Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia
Printed from: ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Topic URL: http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=407
Printed on: 26 Apr 2024
Topic:
Topic author: source
Subject: Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia
Posted on: 13 Dec 2004 05:27:37
Message:
(First off the law created by governments of men simply do not apply to men and women of declared faith. The only protection provided for by the governments of men in the commonwealth and those countries displaying a Christian Bible in their court rooms is that Bible and faith in it. The Queen acts as defender of the faith. The Bible's first command is to not bow to false Gods'. Other faiths may not have the power of that Bible logged in with standing as supreme law to effect the extraction from the influence of mans law upon them. This is only an offer and warning. You can follow the ways of men if you wish or realise your true freedom via this process offered. The administrator altered my subject title without asking me which does not seem to be ecclesia based in my grasp of Biblical law which lead's me to believe the name of this site is misleading. I have changed it from what was originally there and from what the administrator did without my permission. It was not offensive but true . If truth is offensive then it is lie that is offended not truth.
Questions the adminstrator as to this act of non eccelsiatical performance as it speaks to error!)
Hello Brethren ,Glory to Jah in salutations is not enough,,,praise Jah, banging on keyboards is short of the mark,, in the spirit of the gift of life we are graced with the knowledge of our savior not cloaking ourselves by his word but rather baring our souls to the world in his name.. It is only by our duty in works that we can warn the darkness of the coming light...(Ezekiel 33:6)It is our birthright to demand our value of life that was stolen from us.(Leviticus 6:2) We have the technology! We have "The" Law. We have the proof, it appears we have the faith, now all that is missing is the works.....As the old saying goes "let’s give em the works"
This is a Canadian government website.. I ,with God's spirit prevailing, privately convinced the webmaster to post the truth..
I even did it on the phone!!
I have, with God's aid, got the treasury department of Canada served in our Lords name and done privately as well..They ageed with me and now are trying to make a law to deal with our Church
yah gotta laugh and cry to be in between...
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm
weve all heard the laws of congress or legislatures does not apply to us so heres the proof coming from them!!!
What I am going to show you here in this thread is how to in honor show the confused and unaware officials that their law doesn’t apply to us and when we do that it will be by private registered mail to a non commercial man or woman.
By doing this you eliminate the corporations cloak of deceit. You bring them into private agreement with you so they have no recourse but to realize that if they go back to work and continue to intimidate you that they become subject to their own criminal law and they have no defense..
Mind you the son of man never used their law as to make use of a thing implies a benefit and if you derive a benefit from one of the code's of mans laws you not only recognize it's authority but you seek to come out ahead by using it thereby contracting yourself to it's jurisdiction over you. Just like getting a ticket, a bill of exchange, and showing up at the invited time. If you show up and your there you are automatically assumed to be consenting to the jurisdiction and assumed to be a debtor by the commercial collector for the world bank, being the court, an agent of the receiver general.
You do have the opportunity to abate the assumed issue though... abatement is something some I'm sure are familiar with others not... It means your words bring them into awareness that what you intend to bring to court will destroy their argument hands down.You also have a duty to warn them of the hole in their own codes that they will fall into if they intimidate you!!!
This is a letter early in my awakening and will show you not only a popular misconception about what is defined as illegal and how to abate a process.... But that you can!
As a result of these letters the prosecution immediately stayed all charges and threatened me with contempt if I showed up!
To: Crown Counsel Mr. Von Myers November 14 2000 A.D.
St Albert Court( Alberta Canada)
Fax:780- 459-5088 Constitutional Challenge notice
From: Minister of God Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Tel/Fax:780-967-3915
Re: Charges of Possession of a controlled herb created by God substance ie. Religious sacramental marijuana a non criminal civil violation(Queen vs. Hauser BC SCR.1979)
You are in violation of your Supreme law of Canada in preamble and section 32 invoking the application of the charter law upon you, not me, as I am a registered Minister of God and am following the Biblical theistic dictate and gift of Genesis 1:29 and Deuteronomy Chapter 4:1-2; Chapter 7:-;Chapter 8-;Chapter9-;Chapter10;11;12;13;14;Etc.
This is God’s book of laws, laws that apply to me as the preamble so subliminally puts. If the Queen with the advise of the Lords Spiritual says God is Supreme and the rule of law, then you, or any other Crown allegiant, that says mans rule code and regulations take precedent over Gods rule are in breach of their oath of allegiance to the Defender of the faith acting in a seditious manner contrary to the royal style as clearly defined in the Queens act the statute of Westminster that applies to you as agent and representative of the Crown, directly, and making a blasphemic statement.
I as a minister of a registered Church disavow any Corporate Status and that any bonafide contract exists between myself and the Crown or the Government of Canada. I am a Creation of God and Challenge you and all the Justice ministers of Canada constitutionally to prove otherwise or that you have authority direct from God that says you have jurisdiction over me or that you can take away God’s gift, or tell me how to worship God, when God’s rule of law has not been violated.
The Defender of the faith as Gods representative acknowledges the Supremacy of God. I ask you as the representative of the Defender of the faith does you recognize God as supreme? Do you recognize Gods scriptural word as the rule of law? Do you know what Blasphemy is?
Would you as the Crowns counsel come before another Crown allegiant, a judge, encouraging and advocating Blasphemy? Blasphemy is stating that mans law is precedential and supercedent to Gods law. Do you know the definition of sedition and treason? These are some of the issues that I intend to challenge with regards to jurisdiction.
Let us be reasonable, Marijuana is Gods gift to man. (Romans 11:29)
It has never been proven that anyone is damaged by using it. The Australian Government’s two year study exposed by Foip at the request of the CBC said that drivers that use Marijuana are actually better drivers than sober drivers. They shelved that study for obvious reasons. No one has ever made a formal complaint or filed an information they were harmed by the use of marijuana. I ask you what is the purpose of an unconstitutional law? The courts have told the Federal Justice minister that this archaic repressive dictate has no force or affect and to revise the law to apply constitutionally.
I have heard, through, albeit rumors from more than one source, that some Crown prosecutors use Cocaine. Will you submit to a urinalysis? Will the possible use of this drug influence your ability to properly represent the Crown in a matter of theistic jurisdiction? These questions have no intent to defame you or discredit you anymore than a man hiring a worker that he has heard is an alcoholic. He has the right to ask and you have the right to reply in denial or in tacit consent say nothing and admit the fact by failure to rebut. Will you deny or fail to issue recognition of the Supremacy of God and will this denial or failure on your part influence the record and your jurisdiction so as to make you just a man with some words of no force or effect? Can an atheist or a Man or woman of contrary religion participate in the religious prosecution and adjudication of a Christian using one of God’s gifts as his right and religious practice and belief? Would this represent a conflict of interest if so addressed as a concern? Can an allegiant to the defender of the faith and servant of the Crown deny the supremacy of God when asked to do so? How can God reign as supreme and his rule of law if that is possible? Can a man dictate that God’s gifts are illegal without committing blasphemy? Can you prove that God gave you or anyone else permission to take away his gift to his creations of men and women? Did the King draft the statute of Westminster to protect the Royal style in particle? Is being head of the Church of England part of the Royal style? For how many centuries?
Please do not dismiss this case or withdraw the charges. I intend to set the record straight with these questions and if you attempt to thwart my efforts this is called obstruction of Justice by you! And I will press forward with an information against you! Remember your allegiance and ask yourself what the Queen would say. If you fumble this case she will not be amused!
You are hereby ordered and relinquished of permission, as you never had it, to use my name in any other form than what appears above. I will not answer to any other name and will press for Fraud Charges if you violate my dictate and my unalienable right to my name. The Federal Treasury board, that has authority over you, has a document called the "Canadian Style" You may be interested to note that it is authoritative over all federal departments as a format for communication in all forms and is respected internationally as an authority for grammar and punctuation. It clearly says you shall use upper lower case for a name inclusive of indicated punctuation and that an all capital name is reserved for a department of defense operation as in SILENT DEFENDER. There are other federal documents that state that a corporate name will be printed in all capitals. Can you prove I am a Corporation when I state I am God Allegiant? Is there a signature on a valid contract that says I am a corporation? Are you aware Judge Spevakow violated 606 of his Criminal code when he himself entered the not guilty plea for me rather than directing the Clerk of the court to do so. This is supported by the transcript record.
Will you deliver, post haste, a full-unedited bill of particulars according to your recognized case of Stinchcombe? This has never happened, as the records of the other attending officers were not made available to me.
CC: Reverend’s Walter Tucker and Michael Baldasaro of The Assembly of the Universe The Honourable Anne Mclellan M.P. Minister of Justice, Defender of the faith
The Solicitor General of Canada Lawrence MacAuly, Defender of the faith
Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada Adrianne Clarkson, Defender of the faith Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Defender of the faith.
The Honourable Dave Hancock Justice Minister Defender of the faith
Sincerely in Christian allegiance and love of all God’s creation,
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger 1-780-967-3915
Subject: God The Queen,the servant and Holy smoke!
Dear Allan Rock Dec1.2000A.D.
Did you swear an oath of allegiance to her majesty the Queen? Will you step in yourself soon, as the judge and counsel for the Crown could well be charged with treason by their procession with out jurisdiction.
You have charged a minister of God with possession of a sacramental herb a gift of God.
That act is not only blasphemic in proportions but also unlawful and discriminatory on religious grounds.
Would you dare tell me how to worship God?
Will you acknowledge your error?
Will you fail to acknowledge the Supremacy of God when asked as an allegiant to her majesty the Queen defender of the faith? Will you violate your oath to be allegiant to the defender of the faith head of the Church of England? Do you deny God as Supreme? Will I recognize the jurisdiction of anyone that is not allegiant to God via the Queen? Can I be forced to without it being an act of treason?
Would you commit blasphemy in stating that one of Gods gifts to man is illegal?Genesis 1:29
Would you commit further blasphemy as a servant of God via her majesty in superseding and precedenting mans law to Gods and saying mans law is superior and mandatory? Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 12:32
Would you, as a servant of her majesty, dare challenge the Royal Style and the Head of the Church of England, as the Queens father insisted not happen in 1931, in the Statute of Westminster?
Would you call God a liar and commit further blasphemy?
Would you commit treason in overthrowing her majesty's Government that was given in Gods consent to her majesty? Romans13. Introduction Canadian Constitution.
Would you compel me to worship and partake in your godless laws? Romans 16:17-20
Have I given anyone consent to proceed against me in fraud or change my name in the all capital fiction of attached to an AKA.?
Has there ever been valid bonifide proof that the holy anointing oil of the old testament for the anointing of Kings and priests contained kanehbosm(Hebrew for cannabis)Sweet smelling cane Exodus 30:23 New King James Version Her Majesty's Bible.
Was Jesus the anointed one? The Holy oil was used to anoint Kings!
Is cannabis seed the most perfect food of God's creational gift to man?
Is the oil of the seed the most perfect lubricant for engines and body?
Doe the fibre make the most perfect clothing and textiles?
Will the use of this plant for building products and paper save our forests the lungs of the planet?
Did Henry Ford plan to build and run his cars with the products of this plant?
Did Randolph Hearst, Dupont Chemicals, the Cotton industry the petroleum industry, the metal industry, the pharmaceutical industry;the medical industry;The rubber industry,The lumber industry and the criminal justice system industry have anything to gain by lobbying Congress in 1936 to institute the illegality of this sacred chosen plant of God that Mr. Ford wished to utilize?
Can you produce a damaged party or witness of such damage?
Did Hitler use this plant in his war machine because of it's superior nature. Is it's fibre as strong as steel. Is its medicinal quality well established historically? Does the Canadian judicial system make money out of keeping it illegal? Are you participating in this religious and unconstitutional discrimination and persecution?
From Minister of God Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
I hope you realize the brevity and precarious position this puts you in. You can come out of this as sweet smelling cane or as Hemlock. You must decide if you bear allegiance to God through her Majesty or violate your oath to not only God but to uphold his law. The constitution of Canada you swore to enforce and uphold is Precedentially and absolutely Gods law as supreme as the preamble so aptly puts. Remember to bite your tongue when you habitually wish to apply mans law against me the man creation of God. Will you respect this knowledge ? Hosea 4:6
In love of Christ and on Guard of the faith eternal.
Your servant in the Lord
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Sock it to them bretheren, in defence of the faith Love and blessings, your servant of the Lord faithfull and discreet slave
Brother Edward
P.S. I will speak for all who ask to whereever. I only charge for Meals, accommodation and transportation in advance. This allows me to be there for you as I am unemployed in the secular field. 1-780-967-3915
Edward-Jay
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Blessings and please redistribute
Replies:
Reply author: source
Replied on: 19 Dec 2004 17:33:44
Message:
Blessings of Yahweh upon you David,
Do any among us imply that all the laws of man apply to us??
Do any deny Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32 and God's command to not bow to false god's??
If they add to God's law, as they have, are they of God?? So if they are not of God and are intimidating us to bow to pay taxes that are not supported in scripture as being applicable to us, are we supposed to bow in contradiction of what Shadrak Meshak and abednigo did?? Didi Daniel eat the Kings food??
So the site I showed you above is proof irrefutable the laws not in line with God's law are not applicable to us as men under God and his law..All you have to do is abate their laws with a private notice to them as per the insructions of Jesus at Matthew 18:15-20 and bring them into agreement with you..
If they ignore you and force you into one of their fictional proceedings such as taxes you can call all those private men and women to testify that you made them privately aware as of your faith you can not \bow nor submit to their codes rules and regulations that are in addition to and in derogation to God's law.
They have no public power to cause you to nor to intimidate you to violate your faith and break God's first command law of Exodus 20:3-5
The Queens agent so to speak in canada has admitted she is a defacto ruler.. The world bank who is the creditor has admitted that defacto means unlawful! Illegitimate!! With no sanction of the Christian monarch since 1931. She acts as a false god!What is the Governor General's position in Government?
Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's 26th Governor General, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State.
They the governments act as collectors for the creditor the world bank with all the indentured and bonded men and women as slaves and debtors as the word constitutor means volunteering to pay the debt of another!
OP 7.30
July 2001
These policies were prepared for use by World Bank staff and are not necessarily a complete treatment of the subject.
Dealings with De Facto Governments
________________________________________________________
Note:This OP 7.30 replaces OP 7.30, dated November 1994. Questions may be addressed to the Chief Counsel, Operations Policy.
________________________________________________________
1. A "de facto government" comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country's constitution, such as a coup d'état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.
2Peter 2:3
Do you subscribe to the constitution of man or of God? Acts %:29
If God then we cannot be yoked with the unbeleivers as the government is ...it is mammon the commercial law of men the Babylonian Talmud!
The syngogue of Satan rules the debtor countries of the world and if you do not know this you are bound to perform as of your ignorance of God's law..as of your failure to private notice all those in official status of mans government and oath bound to the Queen, of your faith and beliefs as defended by the Queen of the King James Bible.
Hosea 4:6
Bring them into awareness of your position so they agree with you silently so you are immune from mans law!!
Remember Pauls words of Romans 16:17-20 and note that in chapter 13 he says they are ministers of God. Can a minister of God demand that you bow to false authority and violations of God's law??
The only authority that God condones is the defense and practice of his laws and none other. It was the ordinances of men that Christs blood washed away not God's. Colossions 2:8; 14-22.
Here is a letter from a minster from our Church that stopped the intimidation. You heard right he has not been bothered by them since.
This notice of Good faith and demand is a result of the discovery that the CCRA officials are not truly allegiant to the Queen and are truly imposters charading as wolves in sheep's clothing. They have no authority!
by • Monday September 22, 2003 at 10:01 PM
Good faith introduction
To all concerned parties receiving this as of after September 15th in the year of our Lord two thousand and three. Please take notice that I, the living man with a Christian appellation as Donald Christopher
Carter, living on God's earth in the province of British Columbia, and being a non commercial entity of sound mind and good character, do affirm that as a result of political or religious persecution and
intimidation and having exhausted all remedies in commercial law, my diligent research and Christian faith suggests, that the following offer applies.
1. I as a *minister (See Definitions Below) in performing a function of my filing to practice and defend God's law, and with the knowledge and awareness of the unlawful actions and claims of agents of CCRA
upon the created and assumed legal fiction of a name in and for the purposes of executing a fraud upon myself and my brethren , and with the knowledge that such legal fiction debtor number assigned by CCRA to me the flesh is without any informed permission or understanding by myself and with knowledge that it is created by CCRA for the convenience of achieving consent of jurisdiction over my flesh and blood by the Receiver General and Tax court, and also severally with the knowledge that the Queen and all her allegiants are bound to defend the laws of God with all of their power by the tenants of the King James Bible, I must aver: It is as a man of God, not being a *person, that it is under serious issuance of threat, duress and intimidation that I offer this demand via the aid of my clerical *envoy, ambassador and delegate of choice. We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our children and on our Brethren. You, reading this as a servant for society as a whole, take account of the ethical commitments that are necessary for a civil society to maintain the integrity and honor of both public and private morality.
2. You are now with the knowledge and awareness that you in pursuit of a fictional debt of Usury (Exodus 22:25: Leviticus 25:36: Deuteronomy 23:19) and are with knowledge it is a fiction as per your
own files of artificial assessments between 1992 and 1996 and previous years that you have adamantly denied that I have ever filed. Your own records prove your possession of such filings and as such provide evidence of deceit and concealment on your part. I do aver that I am not a corporate commercial legal fiction nor liable to pay a fictional usurious debt.
Agents of the CCRA have conspired by fraud to discredit and to fabricate arbitrary assessments that started at $8000.00 and grew on criminal interest and penalties to $32.000.00 against this artificial commercial entity which I cannot by my faith be compelled to participate with or allow. Aiding and abetting a criminal act, albeit unaware, is a crime!
Failure to be aware of the law is no excuse. Altering a man's or a woman's name and using it for a financial purpose without their permission is fraud. By the ignorance of the law that controls the actions of the government the CCRA has supported and enforced a slavery tax of usury being in force contrary to God's law. Thou shall not raise a false witness or bear a false report! I know that there are compassionate fair and honest men and women within CCRA and to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, I summon you good and kind folk to assist me at this time in provision of ther truth. May God's blessing and spirit be upon you.
Exodus 20:16 thou shait not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exodus 23:1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Deuteronomy 5:20 Neither shall thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Deuteronomy 19:16 If a faise witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong: 17 Then both the men. between whom the controversy is. shall stand before the LORD. before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days: 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and. behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother: 19 Then shall ye do unto him. as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shaft thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: vea. seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look. a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies. and he that soweth discord among brethren.
2
Proverbs 12:17 He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.
Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 14:25 A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.
Proverbs 19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
Proverbs 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.
Proverbs 19:28 An ungodly witness scometh judgment: and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity.
Proverbs 21:28 A false witness shall perish: but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.
Proverbs 24:28 Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause: and deceive not with thy lips.
Proverbs 25:18 A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul. and a sword, and a sharp
arrow.
Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have
eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life. keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shaft do no murder, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments. Do not commit adultery. Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shaft not commit adultery, Thou shaft not kill, Thou shaft not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
This Demand notice, being a matter of a religious claim, is not frivolous or vexatious in form and is a serious issue that if not dealt with will cause grievous and serious harm to myself and my
family and as such the balance of convenience and credibility of the court and its officers favors granting the relief sought. This demand is offered as a result of the CCRA failing to acknowledge that I did supply them with the returns they required when demanded. They denied that I have ever filed those years but their own records of the 1992 and 1996 filings reveal they do indeed have them, showing nil return and no monies owed. These actions, on their part, of violating not only their own laws, but the laws of God by a deliberate attempt to impose a slavery tax unsanctioned in God's or man's law upon me. are criminal and punishable by their law 46;60;122;126;180;215;219;336;337;408 ,405 and 403 as well as numerous others not mentioned for lack of paper supply.
The effects of a diligent nature, to communicate the facts to agents of the CCRA, have met with indifference and failure to adhere to the terms Of their public Service employment Contract s23. Every deputy head and employee shall, on appointment from outside the Public Service, take and subscribe the oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance and the oath or solemn affirmation set out in Schedule 11I.R.S., c.p-32, s 23. and ethical standard as required by the treasury board of Canada policy in favor of public standing. (Any law that is inconsistent with the laws of God is a violation of our faith and we are merely showing you that CCRA and associate departments are breaking their law, among many others.) We also wish all to make note of the fact that. through the admission of agents of the CCRA. the fiction they are applying to me. CARTER DONALD C.. is owed in excess of $100.000.00 in child tax credits. GST rebates and other funds. As an alternative CCRA can at its own discretion deduct the claimed owed monies from the actual credit they claim the fictional entity is owed and forward $70.000.00 balance claimed as owing to the Donald C. Carter the man.
False Pretences
362. (1) Every one commits an offence who False pretence or (a) by a false pretence, whether directly or through the medium of a contract obtained by a false false statement pretence, obtains anything in respect of which the offence of theft may be committed or causes it
to be delivered to another person; (6) obtains credit by a false pretence or by fraud; knowingly makes or causes to be made, directly or indirectly, a false statement in writing with intent that it should be relied on with respect to the financial condition or means or ability to pay of himself or any person, firm or corporation that he is interested in or that he acts for, for the purpose of procuring, in any form whatever, whether for his benefit or the benefit of that person, firm or corporation, (i) the delivery of personal property, (ii) the payment of money. As such the cause for the issuance of this Demand notice, . .
Signed at Cottonwood B.C. on September 15th 2003 for good intent and defense of faith in front of three witnesses of good character and sound mind..
Donald Christopher Carter
Witness
Witness ,
Witness
Minister Definition: 2 Corinthians 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth. but the spirit giveth life."
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Minister one who serves, as distinguished from the master. (1.) Heb.
meshereth, applied to an attendant on one of superior rank, as
to Joshua, the servant of Moses (Ex. 33:11), and to the servant
of Elisha (2 Kings 4:43). This name is also given to attendants
at. court (2 Chr. 22:8), and to the priests and Levites (Jer.
33:21; Kz.ek. 44:11) .
(2.) Heb. pelah (Ezra 7:24), a "minister" of religion. Here
used of that class of sanctuary servants called "Solomon's
servants" in Ezra 2:55-58 and Men. 7:57-60
1 (esp. in Presbyterian and some Nonconformist Churches) a member of the clergy
2 a person appointed to head a government department
3 any diplomatic agent accredited to a foreign government or head of state short for: minister plenipotentiary, envoy extraordinary, minister plenipotentiary
See: envoyTl]
5 Also called (in full): minister resident a diplomat ranking after an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary
6 a person who attends to the needs of others, esp. in religious matters
7 a person who acts as the agent or servant of a person or thing
verb
8 [inti. often foil hy to] to attend to the needs (of); take care (of)
[transitive] (archaic)
to provide; supply
[ETYMOLOGY: 13th Century: via Old French from Latin: servant; related to minus less]
'minister"ship noun
Envoy noun
Formal name: Envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary a diplomat of the second class, ranking between an ambassador and a minister resident
(ETYMOLOGY: 17th Century: from French envoy, literally: sent, from envoyerto send, from Vulgar Latin inviare (unattested) to
send on a journey, from in-2 + via road]
"envoyship 1101111
Persona: A person portrayed in fiction or drama: character,
Demand Notice
Attention: All the natural men and women as created by God acting as the sworn truly allegiant legal fictions of Federal and Provincial judges, prosecutor's, official employees of the Canadian federal and provincial law courts, justice, inclusive and especially Canadian
Customs and Revenue officers of her majesty's service practicing and offering severally the forms of law as being Military Chauncery,(Court of Conscience) Civil, Common Law, Equity, Taxation, Admiralty, Criminally indictable and summary law. Special notice directed to:
The man acting His Holy Eminence Pope John Paul the second
The Vatican
Rome Italy
The woman acting the person of Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The Dejure authority
Buckingham Palace
London England
SW1-AAA1
The man acting as the person The Archbishop of Canterbury
Rowan Williams Diocesan House, Lady Wootton's Green Canterbury CTl INQ
The woman acting as the person of Her Excellency Governor General of Canada
Adrienne Clarkson the Defacto authority of all the below listed recipients
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1AOA1
Role and Responsibilities of the Governor General
The Office of the Governor General, Canada's oldest continuing institution, is a thread that ties Canadians together. From Samuel de Champlain in 1608 to Viscount Monck in 1867 to Vincent Massey in 1952 to Adrienne Clarkson today, the role of the Governor General dates back nearly 400 years.
Today, we celebrate excellence through the Stanley Cup, the Grey Cup, the Governor General's Literary Awards and the Governor General's Academic Medal. These trophies and awards were created by Governors General and are a part of Canada that everyone celebrates.
What is the Governor General's position in Government?
Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy.
This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's 26th Governor General, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State.
