunked he can at least either learn how to properly cut and paste, since I know reading for comprehension isn't in the deal, so he'll have at least one skill he's mastered. His stuff is just so NOT as the Supreme Court has said, doesn't merit serious refutation or attention.

[wserra]

In the midst of the Gibberish Generator effluent, we find one single verifiable claim:

a win is a win.

Now, I know that Gman has already made this point, but it's worth making all by its lonesome.

What win? If it's in court, it has a citation. If it has a citation, that allows the rest of us to verify that it isn't like the rest of your posts - some product of a diseased imagination. Think about it - if any of this nonsense actually won somewhere in the real world, you could make the rest of us look like idiots.

So give it up. Have the courage of your convictions. As Drumpf says, what do you have to lose?

[Baidn]

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

"truthmonger"? Michael B. Jordan he's not. Closer to . . . no, that would be politics.

I'm going to spare everyone the babbling screed that reenforces the above quote but will point out that nowhere in it does he ever actually address any issues raised and actually reenforces the point made by myself and others as exactly why the law cannot be left to mob rule. I will try to put it in a simplistic form for expanding upon my historical example: imagine for a moment "Truthmonger" that this site is a community, and that it is solely placed on this small community what the law is and what the punishment should be for breaking it (a world very similar to what the NLA etc claim to strive for) you're opinion is clearly is the minority. Would you be happy to live in a world where that fact leads to actionable punishment such as imprisonment or even death for the spreading of "dangerous misinformation" or perhaps if the group should simple declare that such talk amounts to treason and thus you should be executed? Of course not, that is why the law is not meant to be interpreted on an individual basis or even on a small community one. The time of mob rule and lynchings is gladly long past and should remain so, if you wish to speak of reform then educate yourself and do so rather than babble I'm sure there are many in this very forum who could point you towards worthy outlets to actually work towards the improvement of society.

[Baidn]

I would say that it seems incredibly likely that what actually occured was that our misguided NLA associate visitor lost his case, likely rather badly, but received an unfortunate attempt at mercy that will likely backfire in a fashion reminiscent of Mike Parsons and ATW. In the unlikely event of monger having the courage to actually post the information necessary to reference his case I would wager that the court essentially put in it's decision that "we believe that YOU believe you are correct but you simply are not. Hopefully this ruling convinces you to abandon this foolishness and we will not see you again." essentially the same thing that was done when ATW received his sentence of probation for pretending to be a lawyer. I intend to directly ask monger to provide this but don't expect much more than screeching accusations of being a big "insert opposite political generality of their own" meanie! So this last part is more in hopes of cutting them off at the pass in case they attempt to report me to a moderator for sending them an "abusive" pm.

[Pottapaug1938]

Truthmonger also focuses part of his rants on clauses mined from the Declaration of Independence, clearly believing that they have some sort of legal weight. In fact, they have none. The Declaration is nothing more than what it claims that it is, in its first paragraph: a statement of the reasons why the 13 colonies felt impelled to sever their political ties to Great Britain. It has never been incorporated into American law; and even assuming that it once had been incorporated, it would have no more current validity than the 1777 Articles of Confederation.

[Duke2Earl]

One of the weaknesses of this forum is that it doesn't have a "ignore" feature. The falsely named Truthmonger would be a superb candidate to be ignored.