Everything I find supports this theory. Examine the video of Mark Levin at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in Washington, D.C. on December 4, 2014. Sponsored by the Convention of States (COS) Project.
See what he says at 9:37 - again at 10:14
"Less than 70 of you in the same room. Two from each state"
He is really trying to make it confusing so I've paraphrased.
Then at 29:30 to 30:30 he
describes many more people involved related to squelching
fears of a runaway convention.
He is basically saying two different things to two different parts of the audience about the same aspect of Article V, the security of it relating to constitutional intent. Those afraid of Article V are afraid of it because they do not believe that existing government will assure that all amendments have constitutional intent.
CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT APPEARS
TO BE SOMETHING AMERICANS ARE AFRAID TO ADDRESS. WHY?
widespread. It's like Americans can only consider
some authority or certified icon capable of competently
defining constitutional intent.
THIS is absurd when the 9th Amendment basically says only the people can define what
is not written, AND, that implies that the people
can define the intent of what IS written.
During the height
of OWS, I was on their forum and people were trying to say I
was working with/for ALEC. To prove them wrong, I
created an online petition to get ALEC accountable to
constitutional intent. Covert agents at OWS working
with admin worked together and misrepresented me to sabotage
I had done quite
a bit of research to try and connect ALEC with COS, which
seems a lot more on the level of the people. I could
not connect them. However, neither ALEC of COS would
respond to my inquiries about the concept of preparatory
amendment to assure all amendments have constitutional
intent. Since then I've made another to both ALEC and COS.
died because of covet cognitive infiltrators sabotaging my
efforts. However, I have learned quite a bit from the
In recent web
forums (1/16) I learned of a Council Of Foreign Relations
(CFR) member that supported Convention of States.
Randy E. Barnett. I sent certified
mail to him asking about constitutional intent.
The post office failed to see the return receipt delivered to me, so this is the proof of delivery. Also, it shows a degree of unaccountability in the USPS which is disturbing.
The above provides the
addressee and address as well as the serial/tracking number
which can be found to be the same as the screen shot below in
the address bar from the USPS tracking page.
In an effort to get the return
receipt card I paid for, I asked the postal inspector to
look into the matter.
"and we MUST provide the level
of service you expect and deserve."
I've not been able to discover
how that is assured.
I learned something about COS and Michael Farris related to the Sibley lawsuit. http://www.foavc.org/reference/file67.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file70.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file71.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file73.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file74.pdf http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf
ďI didnít know this suit was filed, but itís without merit and itís really not helpful to the Article V movement,Ē
said Michael Farris,
co-founder of the Convention of States, a group that
believes states should initiate a convention to
propose limits on federal power. ----
Without merit! His
statement fit's perfectly into my theory of
conspiracy to use Koch generated support in state
legislations to hijack a convention. They don't
want a convention of states of states on states
terms, they want it on their terms with their
carefully lobbied delegates of the last 25 years.
Sibley will be a historical hero for the
constitution if such exists and it prevails.