The man acting as the person the Honourable Stephane Dion. President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada
8th Floor
66 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA3
The man acting as the person the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada
Justice Building,
Kent and Wellington Streets
Ottawa, Ontario
K1AOH8
The woman acting as the person the Honourable Elinor Caplan. Minister of National Revenue
7th Floor, Connaught Building
MacKenzie Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario
K1AOL5
The man acting as the person the Revenue Collections supervisor of clerks: J.M. Inglis Director. The woman acting as the person the Team leader Christine Cook and et al all men and women in Canada acting as the persons of the officers.employees agents or other assignees of the government of Canada assigned to accW 619-248-214 Rl. Northern
B.C. and Yukon Tax office 280 Victoria street Bag 7500 Prince George B.C. V2I5N8
To all the men and women acting as the persons of officers of the Supreme Court of Canada and all other formed courts in Canada being:
The Right Honourable Beveriey McLachlin, P.C., C.J.C. (Chairperson)
Federal Court of Canada
The Honourable John D. Richard, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada
The Honourable Allan F. Lutfy, Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada
Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
The Honourable Barry L. Strayer, Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Alban Garon, Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Donald G. H. Bowman, Associate Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada
ONTARIO
The Honourable R. Roy McMurtry, Chief Justice of Ontario
The Honourable Heather J. Smith, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice (of Ontario)
The Honourable Dennis O'Connor, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario
The Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham, Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice (of Ontario) QUEBEC
The Honourable J.J. Michel Robert, Chief Justice of Quebec
The Honourable Lyse Lemieux, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec
The Honourable Robert Pidgeon, Senior Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec
The Honourable Andre Deslongchamps, Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec
NOVA SCOTIA
The Honourable Constance R. Glube, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia
The Honourable Joseph P. Kennedy, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
The Honourable J. Michael MacDonald, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
The Honourable Robert F. Ferguson, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia,
Family Division
NEW BRUNSWICK
The Honourable Ernest Drapeau, Chief Justice of New Bmnswick
The Honourable David D. Smith, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
The Honourable J. Edward Richard, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories
MANITOBA
The Honourable Richard J. Scott, Chief Justice of Manitoba
The Honourable Marc M. Monnin, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
The Honourable Jeffrey J. Oliphant, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
The Honourable Gerald Mercier, Associate Chief Justice, Family Division, of the Court of Queen's Bench
of Manitoba
BRITISH COLUMBIA
The Honourable Lance Finch, Chief Justice of British Columbia
6
The Honourable Donald I. Brenner, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
The Honourable Patrick D. Dohm, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
The Honourable Gerard E. Mitchell, Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island
The Honourable Armand DesRoches. Chief Justice of the Trial Division, Supreme Court of Prince
Edward Island
SASKATCHEWAN
The Honourable Edward D. Bayda, Chief Justice of Saskatchewan
The Honourable W. Frank Gerein, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
YUKON TERRITORY
The Honourable Ralph Hudson, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory
ALBERTA
The Honourable Catherine A. Fraser, Chief Justice of Alberta
The Honourable Allan HJ. Wachowich, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
The Honourable Alien B. Sulatycky, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
NEWFOUNDLAND
The Honourable, Clyde K. Wells, Chief Justice of Newfoundland
The Honourable J. Derek Green, Chief Justice of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court
NUNAVUT
The Honourable Beverley Browne, Senior Judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice
Staff of the Canadian Judicial Council
Canadian Judicial Council
Att: Denis Guay
Suite 450 -112 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A OW8
(613) 998-5182, facsimile (613) 998-8889
Executive Director: Ms. Jeannie Thomas
The man acting as the person the Honourable David Anderson, Minister of the Environment
10 Wellington, Floor 28
Hull, Quebec
K1A OH3
The man acting as the person the Honourable John Manley,
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
140 O'Connor, 21st Floor, East Tower
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OS5
The man acting as the person the Honourable Ralph Goodale. Receiver General of Canada Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal
Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians
Place du Portage, Phase III
11 Laurier Street
Hull, Quebec
K1A OS5
The man acting as the legal person Honourable Wavne Easter. Solicitor General of Canada
13th Floor, 340 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1AOP8
The woman acting as the legal person Honourable Lucienne Robillard. President of the Treasury Board
Secretariat
L'Esplanade Laurier,
140 O'Connor Street,
Ottawa, Ontario7
K1AOR5
7
The man acting as the legal person the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal. Minister of Natural Resources
21st Floor, 580 Booth Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OE4
The man acting as the legal person the Honourable David Michael Collenette. Minister of
Transport
Tower C, Place de Ville
330 Sparks Street, 29th Floor,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1AON5
The man acting as the legal person the Honourable John McCallum. Minister of National Defence
National Defence HQ,
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OK2
The man acting as the legal person the Honourable Robert Thibault. Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans
15th Floor, 200 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OE6
The woman acting as the legal person The Honourable Sharon Carstairs. Leader of the
Government in the Senate
Parliament Buildings, Room 279-S
Wellington Street,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA4
The man acting as the legal person of the premier of British Columbia the
Honorable Gordon Campbell
PO Box 9041
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E1
the man acting the legal person of the Minister of fisheries the
Honorable John Van Dongen
PO Box 9058
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
man acting as the person the
Honourable Kevin Falcon
Minister of State for Deregulation
PO Box 9051
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Gary Collins
Minister of Finance
PO Box 9468
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Michael de Jong
Minister of Forests
PO Box 9049
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
8
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Bill Barisoff
Minister of Provincial Revenue
PO Box 9065
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Stan Hagen
Minister of Sustainable Resource Management
PO Box 9054
Stn PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The woman acting as the person the
Honourable Judith Reid
Minister of Transportation
PO Box 9055
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The woman acting as the person the
Honourable Joyce Murray
Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection
PO Box 9047
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Rich Coleman
Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for the province of British Columbia
The woman acting as the person the
Honorable Shirley Bond MLA Prince George
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Richard Harris MP Prince George
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Collin Kingsley mayor of Prince George
The man acting as the person the
Honorable MLA Dr.John Wilson
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Philip Mayfield MP
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Stephen Harper MP
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Jay Hill MP
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Walt Cobb MLA
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Richard Neufeld MLA.
All the men and woman acting as the persons of Chief Prosecutor for the federal Customs and
Revenue Justice Department, Chief prosecutor for the civil law department of the provincial
government of British Columbia and all subordinate prosecutors and legal advisors of Justice,
Revenue and investigators of the risk management departments of federal and provincial revenue.
Chapter 1: Statement of Public Service Values and Ethics
Ethical Values: Acting at all times in such a way as to uphold the public trust.
• Public servants shall perform their duties and arrange their private affairs so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.
• Public servants shall act at all times in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.
• Public servants, in fulfilling their official duties and responsibilities, shall make decisions in the public interest.
• If a conflict should arise between the private interests and the official duties of a public servant, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest.
People Values: Demonstrating respect, fairness and courtesy in their dealings with both citizens and fellow
public servants.
• Respect for human dignity and the value of every person should always inspire the exercise of authority and responsibility.
9
People values should reinforce the wider range of Public Service values Those who are treated with fairness
and civility will be motivated to display these values in their own conduct.
Publlc service organizations shou!d be led through participation, openness and communication and with
respect for diversity and for the official languages of Canada.
• Appointment decisions in the Public Service shall be based on merit
• Public Service values should play a key role in recruitment, evaluation and promotion
Application
Chapter 4: Avenues of Resolution
Public Service Values and Ethics
Any public servant who wants to raise, discuss and clarify issues related to this code should first talk with his or her manager or contact the senior official designated bv the Deputy Head under the provisions of this Code according to
the procedures and conditions established bv the Deputy head.
Any publlc servant who wltnesses or has knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace may refer the matter for resolution
in confidence and without fear of reprisal, to the Senior Officer designated for the purpose by the deputy head
the provisions of the Policy on the internal disclosure of information cocerning wrongdoing in the work place.
Furthermore any public servant who believes he or she has been asked to act'" a way that is inconsistant with the values and ethics set out in Chapter 1 of this code can report the matter in confidence and without fear of reprisal to the
Senior officer as described above.
If the matter is not appropriately addressed at this level or the public servant has reason to believe it could not be
disclosed in confidence within the organization, it may then be referred to the Public Service Integrity Officer in
accordance with the Policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Conceming wrong doing in the Workplace
IT is expected that most matters arising from the application of this Code can and should be resolved at the '
organizational level. ~"-~-------------
From : The Cariboo Sui Juris Church being a non commercial benevolent congregation of respected men and women not being persons (James 2:9;Deut:10:17;Acts 10:34 having assembled in responce to a universal calling for the maintainig of to a universal calling for the maintaining of truth liberty and freedom. This assembly of men and women is not to be
assumed as purposed in clandestine order nor cultish performance but of quest for open and honest unfettered sharing of truths to ensure integrity and honor prevail. 'The one law is to cause no harm. Those who deem faith in God as cultish are obviously without God and discriminating against those who do, on a religious basis and with intent to ignore their oath sworn duty and to label a Christian monarch as cultish.--------
Minister of Christ Edward-Jav-Robin: Belanger in official function and performance
of a ecclesiastical duty et al the man Donald C. Carter President Cariboo Mining Association---
asserting no association with a false Fictitious tax file number ITA-1441-01 Acct# 619-248-214
Exodus 19:6 Romans 11:29) as per your legal reguirement of vour government law (Preamble
Section 26; 32 Canadian Constitution. 176 CCC. complimented bv 423CCC and 337of the CCC
and in defense of my parishioners of the formed ecclesiastic body of God's servants of the Cariboo region
Notice of Demand to all professed allegiants of her maiesty Queen Elizabeth
H in duty and performance of provision of true allegiance to a Christian monarch, being defender of
the Christian faith, via sworn Oath.
Before any conclusions are drawn and assumptions formed upon the previous assumptions of
other professed allegiants and those consulted for their opinions about myself as a man and
minister hope you will look at the facts I am presenting. These facts although not comfortable to
those in lack of knowledge, are still facts of indisputable proportions. If you wish to judge these words please do so with the facts not assumptions.
The men and women I speak for as their minister have an inherent right and duty God
10
commanded, to not bow to defacto authority. It is in ignorance that the masses have given over
their energy. We cannot contribute to what we have proof of is a fraud. We as followers of God's
word cannot be driven from the scriptural warnings and commandments of God it is only by our
free will of allowing deception to prevail that we can ignore them.
In our belief your fictional government form is based upon commerce and we are not to unite with
nor serve mammon being commerce. We do not wish to insult any one nor decline our
responsibility to pay for road upkeep and maintenance of other usufructs. It is the servicing of a
usurious and fraudulently obtained debt that we have issue with. It is pure slavery and forced work
outside of God's laws.
I do hope that bv collective communication in open dialogue we can avert any confrontations that
would tend to harm our ability and freedom to practice our faith and to maintain our unalienable
right of gaining a livelihood. Entrance into the corridor of a mans freedom bv any government
without probable cause is inhibiting his liberty to provide for himself and family as well as to freely
communicate his discoveries in faith to others. Please remember our offer In demand is not in
offensive mode but an imperative rendering of the instant matter concerning those of my ministry
who are caught in the fictitious trap of taxation in violation of their faith and belief in the no harm
ethic of the King James Bible and laws provided.
Justice is in disrepute and I as a non-commercial man and minister of God am required, as of my
awareness of corruption within the system, to not contract with any man acting as a Commercial
fiction nor un sanctioned bv the Christian monarch and anointed of God. I as a performing minister
of God cannot receive integral justice or honor of truly allegiant men and women unless their
oaths are understood. Mv duty and performance of a function of mv calling as a minister of God in
defense off his laws is to enquire of all as to the provision of the legitimacy of their understanding
that oath and the validity of its form. (Numbers 30:2: Jeremiah 9:3-9)
Without a truly understood oath in the possession of a truly sworn allegiant to her majesty the
anointed of God, I as a minister of God and my parishioners in faith and right unassailable in
Christ cannot participate in your unlawful defacto commercial process of assumption that we are
commercial debtors. Neither can mv parishioners participate as we have no truly allegiant dejure
and authentic court of God's law of defense bv her majesty to bring forth the truth in. We cannot
bow down to nor serve false defacto authority. (Exodus 20:3-5 :Luke 16:13) This is the command of
God! Read chapter 3 of Daniel.
I hope you will not assume this is avoiding unlawful taxes (Romans 16:17-20 Exodus 30:13-14
Matthew 17:24-27). as we wish to ensure you that you have no need to assume that, as it is
absolutely true. No assumption needed. Taxes not instituted bv God are not lawful among his
children and not of God. Ezra:7:24-26:1 Peter 2:13 only laws written for God's sake! Acts 5:29
Duet:4:1-2)0nlv dead commercial entities are taxable not God's creation! God's truly allegiant
ministers know that his law is the rule of taw mentioned of in the preamble to the Canadian
Constitution. The Coronation of her maiestv in 1953 is clear unavoidable evidence of that. She
swore to uphold the laws of God with all of her power!
Colonial Tax Repeal Act (1778) Still in force
it is hereby declared and enacted ... that. from and after the passing of this act. the king and parliament of
Great Britain will not impose any duty. tax. or assessment whatever, payable in any of his
majesty's colonies ... in North America or the West Indies, except only such duties as it may be
expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce:
Filings of Kisikawpimootewin North American Signatory Indian as serviced upon the Governor
General of Canada as of January 24" 2002 A.D. et al
Filings of Sherwood-T: Rodriaucs Notice of Collateral Esttopel May 2003
To be clear, the men and women of this Church are of faith and belief not commercial nor under
commercial jurisdiction and we challenge you to prove that we are.
If you proceed against us without proving that. under the provisions of vour public service
employment act and the terms of vour public liability insurance policy via revenue risk
11
management, that it was warranted, we will be forced to file a claim against you. If you can prove
you have lawful jurisdiction over the non commercial men and women of a non incorporated sui
juris church and its holdings of properties, we demand, as of unalienable unchartered right that
you produce that evidence in good faith so we can submit and not be wasting audited monies with
arguments of assumed and fictitious legal nature. To do so would be a fraud . I. as the officiating
minister of this religious congregation am demanding in good faith that you validate vour
jurisdiction "quo warranto veritas". Please remember I am not being adversarial just performing a
function of mv calling as an officiating minister of Christ of a formed Church to protect my parishioners from
avoidable offences not of God being enforced by impostors. (Acts 5:29: Romans 16:17-20) I am with the
authority to be requesting verification of vour true integrity and sanctioned authority in God's law
to enforce the Income tax act or any other ungodly law upon mv flesh and the ecclesiastical
property of God. Please do not be intimidated by this notice. I only want what is right in God's law for mv
congregation and their family's ensured security. The civil laws of man have no force against the ministry
of God and the Queen has supported that in law. Please read 176 and 423 of the criminal code and ask
how you or any one man or woman can make up a meaning to that true allegiance you promised you
would provide. Read the Coronation act of 1688 and the text of the Coronation ceremony of 1953. We iust
went through the fiftieth Jubilee of her majesty and the oath bound duty is still as ever clear not foggy nor
gray you just have to read it.
Matthew 6:24......You are acting as mammon(Commerce) and I cannot bow to you as you are false
authority . Exodus 20:3-5.1 cannot violate the laws of God. Deuteronomy 4:2:12:32 Numbers 15:15
You are harming mv ministry and mv right as a man and minister of God to receive truly allegiant
justice for mv parishioners. There is a value to that harm you are causing mv ministry and it's
parishioners. Your liability insurance via Jubilee insurance and other insurance services is in
jeopardy.
l do aver that I officiating as a minister of God in performance of a function of mvcalling and via the provisions of 337 of the Canadian criminal code am
demanding of you. in reciept of this demand notice, to produce the property of a
certified copy of your signed oath of true allegiance and authority to have her
majesty's sanction in jurisdiction over the natural body of my parishioners and
to inflict a violation of religious beliefs being intimidation (423C.C.C.) upon
myself or members of mv congregation namely bowing submitting and
understanding to false authority. Produce your true authority to invoke taxation
upon the Queens subjects that supercedes God's rule of law.(424C.C.C.) Prove
we as members of an international religious body are debtors of a commercially
bankrupt corporate body. Prove your created legal fictions (430C.C.C.) are
capable of being cross examined. Staufen vs. regina 2001 BCSC
fpara91 Whilst there is no evidence before the Court that Mr. Staufen was bom in Vancouver or. for that
matter, where he was born. the law is riddled with legal fictions, it is said. The Court may do so here. Mr.
Azevedo suggests.and create a legal fiction with respect to Mr. Staufen's name and place and date of
birth. fpara101 As defined bv the Oxford Canadian Dictionary a "legal fiction" is "an assertion accepted as
true (though probably fictitious) to achieve a useful purpose, esp. in legal matters". In An Historical
Introduction to English Lawand Its Institutions (3rd ed.) bv Harold Potter, the learned author, at p. 302.
groups the fictions used into three classes: (1) fictions used to increase the jurisdiction of Courts: (2)
fictions designed to avoid cumbersome and archaic forms of action: (c) fictions having a false
assumption of fact in order to extend the remedy the Court could grant. Jowitt's Dictionary of English
Law (2nd ed.). at p. 787. provides two examples in order to illustrate hqw the former practice and
jurisdiction of the courts rested largely on fictions. Thus. the king's Bench acquired jurisdiction in
actions for debt bv "surmising" or "feigning" that the defendant had been arrested for a trespass which he
had never committed and then allowing the plaintiff to proceed against him for debt. In the second
example the Court of Exchequer acquired jurisdiction bv permitting the plaintiff in certain actions to plead
that he was a debtor to the king and that bv reason of the cause of action pleaded he had become less
able to pay his wholly fictitious debt to the king.
fparal 11 Although fictions have been used extensively over the centuries to expand the jurisdiction
of the courts and the nature of the relief they can grant. I have not been referred to. and have not in mv
own research found, an instance where a fiction has been used by a court to invent the facts necessary to
decide the very issue before it. Judges are frequently told by appellate courts not to speculate on the
evidence. What is sought here would require the Court to do more than speculate.
12
1. I because of discriminatory treatment and knowledge of the lack of sanction bv her majesty to
enforce the commercial laws of men (Matthew 6:24) upon me as I am in lack of trust of vour process
as it is clearly corrupt and replete with impostors. Mv religious obligations are clear and I cannot
bow down to false authority. I hope you will help me determine vour integrity so you are not in total
appearance of dishonor.
I am an officiating minister of God (Of mv religious belief no capitalization or alterations of mv
name are allowed to be formed or attached to any document or to be associated with me or my
parishioners) of the Cariboo Sui Juris Church.
It is important that you avail yourselves of this information as of the CBC Airing of the Coronation
Ceremony on February sixth 2002. Please take notice and read the following. This is follow up to a
notice in the Edmonton Journal 2001 December 19°' to all allegiants of her majesty:
To all private parties acting publicly as oath sworn allegiants of Elizabeth the second, bv the grace of
God of the United Kingdom. Canada and her other realms and territories Queen, head of the
commonwealth, defender of the faith, and all private parties acting publicly or private, relying on oath
sworn allegiants to the Queen so mentioned for their professional advise or oath sanctioned protection.
Re: The meaning of that sacred oath of allegiance, and statement of faith may be viewed by contacting
Minister of Christ
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger in faith of defense of faith for Donald C. Carter et al 1-780-967-3915
CHAPTER XXH.From the Westminster Confession of faith an Act of the British Parliament of 1646
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows,
1.A lawful oath is apart of religious worship, wherein upon just occasion, the person
what he asserteth or promise and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth,
II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence:
therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing. is sinful, and to be
abhorred. Yet as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the word of God, underthe new testament as well as under the old, so a lawful oalh. being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken.
Ill Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act. and therein to avouch nothing but hat he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just. and what lie believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority
IV An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It can not oblige to sin: hut in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a mans own hurt:nor is it to be violated although made to heretics or infidels
V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be peformed with like faithfulness.
VI. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the word of God,or that what would hinder any duty therein commanded.or in which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise or ability from God. In which monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares in which no Christian may entangle himself.
Default Notice
Will you discriminate against my official Ministry, and prejudice my ability to fair defense of my
congregation's men and women? Will you ignore your duty to that oath? Will you fabricate a meaning to
that oath? Will you believe someone else's fabrication? You have seen and are now with the
knowledge of her majesty's law regarding lawful oaths and if you can refute what I am saying, do
so with in 10 days of receipt of this document and Notice of demand. Failure to rebut or reply.
*nihil dicit. to the notice of demand, sent via registered mail for proof of service, will be taken and
acknowledged via notice in her majesty's Royal post office and advertisement locally, of vour
open acceptance of my lawful sanction as a minister (Exodus19:6: 2 Corinthians 3:6) having only
13
laws in accord with his law as authority over my congregation Deuteronomv 4:2:12:32:Numbers
15:15) and will be taken and accepted as tacit consent and agreement to the assertions of law and
ecclesiastical right contained herein
I, ................... do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
If your oath is not in this form it is invalid. If you cannot verify what the true allegiance is that you
swore you would provide, it is evidence that you are in breach of your obligation and have
committed perjury.
Please tell me: If one does not believe in God but takes an oath to be truly allegiant to a Queen
sworn to uphold the laws of God with all of her power can they decline to enforce and uphold the
laws of God and still be truly allegiant?
Sincerely offered in performance of a function of my calling as an officiating Minister and founder of the Church of the
Ecumenical Redemption International 2001 and of and the Cariboo Grove of the Church of the Reformed Druids 2003, The Head Druid and minister of the Onoway Grove of the Church of the Reformed druids 1993; Received Philosophy Degree in 1992 From the Edmonton Grove of the Church of the Reformed Druids, and Master of law degree in 2000 from Grand Druid Kevin Sisk under a charter mission from the Assembly of the Universe, Honorary Minister of the China Grove of the Church of the reformed Druids 1992 and international law Consulting minister for the Belize Grove of the Church of the Reformed Druids 1993(I am No longer a minister for that Church I woke up) and a Chartered mission brother and research consultant of the Assembly of the Universe Hamilton Ontario 1969 al and the Center for Self Awareness and the Church of Christian Science being all interfaith churches All glory to God and his infinite wisdom. May we all be humbled by his mysteries.
Minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger Ph.d Doctorate of Theology and Theocratic law
Parishioners Present
Matthew 18:15-20
Witness
Witness
Witness
* Black's Law Dictionary. Sixth Edition, page 1045
Nihil Dicit.
Judgment taken against party who withdraws his answer is judgement nihil dicit, which amounts to confession of cause of action stated, and carries with it, more strongly than judgment by default, admission of justice of plaintiff's case. See also Nil dicit judgment.
add your comments
Blessings
Reply author: source
Replied on: 22 Dec 2004 03:35:27
Message:
This another old attempt that got quite a bit of attention
00030494AC Judicial notice of intent April9th2001A.D.
It is under threat duress and intimidation I offer this notice of the present and future good faith and intent of the man that comes before the Canadian courts provincial and federal being of sound mind and of an expert capacity in matters such as being before the court and this man under God as his savior and creator is in truth declared to be known by his birth record name in correct English grammatical form and no other than such form as Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger and relating to no other record of the name other than that which is live birth record verifiable via the vital statistics record under the authority of Barry Haugrud in Edmonton, director of records for vital statistics being recorded in a grammatically incorrect form, a violation 366 of the Canadian Criminal code and being recorded as born on the 29th day of September in the year of our Lord 1952, in the province of Alberta in its capital city of Edmonton.
As of this date the deponent herein proclaims and is stated for the courts notice that he is conducting service as a minister of God and living in the local of Onoway.
No one is given permission to alter any record, inclusive of my name, in any form or fashion without my hand authorised written consent.
I offer the allegiant and non allegiant agents of her majesty and the courts inclusive no consent or permission to assume or presume my intent is of a negative purpose as my intent is hereby declared in truth and is of good will as follows and is displayed by such words of intent . . .
The intent of the character and nature of style of Queens and Kings is sacred; their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, and vested of powers by virtue of their office. Their power is broad based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting whims of the people's will . . . They are to be spoken of with exulting reverence, instead of being abused by official public disdain, and by the very allegiants sworn to them. It becomes a sacrilege to violate their persons, dignity and style, and every indignity offered to them, be it in denial of allegiance, a word or act, becomes an indignity offered to God Himself. It is this view of Royal rule and style, sanctioned via a coronation, that alone can keep alive, in a scoffing and licentious age, the spirit of ancient loyalty to justice. It is that spirit begotten of faith, combining in itself in obedience, reverence, and love for the majesty of Queens and Kings which was at once a bond of social union, an incentive too noble daring, and salt to purify the heart from its grosser tendencies, preserving it from all that is mean, selfish and contemptible. Our present Queen, like all other British Monarchs over many centuries, has also sworn these Oaths. The Statute for Settling the Coronation Oath was passed by Parliament at the beginning of the reign of William and Mary, over three hundred years ago.
King George III set the standard for the value, solemnity and lasting application of all Oaths, when he said:
"Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion”.
"Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure.”
"I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my oath. "If I violate that oath I am no longer legal sovereign in this country."
In the same way, if a Parliamentarian violates his sworn Oath, he is no longer a legal member of Parliament. We owe it to our Queen and to ourselves and our children and grandchildren to hold our members of Parliament, judiciary and all agents of the crown to their Oaths of Allegiance. Otherwise, their allegiance is no longer to Canada, nor to the people of Canada, but to some powerful foreign masters in the United Nations who demand illicit allegiance with threats of Treaties and International Law.
Such disloyal Parliamentarians and judiciary are happy to take us from under the Common Law protection of the Christian Monarchy, and put us into slavery under the non-Christian United Nations.
The unwritten rule of the court in separating itself as allegiant to the Queen and from God as Supreme is like saying true justice flies with only one wing and it has the self ordained right to sever her majesty in two! The Biblical priest Melchizadek, the arch type, demonstrated that true justice imparts both aspects of rule, Church and state.
The court in attempting to use the quote “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars” would by intent, compare a Roman pagan God to the Christian defender of the faith, this again is sac religious, blasphemic and contemptuous of her majesty’s court. Roman’s 13 is of the fact that Gods judges were ministers of God. Any minister of God when asked if they recognized the supremacy of God would loudly and proudly proclaim yes! .
All receiving this notice, are to take note of the prime reasons and my intent as a minister of God in asking the agents of the crown, being lawyers judges justices and masters etc. of this province, or elsewhere I may come before them, is to demand their acknowledgment of their allegiance to the Queen as defender of the faith when asked, with intent of proud defense of the royal law that is in every court room in Canada by royal letters patent, and in acting out my faith in God as supreme. My intent is to ensure true justice transpires to be fair and integral as in God’s law. This also being written recorded and accepted as true service by the clerk of parliament and recorded as being the intent of the parliament via the preamble to the Canadian Constitution Acts of 1981 and two and supported by section 32 of that act stating that the charter of rights and freedoms as the supreme law of Canada only applies to the government. All those that wish to classify themselves as government, federal and provincial or members of the Canadian body corporate, in all of their authority of mans law may do so. As the Queen was given advise and consent by the Lords spiritual and she cannot commit blasphemy in stating mans law is superior to Gods. The preamble and the royal law is the law for the people not of the classification as government or members of the body corporate known as Canada. The Canadian federal and provincial governments law is section 1-60.
The coronation oath of 1953 established for all men and women of a competent capacity becoming or already members of the Bar, that the Queen is a Christian monarch bound to uphold the laws of God and that all who become allegiant to her are in recognition of the royal law as supreme and of it’s author’s supremacy. The court or any agent of her majesty when failing to acknowledge it has an oath of allegiance to the defender of the faith and recognition of the supremacy of God relieves itself from sworn duty and reverts itself to a private man or woman with no more judicial authority than the sovereign inheritance of birth.
Unfortunately for those truthful brave souls that confront the appearance of a court with these ultimatum queries, the appearance of court is still in a position of usurped, unauthorized by the Queen, power, to commit further treason by partaking in a conspiracy to overthrow her majesty’s government under God and offering threats of violence enforced with guns to any who ask the questions of the court as to it’s capacity and true authority to convene and establish jurisdiction.
My intent is to verbally and spiritually convey to the semblance of a court in Canada or abroad, and establish in front of witnesses of good record, the purpose of the judicial system is to impart justice under the guard and watchful eye in defense of the faith, of her majesty Queen Elizabeth the second of England. It is necessary and sanctioned by my faith and duty as a minister of God to display my intent is, as her majesty’s style, to preserve the judicial good name of God and the continued convention of his integrity, whose hallowed halls of justice must maintain to keep the reputation and validity of the of the Canadian courts Authority in check.
Please, in a display of good faith, by way of reply, acknowledge understanding and receipt of this notice and any rebuttal by affidavit to a failure on my part to establish the truth and primarily my intent before the court! I am not a member entity or person of the body corporate known as Canada. I am a man under Gods rule and no other. I cannot, of faith and duty to God, recognize the fiction of a court attempting to operate without acknowledging, when asked of their allegiance to the Queen and recognition of it’s own supreme law. Gods royal rule of law is as proclaimed in her majesty’s royal law the King James Bible..
I proclaim this without any reservation or contempt for the court convened under God as I am a minister of God of declared faith being Christian. As her majesty is in defense of the faith and her majesty proudly administers such defense, being the foundation of the court, I cannot by faith or belief be in contempt of that man or woman which, by their own lack of respect and recognition of duty and allegiance to the Queen and failure to recognize the supremacy of God, establishes in fact for all to see that it, as a court bonafide bearing jurisdiction sanctioned by oath, clearly does not exist!!!.
Asking Questions of the court is religiously and lawfully mandatory to establish in faith the Authorised jurisdiction of the court, albeit the contempt is committed by the man or woman acting as the court failing to provide in signature or verbal an oath of allegiance or recognition of God as Supreme.
To date of memory, in this case,0003-0494-AC, Justice P.T. Costigan and Justice J.W. McClung have failed to deliver the property of their signed oaths of allegiance which validate their authority, to the writer as of demand ,via 337 of the criminal code, exercising authority as a minister of God in defense of the faith and acting as applicant/agent for over 60 men women and children of the Kilini Creek/Patricia Hills area in Alberta counties of Parkland and ,Lac Ste. Anne that will be negatively affected, in a material manner, by the SDAB decision of Lac Ste. Anne county.
It is in the intent of my declaration and authoritative questions put to the court to make clear to all, by the courts answers, or lack of them, a knowledge and comprehension of the structure of the courts authority. As it has been witnessed, that the semblance of her majesty’s courts, presided over by these gentlemen imposters, has consistently without reason or explanation refused to acknowledge the courts royal allegiance by their lack of a positive response to the question “Does this court bear an oath of allegiance to her majesty the Queen defender of the faith?” In complication of it’s own error the court further fails to acknowledge and recognize the supremacy of God. In an arrogant display and denial of royal allegiance to defender of the faith and the supremacy of God, that established, implemented, and oversee’s the Canadian courts authority, both justices have tacitly declared they have no allegiance to her majesty and possess no jurisdiction in the matter and all such orders or decisions rendered by them are void abnito.
When a non allegiant man or woman, to the Monarch of Canada of Christian heritage, posing a s a justice, judge, master, or officer of the court, in form of court of her majesty’s authority, proceeds against you when there is no damaged party ,without your permission, with force, guns, and punitive measures, that is treason!!! The unauthorized court has declared war upon the people using the Queen as their Champion. The release of a positive answer by the court to the test of integrity ,offered by the appellants would establish jurisdiction and the court would relieve all parties of confusion caused by the action of perceived treason on the part of the court against the people.
I intend no contempt for court as I as a minister hold God as supreme and as I in defense of the faith and belief hold God as supreme and having and holding faith in my spiritual father as God and as the founder of the court I cannot be in contempt. Those that choose to flagrantly disregard their oaths of allegiance vesting authority of the court established under her majesty with God as supreme are the ones in contempt. Treason is to threaten with violent force in attempting to usurp the royal power using the appearance of the Queens authority when it is not in the possession of the one using the force of violent nature. It is my intent to convey that threatening the people or those who asks such legitimate questions of the courts jurisdiction, authority or legitimacy in a matter, with contempt of court for asking those questions as I , the deponent was, with being a guest of her majesty in jail. Justice McClung committed this observed act of treason upon myself in court room 515 April 4th 2001 A.D. at 9:35A.M.in response to asking the questions of allegiance and recognition of the Supreme law . In receiving no reply in acknowledgment of jurisdiction I then correctly assumed the court had no jurisdiction was a private party attempting to contract with me, which I in defense of the faith and the people I stand for declined to accept in front of witnesses who have filed affidavits of testimony and witness to this action of treason.
I thank you for your sincerity in acknowledging and recognizing mine, is in God as supreme
Minister of God
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Please CC: To all of the below listed parties of particular interest
Edmonton Calgary
The Hon. Chief Justice C.A. Fraser The Hon. Justice J.D. Braccio
The Hon. Justice J.W. McClung The Hon. Justice M.M. Hetherington
The Hon. Justice H.L. Irving The Hon. Justice C.M. Conrad
The Hon. Justice J.E.L. Cotéé The Hon. Justice E.A. McFadyen
The Hon. Justice A.H. Russell The Hon. Justice W.E. O'Leary
The Hon. Justice E.I. Picard The Hon. Justice C.D. Hunt
The Hon. Justice R.L. Berger The Hon. Justice A.B. Sulatycky
The Hon. Justice P.T. Costigan The Hon. Justice A. Fruman
The Hon. Justice N.C. Wittmann
Court of Appeal Registry
Law Courts Building Court of Appeal Building
1A Sir Winston Churchill Square 530 –– 7th Avenue S.W.
Edmonton, Alberta Calgary, Alberta
T5J 0R2 T2P 4E6
Phone: (780) 422-2416 Phone: (403) 297-6727
Fax: (780) 422-4127 Fax: (403) 297-5294
Registrar: Lynn Varty
Deputy-Registrar: Danielle Umrysh Deputy-Registrar: Ileen Moore
Reply author: source
Replied on: 22 Dec 2004 17:07:08
Message:
Thankyou for your help David and yes I noticed the text goes wide screen so it makes it difficult to read much less tolerating my poor editing ..
Thanks for you comments and help all things to edify in the glory and provision of the truth that God has ordained in his holy name YHWH we will be sanctified. I have more to posts of communication we have effected and will post as the digestion of what I have already put up takes place.. Blessings upon the patience and good will of those who may read this thread..
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 24 Dec 2004 07:31:46
Message:
You said:
quote:
Re: Charges of Possession of a controlled herb created by God substance ie. Religious sacramental marijuana a non criminal civil violation(Queen vs. Hauser BC SCR.1979)
I am supposing for now that you fail to see this is an elaborate and ritually based Refusal for Cause. You seem to have read a lot of supernatural powers, probably based in your belief Jesus arose from the dead, into a simple R4C. The non-statutory abatements out of California (Randy Lee etc.) at least read, "Therefore I am returning your papers to you in a timely fashion Refused for Cause with no recourse to me." The remainder of the verbiage was religious clutter. However it certainly had me convinced at the time that the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth was driving the process.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Maybe there is a similar effective clause in your letter but the page width makes it a little difficult to read (for now). Maybe after it is corrected, I will point out the effective verbiage in your prolific preachings.
P.P.S. I find it a little wierd that you published being a pothead so widely and among the political elite of Canada. And that you expect getting stoned contributes to Christian ministry.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 24 Dec 2004 09:31:47
Message:
Greetings and salutations David:
Peace be unto the house.
Why do you always insist on "sugar-coating" your responses? LOL [I am only funning, so no response is necessary.]
Does P.S. stand for "paranoid schizophrenic"? LOL
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 24 Dec 2004 10:14:41
Message:
He made some sense here:
quote:
By doing this you eliminate the corporations cloak of deceit. You bring them into private agreement with you so they have no recourse but to realize that if they go back to work and continue to intimidate you that they become subject to their own criminal law and they have no defense..
This is Piercing the Corporate Veil and Instrumentality Rule. I do not necessarily believe that the above abatement brought them into a private agreement. Just the same, the right of avoidance was exercised. I suppose the THC in the marijuana and its narcotic effects would substantiate the delusion there is an ecclesiastic authority in Christianity as a religion playing a part in the process. Tetrahydracannabanol is a mild psychotomimetic (psychodelic) drug.
quote:
A class of drugs reliably inducing temporary states of altered perception, often with symptoms similar to those of psychosis. The drug experiences are clearly perceived, vivid, and remembered. Sensory input is heightened and subjective experience is intensified, but control is diminished. The subject's feelings and momentary perceptions gain an independence from the normal corrections of logic; whatever stray item occupies the attention (a sensation or an unguarded or unveiled memory or thought) becomes at the moment compellingly significant. Thinking and perceiving of this order coexist with the capacity for, but not an interest in, normal thought and function.
McGraw Hill's Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology; Psychotomimetic Drug.
Reply author: source
Replied on: 24 Dec 2004 13:59:55
Message:
If you research Exodus 30:23- you will find a recipe for the anointing of preist and Kings....Further research will expose you to the irrefutable fact that Calumus was not an ingredient in that recipe but in fact Kanehbosm the Hebrew word for Cannabis was ... Now you may wish to rguwe this but please ask a Hebrew Scholar before you accept the musings of men. Keeping in mind Jeremiah 8:8....All Preists of God and Kings were to be anointed with this oil! Was Christ??
HE was King so as to God wishes he must have been. It is no secret the plant existed in thso times and wsa widely used so who are we to doubt that Christ was anointed with this oil. The THC is absorbed through the skin in this manner with all the other ingredients it musaty have induced a very powerful effect and brought the subject much closer to an etherical relationship with God.. It was after all his gift of Genesis 1:29 and further is provided as something to not repent for using it. as in Romans 11:29.
Your catergorising me a "Pothead " is a slight on my abilities and character in subtle attempt to discredit me.. You will find I am quite a dedicated researcher David and since your a proponent of mans law not God's, all can see that is why we differ.. God's law is supreme so I guess that says a lot about where you stand.
I do not know how to get rid of the wide screen so I apologise for the difficulty. Maybe someone can advise on how to correct it..
Praise Jah and all credit to him,
As you will note that last letter is almost four years old and I no longer serve up the public entities but rather the private men and woman as advised by Christ. Yes I am quite familiar with brother Randy Lee and his work.. Has he been successful?? Has he proved the laws of man do not apply which I notice you are not to keen to debate?
Blessings upon our discource in the edification of all who read these forums in YHWH's holy name let it be so. Amen is the name of an Supreme Egyptian deity ! Exodus 23:13 applies!
Blessings
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 24 Dec 2004 16:42:17
Message:
I think you could at least try to spell correctly while defending your marijuana addiction. Please try using a word processor with a spell checker and then Cut and Paste.
Yes. Randy Lee's abatements work and I have used about five in that form with all the religious clutter. Then recently I revisited that form when I found a copy floating around on the Internet. The only verbiage of effect is, "Therefore your papers are returned timely Refused for Cause without recourse to me." There is common law process. Notice and grace. Simple R4C.
You discredit yourself with that silly notion about both the Qetoret (Temple Incense) and the anointing oils. The 1992 cave find revealed the formula the rabbis were using. No marijuana. There is one mild narcotic Sausuria Root, better known to me "Qi Mu Qiang" because I have to send to China for it. The incense properly mixed smells delicious! Yes, if you don't mind the pun, divine. The Qi Mu Qiang is that ingredient that is supposedly foul to include the Abrahamic Covenant extends to the Goyim, the Gentile nations of the world. You may find the information at http://www.vendyljones.org.il/Incense.htm
The opiate effects are so mild they are negligible. However eating large amounts will induce a thorough evacuation of the bowels, which is the primary medicinal value of the root in Chinese medicine; to balance the chi in the intestines.
I will tell you the recipe in case it is no longer published by Hebrew University in Tel Aviv where they analyzed the find. The rabbis are so picky about 'strange fire' that they will not burn the incense with fire. They would only burn it with hydrochloric acid, which of course if you are familiar with that, would alter the fragrance dramatically. But it would not surprise me if they removed the exact recipe from Internet availability. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Qetoret.jpg
So whoever told you that stuff about Biblical marijuana was probably a pothead too and also inducing "folie adieu"; group psychotic disorders. Usually the term applies to paranoid delusions of a father who brings up children believing in the same complex persecution delusions as he; like that. But I have had to import the term for the societally based Multiple Personality Disorder when one cannot distinguish one's self from the artificial entity/legal name/Strawman or whatever.
But in your case it was probably somebody looking for somebody else to party with.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I have asked Admin to please correct the page width. Please support that the Parliament's legislation subsequent to the charter respects the ecclesiastic authority you purport. All I see from your report is that the same common law processes in commercial and international law (UCC, Law of Nations etc.) are adhered to in Canada as well.
P.P.S. To Readers. Because of the unexpected vehemence in Source's initial reaction to my point of view I removed my initial Posts to be polite and to give him a chance to form his premise better. Subsequently we got into a spat and Admin has pulled some Posts that were deemed non-productive. So as you read, you may find comments that do not quite fit.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 07:13:37
Message:
I removed the comment about illegal substance abuse because I was speaking for the forum's moderators. Also, it seemed as though I am expressing my distaste for substance abuse adaquately by all the 'sugar-coating' in the main text. I have a distaste for anyone who would promote that the Israelite priests of the Holy Bible were constantly stoned on marijuana. Also, a marijuana addict would fall into doctrine and scriptural interpretation that would support getting high as a sacramental religious rite.
While I can respect practitioners of Kundalini Yoga may spend over a decade promoting an enlightened state of mind; psychodelic drugs always prove out a very undisciplined method of acquiring the same. The results are pretty unstable:
quote:
According to the book THE SPEAR OF DESTINY, by Trevor Ravenscroft, Adolf Hitler became involved with an occult group called the "Thule Gasellschaft," which, as we have previously observed, claimed descent from the Knights Templar - guardians of the Grail...
...It was said he (Hitler) seldom took a bath...During this time, Hitler was on drugs. He tried to learn the so-called "ABC's of the Grail" by the use of the mind expanding drug, mescalin, found in peyote. The "ABC's" refer to the development of a "higher consciousness" or "transcendent awareness" that permits one to communicate with the spirit world.
It is said there are two ways to learn the ABC's of the Grail. The "proper route," is to learn "without black magic" - through the process of Yoga or Transcendental Meditation. But it is a slow process of initiation and requires a devoted, personal quest for the mystical "Grail." The other way is to learn by the use of "black arts" or "Black magic" - through the use of mind expanding drugs, which short-circuits the arduous process of attaining the level of spirituality supposedly needed to cope with the reality of the spirit world.
One day Hitler went to the Treasure House to study the Spear of Longinus. Hour after hour he gazed upon the relic, as if in Transendental Meditation. According to his own testimony he went into a trance:...
Excerpts from The Guardians of the Grail; The Men Who Plan to Rule the World by J.R. Church.
Since neither the Cumran cave or the 1992 cave finds have any marijuana I figure that is enough to convince most of the readers. If they are potheads though, they will like your version. Personally I believe the rituals of the Levitical priesthood could be a disciplinary practice suited to groom the men into proper priests. Above you suggest and promote the mathematical precision and prophetic insight of the Holy Bible is the result of God commanding a drug cult. This may be supported indirectly by etymology but not by any evidence. Certainly hemp has played a role in fabrication of clothing etc. and I suppose its THC effects were discovered early in human history. So the idea is quite appealing to those who light up.
The works you cite above indicate that the Qetoret was a crucial part of the mindset of priests in the Tabernacle and Temple. I agree. [If I remember rightly, John the Baptist's father Zechariah had a Qetoret-induced vision while serving his term in the 'cloud'.] I think the question the reader might want to decide is was there marijuana or was it another 'Spirit-provoking' mixture? So in my closing argument I would like you to consider the effects of such high doses of THC over a lifetime. That would be disabling.
quote:
...The narcotic ingredients allegedly have stimulating effects, and after smoking two or three cigarettes, the smoker often has a feeling of well-being and increased power and ability. After excessive amounts of the drug, illusions are often common, as well as pleasing, fanciful hallucinations. Sometimes the excessive user experiences disorientation and even delirium.
McGraw Hill's Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology; Marijuana.
And so I quickly linked your illusions of correlations; Refusal for Cause being the Canadian's legislative respect for non-extant ecclesiastical authority, to be related to marijuana use. Understand that a timeline I believe to be prophetic from the prophet Daniel and referred to by Jesus at Matthew 24:15 says the corporate body of Christianity sold itself as a 501(C)(3) asset in the foreclosure proceeding of bankruptcy on March 18, 1997:
Daniel's Calendar
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg
Daniel's Books
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielBooks.jpg
Darius conquers Scythians
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Scythian.jpg
The Khazars convert
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/khazar.jpg
And that timeline is supported by the mathematical correlation with "Week". I never drew it on the original timelines but 1260 years after the Darius drove the Assyrian captives north out of Israel with the Scythian invasion of northern Israel the (now long refugee) Jews in the Caucasus Mountains were selected by the Khazars for the state religion. 1260 years following that was the year 2000, Intifada. Intifada began on September 28, 2000 when "Sharon scales Temple Mount". Exactly 1290 days following the resolution of the national debt cured in the district court case 95-D-3136 (interesting that "D" is for judge Wiley Young DANIEL). You can call (303) 844-3433 and the clerk will read you the docket that the case was 'closed' (meaning instead of 'dismissed' that the debt had to be resolved) on February 17, 1997 and with the 30 day cure time that means the national debt, at least for a moment in time (the Treasury just billed Congress to re-institute the illusion of debt) was resolved. [See January 26, 1996 Associated Press release "Rubin predicts default date". The case was filed commencing the "31 Day Government Shutdown" on December 17, 1995.] These days count exactly by the Bible. So I may be under the illusion these are Biblical timelines but I have a lot more evidence behind my beliefs than you are presenting with your claim about the Canadian Parliament and proof that Christians are not subject to a body you call "the laws of Man".
So maybe prior to March of 1997 there would have been reason for legislators to recognize "Christian authority". Not to say they were.
In preparation of the Qetoret for my own use I researched the verses you refer thoroughly; the Standards. Nowhere along the way did I ever get a hint I should buy some marijuana for an ingredient.
You say:
quote:
In case you did not read David the laws of God are the only ones that apply to men and women in Canada.. I have no need to prove anything other than that and I did already!!
Please cut and paste that passage succinctly. From the charter or legislature of the Parliament. I may have missed it. For one thing I believe you entertain a drug augmented illusion in saying so. But the wide page makes it a little difficult to read smoothly here.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I take it by the above Post you are literate with good communication skills. You have done your homework about this. So I will restrain my jabs about imbibing in the herb yourself.
P.P.S. From The Word; The Dictionary that Reveals the Hebrew Source of English by Isaac MOZESON:
quote:
CANE Koof-Noon-Hey QaNeH
CON-EH_______________________[KNH]
ROOTS: The so-called IE root kanna (a reed) is admitted to be "of Semitic origin." Babylo-Assyrian qanu (pipe) is cited rather than QaNeH (reed, tube, stem, the "stalk" of Genesis 41:5, the "shaft" of Exodus 25:31, and the "branch" of Exodus 25:32). KaNeH is a stalk or root (Psalms 80:16) and KaiN is a base or foot (of a laver).
BRANCHES: Directly attributed to Greek kanna (reed, cane), the AHD only lists 7 cognates of CANE: CANAL, CANISTER, CANNELON, CANYON, CHANNEL, KENNEL, and (with Greek kanon meaning rod or rule) CANON- as in Biblical CANONIZATION. Most C-A-N- words in English derive from the versatile Hebrew etymon above, a CAN is a tubular container or CANISTER. (...) KANKAN means container, and is an Arabic extension of (...) KÄNEH (tube). Longer and larger "cans" include the CANNIKIN, CANNON, CANNULA and CANOPICURN. Weaving the reed (KANEH) to larger containers will yield the CANASTA (basket, and later card game) and CANEPHOROS. Weaving rushes in wider, flatter shapes will produce a CANAPE, CANCEL (lattice, grating-thus a verb of crossing out), and CANOPY.
CANAPE and CANOPY also recall (...) KÄNÄF (extremity, wing)—a cousin of (...) KÄNEH (branch, extension). Other possibilities include CANT HOOK, CANTEEN, CANTHUS, CANTINA, CANTILEVER, CANTLE, CANTO (angle, corner), and CANTON (a political branch).
For sugar CANE and CANE SUGAR return to (...) KÄNEH (stalk, stem), reinforced by (...) KÄNE (base, post, upright). (...) KÄNEH is a pipe too, and to pipe or produce shrill sounds with our widpipe, may be the KN source of all CANOROUS or CANTORIAL activity by a CHANTEUSE CHANTING a CHANSON - or that of a CANARY or CHANTICLEER (rooster). CAN-CAN and CHANTAGE involve the "singing"' of tattling and blackmailing. CANT is traced to the whining singsong of beggars. There's also the CANTATA, CANTICLE, CANTO, CANTUS, and CANZONE(T). For the IE root kan (to sing) and (...) KÇNA (dirge) see "KEEN." Hungarian enekel (to sing) might be a reversed K-N singing term.
Returning to branches, bough in Polish is konarm. A canal (kanat in Arabic) is a kanova in Finnish.
See "CANDY," "CANOE," and "CINNAMON." See "OCEAN" for more on CAN or CANISTER.
A Chinese rod is a kan; the Thai equivalent is kahn. Kano in Hawaiian is a large, hard stem or a tool handle. (...) KAYIN is a cane-like spear (II Samuel 21:16); the Arabic (...) KEEN is a cane or spear.
CANVAS is from Latin cannabis (hemp) and the IE root kannabis (hemp - a late IE word borrowed from an unknown source).
QaNBOO$ is an early post-Biblical term for CANNABIS or hemp. Other Mishnaic variants sound like K'NÔVES and KÄNÄVÔS. The word HEMP is traced to Greek kannabis and Persian kanab (notice the K to H change, as well as the more common N -->M and B -->P Grimm's Law changes). The ultimate etymon is conceded by Webster's to be "a very early borrowing from a non-IE, possibly Semitic, language." A probable source of CANNABIS is either QaNeH BoSeM – Exodus 30:24 , see “BALSAM” or N/L confusion with CALAMUS – see “CALAMUS” (A).
In seeking Semitic words related to QaNVOAS (hemp), consider Aramaic QaNaBH (to trim, prune—possible source of NIP and NIBBLE) and QaNeH (stalk, stem, reed).
HASH-ASH________________[H-S(H)-S(H)]
ROOTS: Political ASSASS(INS) and drugged up killers were common to the Middle East long before Anwar Sadat and Lebanese car bombs. ASSASSINS and their source of inspiration, HASHISH, are officially borrowed from the Arabic term hashish (dried hemp, grass). (...) HASHASH means dry grass, chaff or hay. Isaiah 5:24 'Assuredly, as straw is consumed by a tongue of fire and hay (...) shrivels as it burns . . ."
BRANCHES: The "straw" of the above verse is (...) KASH, a harder sound and feel than hay or (...) HASHASH. (...) KA-SHEH is hard; (...) CHASEV is grass.
KASHA or KASZA is a Russian and Polish dish of hulled, crushed, coarse buckwheat that they still feed to humans. Kusa is grass in Japanese. CASSAVA, starchy plant food, is from Haitian kasabi. HASSOCK is from Anglo-Saxon hass (coarse grass). CO-HOSH is an herb named by the Algonquian Indians. Reverse K-S for other hay words like SACATON or ZACATON (from Aztec). HASH might resemble a clump of hay or (...) HASH(ASH). HASH is currently linked to the IE rot skep (to cut, scrape, hack).
P.P.P.S. I got interested in King Josiah and the claim the Qetoret may have been altered around 621 BC. I found an interesting article - http://www.direct.ca/trinity/mirror.html
The author find wonderful correlations with the number 2520 but multiplied again by 360 and translated to days. I had not thought about doing that. More on "mathematics worth pondering".
Reply author: source
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 12:32:46
Message:
Possession of marijuan is a civil offense in Canada and has never been criminal according to Queen vs. Hauser 1979. You will note below fron Canada's criminal code the law that states ministers are not to held not obstructed in any civil offense as they are immune! Once you read that you may wish to read the proof underneath the law that states the reasons for the Decision in Hauser.. The courts in Canada have held that tobacco and alcohol are far worse substances than marijuana could ever be.Even sugar has more addictive qualities than the herb! It was Henry Ford and his experriments with the plant and wish to build and fuel his cars with it that caused it to illegal but you probably fell for the lie that the government promoted for industrial purposes.. Such is the folly of those who ignore knowledge and do not quest for the truth like yourself!Hosea 4:6
The Truth about Canada's Marijuana Laws!
Canada's legislation against God's Tree of Life, Marijuana was declared a federal civil non-criminal public health law by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1979 via its ruling in
The Queen v. Patrick Arnold Hauser that Canada's Narcotic Control Act
"is not a matter of criminal law."
Those of us convicted of Marijuana Offenses do not have a criminal record and should not allow ourselves to be treated like or referred to as criminals as if we had actually violated the Criminal Code of Canada. If charged and/or convicted we must demand that the court and no-one, not the Judge, Jury, Media and especially not the Prosecution refer to the charges, conviction and/or punishment as if it were criminal.
In 1995 Reverend Baldasaro was convicted at Hamilton, Ontario of Trafficking in Marijuana. The Chief Judge and the Crown Prosecutor kept referring to the charges as criminal, even to the jury, however when Reverends Tucker and Baldasaro objected the judge and crown were forced to concede that the proceedings were non-criminal and to refer to them as such before the jury and even at sentencing which ended in 1997 with a successful appeal as to sentence in the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
NOT CRIMINAL!
It is immoral for the state to make it appear that persons charged with and/or convicted of Marijuana/Drug Offenses violated criminal law when their authority to act is based upon a federal non-criminal health legislation. Such misrepresentations and lies cause us to be stigmatized "Reefer Madness" as if we actually committed a grave criminal offence when in fact, we had not!
The incorrect reference by the Justice System is biased and discriminating. The use of the word criminal in non-criminal matters illegally gives the perception of a violent offender and offence under the Criminal Code. It wrongly prejudices the judge, jury, media and public against an otherwise non-violent harmless defendant "victimless crime". Such misrepresentations of the circumstances surrounding such non-criminal matters constitutes cruel and unusual treatment and punishment and is un-constitutionally criminal and illegal to say the very least and has brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Our Justice System is currently painting everyone with the same brush, regardless of their offence and without any consideration to the degree of these non-criminal offenses.
Proceedings under the Narcotic Control Act and/or the Controlled Drug and Substances Act can only result in a record for a conviction under those specific Acts. Only a conviction for a violation of the provisions of the of the Criminal Code itself could result in a Criminal Record upon conviction.
The mere fact that criminal procedures and sanctions are being used by the prosecution in the criminal courts for non-criminal crimes such as drug and provincial offenses, i.e. Trespass to Property Actor a conviction for the crime of jay-walking will not result in a criminal record is proof that one may have a Jay Walking Record and/or like myself and so many other Canadians, a Narcotic Control Act or Controlled Drug and Substances Act Record NOT CRIMINAL! See the Hauser decision cited below:
.
Attorney General. In R. v. Hauser(1979), 46 C.C.C. (2d) 481, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984, 8 C.R. (3d) 89
It was held (5:2) that the Attorney General of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to control the proceedings in non-Criminal Code offenses where the particular offence does not depend for its validity on the criminal law power in s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. In particular the Attorney General of Canada has power to prosecute offenses under the Narcotic Control Act, (Can.) since that Act is not a matter of criminal law, but rather falls within Parliament's general jurisdiction to legislate for the "peace, order and good government" of Canada.
In Hauser, the Supreme Court ruled that Marijuana Laws, originally prosecuted under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada were un-constitutional or ultra vires parliament and re-shuffled the Legislation under the Narcotic Control Act (now the Controlled Drugs and substances Act) a.k.a. the War Measures Act, (peace, order and good government) pursuant to the provisions of Section 91 of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1997. known today as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It wasn't criminal then and it is not criminal now. It is a
non-criminal federal health law, un-constitutional under any guise!
Canada's Marijuana Offenders are currently being prosecuted by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Minister of Health Canada and not as criminals.
In criminal law there must be a victim and the complainant must be the victim of the alleged offense. Marijuana laws have always been referred to as victimless crimes. Reference: Hauser, supra and in the Criminal Code "complainant means" the victim of the alleged offense.
We are being illegally prosecuted!
Administered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the provisions of the Marijuana Legislation, originally passed under the federal governments residual power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, are of no force or effect until locally adopted and proclaimed into force via the majority of voters in each Municipality across Canada just like Canada's Prohibition of Alcohol. Reference: Laskin's Constitutional Law, (1951) and R. v. Hauser
In 1991, Statistics Canada reported 33,275 Canadians arrested and treated like criminals because of their association with the Marijuana, Tree of Life culture and supposedly violating this public health law which is not even legally in force.
We should be hiring more health care professionals to treat health problems
and not judges, lawyers, police, and jail guards etc.
Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman
176. (1) Every one who
(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or
(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)
(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or
(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings
(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Idem
(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 172.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 13:11:29
Message:
I am starting to figure out that you are quoting other people when your spelling and syntax perfects; often without us getting the benefit of knowing who or by what authority.
Presuming you speak of me;
quote:
Such is the folly of those who ignore knowledge and do not quest for the truth like yourself!
We will just leave it to the readers. My point was clear I hope. That because you are on narcotics you have confirmed an illusion as real. The illusion is that the ministers in Canada are honoring or respecting Christian authority when you properly present it. And I am dispelling that illusion by presenting that simple Refusal for Cause is what, if anything, they are respecting. These common law precepts are universal. Canada or elsewhere.
For instance in what I perceive your point with the quotes above. The (Colorado) state Constitutional precept is at Article V, §18 -
quote:
Enacting clause. The style of the laws of this state shall be: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado.
Since 1933 (War Powers/Trading with the Enemy Act) this has been replaced by an 'omnibus' enacting clause accompanied by a trailer on each bill that begins, "The General Assembly has found it necessary to...." Therefore no bill ever gets properly cured into law and never gets its own enacting clause according to the Constitution. A good booklet about this is The Authority of Law by Charles Weisman. I hear it can be found as someone has just ordered a few copies. It even has a sample motion on how to defeat subject matter jurisdiction regarding any charge for which there is no enacting clause on the face of the "law".
Here as well as there, one charged with possession is charged with a non-crime. If no law is broken there is no crime committed. And?
But you still have not extracted and explained how you have proven the premise. Maybe I missed it because the page is still difficult to read. So summarize please how the Canadian charter or whatever proves Christians are not subject to what you call "the Laws of Men". But I think you try to do the mathematics after you get stoned and never really see anything but a bunch of quotes, authoritative or not.
I was warning people there would be a violent event on top of the Temple Mount for about three weeks prior to September 28, 2000. When it transpired as I had said people thus thought I was a true prophet of God. Was Daniel a true prophet? Well, if you ask me he was a mathematician. He even calculated Jeremiah's prophecy to become a prophet himself. My point is all the while I do not drink or do any narcotics. I imagine any mathematics professor would tell you narcotics are disastrous to mathematics. Hopheads just choose to be art majors after a semester or two. Therefore I certainly would not attribute the priests and prophets of the Old Testament were stoned and that marijuana has any contribution to make in how we relate to God.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. As promised, the ingredients and proportions found in the 1992 cave find are linked in the post above. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Qetoret.jpg
Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 14:26:43
Message:
What are the implications of Exodus 30:30-33 in regard to who may partake of the
substance Lawfully (i.e. according to Yahweh's Law)?
quote:
Book of Yahweh, Exodus 30:30-33...And you shall anoint Aaron and his sons, that they
may minister to Me as priests. And you shall speak to the children of Israyl, saying;
This shall be a holy annointing oil to Me throughout your generations, Do not pour it on
men's bodies, and do not make any oil with the same formula. It is holy and it shall be holy
to you. Whoever compounds any like it, or whoever puts any of it on anyone other than a
priest, must be cut off from his people.
The words in red may be translated improperly...see KJV translation below.
quote:
King James Version, Exodus 30:30-33...And thou shalt annoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate
them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office. And thou shalt speak unto
the children of Israyl, This shall be an holy annointing oil unto me throughout your
generations. Upon man's flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other
like it, after the composition of it: it is holy, unto you. Whosoever compoundedeth
any like it or whosoever putteth any of it upon a (zuwr)stranger,
shall even be cut off from his people.
Psalm 1:2,
Marty
P.S. Perhaps hitting the "enter" key more often is a temporary solution to the "wide Page"
syndrome.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 15:09:40
Message:
Interesting tangent. We should consider ourselves priests and kings. Thus I was free to mix Qetoret and use it. I call that a tangent because it does not directly address whether marijuana is used in the intended ingredients.
I am more of the global fix kind of guy. If we edit and start hitting enter and then Admin fixes the page, it will look pretty bad.
Reply author: source
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 17:08:27
Message:
[quote]Originally posted by Cornerstone Foundation
What are the implications of Exodus 30:30-33 in regard to who may partake of the
substance Lawfully (i.e. according to Yahweh's Law)?
Exodus 19:6 may lead us to the answer ....
Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 17:13:09
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Interesting tangent. We should consider ourselves priests and kings. Thus I was free to mix Qetoret and use it. I call that a tangent because it does not directly address whether marijuana is used in the intended ingredients.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
That thought had occured to me also. Israylites or at least certain Israylites were told , by Peter, that they were kings and priests when Peter quoted Exodus 19:5 & 6 in his letter to the diaspora:
quote:
I Kepha (Peter) 2:9
But you are a chosen [race], a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you would show forth the praises of Him Who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light-
This is confirmed by Yahchanan(John) the writer of the Book of the Revelation at Revelations 1:6.
David,
Your specific post had dealt with the ingredients of an oil.
It is our understanding that the a more broad topic of discussion concerned:
a: a certain substance that may or may not be in the recipe....
b:...and who may Lawfully partake of the substance,
c: and in what form and under what circumstances and for what purpose.
Having stated that... the following questions arise in our mind?
1. Was and/or is the use of the annointing oil restricted only to the sons of Aaron (i.e. the Aaronic Priesthood)? Not all priesthoods are created equal..are they?
2. Was and/or is the prohibition in Exodus 30:33 against applying the oil to someone other than an Aaronic priest....or
3. Was the prohibition in Exodus 30:33 against applying the oil to the body of a zuwrstranger?
4. What is a zuwr stranger?
Thank you for helping us to understand this better. Inquiring minds want to know.
Best Regards,
Marty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 20:06:00
Message:
Keep in mind I am under the impression from my last reading that the oils and perfumes were of the same ingredients. The anointing oil was derived from the Qetoret. The method of the "fine perfumer" is not very elaborate so I take extra virgin olive oil and steep the Qetoret and then strain it. The oil then takes on the fragrance of the unburned Qetoret.
These are just impressions. But I wrote out the Laws of Moses (Exodus 20-24:7) in Sumarian Ostraca - paleo-Hebrew from David's time and then translated it back into English word by word. Also, I have written out the Pentatech on the word processor to fulfil that requirement of a king; to have written his own copy of the law. http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif
The way I grasp priesthood is that there are various functions within the scope of the Levitical priesthood. And what I mean by that is the tremendous burden on that priesthood. Remember that but for Moses convincing God to repent, the decision was already made to destroy the Israelites for the Golden Calf imagery. So the Ten Commandments were delivered a second time with 613 Mitzvoth or lesser laws. The Levitical priesthood was created with the awesome responsibility for the very survival of Israel. See Exodus 24:7. That contract came with an enforcement clause that Israel would be destroyed if not to comply with the lesser laws too.
But there is a symbology that I feel relates much better to the Messianic Age; the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah. That is collateral to my fulfilling the lawful prerequisite as king - Melchizedec. Melchi-tzaddic. King of Righteousness. Serving in conjunction with Jerusalem. Yeru - shalom. Prince (teacher) of peace.
Since Melchizedek is without bloodline or training, then the set functions become foggy. It would seem that this original priesthood was more an election of God, rather than some sort of Tabernacle or Temple function one was born into or even groomed for by training.
When a Melchizedek priest appears to Abraham, there is an assumed authority. No questions. The tithing is natural. And so therefore no contesting the bill of exchange for all the debt (money) in the world. I enjoy that. Nobody at the Treasury, Federal Reserve, United Nations, World Bank [IMF/IBRD], Bank of International Settlements or even the CIA will talk about it.
Bill of Exchange Image 1
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 2
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif
One morning I was getting some other documents and found the proof of service already on Cecilia's computer screen! When she came back with my document I asked for the bill and the affidavit of service on her screen. She was a little perplexed. I pulled the reception number for the bill off my Pocket PC and think she may have thought I had hacked their system with it. But I sometimes wonder if the Treasury or whoever was requesting a certified copy at the same time I walked up to her counter.
Cecilia’s computer screen
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/onscreen.jpg
Once an agent called and tried to bully me but when I started toward the police station, he backed down. I told him I was on my way to turn myself in (he was calling from Burbank, California) and that he had better get his complaint there before I arrived. Well, the CIA is not allowed to operate on this soil* (of mine according to the cured bill) because that would be an ongoing accusation of the principal over the agency of espionage. So he became docile when I told him I was on my way downtown. So the authority exists, or at least there is enough evidence for me to abide in the illusion.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* To clarify. Most pre-law enforcement signal intelligence activity is carried on by British Echelon type services and exchanged for similar services by CIA in Britain.
Source; If the legislature said that men and women were not subject to the laws of man, that is what it would say. I don't see it in that link. That is all. If anybody can read it there, please cut and paste it here with an explanation. Thank you.
In case you are still wondering:
quote:
David I am really starting to wonder about your own dereliction to read...
That is as far as I read. You cannot insist I read your insults. I retain and exercise the right to read a Post as far as the author's handle and move on. Past experience says the readers here do not enjoy reading squabbles. Although I enjoy getting into them a little too much.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 25 Dec 2004 21:12:28
Message:
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, David:
Peace be unto the house.quote:
These are just impressions. But I wrote out the Laws of Moses (Exodus 20-24:7) in Sumarian Ostraca - paleo-Hebrew from David's time and then translated it back into English word by word. Also, I have written out the Pentatech on the word processor to fulfil that requirement of a king; to have written his own copy of the law. http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif
Most commendable, David!
We would, however, like to point out one minor difficiency that we noticed when we went and read the gif you posted; you translated yodh, he, waw, he as Lord. Lord is beyth, 'ayin, lamed, a.k.a. ba'al, which of course equals "lord"...
BDB Definition:
Baal = “lord”
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 00:23:14
Message:
The Hebrew is from the Pentateuch and Haftorahs by Soncino Press 2000. It is good to hear someone is comparing the fonts or has diversified into paleo-Hebrew too.
You are correct. In translating back to English I should have written "Yehovah" above the Tetragrammaton. Not the misnomer of the original text "LORD". Thanks.
Reply author: True North
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 14:38:37
Message:
There is/can be no recognition of authority 'outside' the ecclesia except you choose to dwell in the 'polis of Cain'. We have been over this already in the discovery of the Greek word 'polis'. To reject the ideology of authority, I.E. "The authority that Law comes from HaShem", is to become subject to any and all authority that carries a bigger gun than you carry. To believe that it has been common law that has protected or will protect people from tyranny and at the same time have no 'septa' that honors the notorious authority of Law (I.E. Hashem) is analogous to answering "yes" to the question posed in Job 40:9
Action will prove out who I really 'believe' is the author of Law when the men with the rubber hoses come to force confession.
The ecclesia has always held the government of men, however ineffective, as the following trial of the philosopher Spinoza given to us by Van Vloten and translated by Willis in 'Benedict de Spinoza' 1870, shows; ...
"The heads of the Ecclesiastical Council hereby make known, that, already well assured of the evil opinions and doings of Baruch de Espinoza, they have endeavored in sundry ways and by various promises to turn him from his evil courses. But as they have been unable to bring him to any better way of thinking; on the contrary, as they are avowed by him, and of the insolence with which these heresies are promulgated and spread abroad, and many persons worthy of credit having borne witness to these in the presence of the said Espinoza, he has been fully convicted of the same. Review having therefore been made of the whole matter before the chiefs of the Ecclesiastical Council, it has been resolved, the councilors assenting thereto, to anathematize the said Spinoza, and to cut him off from the people of Israel, and from the present hour to place him in Anathema with the following benediction:" (end quote).
The ecclesia has always had the notoriety of "The authority that Law comes from HaShem". The ecclesia has also always had the notoriety of the resurrection, the gestation of life in an unfertilized female and the ability to choose good and evil or to choose that which brings life.
To assume that ... (because) the books of the law (Torah) were not written down until the first millennium C.E. the law was not extant previous to the laws of Hammarabbi, Marduk or Annu is ignorance of the Semitic culture. It is also ignorance of the Semitic culture to decide that the fables of resurrection and virgin births extant in writings preceding the Christian era were used by Christians to explain the historicity of Yeshua HaNazarit.
Ignorance and deception designed and sold as logic foment the ideology of a Creator as the Source of Life and then at same time hold an ideology that the fables of resurrection and hero myths come from a history removed from that Source. Yes, there was the ressurrection story of Egyptian antiquity and of the virgin Isis giving birth after being impregnated by the Sun god. The late Joseph Campbell correctly pointed out that almost all cultures have a three day death, burial and resurrection story.
A syllogism that is a description of man's way of reasoning does not merely describe man's way of dressing up his reasoning for the persuasion of another mind, although it can, when cloaked in ignorance. To hold to a Creative Source and yet hold to the notoriety of ancient fables as the source for Christian myth is to hold to one of two premises or patterns or premises for logic; ...
Premise One is that thought begins with premises and seeks their conclusions and Premise Two holds that thought begins with hypothetical conclusions and seeks their justifying premises. Scientific Theory seeks the justifying premises by observation of particular events under the controlled and isolated conditions of experiment. The Scientific method must be applied. A Creative Source premise can have no contradictions or it can be relegated to theory and dogma.
Ignorance holds to some premise without any knowledge about that premise and that ignorance eventually develops into the word that americans use for 'faith'. Ignorance also holds that because a fable has a notorious parallel that the one recorded first is the source of the fable. This ignorance is illuminated and revealed (or 'should' be revealed) with the knowledge that memorization precluded writing and the knowledge of importance of memorization' place in ancient culture.
To hold that the resurrection is adapted fable is ignorance of the mystery of the symbol of resurrection. To hold that birth of a child with no introduction of sperm as adapted fable is to hold to the ignorance of that symbol in its application. To hold that HaShem is not the author of Law is ignorance of what is Ruach HaKodesh.
Conclusion; The ecclesia is coming together again for the first time since the first chapters of the book of Acts were played out and there are some who welcome this and some who fight against it desperately with the eloquence of sophistry and presumed authority.
TN
Reply author: source
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 14:54:56
Message:
Blessing upon you brother North for your somewhat cryptic adoration of Hashem and his law as supreme.
Would I assume correctly that you to are in agreement with the first post on this thread, as was the original topic that has some what been digressed from by our somewhat critical brother Merril?
What are you impressions about such a starling revelation?
That was the purpose of starting this thread.
I had hoped that more will take a stand with the evidense at hand, and start exercizing their faith by works in taking Yeshua's advise of Matthew 18:15-20 in a gloriously effective and expanded way rather that just bang on keyboards randomly.
"Knowledge without wisdom is as a load of books on the back of an ass!"
How do you see this wonderful revelation in the Canadian governments own words that david seem not to be able to either read or understand as being useful to followers of the one source of all energy?
I post those words again as a courtesy to those who do not like clicking on links and reading they are under a fasle assumption and have been spreading falsehoods about bowing to mans cosed rules and regulationos in addition to God's law.
The below is a portion of the top supreme law of Canada with all other laws created by men being subordinate and in submission to it's absolute authority in Canadian law!
The offer of God's law as Supreme is contained in the preamble.
"Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
What follows is the offer of man!
Which one has God counselled us to accept?
Which one has he counselled us to reject?
GUIDE TO THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Part II : The Contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 32
Application of Charter
This Charter applies
to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
Praise Jah and his blessings upon your response.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 15:08:04
Message:
Very thoughtful. Thank you for that comment True North.
And maybe there are some more like me who presume critical mass has already happened in the macroeconomic/politico/socio forums of international banking. Which is really the essence of the symbol "Harlot". Revelation 14:8 and 18:2 say "is fallen, is fallen". Figuring the bill of exchange cured on September 11, 2001 is easy for me.
So the celebration is upon us in the ecclesia who have the confidence to behave like courts of competent jurisdiction no matter what is thought of that externally. It is an internal paradigm shift.
It occurred to me a few minutes ago when I read an email. A suitor is sharing the Treasury's reaction to summoned institutions rejecting IRS summonses for financial records. The intelligence is so fresh. So vital and expresses such a critical statement of the times. The suitor broadcast the document images to about sixty other suitors. Any of which can presume the position of nexus like I always do; I will check if any sanitizing is necessary and if ok with the suitor import links to the documents here. But my point is that by helping people cure remedy I have inadvertently developed a network beyond combinatorial mathematics in scope. I think it may be unique except that maybe in that second story gathering of Acts. And that Crosstalks with this site "ecclesia.org". The real supercomputers are sitting on the other side of the I/O; the keyboard's organic side. Right there between two ears - you. Wonderful!
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: True North
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 20:37:49
Message:
Source;
What are your impressions about such a startling revelation?
Life changing, my helpmeet spent two weeks in near breakdown when just some of the surface implications hit home. Granted that she and I have a peculiar position in this ecclesia in the "ether", (still we should have been prepared for it after 20 years of seeking the implications of Matthew 6:33), the knowledge that government is of HaShem and the word Law and the one source of all energy are synonymous, nearly caused ship wreck.
Another witness to the one source of all energy is in the intro of the professor at Oxford University, John Wycliffe's, translation of the scriptures (mid 1300's) that goes something like "This is a gospel of government by the people for the people". 'They' dug up his bones and burned them after either drawing and quartering or hanging him somewhat earlier, I forget the story but the fact that others have recognized this government by servants is monumental.
How do you see this wonderful revelation as being useful to followers of the one source of all energy?
My own study of Law at first seemed to lead me to help others caught in the polites of Cain but we are not given a measuring stick for the outer court (Revelation 11:2). Further study has led me to a group of people who are coming together (although spread out). We have several projects underway using the fact that Hashem is the Lawgiver and mans' code honors (I would rather say they have to abide by, but the implications of such ... ) this fact. American social security codes and tax codes all agree to the autonomy of His Church and we, as a group, are slowly but effectively returning our ministers back to their original position of 'ministering an entrance into the Kingdom' for His people.
We are following the original tithing men and hundred men set up of the ecclesia that Moses brought out and further fleshed out by The King and the administrators of that Kingdom in the book of Acts. Standing with the notoriety of Luke 22:29 based on the commands in Matthew 22:37-39.
This is useful in securing property to raise food, clothing and shelter for His people as well as provide for the welfare of the infirm and indigent. Future education of the young is a personal want and need that can and will be met as more eyes are opened to the government of The King.
I'm cryptic because you cannot see my face or hear the inflection in my voice nor can I 'read' your reaction to what it is I think you are receiving from my post. It is too easy to be misunderstood here in the 'ether'. Many of us are saying the same things sometimes but as implied on another thread, ego is often involved and just mentioning the fact that if the posting rings true in spirit and I take it seriously, it may mean I am wrong and have to change as Ruach HaKodesh leads.
As noted in previous posts, those interested in researching what a citizen is and its relation to us today ... http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/cvc.htm and http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/romeus.HTM
Yes David, critical mass has been or is being achieved and all dogma aside I appreciate your input.
TN
Reply author: source
Replied on: 26 Dec 2004 22:12:35
Message:
Thankyou for your reply Brothert North. All credit to Jah!
I was looking for a simple reflection of what you thought when you read those quite revealing words I posted at the beginning of this thread that I had hoped others would realise the potent signification of and talk about rather than ignure.
If you cannot answer I am somewhat confused but accept your offer of silence on such an important issue. I have noted that by far the majority of those I have shown those words too are left speechless and I feel that is so as it shatters what they have been taught an grown to beleive. It dismisses the old "we must bow as God said in Romans 13" type of bent philo.
I am humble in the realisation that we were also told in God's word that many shall be called few shall follow as is God's wonderous design.
As you may percieve I am alone promoting this truth and am looking for more of a serious accord with God to help in spreading the word that has been revealed . As you amy surmise many need to hear and see such credible evidense of the subservience of mans law to God's to permanently dispense with the false belief that we have to obey the governing authorities no matter what.
Again I thank you for you comment and await one who will stand and shout the truth from the hill tops as is so sorely neede to warn the people living in the darkness of sin..
Blessings upon your taking the time to comment.
Jah be upon us in spirit and form that we may choose to move into his heavenly Kingdom en masse.
Reply author: True North
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 09:15:25
Message:
Source is there some sort of disconnect between us?
The Mennonites seem to do just fine and have no relationship to the government. Out here is the Northwest, there are even some who cross the border continuously, going freely back and forth between the U.S. and Canada. They have no passports, no Identification Cards, no nothing. Just their faith, beliefs, and refusal to submit to Caesar. Their church property is not taxed. They pay no income tax, no SSI, no driver's licenses, no car license, no nothing. They are sometimes hassled, but only by a newbie cop. By the time a dozen elder's get thru with the poor guy, he wishes he had stayed home for the day. They travel in groups. Strength in numbers.
Romans 13 is talking to community exampled in the Mennonites from your quote above. Romans 13 is not written to just anyone but is written to those who choose no other government but the government of Him. Some of the people Paul is writing to are Gentiles slaves and he does not tell these Gentile slaves to blow off their masters and go to jail for it but instead to be free if possible, if not possible, its no big deal. 1 Corinthians 7:21 ... "Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather" ...
My righteousness must exceed that of the religious. If others want to trust in social security to take care of them in their old age, instead of family and community of the Kingdom, then my only mission is to present those same people with an entrance to the Kingdom. If they will not accept that entrance but rather choose to have men as their god(s), I cannot force it upon them. It is their choice and my duty is to be able to minister that entrance when someone is moved by Ruach HaKodesh to see that entrance. If I cannot give them entrance to that Kingdom I need to learn how and He will be the judge of who will be allowed to feast in His own time. Matthew 22:12 ... "And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?" ...
Maybe you think I am not shouting the government of Hashem because I did not react to the message that Law is from Him. That Law and HaShem are synonyomous is not a new message to me. The application of that message is my interest in this forum. Communities coming together under the perfect Law of liberty. James 1:25 ... "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed" ...
I really do not understand how you read me as silent on the issue. The codes and statutes of men have always been subservient to Law. Him, Hashem, Law or however you want to name that Source that surpasses all understanding/naming. Romans 11:33 ... "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out" ...
The fact that others have obscured and hidden the Kingdom is revealed in the message of Yeshua HaNazarit. The gospel is ... Luke 22:29 ... "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me" ... That Kingdom is available to any and all who choose to 'move' into it under the perfect Law of liberty stated in Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, and Matthew 22:37-40 ... "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
A Kingdom denotes a King, a first-fruit servant King of a Kingdom of priests. Exodus 19:6 ... "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" ... Revelation 5:10 ... "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" ... Revelation 1:6 ... "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" ...
What part of the message do you 'see' me being silent about and not shouting?
TN
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 10:20:33
Message:
The premise of this “proof” in the title of this Topic is simple misdirection.
For one thing it was presumed we knew the Preamble:
quote:
"Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Albeit that might be lip service, like “IN GOD WE TRUST” on FRNs, I will presume it is part of the Charter’s preamble for now.
Granted,
quote:
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
This is found in the Charter. That is the same with the Constitution. Preambles are not part of the Statute. The Creator of the trust is always sanctified from the terms of the trust. There are some unique features about the federalist and constitutional republican form here but for all intents and purposes “Charter” and “Constitution” are synonymous and both dictate the foundational structure of government; not the subsequent legislature that will eventually effect the people who granted creation of government.
The crux of the misdirection is within the etymology of “notwithstanding”*:
quote:
This section is sometimes referred to as the “notwithstanding clause”.
The true origins of the word notwithstanding mean literally – not to withstand. Simple as that. I once entered this into a memorandum of law on a counterclaim for a suitor. It is at the heart of magistrates currently depriving men and women of being able to execute arrest under Rule (C)(3)(a)(ii)(B). Excerpt from the counterclaim:
quote:
"Form. The form and content of the notice referred to in subsection (a) shall be prescribed by the Secretary. Such notice shall be valid notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding the form or content of a notice of lien." Title 26 U.S.C. §6323(F)(3). emphasis added
Now if the true etymology of the word is used, that means the Secretary’s notices will fall null and void in view of “any other provision of law”. That is of course the intent of the clause. Look in most dictionaries and you will find the word to mean “in spite of” which can be easily read to mean the opposite of notwithstanding. The word ‘notwithstanding’ is a word of art. That means once in the legal forum it can be read either way, whichever suits the current obligations to perform under fiduciary responsibility to the Bank and Fund. A magistrate is by definition a municipal officer administering METRO policy (public policy). So we find the word ‘notwithstanding’ may be used to appoint a magistrate over dispository actions in spite of the explicit refusal of a magistrate to handle the case in any way, shape or form by the petitioner at filing in the counterclaim:
http://www.supremelaw.org/uscode/28/usdc/636.html
quote:
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary -
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine
any pretrial matter pending before the court…
I asked anyone reading the link to develop the notion in the theme^ – that this Charter provision somehow excludes Christians from the laws of man. Nobody spoke up. Sure there is authority among men in relationship with God/law/truth but there is nothing to be derived from the Canadian Charter. The assertions so are solely from Source. I did not see the thesis Source presents because it is not there but since Source seems (with aspersions like “Merrill” and “Mr. Merrill”) to keep referring to me as ignorant I will assure you that it is experience that points out there is no special treatment given in the Canadian legislature to Christians or any other group:
quote:
As mentioned earlier, section 32(2) was necessary in order to give governments a chance to amend their laws to bring them into line with the right to equality.
Quite the contrary. The Section is in alignment with Romans 13 if you want to press Scripture into the matter. And likewise, one will adamantly protect belief sets especially if one finds the justification of narcotic addictions there.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Read the link twice. Once with one definition and then substitute the other. The word notwithstanding is quite magical.
^ Notice and grace. If nobody comes forth with convincing argument that the charter link [http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm ] is proof the law does not apply to Christians then I will be convinced otherwise. Judgment by default.
Reply author: source
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 12:19:11
Message:
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
It is clear in the minds of those who can read what the above says and speaks to the minidset of
Mr. Merril.
The not withstanding applies to section 33 that has nothing to do with the above.
The treasury Board of Canada agreed with me when I put this to them so you can all see either the error or motive of Mr. Merril in this thread is clear.
Ther oofer of God's law is in the preamble the rest is mans offer which will you choose. Are you government?
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 12:26:47
Message:
See?
Source continues casting the aspersions of misnomer.
quote:
It is clear in the minds of those who can read what the above says and speaks to the minidset of Mr. Merril.
The not withstanding applies to section 33 that has nothing to do with the above.
The treasury Board of Canada agreed with me when I put this to them so you can all see either the error or motive of Mr. Merril in this thread is clear.
Have you been victimized by misnomer lately? Have you been falsely branded? Watch out for this guy!
I will state my motive with transparency. I was attracted to the title because Source offered proof. So if you see his treatise and link as proof of anything, please explain. Not you Source. I am tired of you testifying for others.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. We again see Source telling you readers what you understand instead of you readers explaining support for Source's "proof". http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm Read for yourself. The word is one word "notwithstanding" regardless of what section you find it in.
There were a few rather paranoid folks on the Solari page who played around with misnomer tactics (one or more even Posted messages in my name). I think I may have attracted Source here from there. But that aside, there is the other side of paranoia - delusions of grandeur rather than belief in complex persecution and conspiracy theory. Vacillating back and forth is Manic-Depressive. Albeit a mild occurance; that is all I am saying. Source sees proof of something in the verbiage that is not there. Proof that the Parliament and Treasury are giving special sanctions to Christians, even allowing marijuana usage as a sacramental ritual, and that it is written in the Charter they must.
It seems somebody at the Canadian Treasury confirmed his delusion over the phone.
Reply author: source
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 15:01:41
Message:
The purpose of this section(32)is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations. ( those are the words of Heritage Canada as approved by their legal department in Canada Justice)
It is clear in the minds of those who can read what the above says, and that speaks to the mindset and intent of David Merril in attempting to dissuade you from beleiveing what you can read for yourself in plain easy to grasp English.
The not withstanding clause that David digresses with applies to section 33 and again government that has nothing to do with the above. Once you read the preamble which tells us God is supreme with his rule of law, being the subject matter of the Charter as a preamble is to provide as the main thrust, and then read section 32, it is evident the rest of mans law does not apply to those who are not government! The Bible is in all of mans commonwealth European and North American courts as the primary offer.
The treasury Board of Canada agreed with God as supreme and whose rule of law is supreme when I put this to them.
So you can all see either the error or motive of David Merril in this thread is clear. It is to muddle or mislead you as to the duty bound intent of parliament in drafting this legislation. If he is to repent and offer his awarenes of his error and blasphemy then forgiveness is due.
The Queen in oath bound duty could not allow them to rule over men but rather offered the Bible first as the rule of law so we all could choose!
Consent is always an essential and crucial aspect in the courts of man. If you show up you consent and it is assumed you are a part of government in bondage of debt to the world bank.
If you are asked if you understand, the offer actually is "Will you submit to the jurisdiction of this court?" You do not have to say you under stand. It is am offer you can decline, as if you say you do understand you are saying yes I submit to the laws of men and that you are saying you the man are government and the court is therfore allowed to assume you are in submission to it and consent freely to reject God's offer..
This is very basic law of contract that unfortunately most do not grasp as being the basis of power that the false governments of men utilise to gain authority over the men and women.
I have brought this particular position before many great and repected lawyers amd law professors here in Canada and they were speechless and amazed. Many reluctantly agreed after reading it a few more times and I brought the first offer of God''s law contained in the preamble to their attention and not one said I was wrong but stayed silent on the issue.
David fits into the category of what is called "denial" as it this evidense unpuffs the pride of men who would have power and dominance over fellow brothers and sisters contrary to what God has decreed.. When men and women pass laws in excess of or in derogation to the laws of God they act as false god's and if we bow and submit to their satanic tune we commit sin in violating God''s first and greatest command. Exodus 20:3-5
David seems to promote that violation. You will note the insults being hurled at me in a degrading tone, even bringing my fleshly father into it, for the fact I use one of the gifts of God, marijauna. Romans 11:29 is clear I am not to repent for such use.
I did provide authoritive proof of the herb being part of the original recipe in God''s holy anointing oil but David has revealed he has no inclination to read what he has requested be provided.
He is obviously quite intelligent but, as he told me before he edited it and took it out, is not Christian, to say not a beleiver in our savior.
"Ye shall not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers"
Promoting mans law over God''s is blasphemy and where do I find this? Within the ecclesia!....Why others are allowing this desecration is a pure puzzle to me. Can others comment on why the inflection of darkness or dispute as to the supremacy of God's law is allowed within the ecclesia? Have others noticed this aside from the three who have emailed me?
I only respond with tactful observations of what I perceive as the darkness attempting to cover the light and I must of duty warn my brethren of diguised snakes in their midst.
I leave it to the reader to decide who is the fireman and who is lighting the fire.
The offer of God''s law is in the preamble the rest in deceptive verbage is mans offer. Which will you choose?. Are you part of mans government? Do you want to be mans government? Will you accept the offer of mans law or will you decline in favor of God's?
The choice as always is yours as of Gods word Deuteronomy 30:10-20
Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 15:53:44
Message:
May I thank you all for displaying your hearts "in the ether".
I did notice David Merrill called marijuana use ILLEGAL. For according to The Law Book, things of this nature are not unlawful. The Kingdom is not meat and drink. Only someone still thinking within the MATRIX could call hemp ILLEGAL.
Was not the Constitution written on hemp paper? George Washington grew it, and in his diary, wrote order's to the plantation worker's to; not seperate the males from the females till I get there. {Wonder why} Grass became ILLEGAL, when 1938? Definately a MAN made legalese, which clogs up prisons.
A Canadian is a north American,
of the Commonwealth of Israel.
Keep in mind, more simply read these posts than add too them. And, hopefully, do their own re-search.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 16:28:48
Message:
Robert-James said;
quote:Yes. The essence of non-statutory abatement. There is no law broken. Thus I chose "illegal" instead of "unlawful". Possession of marijuana is illegal, not unlawful. I suppose by 'within the Matrix' you mean SSN, bank account, driver license etc. or at least thinking from that perspective. So say what you will, it does not make it so.
Only someone still thinking within the MATRIX could call hemp ILLEGAL.
Source said:
quote:It is interesting to me, the consistency in the metaphysics of true name. He just cannot seem to get it right. And I also note the both of you have altered your true names by adding hyphens. At least I severely doubt your parents spelled your names with hyphens.
It is clear in the minds of those who can read what the above says, and that speaks to the mindset and intent of David Merril in attempting to dissuade you from beleiveing what you can read for yourself in plain easy to grasp English.
If Source continues to testify for you, the reader, I suggest you ignore him. Listening fails Rules of Evidence in any traditional setting. Who would listen to hearsay about what you, first-person think?
In my humble opinion, he has described nothing that is not in the nature of Charter inherently. And that does not exempt Christians. Refer to the title he created expressly saying he has proof and then he elaborated by abating a marijuana possession charge. In his mind the avoidance was due to his Christian faith or religion. I do not believe that.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Robert-James
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 17:44:52
Message:
Greetings,
Bless El-Elyon for your timely response. Me thinks you did indeed try Edward regarding pot usage. I marveled {SIC} that a man of your intellect would call an ILLEGAL statue...GOOD.
May the record state that: a David Merrill {Van Pelt} does indeed agree that mariajuana grown and used...for whatever... is Lawful whith-in the Kingdom of YHWH?
Least We all forget, the word cretin is the root word for Christian. I pray Edward and all would re...search the Word YHWH would call his Own.
Surely it is not Christian.
David, sir gentleman, I have never told you My True name. That New Name.
Suffice to say, if a friend calls me Bob, I may answer. Robert-James has meaning, hyphen rules suffice. Sorry for you that it bugs you. Go pick on BATKOL or oneisraelite? Or ADMINISATRATOR?
We are here in this ether...together.
I know of a few sons of man, oneisraelite back me, who believe smoking grass is head knowledge. They walk in boldness. {Maybe not travel in auto's}. I have my own shoe's to walk in, as do you. Bet ya, we don't wear the same type shoe's.
The point being: has Messiah washed your feet? Ask me-ask-you-ask-us.
Bug off Edward of north America. Let him speak his Peace.
As a matter of fact...Daniel was NOT a great math major, in discerning Yeremiah's seventy years. He simply read it. Daniel NEVER gave proof to his eloquence in smarts, he was a very humble man, who spent much time in prayer. (9:00-12:00-3:00} Simply a time to humble one-self. I do this daily, and am humbled in my inability, though I do try.
Question, why do we capitalize I when we don't...my?
El-Elyon...Abraham paid tithes to him, who re-presents YHWH to man.
Woops, I used hyphens!!!
a Brother e-mailed me today asking me to read psalm 25.
I knew psalm 22-23-24 should be read together, but 25, I had forgot about.
5x5=25.
5=grace
Washington Monument is 555.1/8th inch.
Sons of American's.
your needed.
Reply author: source
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 18:37:38
Message:
"If Source continues to testify for you, the reader, I suggest you ignore him."
What does God have to say about such arrogance?
The words I write are more ministerial than testifying.
I can testify I believe in the Son of God dying and being raised from the dead but the rest of the posts are just me ministering the truth which you have all read. How many of you decree you do not have mind enough to see that the Canadian government has published documentation that says you are not bound by it's Charter, but that they are?
I went to school as a child to learn, and english reading and writing were among the first things I learned . The words in the governments words do not need a legal education to grasp and as you can see one of the supposed most prominant minds in this forum cannot seem to read nor understand them.
Two choices are derived from that observation. One he has a hidden agenda or that he is complete denial as of his own pride.
I leave it to you the Ecclesia to decypher his intent as It is appearing to me he is deliberately trying to hide the truth that I have posted. It is as if he truly does have a hidden agenda of swaying those of light based energy back to the Dark where he resides. You can see by his posts he is not light based in grasping the elaborate ruse and subtle admission of that ruse offered in my website posting.
I am new to this forum and am observing a cautious reluctance to comment in graspable terms as to the irrefutable english the government of Canada has posted for all to see. This sublime offer is tremendously significant for those who wish to leave the Kingdom of man and I am sure the darkness and his shadow do not want others to see that as David is visibly upset that I posted it and is exerting a lot of energy to turn the Ecclesia away from it's factual offer.
YHWH's Blessings on those who have the courage to Stand up to the darkness and to say...Get thee behind me Satan!
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 19:38:35
Message:
Greetings and salutations brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
The first thing we noticed on that Canadian Charter was the apparent dissimilarity of the three entities that this charter does not apply to:
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
Notice that two of the three are not living breathing beings, i.e. “businesses” and “other organizations”, so did this charter not apply to two “things”, and one “sentient, moral being”? Not likely! More likely we may find that “individual” is also a thing, i.e. it may be merely another word for “person”, since businesses and organizations are “persons”.
Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent to the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See also Person. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 533
Note that at the end of that definition, it says “See also Person”; that ought to be a clue. Also, it says that this word “may...include artificial persons". Here is what we find under the word “may” in that same law dictionary on page 676: “Regardless of the instrument, however, whether constitution, statute, deed, contract or whatever, courts not infrequently construe “may” as “shall” or “must” to the end that justice may not be the slave of grammar.”
“Not infrequently” is double-speak for “frequently”, i.e. courts frequently construe “may” as “shall” or “must”…
This term “private individual” is probably akin to “private person”, which is simply defined as “Term sometimes used to refer to person other than those holding public office or in military service”. We wonder aloud, what it refers to the majority of the time. Be that as it may, the key here we perceive is that this charter did not say that it does not apply to “natural something or other”, since Natural is defined as: “…the opposite of the word “artificial”.
So, before getting too excited about who, or what, this charter does or does not apply to we would like to see if there is a definitions page, which accompanies this document. If there is not one, then it is up for grabs as to how the COURTS would define “private individual”.
Call me paranoid schizophrenic if you will, but my Law Book says that with "feigned words" they make merchandise of us, and I for one, believe it is so.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 27 Dec 2004 19:39:59
Message:
Daniel used mathematics to discern the time. Maybe it wasn't the calculus but he used math. And he was the chieftain of the Babylonian Magi. So that tells you something.
I did not call the statute against possessing marijuana good. What I said was that I believe marijuana addiction would cause Source to read the Preamble §32 to be the cause his abatement worked and then write here he had proof. At least that is how I feel and hope that is what I said.
You cure the question:
quote:
May the record state that: a David Merrill {Van Pelt} does indeed agree that mariajuana grown and used...for whatever... is Lawful whith-in the Kingdom of YHWH?
I suppose so. However I do not use my family's name in conjunction with mine [brackets, colon, whatever] unless there is a specific benefit for doing so. The record should read more like, since there is no law against marijuana, it cannot be a crime to possess it.
But you may be glad that I have quit arguing with him. It is a waste of all our time. If his libel becomes an ongoing nuisance to the readers then Admin will take care of it.
Sorry for the jab about the hyphen. I presume Robert James is the name you were given.
OneIsraelite is wise to group the three entities in the Charter by catagory. Lacking a specific definition, we should assume all three are dead things. That is the source of authority behind the subject or any successful abatement - being alive - not being Christian.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I cannot help but get curious enough to read Source's comments when I find time:
quote:
I leave it to you the Ecclesia to decypher his [David Merrill's] intent as It is appearing to me he is deliberately trying to hide the truth that I have posted. It is as if he truly does have a hidden agenda of swaying those of light based energy back to the Dark where he resides. You can see by his posts he is not light based in grasping the elaborate ruse and subtle admission of that ruse offered in my website posting.
I am new to this forum and am observing a cautious reluctance to comment... and I am sure the darkness and his shadow do not want others to see that as David is visibly upset that I posted it and is exerting a lot of energy to turn the Ecclesia away from it's factual offer.
YHWH's Blessings on those who have the courage to Stand up to the darkness and to say...Get thee behind me Satan!
Please forgive me for not seeing this as amusing until after I had a good night's sleep. Key is that Source commits himself, "I leave it to you the Ecclesia to decypher..."
However since the man is convinced I am Satan and have already established a foothold to lead you all down the merry path to Hell, I think that in the name of Jah, we will find this religious zealot tagging me with his slanderous Posts until Admin says otherwise. I have noticed the same thing about Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe you have noticed it too. They persist until rejection is positively expressed. They consider that the next best victory - to be rejected.
Reply author: Werner Maximilian
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 13:51:40
Message:
It generally takes a lot of something controversial to bring me out, as I'm always here in the background enjoying all of your posts. I do like your's , oneisrealite, as they read very professionaly , and seem well researched.
I have experienced fourty nine trips around the sun and have known David Merrill and some others here for a number of those trips.
None of these men and women walk on the dark side of their spiritual adventure that I've ever seen and are very much to the contrary tireless researcers and walkers of their talk.
They, David Merrill, Linda June, leagalbear, and I'm sure many of you contributers to this and other sites, are known by me to have suffered persecutions at the hands of men that include jail time, and other subtle forms of torture while in the "care" of these men.
I personally salute these people (flesh and blood type) and have great respect for the amount of work that they have done on your behalf in this field of personal freedom and liberty.
While Yahoshua paid the ultimate price, these men and women go far in reminding the worldly powers and other little tin tyrants that we are redeemed and are not property to trade in or use as they see fit.
All I've seen David do is tell the truth. Truth annilates fiction.Be aware before you criticize that many of these men and women have stories and experiences that would shame your words if only you knew them.
Werner Maximilian
Reply author: source
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 13:53:09
Message:
As you will read in this post the corporation is what you are assumed to be unless you abate the issue before you get there which is exactly what Christ told us to do in Matthew 18:15-20.
With regards to the word "individual" I congratualte oneisrealite for his astute recognition of the the definition of that word but make notation of his explanation exposes a fatal flaw in the so called law of man as it, by his perceptive acknowledgement, says that the law does not even apply to persons! This said, by grasping and assuming by his words, that he is stating the the word individual and person are one in the same. You will note it says the charter does not apply to those classified as individuals.
The below will revert to US law to demonstrate the same although in different words. The reason I am commenting on Davids behavior is by reading what he has said it is clear he wishes to persuade others to not listen to me or examine the words that are so compelling.. I hope you all will reflect upon what one isrealite said as it even further states beyond assumption that that particular section of the supreme law of Canada says that all of mans law is inapplicable even against persons. This said is in consideration of what oneisrealite has provided us in his perception of what individual means.
I will tell you that he is correct that there is no specific definition in Canadian law that clearly states that word to mean man. The only law in Canada that uses the word man in plural is section 176 of the Canadian crimnal code stating that Clergymen are exempt from civil law being the law of parliaments legislatures and municipalities.
I hope you find the words below useful. Thankyou oneisrealite for exposing the weakspot of their own attempts at feigning the words. My attempts are in original purpose of this thread not to condemn any man nor squabble endlessly as is the historical intent of deceit but to defend the laws of God lest any assume otherwise. We are all imperfect and my perceptions of David Merrill are from what I have read and had others on this forum tell me in private. I have never met him nor talked to him and freely admitt the keyboard can leave out the common nuiances that are times necessary to grasp the full intent of the communication. That said the cooments from others in private emails seem to support my contentions. Note I said seem. I may be wrong about David Merrill but I woud ask you if I am right what will befall you if you listen to him??
Have a good read below as I feel you may see my purpose more clearly if you read what one from your side of the fence, so to speak, has to say in similar fashion.
I will also repeat that the original comment by David Merril, which he erased for obvious reasons of being a direct assault on what I had posted and asked me to do the same with regards to my original post, was that he is not Christian and implied I was deceived and misled.
If one cannot defend the truth of God's law what is this forum for??
Blessing of Jah upon our sentient ability to see through the historically divisive smoke of war!
Piercing the Corporate Veil
(Ray Earnest)
The term "Piercing the Corporate Veil" is a legal one which identifies the process where a court removes the protection provided individual members of a corporation for criminal activity, and makes these members responsible for their own actions.
In reality, according to the original meaning of corporations, is that these corporate groups were established exactly for that reason; for unlawful purposes, primarily to escape punishment for their crimes by placing the blame on a fictional organization responsible to no one. The "United States" government jumped on the corporate bandwagon the first part of the 1870's by declaring themselves a separate entity from Constitutional government. This, of course, followed the war between the states and the supposed Fourteenth Amendment (which lawfully never was, but was accepted by the newly formed corporation called the "United States.") The fact that the Constitution had already established a United States was inconsequential to those traitors in Congress because it was the Constitution itself they wanted destroyed and the war, instigated by the Jewish factions of Europe, was fought for this purpose. All the flowery fictions blamed for the war is pure fantasy.
Corporations, themselves, are natural processes of society, that is, when a group of people gather for a particular purpose, such as for forming a community, they are a corporation and there can be no criminal intent attached thereto, but it is when corporations are established with the power to declare themselves "bankrupt" that makes them criminal. This is the situation of our government today; the richest, most powerful nation on earth is "bankrupt." Just the thought is ridiculous.
Corporations are legal fictions; that is, they do not exist except in the minds of men. Anyone can create a fantasy in their own mind and make it do for them what they please, but these fantasies cannot nor do they extend to areas outside the realm of personal capacity. Corporations are made of living, breathing men, all with the same ideas and purposes. We can look upon them with the same limitations as the individual, and that is their jurisdiction is confined to the lawful area of their creation. A corporation, being a legal fiction, cannot think, it cannot act in any manner, it cannot even communicate with natural man, and for this reason it must have somebody, or bodies to speak and act for it, and the lawyers have set themselves up for this task. The enormity of corporate enterprises is limited only by imagination and they are gold mines for the bar associations, which are corporations themselves.
Even thieves must leave an out for themselves, as they never know when the worm will turn; and "dumb" burrowing rodents will have at least two exits from their dens. After years of research, a few people have found what we believe to be that "out" from corporate jurisdiction (which has been milking the citizens of this nation for well over a century). We have had great success with this "out" and the shocked looks and frenzies of Judges presented with this procedure show us that we are on the right track. As all other sure things, however, we can't rest on our laurels and be smug with our assumptions that it is fool proof. We have to remember that it took the lawyer profession many years to come up with their gimmicks and they aren't going to fall over and play dead as we proceed to break up their play houses and we know from experience that they know how to play rough. The idea is to hit hard, fast, and as widespread as possible before they can see what is happening and that is why we need as much diversity and geographical application as we can muster.
There is nothing complicated about the procedure of disclaiming corporation existence, which is what all this is about. The difficulty lies in overcoming a lifetime of corporate propaganda and we have had great difficulty in this area. We, who work with this procedure, went through the same agonizing process before we realized that it really works. We were looking for the complicated when the answer to our problems was right under our noses all of the time.
I don't mean to write a book and omit the meat of my subject, but you will find that some prosecutors and judges just haven't got the picture yet and will ask your source of information when you go before them and you need a little background to keep from being embarrassed. Again, try not to read difficulty into a perfectly simple procedure which is outlined below. Not having access to laws of other States, I can only quote from those to which I have access, and those are of Louisiana. We have tried this system in Alabama and Florida and know it works there (we didn't even research the law books in those states before acting) and we have to assume it will work nationally as the corporation veil encompasses every nook and cranny of the nation. For this very reason, we can't see where a general withdrawal from their jurisdiction is possible. Every case must be decided on its own until there are enough of us, and locations, to make the corporate masters accept the fact that they can't fight it. Please read the two sections from the Louisiana Civil Codes, and the Louisiana Revised Statutes below carefully; dissect them word by word and the message will come out loud and clear.
Civil Codes of Louisiana - Art. 445. The statutes and regulations which corporations enact for their police and discipline, are obligatory upon all their respective members who are bound to obey them, provided such statutes contain nothing contrary to the laws, to public liberty, or to the interest of others.
Louisiana Revised Statutes - Art. 429. Corporate existence presumed unless affidavit of denial filed before trial.
On trial of any criminal case it shall not be necessary to prove the incorporation of any corporation mentioned in the indictment, unless the defendant, before entering upon such trial, shall have filed his affidavit specifically denying the existence of such corporation.
These two simple paragraphs say it all. If one is a member of a corporation he is bound by corporate rules and regulations, and those outside those corporations are not subject to their jurisdiction.
The corporate status of an individual entering the court is automatically assumed by the court unless they have notice to counter such assumptions, and this is the purpose of the affidavit, an example of which I will provide below.
All of the socialistic programs, integration of the races, the grab of power at all echelons of government, and all the other ills of this nation are corporate "enterprises." One cannot escape the thumb of corporate authority until such time as he has removed himself from the jurisdiction.
We can view government today as a corporate reality, where the Constitution is merely a by word, or ruse of fiction, where the Congress is the board of governors, the President is the corporate CEO, and the "courts" are mere corporate arbitration boards, including the U.S. Supreme Court. When we pierce the corporate veil and remove ourselves from that corrupt venture we become men again and carry with us our natural laws and sovereignty, from whence the corporations received their powers originally.
The corporations of which we are primarily concerned are these:
UNITED STATES;
ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF EVERY STATE OF THE UNION;
EVERY COUNTY, BOROUGH, AND PARISH OF EVERY STATE OF THE UNION;
EVERY CITY, TOWN, BURG, OR OTHER CORPORATE SUB-DIVISION;
EVERY MEMBER OF CORPORATIONS, INCLUDING YOURSELF UNTIL DENIAL OF THOSE CORPORATIONS ARE COMPLETE BY AFFIDAVIT;
EVERY DEPARTMENT OF FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY, ETC., INCLUDING SHERIFF DEPARTMENTS, CITY TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENTS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, AND ALL OTHER MUNICIPAL OFFICERS AND PERSONS;
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, INCLUDING STATE TAX DIVISIONS, AND CITY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTS WHERE THEY EXIST.
I will provide here a scenario and a sample of affidavit to control the final disposition of the case involved:
John Preston Hickman has just been stopped by a Tarrant City, Alabama cop by the name of William C. Henly, for doing 45 in a 35 MPH zone. After the normal procedures of checking drivers license, insurance, etc., Henly gives Hickman a ticket with an appearance date of June 15, 2000 in city court. John does it right by not arguing with the cop and doing as he has been told by the officer, accepting the ticket and even signing it as ordered by the cop. Then John goes home and prepares himself an affidavit which reads something like this:
Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence
I, John Preston: Hickman, a living, breathing man, declare in my own handwriting that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I hereby deny that the following corporations exist: UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, THE TARRANT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM C. HENLY, ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS, THE TARRANT CITY COURT, JOHN PRESTON HICKMAN, of 3102 WILLOW DRIVE, TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, and ALL OTHER CORPORATE MEMBERS WHO ARE, OR WHO MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY COMPLAINTS AGAINST MY NATURAL BODY.
If any man or woman desiring to answer this affidavit, please answer in the manner of this affidavit, with notarized affidavit, using your Christian or family name for signature, and mail to the below named notary, address provided, within five (5) days or default will be obtained.
John Preston: Hickman
On the 25th day of May, 2000 a.d., a man who identified himself as John Preston Hickman appeared before me, a notary, and attested to the truth of this affidavit with his signature.
Wilson R. Nimbly, Notary Public
1423 Fairmont Drive
Tarrant City, Alabama 35217
Four copies of this affidavit should be (preferably) handwritten; one copy forwarded to the Tarrant City Police Department in time to give them five days to respond. Thirty minutes before you enter the court, take the remaining three copies, filing one in their court and having the clerk stamp the other two and giving one to the prosecutor. Keep the remaining copy with you in court in case the prosecutor and judge have not received their copies.
The way it has gone for us in like situations here, when the "defendant's" name is called, he stands and answers and the judge will look to the prosecutor and ask him the anticipated action of the charges. The prosecutor (speaking in low tones) replies that the evidence is lacking for prosecution, or something in that manner, and the judge dismisses the case.
This system has worked in many such cases, including a state tax case, where the state was required to return the money taken from the bank accounts of a husband and wife with the tax "debt" being cleared from the records. I have used it, personally, to place a $150,000.00 lien against a lawyer in Birmingham, Alabama which has been there for several years. He brought suit in HIS court to have the lien removed, to no avail. Of course I never answered his frivolous suit because I had already identified myself as a living man and not one of his fictions. I used the affidavit to stop my phone company from adding AT&T charges for their social engineering and a couple of other minor purposes; all were stopped cold. The amount of wins in this area with no losses convinces us that this procedure set up in 1925 by the State Legislature of Louisiana is a very valid process and should be effective for any and all reasons against any corporation, public or private, within the United States.
"Tax Liens" are official legal charges against an individual and the affidavit works there also. Remember that the IRS is a corporation unto itself and even though it is not directly connected to the U.S. Government, the fact that it operates within this nation makes it liable to the affidavit. If a bank, for any reason, gives your money to those whose signatures are not on the bank card, they are committing a crime and the person giving that money to the IRS, the State, or anyone else is personally responsible to the depositor and an affidavit to that bank should result in the immediate redeposit of those funds.
Your deposit in a bank is a "bailment" and while no fiduciary relationship is created by this bailment (because it is of the bank in general and not an individual) your signature card reflects the only authority for the disposition of your "money." As was shown recently, an affidavit, notifying the bank that the depositor was not a part of their or any other corporation, and that the one signing a check to the State Tax Division was responsible for the depositor's money and not the depositors themselves, since their signatures appeared on no part of the transaction, and the bank had to recall the checks, the tax "debt" was cleared, and all money was re-deposited into the accounts of the husband and wife, who had separate banks and accounts. Powerful stuff, these affidavits, and those writing the laws back in 1925 knew what they were doing.
One man was hesitant to use this system because "judges just walk all over those who challenge their jurisdiction." Well, with the affidavit we most certainly are challenging their jurisdiction, but not in general. Any rebuttal at all is a challenging their jurisdiction, and that is what it is all about. What we need to get straight right off is the fact that they DO have jurisdiction in their corporate capacities, but that doesn't mean they can bring non-corporate citizens into that jurisdiction (which is exactly what they have done through fraud).
All we are doing with the affidavit is merely showing them that their assumptions that all men are a part of their scheme are very wrong, and that we have the law on our side that shows them to be wrong.
Corporations, even though they are "legal" fictions, are still businesses; businesses are commercial enterprises, and commercial enterprises are controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Judges will tell you differently and they will be wrong. Corporations are established by the State, whether Federal or otherwise, (government is State) and all States of the Union have accepted the UCC (which originally was established for the District of Columbia, if my information is correct). The UCC is a complicated mass of business jargon to the casual reader, but in reality our rights are contained in the pages of those documents. Our right to contract, fair play in contracts, business, and all other aspects of human commerce activities are covered in the UCC.
While man, especially the Christian man, is born with the common law in his heart, the English common law was derived from commerce and commercial law itself. In the middle ages, open "fairs," or trading centers were set up in England (and most likely in all other countries of Europe) where people could bring their produce and goods to sell.
People would come from all areas of Europe to attend these fairs, or trading centers, and of course squabbling was rampant and constant, so Courts of Arbitration were established to settle these arguments, and render the exact law on any subject. These courts were called "Pied Powder Courts" because, it is said, that the courts settled arguments before the dust of the well trampled ground could settle on their feet. If I remember correctly, admiralty and maritime law was derived from this court, and separation was made between law of the sea and law of the land which was included in our Constitution. For a judge to say that he isn't affected by commercial law, or the UCC, is hogwash. I ask them if they aren't under commercial law - then why does it cost $150.00 to file a case with their courts while we are paying taxes to support them. Of course, the answer is evaded, and this is another story.
The bottom line of the affidavit denying the existence of corporations is that it pierces the corporate veil by an individual, and for the same purposes; the criminal activities of the courts themselves. We, as individual sovereigns, have the right and the duty to questions our servants and if they refuse to be questioned then this only proves our contention that they are crooks. It also makes them aliens to our way of life because they are upholding the policies of the Bar Associations, which are alien corporations, instead of the law of this land. No lawyer, no judge, or other "judicial" agent of this nation is licensed by the State (aka, we the people) to do business anywhere in the country. Yet, they treat us as aliens in our own venues. This has to stop, and we need to do everything within our power to help it along.
Reply author: Werner Maximilian
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 14:08:12
Message:
Sources' post can be seen on Feedom Forum of Orange County under Understanding Denial of Corporate Existence. Not to disparage but some information is quite dated.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 15:11:36
Message:
Vern; Thanks for clarifying where Source found the material.
Source said above:
quote:
I may be wrong about David Merrill but I would ask you if I am right what will befall you if you listen to him??
And I say that in final warning, beware that you do not start attributing success in abating nuisances and avoiding contract offers to illusory ecclesiastical powers. You will develop lofty models that are faulty, sound like a fool and wonder why the Lord failed you or is putting you through yet another tribulation.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: source
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 16:08:03
Message:
Avoiding?? Romans 16:17-20 You dispute the words of Paul??
What you fail to note David is I have already been successful with this abatement approach and believe me the Canadian treasury Board and the privy council of Canada do not consider me a fool. "illusory ecclesiastical powers."
What do you mean by that David? All power is from God and I am commanded to not bow to any other authority! Exodus 20:3-5
Blessings and YHWH's immeasurable power upon the removal of condemnation of the truth and so called dated knowledge as the Bible is most certainly, and is used repeatedly on this forum.
truth does not alter with time . No matter how old or dusty it is still the truth. Love is truth!
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 16:51:50
Message:
Source asks:
quote:
What do you mean by that David?
The same thing I have been saying all along. You have fallen into the illusion they are respecting your "Christian authority"*.
The only effective clause of Randy Lee style abatements reads, "Therefore your papers are returned to you timely Refused for Cause without any recourse to me." Terms to correct the record are served and when the lesser court refuses to correct the record it goes into default. Period. The Order to Show Cause is inherent in the abatement.
There is fault in the "proof" you offer here that it is Christians who are exempt from the laws of man. Morelike men and women are exempt from the laws of corporations if and when they understand their identity and common law. That is why the three entities are grouped in §32 of the Charter.
This is like Dr. Hulda Reutger CLARK who got laughed all the way to Mexico with her practice curing cancer. She was trying to convince everyone that the cause of cancer was a specific intenstinal fluke. Well as soon as somebody pointed out that fluke is indigineous only to central South America the redicule about the "Flukey Dr. Hulda CLARK" began to fly. The electrical properties (signets) of the fluke are identical to the characteristics of cancer. Thus get rid of cancer as though you are ridding the body of the fluke. But she painted herself into a corner by publishing books on a faulty premise.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/circuits.gif
See the lower circuit in the link. It is just a comparator of natural frequencies. When the two are similar you hear noise from the speaker. This biofeedback trains the solar plexus to generate the frequencies that are detrimental to the cancer (and certain flukes for that matter).
The verbiage in the Charter on this Topic does not prove ecclesiastic authority. You believe it does so and that is an illusion caused by using proper process to abate and avoid prosecution for marijuana possession.
Sure the authority comes from God. Where else? But you attribute it to recognition of ecclesia. Attorneys use the same process.
A suitor in Oregon recently acquired a default judgment in small claims court. That is a common law forum and you must beg special permission to get attorney representation. When it came time for judgment the clerk asked if he had also sent the summons by regular First Class mail. Then he looked in the rules and found it there. It makes sure there are two witnesses; the two summonses. Now think about it. For every Certified letter you have gotten from the Treasury has not there been a regular First Class duplicate? - the same process? Attorneys know this stuff! They just consider the process outlined in Matthew 18 private intellectual property. That is why your abatement worked, you Forest Gumped your way into international and common law and saved all that tuition and Bar Exam fees. Praise God!
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I am not Christian and my abatements work fine without the religious clutter.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 21:34:15
Message:
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
The only law in Canada that uses the word man in plural is section 176 of the Canadian criminal code stating that Clergymen are exempt from civil law being the law of parliaments legislatures and municipalities.
Now you have hit the proverbial nail on the head, Source!
First, look at the word “clergy” in Black’s Law Dictionary, [Abridged Sixth Edition] page 173:
Clergy. The whole of clergymen or ministers of religion. Also an abbreviation for “benefit of clergy”. See Benefit of clergy.
Benefit of clergy. In its original sense, the phrase denoted the exemption which was accorded to clergymen from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, or from arrest or attachment on criminal process issuing from those courts in certain particular cases.
It then goes on to read…
…but [it] was found to involve such gross abuses that parliament began to enact that certain crimes should be felonies “without benefit of clergy,” and finally, by the Criminal Law Act of 1827, it was altogether abolished. The act of congress of April 30, 1790, c. 9, § 31, 1 Stat. 119, provided that there should be no benefit of clergy for any capital crime against the United States, and, if this privilege formed a part of the common law of the several states before the Revolution, it no longer exists.
If it was "abolished", or "no longer exists", then why do we see it in “section 176 of the Canadian criminal code”? And how does it pertain to us? And, is this perhaps why Yahowshua was so sure that the children [citizens] of Yahowah's Kingdom are eleutheros [#G1658]?
G1658
eleutheros
Thayer Definition:
1) freeborn
1a) in a civil sense, one who is not a slave
1b) of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted
2) free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation
3) in an ethical sense: free from the yoke of the Mosaic Law
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible]
G1658
eleutheros
el-yoo'-ther-os
Probably from the alternate of G2064; unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability)
We find multiple witnesses in the Scripture that the citizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el are sovereigns [kings] and priests, or as Peter puts it, a “royal priesthood”…clergy or clergymen!! The citizens of his Kingdom are sovereigns, or more correctly limited suverans, i.e. “kings without subjects”.
Take note that “benefit of clergy” apparently began to display gross abuses…they [or we] did not follow the directions given…
1Peter 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of Yahowah.
Next, we point out, “…that there should be no benefit of clergy for any capital crime against the United States…”
Capital case or crime. One in or for which death penalty may, but need not necessarily, be imposed.
To the best of our knowledge “moving about without a DRIVER’S LICENSE” is not a “capital crime”, as just one small example. In fact, very few things are, particularly if one is not a citizen of their nation!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 23:11:53
Message:
Exemption from arrest for process servers I am sure also has its limitations. Process servers are ministers of process. Clerics (clergy) are ministers of process too.
I am convinced that Paul saw it too. The way to capitalize on the pagan beliefs from his home in Tarsus, Celicia to build the only weapon with which little Israel would ever have a chance against Rome. And Paul knew. Having spoken with Yehoshuah himself on the road to Damascus some seven years following the Crucifixion - How to capitalize on the rumor of Rebirth.
I have not crossed the word eleuteros to find in which verses where it occurs. I could if Richardson's Lexicon covered the New Covenant. Maybe my computer Bibles can do it, I don't know. But I doubt it was the teaching of Yehoshuah, about free men using that word. Take a look. That was probably Paul. Please let us know.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 28 Dec 2004 23:19:57
Message:
Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 17:26 Peter4074 saith3004 unto him,846 Of575 strangers.245 Yahowshua2424 saith5346 unto him,846 Then686 are1526 the3588 children5207 free.1658
Yahu'hanan [John] 8:33 They answered611 him,846 We be2070 Abraham's11 seed,4690 and2532 were never in bondage1398, 4455 to any man:3762 how4459 sayest3004 thou,4771 Ye shall be made1096 free?1658
Yahu'hanan [John] 8:36 If1437 the3588 Son5207 therefore3767 shall make you free,1659, 5209 ye shall be2071 free1658 indeed.3689
#G1659 is a slight variation of the same Greek word.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 29 Dec 2004 07:04:05
Message:
Very good. Thanks.
My sermon then remains around the scope of the authority. Rule E(8) for example. That is an admiralty Rule because it begins with a letter, not a number. So the magistrate proposed the cause, arresting foreign agents for larceny, was not an admiralty matter. [The ministerial approach is that the authority exists. So the proposal is R4C (Refused for Cause) and with correction coram vobis (Writ of Error from superior court).] And especially around Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) Arrest warrant. - that a man inherently in a government structured around property rights can effectively take responsibility for an arrest instead of having to wait for an attorney [http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst122004.htm ]* to see things his way. "Generic Certificate":
quote:United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
Order for Arrest Warrants in personam
Pursuant to Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) the recent holding of funds after proper remedial action and default judgment in the district court is ample evidence the district court process is impracticable. Therefore:
“If the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.” Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) – Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims.
And it is clear that legal name Respondent and titles JOB TITLE respectively are subject to the stipulation that in rem property seizure may easily extend to arrests in personam:
“Except as otherwise provided by law a party who may proceed in rem may also, or in the alternative, proceed in personam against any person who may be liable.” Same Rule C.
Respondent is agent of the International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service and therefore no exemptions or immunities exist preventing immediate arrest by U.S. Marshal. The United Nations and its organ IMF have never been approved to operate in this land pursuant to Title 22 of the United States Codes but these agents enforce false claims of the IMF. The stipulation quoted below cannot apply (by substituting in personam for in rem) to an agent of a foreign principal:
“Statutory provisions exempting vessels or other property owned or possessed by or operated by or for the United States from arrest or seizure are not affected by this rule.” Same Rule C.
Therefore the clerk of the district court, Gregory Langham must issue arrest warrant for Respondent; Address respectively and tender said warrant to the U.S. Marshal for immediate execution. Regular business hours are the best time for execution of arrest because the above physical address is a workplace.
Petitioner
address
United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
Petitionercivil action in admiralty No.
v.
Respondent
Arrest Warrant in personam
To: United States Marshals Service or its representatives – Greetings:
Pursuant to the Order for Arrest Warrant in personam issued by this Court, you are hereby commanded to arrest and seize Respondent from place of work (during business hours), found at Address respectively and make your return that this person of the defendant is in vinculus and federal custody as provided by law;
To promptly make your return of this Arrest Warrant with the Court; and
To give due written and oral notice to Respondent about right to a post arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims during which Petitioner will be required to show burden why the district court failed to properly protect his property and unalienable rights from false claims, according to law.
Done at Denver, Colorado, this _____ day of _______________, 2003.
Gregory Langham
Clerk of the United States District Court
By: ____________________________
Deputy Clerk
and,
quote:
Comes now Petitioner of the Nomen family making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right to the district court, "restricted appearance" under Rule E(8). Respondent has been making false claims and this counterclaim and notice lis pendens are now in the "original exclusive cognizance" of the United States through the district court - see the First Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Chapter 20, page 77.
Opening clause of the counterclaim.
The authority is most forcefully expressed in the true name. Not because of some magical religious property but because there has been no bond upon the living regenerate man. Nobody can track a birth certificate, one of Roosevelt's "new forms" into a compact.
By presuming the authority to exist, instead of deriving it from verbiage in a Constitution or Charter, one transcends the public trust where officers are in violation and depending on the corporate veil for protection under the penumbra of administrative discretionary authority.
If the judge is wrong or lying about the nature of the cause, saying it is not admiralty while sitting next to fringes, then someone must be in authority to correct her. See Crosstalk below.
So I am not saying the authority does not exist. Anyone who has tried to understand why I speak so "arrogantly" knows that I am fully confident in the authority of a living man or woman. What I am saying is there is one truly functional model of that authority and many times religious delusions will create a bunch of metaphysical clutter glopped onto that model. Narcotics by definition will amplify that effect.
See James 1:27 for a favorite verse of mine about eleotheros.
Crosstalk: to suitors (synonymous with 'courts of competent jurisdiction');
quote:
Splendid! What a knockout document.
I love the way you framed the question for the judge to answer. Is there a way to arrest thieves other than admiralty?
quote:
If this were not an admiralty action, how would a man effect an arrest when agents of a foreign principal steal his property without judicial review?
I would add in your order that the warrant be tendered to the US Marshal for execution.
----- Original Message -----
From: sanitized
To: David Merrill
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: Coram Vobis
David,
I borrowed a lot of good stuff from your explanations - thank you. You are right to say keep focused. This is the first action after the judgment. [This 'action' being R4C and coram vobis. The 'judgment' was formed around chief judges' testimony they would allow the clerks to abrogate the arrest warrant process.]In the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
FILED UNDER SEAL
True Name
v.
Agent One or Agent Two - IMF agents
Writ of Error Coram Vobis
- In Admiralty -
Writ of Error
Comes now True Name of the Nomen family making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right to the district court, "restricted appearance" under Rule E(8).
On December 21, 2004, Judge Deborah R. ---------, Magistrate ordered True Name’ arrest warrants of AGENT ONE, and AGENT TWO both International Monetary Fund agents denied. The arrest warrants were based on Rule C(3) of the Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. The basis Judge --------- cited for denying the claim was that:
“No matter how plaintiff wishes to characterize his claim, it is not an admiralty or maritime claim. It does not involve vessels or navigable waters. Therefore, the Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims do not apply to his claim.”
As a court of competent jurisdiction, see 03-CV-XXXX for default judgment, True Name is authorized to issue this writ and correct errors in law.Memorandum of Law
In Delovio v. Boit 1815, Justice Story is deciding the distinction or boundary between domestic trade and admiralty.
quote:
"The next inquiry is, what are properly to be deemed "maritime contracts." Happily in this particular there is little room for controversy. All civilians and jurists agree, that in this appellation are included, among other things, charter parties, affreightments, marine hypothecations, contracts for maritime service in the building, repairing, supplying, and navigating ships; contracts between part owners of ships; contracts and quasi contracts respecting averages, contributions and jettisons; and, what is more material to our present purpose, policies of insurance. S. P. Johnson, J., in Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 434; Cleirac, Le Guidon, c. 1, p. 109; Id. c. 3, p. 124; Id. Jurisd. de la Marine, p. 191; 1 Valin, Comm. 112, 120, etc., 127, etc.; 2 Emer. 319; Godolph. 43; Zouch, 90, 92; Eaton, 69, etc., 295, etc.; Malyne, Lex Merc., 303; Id., Collection of Sea Laws, c. 2, p. 47; Consol. del Mare, c. 22; 2 Brown, Adm. c. 4, p. 71; 4 Bl. Comm. 67; Stevens v. The Sandwich [supra]; Targa, Reflex. c. 1. And in point of fact the admiralty courts of other foreign countries have exercised jurisdiction over policies of insurance, as maritime contracts; and a similar claim has been uniformly asserted on the part of the admiralty of England. 2 Boucher, Consol. del Mare, p. 730; 1 Valin, Comm. 120; 2 Emer. 319; Roccus de Assec. note 80; 2 Brown, Adm. 80; Zouch. 92, 102; Molloy, bk. 2, c. 7, § 18. There is no more reason why the admiralty should have cognizance of bottomry instruments, as maritime contracts, than of policies of insurance. Both are executed on land, and both intrinsically respect maritime risks, injuries and losses.
The distinction was properly made around "insurance policy".
quote:
“My judgment accordingly is, that policies of insurance are within (though not exclusively within) the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. I therefore overrule the plea to the jurisdiction, and assign the respondent to answer peremptorily upon the merits.” Justice Story, Delovio v. Boit
How do Federal Reserve notes and Revenue laws relate to policies of insurance?
Each and every time we exchange a Federal Reserve Note; we are making the claim that it is worth something later in the contemplation that upon resolution of the national debt, the claim will be honored in money. It is a Federal Reserve Note. Notes are simple insurance policies. They limit liability. This is in older terms "bottomry" and ended the days when a captain 'went down with the ship'. Before insurance, the captain was fully liable for the cargo and would spend the rest of his mortal life in debt. So entrepreneurs began 'bonding' safe delivery - you pay me a portion and I will cover the loss on the slim chance you fail to get the ship to its destination - bottomry; the cargo in the hold or bottom of the ship's hull.
Limiting the liability and risk of accepting a promise is always insurance. Thus revenue clauses, being based in debt, have always properly been adjudicated in admiralty.
If you look at the face of a Federal Reserve Note you will see it is an insurance policy between the Treasury Secretary John Snow and the Treasurer of the United States Rosaria Marin. It promises a claim will be honored in the future by being a "NOTE". Meanwhile, "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE".
Congress and the Supreme Court have clearly defined revenue causes as “admiralty”. Please refer to the memorandum of law filed as part of this case with excerpts referred to below.
quote:
"In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of admiralty cognizance, that congress considered them as CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, 'including,' etc. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England. The Act gives exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of nations, ..... THE HUNTRESS, 12 Fed.Case 984 @ 992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D.Me. 1840):
"Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as Proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedures control. UNITED STATES of America v. $3,976.62 in currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. OC66W145329,
As a further indication that the issue before the court is a matter of admiralty, Petitioners refer the court again to "Benedict's Admiralty, " 7th ed., Vol. 2 Chapter IV § 51 footnote 7. "....it is now generally held that government tax claims under 26 U.S.C. § 6321 'upon all property and rights of property whether real or personal' rank below all other maritime liens..."
Rather than repeat the entire memorandum, Judge --------- is referred to 04-CV-[Article III jacket] where she will find the memorandum of law and the proper cites. I have attached a certified copy of the first page of the memorandum to prove it has been part of the case from the beginning.
Therefore the assertion that this action is not in admiralty is frivolous. If this were not an admiralty action, how would a man effect an arrest when agents of a foreign principal steal his property without judicial review?
Therefore, True Name, a court of competent jurisdiction “refuses for cause” timely this Order back to Judge --------- for immediate correction. This shall include:
1. A formal declaration by the court that 04-CV-[Article III jacket] is an admiralty action in accordance with the law of the land.
2. Immediate issuance of arrest warrants for AGENT ONE and AGENT TWO under Rule C(3) and exigent circumstances.
Dated this 23rd day of December 2004.
Remember that the Order to Show Cause is inherent in the Refusal for Cause.
And so I assert that it is not a religious authority. Just because concepts of freedom eleutheros are used in the Gospels and New Covenant letters does not give Christianity a recognizable ecclesiastic authority.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* In 'my world' I find it interesting that Ron Paul ignores the bill he proposed has been forced through Congress by automatically approved bond. Ronald Dean had his funds released and the United States of America was not arrested so she must have paid the bond: www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement4.gif and www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif
Then again Ron Paul is admittedly a religious Christian.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 29 Dec 2004 09:57:13
Message:
As we have stated before, it is not a Book about "religion"...it is a Law Book! Thank you, David.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 29 Dec 2004 10:06:20
Message:
Before even finishing the first paragraph, this link looks worth sharing:
quote:
“Oh, Pastor Standaring said, “They just try to talk us into agreeing to move the case out of the admiralty, and into the civil venue.”
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/law/Admiralty.htm
Some more interesting links just in my email:
http://www.theawaregroup.com/piercingtheveil.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst122004.htm
http://www.crownrights.com/books/military_government.htm
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 29 Dec 2004 18:27:07
Message:
Like Reuben Hersh said in, What is Mathematics, Really? p. 66; "..the study of mental objects with reproducible properties is mathematics..." Once taken literally OneIsraelite, that means law is mathematics; among a plethora of other things.
So may I consider that "law book" you refer to a math book? When you consider Matthew 24:15 suggests we work the numbers proposed by the prophet Daniel, does that make some sense?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 29 Dec 2004 20:55:35
Message:
Greetings David:
Peace be unto the house.
Who am I?
You may consider our Law Book any way you like, or you may consider it not at all. I am perplexed as to why you ask my permission.
Yahowah willing, we may post something concerning Mattith'yahu 24:15, Dani'el 11:31 and 12:11 at a later time.
Hope you have a pleasant evening, David.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: Gold
Replied on: 29 Dec 2004 23:59:47
Message:
Hello blessed be all who are doers of the word
In regards to your topic,
Lev 18:1 YHWH (JAHOWAH) spoke to Moses, saying:
2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan [America], to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes [unrighteous laws].
4 My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes [only] you shall keep, following them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Mighty one.
5 You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and my laws[only]; by doing so you shall live: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH). [Rom. 10:4, 5; Gal. 3:12; Luke 10:25-28.]
18:26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you
27 (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); [America needs to wake up and change her evil/unrighteous ways and repent and tear down all the pagan idols/buildings across the land. Before the Almighty annihilate the people out of the land].
28 otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
29 For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people.
30 So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
19:35 You shall not cheat in measuring length, weight, or quantity.[ U.S. dollar is not backed by gold there for are government is no longer keeping YHWH’s laws]
36 You shall have honest balances, honest weights, an honest measure for grain, and an honest liquid measure: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
26:1 You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no carved images or obelisk,[obelisk cover are land Washington monument for one, as well as lady liberty (pagan goddess Athena) and there is at lest one Oblelisk in every state in this country and thy are an abomination ] and you shall not place figured stones in your land, to worship at them; [statues of worshiped saints] for I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
just food for thought. May my father YHWH bless you and keep you.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 00:54:45
Message:
Marty asked:4. What is a zuwr stranger?
Steve: An Ish Zuwer was suitable for marriage by a priest's daughter however this union would make her unable to eat from the sacrifices offered to the priests. Levticus 22:12. If a priest's daughter was able marry an ish zuwer with the only punishment of no free food, then we can expect the lay Israelites to have some ish zuwer mixed into the bloodline.
Reply author: source
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 04:13:19
Message:
Thankyou Batkol for your provision of an answer to that difficult question. New knowledge is sweet tasting and is welcomed if in God's text or in line with it.
Further proof the laws of men do not apply, being the subject of this thread in dispute, is the law of man from 1646 defining the faith of the Church of England, "The Westminister Confession of Faith"
http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html
This law, still in force, defines the limitations of mans authority over man. It is what made the treasury board almost go laxative via the trousers. Section 22 is quite revealing and do not get to excited about the civil magistrate listed below as he derives his authority from God vi oath and not to exceed that authority via Ezra 7:23-26
Posted for all the doubting Thomases to further exhibit evidense of gross denial by such self apointed authority.
Blessings upon all men and women of good faith!
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 07:01:19
Message:
Gold;
An appropriate name for the verse you cite:
quote:
36 You shall have honest balances, honest weights, an honest measure for grain, and an honest liquid measure: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
The context is riddled with the same enacting clause (in bold). As in the Holy Bible Constitutions and Charters must express the legislative body and that legislative body must contain authority. In Colorado the stipulation of enacting clause is found in Article V (Legislative), §18 and reads:
quote:
Section 18. Enacting clause. The style of the laws of this state shall be: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado".
There is a good booklet floating around called The Authority of Law by Charles Weisman. It has a sample coram vobis that conforms to the oppressive stipulation that this writ of error must be presented in motion form [giving the lesser court jurisdiction to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction. See Rules of Courts Martial - United States 1984^]. (If abating for misnomer were to fail me, I would fashion the enacting clause issue into an abatement, not a motion.) The motion is convincing enough the traffic "judge" came back after a 20 minute recess and said, "This court has no subject matter jurisdiction."
That enacting clause is not novel to the Holy Bible and the writings of Israel. In fact, according to the Holy Bible Abraham imported the laws of Babylon into Canaan. This becomes obvious when one reads the Code of Hammurabi. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hammenu.htm
http://www.samliquidation.com/qabalah-c.htm
quote:
The seven groups of commandments, which was given to the nations of the world through Noah, was to establish a system of law and Courts that would uphold the Noahide Laws, bring justice into the world; and maintain a standard of righteousness and morality in human communities. It was intended to be a universal set of Laws which would guide our species in its relationship with the Creation of the Lord. It was a method of classifying human duties into easily remembered categories. It is not confined to these minimalists concepts; rather, it embraced a massive set of commandments not unlike Jewish Law. If a history of communal law is examined in its historical context we find that the often praised source of Western Tradition's law, known as the Code of Hammurabi is but a mere articulation of the Noahide Laws. In fact, an examination of this history demonstrates a consistent and universal acknowledgment of Genesis 9.1ff (e.g. Hittite Law).
It is often assumed that the code developed by Hammurabi (more properly: Hammurapi), some how developed from his enlightened insight into history and society. Yet, that assumption is baseless even on a logical level, let alone in the light of our evidence. Hammurabi was a leader of Kings in his area. He was the King of Sumer, but, behind him were others.
quote:
["] There is no King who is all powerful on his own; ten or fifteen Kings may march behind Hammurabi, the Babylonian. The same as Rim-Sin of Larsa. Similarly after Ibapiel of Eshunna. The same is with Amutpiel of Qatanum. Perhaps twenty Kings march behind Yarim of Yamhad.["] (a letter found in Mari written to its King, Zimri-lin. (Speiser, World History of the Jewish People, vol. 1 pg. 211.))
It is often believed that the empire of the Assyrians was so powerful and influential that this code was developed and forced upon the nations of the area. We now know that the power of an empire lies in the use of existing norms and institutions to win over the hearts and minds of its people. No ancient King had to extend himself so far as to create a new system. They utilized the common thread of human origin and its ideas to mold their society. They used the idea of disobedience to those laws as indications of Divine disobedience which must be punished, be it individually or collectively. It was this collective body of law and custom that bound - even served as a model for newer nations.
Rabbi Kuzriel Meir; Sanhedrin clerk while accepting the Republic of Texas' cause in 1997.
From early on in our mental infrastructure we ask, "Who is in authority?"
Now I quote by cut and paste the Topic title:
quote:
Proof the laws of man do not apply to Christians
And assure you that nobody but Christians* believe that is a proper enacting clause - to say "We are above the law". Or even, "The laws that apply to you do not apply to me."
Regards,
David Merrill.
"^ Rule 201. Jurisdiction in general (b) Requisites of court-martial jurisdiction. A court-martial always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction."
* Even Christian court clerks will resort to Romans 13 or Matthew 21-23 about the fish and Temple Tax or tribute to Caesar or whatever. I know this from first-hand conversations with Christian clerks.
P.S. Batkol; see Goyim Tikur Strong's H#2914. This was the more derogatory reference to the 'mixed masses' who tagged along across the Red Sea and subsequently persuaded Aaron to fashion a golden calf.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 08:09:04
Message:
Greetings David,
Peace be unto the house.
We can find no instance of goy and techor being used in reference to each other; please direct us to the verses. Thanks.
H2914
techor
BDB Definition:
1) tumours, hemorrhoids
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from an unused root meaning to burn
And, Strong’s says: “From an unused root meaning to burn; a boil or ulcer (from the inflammation), especially a tumor in the anus or pudenda (the piles)"
Further, there appears to be no reference to this word in Exodus, though we do see it used in regards to Egypt.
Deuteronomy 28:27 Yahowah will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods [H2914], and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
1Shama’el [Samuel] 6:11 And they laid the ark of Yahowah upon the cart, and the coffer with the mice of gold and the images of their emerods [H2914] .
1Shama’el [Samuel] 6:17 And these are the golden emerods [H2914] which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering unto Yahowah…
These are the only three times that that word is used in the Scripture, as far as we can ascertain, and the last two are very strange references to this word, most likely a translation error, one would hope.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 08:46:43
Message:
I doubt there are canonized verses using Goyim Tekor. Being a slur, you would find it in post-Messianic teachings like the Babylonian Talmud etc. Thank you for such a thorough analysis of the Biblical Hebrew.
Essentially behind the teaching that Christians have an authority to call upon is the metaphysical notion that Yehoshuah H'Natzrith died on the Cross and arose by supernatural power. [It has been pointed out pagans use a lot of marijuana and other narcotics as well.] Paul utilized the rumor and the susceptibility of the Roman/Greco pagan worship of rebirth to propogate a weapon (faith-based passive resistance) against Rome. [However, I point out only after failing to claim the bounty against Jesus. Read the early chapters of the Book of Acts.]
quote:
Lu 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
This wild notion about Resurrection has had a profound effect upon the Jews too. It is obvious to the most casual reader that the Prophets of the Old Testament were talking about Jesus of Nazareth in the prophecies of the Messiah. However there is no mention of a supernatural rebirth, virgin birth etc. That all came from editing and from syncrotizing pagan beliefs. A good book about this is The Nazarene Gospel Restored by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro. It is out of print so try Bill (719) 578-5044. I doubt many of you have bought your copy on my advice because a good condition copy is running upwards of $300. You pretty much have to buy them out of Europe, probably because of Christian censoring.
Back to my point. The Jews have thrown out the baby with the bathwater in a backlash effect of Pogroms against them. They cannot accept Jesus is the Messiah of God because of the absurd rumor that he sprung back to life because he is the only begotten son of God. That is not found in the prophecies so who would accept the supernatural dogma of the pagan societies in Asia Minor that he did?
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. The last two occurances of Tekor may be in reference to golden acorns. If so, it would be translators taking no liberties with the original text.
P.P.S. Many of you have learned to allow me an hour or so to edit my Posts after you first see them on the site. Thank you for that.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 09:12:37
Message:
David:
quote:
I doubt there are canonized verses using Goyim Tekor. Being a slur, you would find it in post-Messianic teachings like the Babylonian Talmud etc.
Now that, we would not doubt for a moment!!!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 09:27:35
Message:
Greetings once more David:
Peace be unto the house.
If one looks at the Good Tidings (Lawful Counsel) as parables within parables one sees that it is giving us the process on how to come out of bondage [Egypt/Babylon]. Keeping in mind that this was done, as Yahowshua states several times, via multiple witnesses, because it is for some to see and for others not to see. This is why it is hidden in amongst a "religious" context, in my humble opinion. Those who have been given eyes to see will eventually see why the death on the cross, the virgin birth, re-birth, the resurrection, the ascension to the True Authority, and etc.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 10:02:17
Message:
David said: However there is no mention of a supernatural rebirth, virgin birth etc. That all came from editing and from syncrotizing pagan beliefs.
Steve: I wish more folks would digest this key statement. The earliest pre-Nicea Church claims their beliefs are thousands of years old and not much different from the pagans they were debating with. This is what grew out of the Gospel of the uncircumcision and, in my opinion, Paul has done quite a job connectiong the two (or at least somebody writing in his name). Who better to get that ball rolling than Paul who has been argued to be not a natural born Israelite, but a non-Israelite convert. A few scholars make this case.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 10:12:46
Message:
If Paul was born in a Jewish community in Tarsus, Cilicia that of course would prove out your point. He was not born in Israel.
Born and raised Jewish he was no doubt exposed to the deeply steeped practices of Asia Minor (Galatia) where he later toured promoting this novel tactic, "War by Propoganda"*.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Eli Marcus Ravage wrote an interesting article in the Century Magazine, 1928 by a similar title. It is a well founded historical treatise. I will scan it, zip it and link it here later.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 10:13:09
Message:
Good morning, Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
We can well imagine who might say that Shaul/Paul is not a natural born Yisra'elite, but whether he is or isn't, is of little concern to us. Thank you for your input.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 10:18:16
Message:
Good morning brother Robert,
You are most welcomed.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 10:22:53
Message:
OneIsraelite said;
quote:My opinion, after investigating the character of Paul, which I have expounded upon elsewhere on this forum, is that God shows me that I need not be strong to be used. Paul was a coward and a thief, stealing from alms he collected and intended for widows in order to buy an expensive 'get out of jail' card. His Roman citizenship.
Those who have been given eyes to see will eventually see why the death on the cross, the virgin birth, re-birth, the resurrection, the ascension to the True Authority, and etc
So God reportedly tells Paul, "I will use you in Rome." and did so.
So I revise your point of view to express mine:
quote:
Those who have been given eyes to see will eventually see why the death on the cross, the virgin birth, re-birth, the resurrection, the ascension to the True Authority, and etc were generated symbols to carry the Word of God around the world and bring the Abrahamic Covenant through the Messiah of God to the gentile nations too - Romans 11.
Regards,
David Merrill
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 10:40:22
Message:
That is correct also, in my humble opinion, for I believe it is written that if there was no religion, man would invent one. In light of that, what better way to get the Remedy into the hands of the masses. Wonder why they murdered people who were trying to translate that Book?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: source
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 13:03:21
Message:
Davids post
"And assure you that nobody but Christians* believe that is a proper enacting clause - to say "We are above the law". Or even, "The laws that apply to you do not apply to me."
As one isrealite pointed out the clause posted on Heritage Canada's website was that the head law being the supreme law of the corporation of Canada says it does not apply to individuals(persons) businesses or organisations leaves us with no one visable in those terms that their law applies to except the government of Canada which is a legal fiction.
Now to focus on the subject matter of this post which others seem to be digressing from, others of experience in this forum, which leaves me to assume it is not in error but intentional, I will again state the men and women of this particular country are not subject to those corporate dead in law legal fiction creations of law for the government itself.
The Queen, albeit disfunctional for most part, is set up for those who believe in Christ to have as a method of not only retaining their rights in law in that holy book but to claim redemption through leviticus 25-27.
It has been repeated by David that there is no proof of this exemption and none that relate to the Christians ability to be exempt from mans law. He has repeatedly told the readers of this thread to ignore me the minister of God's word and has repeatedly ignored the proof I have posted that he is wrong. In appearance, to most readers, who are unbiased in their conclusions by lengthy association with David, the presense of David on this thread from the beginning has been to persuade the reader to ignore the original post which is proof positive and irrefutable that the Canadian government is telling any who reads it's Supreme law inclusive of the Westminster confession of faith that it does not apply to those listed as non government.
I have posted the governments criminal code that says it does not apply to ministers professing divine calling in official function.
That to was ignored by David as it clearly refutes his attempts to get others on this thread to ignore not only the orginal post but me an officiating minister of God as well.
His attacks on me the man anf minister of God's word continue as of the use of the word "narcotic" as applied to marijauna when even the novice researcher can clearly find that marijuana is not a narcotic is not addictive and is more a medicine and mild euphoric sanctioned by God. The attempts by David to ignore the proof, I have gone to length to post for the readers, shows his motivation is not for the revealing of the truth and edifying the ecclesia but to hide it by digressing from the subject matter and convincing the reading to ignore me.
To defend the subject matter of this thread is my ministerial sworn duty and function and I am officially performing that function.
To obstruct me from that function by encouraging others to ignore me seems to be a violation of the rules of this forum and the laws of man. David seems to feel that the laws of man do indeed apply to men and women so then he would be subject to being accountable for any harm he brings unto me.
Defamation is a familiar term that the readers may see is being applied to me by David in his repeated attempts to get the readers to ignore and evade the truth by stating I am a pothead, delusional, addicted, and not to be listened to.
Isaiah 65:7,
Your perversity, depravity, guilt; and, the perversity, depravity, guilt of your rulers together, utters Jahuwah, which make smoke upon the mountains, and evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections; you find fault or criticize me for petty reasons upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
Now my faith in Christ Yeshua gives me the armour to withstand his dark assaults Ephesians 6:10-20 but my fear is for the ecclesia that may be confused by who to listen to as he has been quite a poster boy here on this forum and has seemingly gained some allies.
If the readers are persuaded to ignore what I have posted they may not apply for their exemptions from mans law by abating the governmental assumptions with their registered mail notices of their faith and beliefs to the private men and women in positions of governmental power.
Please do not allow the falsehood to overcome the original words that have been shown to scholars professors lawyers with tenure and treasury board officials yes even the Queen and Pope have seen this. I have recieved two replies from Buckingham palace indicating I am correct. I will post the letter I sent upon the occasion of her majesty's jubilee and my letter petitioning redemption from the enslavement that was done in deceit via my birth registration.Leviticus 6:2
Again... the laws of men in addition to the laws of God YHWH do not apply. Only the laws of GodYHWH apply to the proclaimed man of faith in those laws. Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32
You have to prenotice government oficials to become exempt from their assumptions of who you are.
Blessings in the awareness that the laws of YHWH are for your protection, edification,redemption from sin and not a curse.
The laws of man, the Babylonian Talmud are the curse!
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 17:26:01
Message:
This traversal could have the exact same effect without reference to belonging to God. It is simply the same abatement for misnomer calculated in different form. I am sure the Evidence Act has no exemption for Christians. But if you research that and find differently please let us know. Please understand Rules of Evidence (as opposed to Hebrews 11:1) before arguing ecclesiastical authority.
The effective mechanism is the difference between the true name (or Given Name) and the legal name (when you add the family name to the true name).
And thus it does not surprise me that this is as effective in Ontario as a properly executed abatement for misnomer is here. The point I like about this method is the positive asseveration that the man has been receiving no benefits from the artificial entity name given him by the province at birth - that all the assumptions have been made by the Department of Commerce (or its equivalent) and by the Province of Ontario, Canada. That is a very effective argument in contract law under any flag.
(Under section 41 of the Canada Evidence Act)
I, True Name, solemnly declare that I am of and stand in the Kingdom of God and that it has been approximately forty six years since our Father who art in Heaven first breathed life into His child, whom the body, mind, hands and fingers that put the words and signature on this paper belong and since He and the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, CANADA, did accept the Christian name given the child is True Name, and;
That I AM the holder/bearer of a birth certificate on which is the NAME; FAMILY NOMEN, TRUE NAME (FAMILY NOMEN), and;
That PROVINCE OF ONTARIO/Ontario/Crown in right of Ontario (ONT) does wilfully cause the registration of and does wilfully register birth events in Ontario, and does wilfully issue birth certificates bearing a legal name, and;
That ONT does wilfully cause information, provided to, accepted by, and held in the records of the Deputy Registrar General Ontario, as prescribed by the Vital Statistics Act Ontario, to be extracted from a registration of birth in order that a birth certificate may be issued, and;
That a birth certificate and certified copy of a registration of a birth are admissible in any Court in Ontario as proof, in absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified and the facts so certified prove I was not a party to and have no knowledge of any proceeding connected with the inception, registration, or certification of the name FAMILY NOMEN and that ONT did wilfully cause the legal name FAMILY NOMEN, as appears on a birth certificate, to be borne into existence upon the payment of a fee, and;
That ONT does wilfully neglect to disclose to the recipient of a birth certificate that it is not personal identification and that the name on it is the name for a trust, and;
That the Bank Act prescribes the manner in which an account may be opened in the name of a natural person, and;
That no such account has been opened in My name, and;
That I have not seen or been provided with any evidence that proves I have any property right(s) in the name FAMILY NOMEN or that I have received any value, income or money in the name given Me or that any property, Account, debt, Treasury Board 35056 privacy form, charge, conviction, certificate, pledge, deposit, consumer bill, bond, consumer note, guarantee, warrant, information, judgement, evidence, license, permit, obligation, lien, ticket, fine, consumer report, security, contract, undertaking or other thing is registered or recorded in or bears the name given Me or that I AM not an authorized representative for FAMILY NOMEN, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is the same force and effect as if made under oath, so help me God.
Declared before me <name of notary/commissioner>, a <notary or a commissioner> in and for the Province of Ontario, at the <city/town/municipality> this day of 2004.
P.S. The above commentary first read:
quote:Then I discovered that the given or true name is different than Christian name.
The effective mechanism is the difference between the true name (or Given Name; or Christian Name) and the legal name (when you add the family name to the true name).
quote:
The Christian or first name is, in the law, denominated the proper name; and a party can have but one, for middle or added names are not regarded. State v. Martin, (followed by a whole slew of cites).
Reply author: Gold
Replied on: 30 Dec 2004 22:15:45
Message:
Greetings to all who are doers of the word
18:1 YHWH (JAHOWAH) spoke to Moses, saying:
2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan [America], to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes [unrighteous laws].
4 My ordinances (Laws) you shall observe and my statutes (Laws) you shall keep, following them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Mighty one.
5 You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and my laws (Only) ; by doing so you shall live: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH). [Rom. 10:4, 5; Gal. 3:12; Luke 10:25-28.]
26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you
27 (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); [America needs to wake up and change her evil/unrighteous ways and repent and tear down all the pagan idols/buildings across the land. Before the Almighty annihilate the people out of the land].
28 otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
29 For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people.
30 So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
19;35 You shall not cheat in measuring length, weight, or quantity.[U.S. dollar is not backed by gold, there for are government is no longer keeping YHWH laws]
36 You shall have honest balances, honest weights, an honest measure for grain, and an honest liquid measure: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
37 You shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and observe them: I am YHWH (JAHOWAH).
26:1 You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no carved images or obelisk,[obelisk cover are land Washington monument for one, and there is at lest one in every state in this country and thy are an abomination ] and you shall not place figured stones in your land, to worship at them; [statues of worshiped saints] for I am YHWH (JAHOWAH) your Almighty.
20;23 You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. [Paganism is what most of the churches of this land fallow to date]
As the Mighty One says, we are not under the law of man, but the law of the Almighty!
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 06:32:14
Message:
I too can presume I am correct [referring to the comments in brackets above]; and often, nearly always, do.
On the premise of this Topic title, I will assure you that I tried to be a Christian for several years and by Towing the Line to absurdity discovered that when really faced with the 'reality' of the Holy Bible, with the absurdity of the supernatural events therein the New Covenant, when compared to the mathematical symbols of the Old Covenant, known history and physical reality, the pastors would discover the corner they had painted themselves into.
Gold, my point is that catagorizing you by your words with Source, and finally taking a look at Source's post above, I have been in my opinion where Source and you are at. I feel qualified to comment on such subjective commentary as you have made in the brackets.
I understand and have demonstrated herein this Topic I know what the Holy Bible says - and especially the Pentateuch and Laws of Moses. www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif
There is a precept of notice and grace - that you cannot hold a man culpable for his actions until he is notified. This is explicitely stated about a man whose oxen is dangerous and rabbis and scholars agree that the man "killed" (punished) for collecting fuel on the Sabbath was warned first not to. Source agrees:
quote:So the process overlaps into common law (except where overridden by statute to the contrary).
You have to pre-notice government officials to become exempt from their assumptions of who you are.
Earlier in the same Post Source says:
quote:Is Source changing his viewpoint to agree with me? This spat seems near an end. That is what it looks like now that he is saying the parties listed exempt are "non-government" instead of the Topic title; "Christians". That is the same thing I have been saying all along. Only I did not use that word, "non-government"*. And I do not agree that pre-noticing is necessary. Notice can be given in an abatement after the presumption is made.
In appearance, to most readers, who are [un]biased in their conclusions by lengthy association with David, the presense of David on this thread from the beginning has been to persuade the reader to ignore the original post which is proof positive and irrefutable that the Canadian government is telling any who reads it's Supreme law inclusive of the Westminster confession of faith^ that it does not apply to those listed as non-government.
So I assume I have converted Source to my line of thinking and he would apply with Admin to change the title of this Topic to something less misleading to readers.
Also, he has been warned not to specifically slander me or anyone else for that matter so I suspect that Admin is considering expulsion. The 'slurs' about marijuana being addictive and producing delusions are facts that he invited be brought to light. I certainly hope he refrains from actions requiring a clear mind while he is stoned. Especially things like infant/elderly care and driving. Marijuana kills brain cells. Ask Dharma's father, Harry Finkelstein. Or maybe Source figures notice and grace only applies to government?
This is about the third or fourth time on this forum I have had to deal with someone on a mission:
quote:and:
To defend the subject matter of this thread is my ministerial sworn duty and function and I am officially performing that function.
quote:Source is clearly incorrect on both points. Admin has agreed with me this forum is a journal. Source's inflexible attacks seem a little silly now he has changed his testimony to agree with mine. But this is not a forum set into any, even a Christian agenda. On point 2) anyone reading my words with a clear mind knows I do not think myself subject to the 'laws' that are not law (without enacting clauses, contract presentments and Notices that are strictly administrative process etc).
1) To obstruct me from that function by encouraging others to ignore me seems to be a violation of the rules of this forum and the laws of man. 2) David seems to feel that the laws of man do indeed apply to men and women so then he would be subject to being accountable for any harm he brings unto me.
I suggest that all I have written be verified by facts and the best testimony available in recognized history books and other sources by accredited historians. But mostly I admonish that all you read here is Internet yarn. You are reading my opinions as well as Source's and Gold's. You are presumed to be grownups who can handle this material responsibly.
Regards,
David Merrill.
^ Logically this does not mean Christians can take the Confession and get out of prosecutions for marijuana possession. Maybe the Confession is "included" in the Charter's doctrine but that does not mean it provides coverture and exemption from the law. It does not form an asylum state for Christians to hide within the Province (unless of course a bishop or whatever grants the asylum inside a church building). It has been brought to light that benefit of clergy is limited and also applies to process servers, who are considered clergy independent of religious belief.
* Consider all citizens of the United States by definition vessels of the United States; little enclaves for the District but not located territorially within the District. Or better yet that the infrastructure of the Constitution, Article 4, §3 defines the primary citizenship was for men and women to be state citizens until elected or appointed citizens of the United States; government employees. This extends to a jural compact with society in general by constructive trust [Article VI, "public trusts" - METRO as a positive law jural society "home rule"] through the use of legal name (nakar/nokriy - stranger and foreigner disqualified for debt forgiveness; Deuteronomy 15:1-3; 23:20).
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 07:36:05
Message:
Greetings David,
Peace be unto the house.
Can a stranger or foreigner (nakar/nokriy) be Lawfully held responsible for a government's debt, which by definition of the above words, is not their own?
In the beginning there was nothing, and that nothing transformed itself into gases, and eventually these gases that were formed from nothing became entire solar systems, our sun, our planet and ultimately a sentient man. Is this not what we have, thinking that there is no power greater than ourselves? Or am I misreading you? If so, I humbly apologize for the inferrence.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 07:50:21
Message:
To answer your first question. I read a while ago that the States through Governors' Convention (March 6, 1933) could not declare bankruptcy in a mandatory fashion for men and women. I agreed. It is also written in Roosevelt's words that "If we can persuade (people to put their funds [after the Banker's Holiday] in trust, in the 'new forms'] we will have made progress.
The syntax seems faulty in the subsequent questions.
quote:Are you trying to rephrase my point of view?
In the beginning there was nothing, and that nothing transformed itself into gases, and eventually these gases that were formed from nothing became entire solar systems, our sun, our planet and ultimately a sentient man.
I will presume that you are (as opposed to this being your premise - your point of view). If you state the premise as opposing God created the universe, by whatever process, then that is not my belief. I think God is the Creator of both the Universe and of course Man in it. That inherently gives God the Creator sovereignty.
This same sovereignty extends to men and women through the image of God in us. It is the authority that grants the right to avoid policies and internal memorandums (secret [War Powers] law and 'black letter law'] that are merely color of law. And it is also the cause of people with faulty identity and sloppy relationship with God to fall under the jurisdiction of lesser courts.
Regards,
David Merrill
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 08:30:04
Message:
Greetings David,
Peace be unto the house.
I thank you for those responses and say that your answers suggest that we are probably on the same page.
Again, thank you for your time.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 15:17:55
Message:
Dear Readers;
I beg the readers' pardon. I thought Source saw his mistake after I pointed it out from his own testimony.
quote:
Praise to YHWH for the strength to resist the wiles of the Devil and blessings to all who see my intent is true as is the reason for the attacks.
Regards,
David Merrill
Reply author: source
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 15:17:58
Message:
No mistake David just evidense of my faith being opposed. If you imply my faith is a mistake then you let others see your intent is not ecclesia based and is not framed in Love.
Prayers for your deliverence from a vehement place of reasoning. Psalms,82:2
"How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?"
If we can find room to respect our rights to have faith then the dispute will end as of now I see you still wish to encourage others to ignore the inspiration of the Canadian governments own words that the law they formed in addition to God's law does not apply to men and women that are not a part of it's governmental structure with the Queen defending the Christian Bible as the prime defender of faith.
Blessings upon the peaceful resonance the words "I love you" may have upon those willing to recieve.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 17:05:11
Message:
I just don't want the Readers buying into the pernicious doctrine that abating nuisances and avoiding unwanted contracts depends on faith. Believing so gives you the illusion of an elite position among others and the arrogance to judge us for having a faith that deviates from your own.
I am not holding my breath for the day when Canadian magistrates say, "If you want to declare the Westminster Confession of Faith on the record of this court, we will release you because we have no jurisdiction over Christians and other people of faith."
Reply author: Bondservant
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 18:51:34
Message:
Just some comments about all that has been going on in this subject forum:
Firstly, this is a PRIVATE forum and we adhere to rules of civility and morality. When people who have posted are personally attacked - REGARDLESS OF THEIR OPINION - it won't be tolerated. We let this occur 4 times with Source (and we deleted the offending posts), but he apparently didn't catch on that berating fellow posters, as well as the site owners, is something that we won't allow to continue. We were tolerant of Source's antagonistic personal attacks for far longer than we should have allowed, but there comes a time when enough is enough. Source has been banned from this site because of this, NOT because of any views or opinions he has expressed.
Secondly, and more in fitting with this topic, is that there is a vast difference between "Religious Christianity" and "Spiritual Christians". Man-made "religion" is a commercial activity for controlling others, but pure and truthful "Christianity" is not. In North America, few can discern the differences between the two and "Christians" have become followers of "Religious Christianity". The problem is that the two are opposites and true Christianity should have no part of the commercial religion calling itself by the same name. Dubya Bush, our appointed President the past 4 years, claims to be a "Christian", but he is far from following true "Christianity".
David, we understand why you will not call yourself a "Christian". If true Christianity is now supposed to be as the example of the war mongering group in Washington City, then we cannot call ourselves "Christians" either.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 31 Dec 2004 19:09:10
Message:
OneIsraelite;
quote:
Can a stranger or foreigner (nakar/nokriy) be Lawfully held responsible for a government's debt, which by definition of the above words, is not their own?
That question deserves a much more thoughtful answer than I gave you this morning.
Let's presume the principles of law in the Holy Bible are sound to the point of metaphysical effect. Then an Israelite (even in spirit) would be exempt from the bankruptcy by 1940, seven years after 1933. Like that. There might be something to it but that is really hard to prove.
I think it is easier to say that the form of contract is more the voluntary nature in Roosevelt's New Deal. If you want to avoid culpability for the use of FRNs then evade the presumed bond inherent in the Birth Certificate entry and registration into commerce.
However I once notified the Sheriff who was holding my friend in jail about Chapter 65, §2 of the Kitzur Shulhan Arukh; the Code of Jewish Law - Interest on Loans. My friend was immediately released from the jail. He was even honored by a visit from the State Director of Prisons in his cell. Sat with him and asked personal questions in polite conversation. But my friend was given no clue what or why or even that he was being released until we were there to pick him up.
Also I felt led to spend three days in the homeless shelter where an elderly Jew had been living for six months. He was afraid that he would be extradicted back to France on a theft charge if he tried to get a SSN so therefore he could not get the bennies to get out of the shelter. While I was there, on my last day when I began to wonder why I had done that to myself (in many ways a homeless shelter is worse than jail) he got a letter (in a place nobody gets letters). It was a bill for a heart exam that the shelter's health service had arranged he take. I explained what the old Jew already knew. That the national debt had usury and so therefore he was exempt. Holding the bill, I got in line for the phone. I phoned the hospital and the moment I explained that this Jew was exempt from the national debt, in those same words to the lady in billing, she said, "Oh, I don't think Dr. Goldstein is aware of the usury laws." - like the bill was a terrible mistake and she immediately zeroed out the balance. The hospital even called the shelter's health branch to make sure everyone understood the bill was a big mistake.
The way these people capitulated to Biblical monetary principles suggests to me that understanding the principles is the best way to apply them effectually.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 06:08:44
Message:
Greetings David:quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
OneIsraelite;
quote:
Can a stranger or foreigner (nakar/nokriy) be Lawfully held responsible for a government's debt, which by definition of the above words, is not their own?
That question deserves a much more thoughtful answer than I gave you this morning.
Let's presume the principles of law in the Holy Bible are sound to the point of metaphysical effect. Then an Israelite (even in spirit) would be exempt from the bankruptcy by 1940, seven years after 1933. Like that. There might be something to it but that is really hard to prove.
We thank you for the more thoughtful answer.
We're not so sure that it's "just" the principles of law found in the Set-Apart Scripture, though all True Law is based on it, or that there is anything "metaphysical" about it, considering Black's Law Dictionary definition of Stranger(s), which we have posted elsewhere on this forum.
We are also convinced that an Yisra'elite is, like an American for example, not a race issue any longer, and if you mean by "spirit" that it is a mental disposition, we agree. As Shaul/Paul puts it: "Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." It is all a mind game, for the fiction can exist nowhere else but in the mind.quote:
I think it is easier to say that the form of contract is more the voluntary nature in Roosevelt's New Deal. If you want to avoid culpability for the use of FRNs then evade the presumed bond inherent in the Birth Certificate entry and registration into commerce.
Agreed. As we have pointed out on other threads, the mere use of FRN's by a stranger to the contract, does not, in and of itself, represent high treason against our King. Only if one has stood surety for that "Birth Certificate entry and registration into commerce", and continues to carry it [they must needs be borne, because they cannot go], does it have ill effects on the user. It will of course, have ill effects on the citizens of their kingdom, but we being such a small number, the effects are negligible, I believe.
quote:
The way these people capitulated to Biblical monetary principles suggests to me that understanding the principles is the best way to apply them effectually.[Emphasis added]
Agreed, particularly the bolded and underlined part of your quote.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 08:14:02
Message:
How better to defeat a confidence game than to exude confidence?
Like the man in jail charged with counterfeiting. When I explained money and told him he should tell his attorney to ask, "How do you counterfeit counterfeit money?", the man stood up with a confident smile on his face and went directly to the attorney phone. Within two days he was told the district attorney had lost track of his computer equipment and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. I don't think the Treasury charges anyone for 'counterfeiting' since. The charge I hear is Forgery - duplicating the authority of the Federal Reserve seal.
Werner Maximilian loaned me a collection of four articles:
Honest Money - Part VIII: Final Summary & Conclusions by Douglas V. Gnazzo http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/gnazzo/2004/part8.html
Financial Sense Online - Market Wrap Up with Tony Allison http://www.financialsense.com/Market/allison/2004/1217.html
Peak Oil Economics & Money - What Underwrites our Dollar? by David Ford http://www.321gold.com/editorials/ford/ford122004.html
Economic Heroin
http://www.a1-guide-to-gold-investments.com/economic-heroin.html
Thanks again Vern.
Vern warned me that we both would see faults in perspective of the authors. And he was right. But by reading all four papers I feel I have a better grip on the pulse of the economy. Also the Tsunami will be putting a strain on life-sustaining resources very soon.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 08:26:45
Message:
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters of this forum:
Peace be unto the house.
I would like to go on the record as being sorry to see Source (Edward) excommunicated from this forum. Though at times, I feel that he may have been a bit misguided in his notions (but then who am I?), I have the utmost respect for anyone trying their best to come out of Babylon/Egypt, in whatever fashion the spirit has led them.
We being men and women, as opposed to children, I hated to see the name calling, the accusations and the bickering going on when there are more important issues to contend with and adversaries enough to go around without "creating" more.
And for the record, we do not use drugs or narcotics, but have known some brilliant and valiant brothers who do [herb only], and at least one of them claimed, rightfully or wrongfully, that marijuana was food for his "spirit" [mind]. It in no way, discernible to me, debilitated his thinking, in fact, he had studied law at Harvard University and was the first one to point out to me that the Set-Apart Scripture was a Book about Law and not about religion.
I too, was at one time, excommunicated from this forum for disagreeing with the elders, and I can honestly say that I never tried to be offensive to anyone; no name calling or inuendos (Robert-James is my witness to this truth). I survived it nicely, as I pray Edward will do also.
If I were an elder here, I would try to communicate with Source (Edward) once more and see if this all could be cleared up and him brought back into the fold, but clearly, I am not.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
- brother Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 09:00:14
Message:
You can read by my Posts that I saw it coming. I believe that narcotics could have kept Source from stating things objectively. He vehemently protected a subjective, faith-based argument and like I mentioned aside, I felt if he could focus on arguing fact, history and a reasonable application of the same in interpreting Scripture that our debate could have been productive reading.
I am pleased to see notice and grace applied in this manner. We read explicit and general warnings by Bondservant. These were later cleaned up as Bondservant maneuvered to salvage the thread from the bickering. But Source was on a mission and I do not think that will change soon. My hopes were lifted yesterday when I was convinced he changed his "Christian" agenda to "non-government". But that turned out to be Admin making the adjustment. I suspect it was a private conversation that sealed Source's excommunication from the forum.
There are Topics here I avoid (even reading) because I know I become 'know-it-all' and would detract from the enjoyment of freedom to express opinions freely. I am aware that my sensibilities about refraining from any attacks without a foundation are the only reason I have not been expelled myself and am sure I have had Admin considering it at least twice. I am the other side of the argument that got Source expelled and am aware of that. In the future readers may be careful that there is freedom to argue an issue with passion on this forum. Be careful that it is the issue you argue passionately. The issue got foggy around the marijuana because it is difficult to discern whether I was attacking substance abuse or Source.
I am also aware that marijuana is considered by many non-addictive. It was called a "mild euphoric". The use of a euphoric is an addiction. Protection of its use is proof to me that it is an addictive drug. And like I have said many times in the last week, I believe that marijuana's narcotic effect was swaying Source to see he had a mission to protect "Christian Authority" by whatever means necessary.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. My thanks to the Administration of ecclesia.org. If this were not such a high quality forum these incidents would be moot. People would just move on looking for what many find here.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 09:40:34
Message:
Greetings David:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
I am also aware that marijuana is considered by many non-addictive. It was called a "mild euphoric". The use of a euphoric is an addiction. Protection of its use is proof to me that it is an addictive drug. And like I have said many times in the last week, I believe that marijuana's narcotic effect was swaying Source to see he had a mission to protect "Christian Authority" by whatever means necessary. Even presenting contradictory and nonsensical arguments.
Without intending to defend marijuana use, it is my humble opinion, that it is not physically addictive as narcotics are, and it is not any more mentally addictive that one's favourite food. It is, as I understand it also, "mildly euphoric" but this, again, does not make it addictive, in my humble opinion. And "protection of its use" by the GOVERNMENT in no way proves that it is addictive; no offense intended. It is our humble opinon that SOMEONE stands to make millions, or perhaps more, by keeping these things "illegal".
Does marijuana effect one's thinking? I believe it does cause disjointed thought patterns, but then so does FREE(?) PUBLIC EDUCATION, and to a much more detrimental extent; so why does't their GOVERNMENT "protect its people from its use"?
The GOVERNMENT also said that LSD caused "chromosome damage" but in several subsequent private tests not one could validate what the GOVERNMENT sponsored studies had stated. Most of the testing of this substance, as we currently understand it, was done by the GOVERNMENT, on unknowing individuals (not to be construed as "persons"), in connection with its use as a possible mind control drug.
And, once more, for the record, we use nothing mentioned above...except, of course, our favourite food.
quote:
I believe that marijuana's narcotic effect was swaying Source to see he had a mission to protect "Christian Authority" by whatever means necessary.
First, "I believe", means it is but your opinion, and secondly, there are millions who have never used a drug or narcotic, that feel this exact way, including yourself as it seems you have stated here, so to opine that it from "marijuana's narcotic effect" may be a stretch, don't you think?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 09:57:42
Message:
And you are addicted to your favorite food.
My approach to law, and as you wisely point out "set-aside" Scriptural principles, is lofty idealism and assuming absolutes like the opening line of this Post. That is why I rub so many the wrong way. In telephone and face-to-face conversations I assure you, I behave quite normally and in acceptance of an imperfect world.
I attribute this approach to the successes and they are many, of the suitors I know - courts of competent jurisdiction in lieu of 'government' being bereft and bankrupt. I see no other way to deal with process than a presumption of mathematical precision.
That is why I argued the subjective presumptions in the original title and premise of this Topic with such passion. Subjective presumptions lead to those same kind of disjointed arguments that narcotics produce. People will argue midrash scriptural interpretation till they are blue-in-the-face. I have. And unless they are enjoying it, it is just a waste of time and health. [I remind you of my comment that Source probably became defiant with Admin in private. I do not think he was more than an annoyance on the face of the Posts. He had a right to make subjective faith-based arguments. But when his remarks became contentious and directed at me, Admin should not have to carefully delete Posts and try to clean up the mess so things are constructive reading instead of worthless bickering.]
The definitions of narcotics are subjective. So I will leave it being I have already said a lot more than I needed to.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 12:37:13
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings David:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
David Merrill wrote:
OneIsraelite;
Can a stranger or foreigner (nakar/nokriy) be Lawfully held responsible for a government's debt, which by definition of the above words, is not their own?
That question deserves a much more thoughtful answer than I gave you this morning...........
quote:
One-Israylite wrote:
We thank you for the more thoughtful answer.
We're not so sure that it's "just" the principles of law found in the Set-Apart Scripture, though all True Law is based on it, or that there is anything "metaphysical" about it, considering Black's Law Dictionary definition of Stranger(s), which we have posted elsewhere on this forum.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
There are 8 different Hebrew words that are interpreted into English as "stranger" or "strangers" by the translators of the King James Version of the Scriptures.
Which of the following coincide with the Black's Law Dictionary definition of Stranger(s)?
a. zuwr
b. ger
c. guwr
d. maguwr/magur
e. neker/noker
f. nekar
g. nokriy
h. towshab/toshab
i. none of the above
j. all of the above
quote:
One-Israylite wrote:
We are also convinced that an Yisra'elite is, like an American for example, not a race issue any longer, and if you mean by "spirit" that it is a mental disposition, we agree.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
We would point out that a Scriptural Law concerning strangers should be correctly interpreted and obeyed by us based on the intent at the time the Law was put into place...if we seek to obey that Law.
If a man's aim is to obey a decree of man that has either evolved from that original Scriptural Law or in some cases perverted that original Scriptural Law...then perhaps it is appropriate to use a different definition of stranger(s) in interpreting and obeying that decree of man.
It is in our opinion, however, inappropriate to use the phrase "not a race issue any longer" in the context of a discussion concerning organic Scriptural Law.
If this could be better discussed under another topic...or if it has been discussed...please direct us there.
1. Our purpose in this post is to try to determine if you have very specifically stated your position.
2. To attempt to allow readers to be aware of what the Scriptural Law actually states on this important area of Yahweh's Law for Israyl.
3. To point out that words are often redefined over time by the users of those words.....but that does not change the intent of the message of the original speaker or writer of those words.
quote:
Case in Point:
Thirty to forty years ago many who monitor this forum would have considered themselves gay-Christians. Now because of a change in word usage or for other reasons...most know they are not gay and as one can determine by the recent quotes herein many are thinking they may not be Christian either.
Defining of terms is very foundational in effective communication.
We thank you, Brother Robert, that you often help many of us in that regard on these pages. We appreciate that...please let us help one another to get the definitions correct in this important area also.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 13:22:55
Message:
Dear Marty;
I have never thoroughly toured the site. I redirect the question about this subject matter to Bondservant.
Otherwise lacking a Topic I say open one on that question about Black's definition. Which scriptural Hebrew word best fits into a law dictionary? Please convey your issues about antique and contemporary meanings.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 13:36:54
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
How better to defeat a confidence game than to exude confidence?
Like the man in jail charged with counterfeiting. When I explained money and told him he should tell his attorney to ask, "How do you counterfeit counterfeit money?", the man stood up with a confident smile on his face and went directly to the attorney phone. Within two days he was told the district attorney had lost track of his computer equipment and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. I don't think the Treasury charges anyone for 'counterfeiting' since. The charge I hear is Forgery - duplicating the authority of the Federal Reserve seal........
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
This may be off-point...but we found this interesting:
In the summer of 2001 we were observing a trial in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
The accused was charged with matters relating a non-negotiable sight draft. The government was erroneously alledging the accused had tried to negotiate the instrument as a U.S. TREASURY instrument.
Under cross-examination a mid-level secret service agent made a statement to this effect:
quote:
There is no standard to judge this instrument by...therefore it is not considered by us to be counterfeit it is rather considered a ficticious instrument.
The secret service agent stated on the witness stand that he did not know what "Non-negotiable" means.....
We wondered....could it actually be true that a man in his position does not know....or has he been coached to avoid answering that question...because to do so would be conducive to an acquital?
Best Regards,
Marty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 13:51:23
Message:
There is insight that the Secret Service was speaking for the Treasury. The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President and the White House - principal assets to the national debt. Actually Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury was calling the Southern chuch burnings terrorism. Not that he was wrong but what was the Secretary doing commenting on that?
So the Treasury/Secret Service would logically be protecting Cash Cows in general.
To your question; I suppose that arguing a sight draft was ludicrous to begin with. What would the Treasury really argue? Speculating:
"We at the Treasury are getting really, really nervous about people figuring out how we create the illusion of wealth and we would like to create bench legislation against any competition - especially little guys who think they can be private bankers. The Montana Freemen proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that while the little people can manage banking and UCC matters competently, they are simply miserable and rotten people!" ??
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Cornerstone Foundation
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 16:03:14
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
There is insight that the Secret Service was speaking for the Treasury. The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President and the White House - principal assets to the national debt. Actually Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury was calling the Southern church burnings terrorism. Not that he was wrong but what was the Secretary doing commenting on that?
So the Treasury/Secret Service would logically be protecting Cash Cows in general.
To your question; I suppose that arguing a sight draft was ludicrous to begin with. What would the Treasury really argue? Speculating:
"We at the Treasury are getting really, really nervous about people figuring out how we create the illusion of wealth and we would like to create bench legislation against any competition - especially little guys who think they can be private bankers. The Montana Freemen proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that while the little people can manage banking and UCC matters competently, they are simply miserable and rotten people!" ??
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
David,
It occurs to us that your speculation of what the esoteric attitude of the Secret Service and/or Treasury Department in the matter under discussion may have been may be quite accurate.
Some exerpts from the November 16, 1998 "Montana Freeman Trial" trial transcript that would support your specualtion are:
quote:
Mr. Peter Robinson attorney from Santa Rosa, California who was supposedly appearing on behalf of "freeman John P. McGuire" said in his final argument:
I want to talk to you about the truth, about what is true, and about the law, what's the law that you have to apply - not the common law -- Coughenour's law, (Coughenour's was a specially appointed "judge" that had been brought in to preside over this case and in our opinion to influence the outcome of the trial on behalf of his principals, i.e. those whom he serves) the instructions that you've been given. And that's what your job is. You seek the truth from the facts, and you apply it to the law.....
.....the government says, they had normal bank accounts, they should have known better. So I asked Mr. Stanton, Ebert Stanton, just because somebody had a bank account once or had a loan once, they would know that because of that Leroy Schweitzer's instruments were not valid? And he would say -- and he said, no I would have to agree with you.
Then they say, well, there were rejections and people were being arrested, and, therefore, because of that they were fraud -- they should have known these things were fraudulent.
And again, Ebert Stanton and other people who were there said, no, Leroy Schweitzer said we figured out their way of banking, and we are going to show that they are resisting but eventually these things are going to be accepted.....
.....something remarkable happened in this courtroom in this trial. The doors of our justice system opened a little bit, just a little bit, and let people who had been shunned by the system in. The Lyle Chamberlins, the Tom Koziols, the Edwin Clarks, and even for a few minutes, Hartford Van Dyke..
You'll be given the keys to the justice system later today, and don't let the government slam that door. Because today, it's the believers in common law courts that the government seeks to silence. Tomorrow it may believers in right to life or certain religions, or the right to bear arms.....
.....Now, why should you care? Because if the federal government extends it tentacles into Montana and plucks out those people that it finds undesirable, puts them in prison, then who knows who among us will be next?.....
....the truth is that the federal government has made a federal case out of this because they don't like the common law courts, the freeman beliefs. They want to squash these people like bugs..And in this trial they want you to do their dirty work.
The testimony of Walker Todd (whom we recall as being a retired financial instrument expert from the Federal Reserve Bank who at the time of testifying was a university professor) was also very revealing and supportive of David's "speculation" above. We have that portion of the transcript.
Best Regards,
Marty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 01 Jan 2005 17:58:32
Message:
Exactly. I was there about three weeks before Leroy Michael and Dan S. PETERSEN were captured. When Leroy was processing my Comptroller Warrant he started laughing when I named "International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service". I think he understood this was going to breakthrough barriers he had been facing.
For a while I had it figured out that the only way to process that Comptroller Warrant would have been to go back to the pre-Civil War monetary structure. I haven't thought about this for a long while.
I processed endorsement without citing the UCC. I just signed it and wrote "Without Recourse" below my signature on the back.
On a Tuesday afternoon (maybe Wednesday) a reporter and I went to the Post Office and I mailed it Registered to Ogden, with the rounddates on the Certificate of Mailing and all. That would have gotten to Utah probably by Friday. Leroy Michael and Dan were picked up Saturday morning when they went to the Post Office. That morning started the Freeman Standoff. I think the reporter was so freaked she declined to write about it anymore.
I always attributed properly naming the principal and not resorting to code that applied such pressure. But for sure, the feds were aching to raid the 'compound' about then anyway.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I had a photo for a while, maybe still do. There was a skull section of a Tyranosaurus Rex hanging above the door in the garage/classroom of the farmhouse. They found it on top of the hill near the house. I hear that would be worth a few million dollars right there properly excavated. Also I looked in a streambed a few miles from there and found dinosaur eggs. Gave them away. I still have one of those.
Reply author: True North
Replied on: 02 Jan 2005 15:18:02
Message:
I attended a drumming yesterday that was somewhat perplexing and so this rant. If you are not interested in viewing this muse which will directly or indirectly involve the subject matter of this thread then skip it.
Acts 2:34 "For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ".
Yeshua on the throne, a real time, present reality. This is fact (Law) which cannot be debated, effectively or maybe not at all, without discounting (some of) the writings in the book of Acts.
The next thought is subjective but notorious and with two or more witnesses, ... there have only been two in which the fullness of Yah indwelled ... 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit ... The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."
Colossians 1:19 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power."
Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
That is the lead in for discussion of my perplexity both of the drumming and the comments contained in this thread.
The drumming was an invite to unity and to provide an atmosphere to address problems. I was invited as an "outsider" to attend. I ordinarily avoid events that have a tendency to 'charis - mania' (from 5483 charizoma) but I see no way to remove my rationalizations of the metaphysical except to challenge them with events that are intended to do just that while promoting love.
My problem (and alignment to this thread) is the lack of the willingness to address the problems. The problem of addressing assumed authority (and resulting coercion by the same) by the available solution to that problem and IMHO posts to this thread that lead in an opposite direction to that solution.
quote:Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953, 2nd editition, 9th printing, (original copyright 1926) intellectual property used for educational purposes only.
"To name Voltaire," said Victor Hugo, "is to characterize the entire 18th century." 'Centenary address on Voltaire'.
Voltaire, (1694-1778), under the article on "Prophecy" in the Philosophic Dictionary quotes Rabbin Isaac's Bulwark of Faith against the application of Hebrew prophecies to Jesus, and then goes on ironically: "Thus these blind interpreters of their own religion and their own language, combated with the Church, and obstinately maintained that this prophecy cannot in any manner regard Jesus Christ."
Voltaire likes to trace Christian dogmas and rites to Greece, Egypt and India, and thinks that these adaptations were not the least cause of the success of Christianity in the ancient world. Under the article on "Religion" he asks, slyly, "After our own holy religion, which doubtless is the only good one, what religion would be the least objectionable?"
Quotes from page two;
quote:
However there is no mention of a supernatural rebirth, virgin birth etc. That all came from editing and from syncrotizing pagan beliefs.
quote:
I wish more folks would digest this key statement. The earliest pre-Nicea Church claims their beliefs are thousands of years old and not much different from the pagans they were debating with. This is what grew out of the Gospel of the uncircumcision and, in my opinion, Paul has done quite a job connectiong the two (or at least somebody writing in his name).
quote:It is perplexing to me, how great minds on these boards (from whom the ecclesia has greatly benefited) can quote almost word for word from a philosophy born in the 18th century and yet ignore the simplicity of the system of government resurrected in the first century C.E. This is illogical and downright disturbing to me.
To assume that ... (because) the books of the law (Torah) were not written down until the first millennium C.E. the law was not extant previous to the laws of Hammarabbi, Marduk or Annu is ignorance of the Semitic culture. It is also ignorance of the Semitic culture to decide that the fables of resurrection and virgin births extant in writings preceding the Christian era were used by Christians to explain the historicity of Yeshua HaNazarit.
Ignorance and deception designed and sold as logic foment the ideology of a Creator as the Source of Life and then at same time hold an ideology that the fables of resurrection and hero myths come from a history removed from that Source. Yes, there was the resurrection story of Egyptian antiquity and of the virgin Isis giving birth after being impregnated by the Sun god. The late Joseph Campbell correctly pointed out that almost all cultures have a three day death, burial and resurrection story.
This is not a personal attack nor is it a defense of any King or a defense of myths and fables. This rant is simply using the tactics that Voltaire resorted to when he could no longer sit back and watch religious men, (made in the image and likeness of HaShem), destroy others, (made in the same image and likeness), over ideology.
Don't believe me, check it out for yourself, ... Hisholychurch.net ... and then come back and challenge me on whether or not there is a notorious system of government resurrected on this earth.
TN
Reply author: Bondservant
Replied on: 02 Jan 2005 20:45:48
Message:
quote:I agree. Worldly philosophophical sound bites have no better credibilty than a fictional novel. Fantasy and unsound philosophy are of the same source. As Clara Peller said in the infamous TV commercial, "Where's the Beef?".
Originally posted by True North
It is perplexing to me, how great minds on these boards (from whom the ecclesia has greatly benefited) can quote almost word for word from a philosophy born in the 18th century and yet ignore the simplicity of the system of government resurrected in the first century C.E. This is illogical and downright disturbing to me.
Do we throw out the baby because the once warm bath water is now cold?
David, True North is not ranting.... he is simply opposing your statements and ideals. A "rant" is to speak or write in a angry or violent manner, yet True North has done no such thing.
Let's keep this all in perspective and call things for what they are... not what they are not.
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 02 Jan 2005 21:40:39
Message:
I am sorry. I transposed "muse" for "rant". To me, a rant is more like ventilating.
You are right.
Not only that. I did not read True North as opposing my statements and ideals. I used the wrong word and have removed the Post....
Now I see where the word popped into my mind:
quote:
It is perplexing to me, how great minds on these boards (from whom the ecclesia has greatly benefited) can quote almost word for word from a philosophy born in the 18th century and yet ignore the simplicity of the system of government resurrected in the first century C.E. This is illogical and downright disturbing to me.
This is not a personal attack nor is it a defense of any King or a defense of myths and fables. This rant is simply using the tactics that Voltaire resorted to when he could no longer sit back and watch religious men, (made in the image and likeness of HaShem), destroy others, (made in the same image and likeness), over ideology.
The meaning, or maybe just the perspective of these paragraphs escape me. I thought True North was referring to his Post as a "rant". I am not familiar with the philosophy of Voltaire.
Reply author: True North
Replied on: 03 Jan 2005 00:28:55
Message:
It's quite all right and my fault for misleading. Thanks to both bondservant and David for the clarifications. I sometimes miss the nuances I project without someone else's perspective as critic.
Voltaire could not stand the hypocrisy of the church's persecution and intolerance in light of new testament writings and used pen and paper to criticize the same.
TN
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 03 Jan 2005 07:43:15
Message:
I will read the Post again in proper context. Michael Edward (Bondservant) said:
Do we throw out the baby because the once warm bath water is now cold?
And hopefully I apply correctly the 'baby' to be the common comforting belief set that the God of Abraham brought forth the Messiah to be a spectacular demonstration of His supreme power. Restoring death with new life.
And so I opened "Original War by Propaganda" with what I believe to be the cold, hard faith-defying facts of history as though I know what I am talking about. To query and maybe even dispose of that very question?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 04 Apr 2005 00:55:59
Message:
VINDICIAE CONTRA TYRANNOS
From:
http://www.constitution.org/vct/vind.htm
Herod, fearing Christ, whose reign he should rather have desired, sought to put Him to death, as if He had affected a kingdom in this world, did himself miserably perish, and lost his kingdom. Julian the apostate, did cast off Christ Jesus to cleave unto the impiety and idolatry of the pagans: but within a small time after he fell to his confusion through the force of the arm of Christ, whom in mockery he called the Galilean. Ancient histories are replete with such examples, neither is there any want in those of these times. Of late years divers kings, drunk with the liquor which the whore of Babylon has presented unto them, have taken arms, and for the love of the wolf, and of Antichrist, have made war against the Lamb of God, who is Christ Jesus; and yet at this day some amongst them do continue in the same course. We have seen some of them ruined in the deed, and in the midst of their wickedness; others also carried from their triumphs to their graves. Those who survive and follow them in their courses have little reason to expect a better issue of their wicked practices: this sentence remains always most certain, "That though all the kings of the earth do conjure and conspire against Christ and endeavour to cut in pieces our Lamb, yet in the end they shall yield the place, and maugre their hearts, confess that this Lamb is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords."
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 15 May 2005 08:34:15
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Cornerstone Foundation
What are the implications of Exodus 30:30-33 in regard to who may partake of the substance Lawfully (i.e. according to Yahweh's Law)?
The term "LAWFUL AUTHORITY" was discussed in the following case in Australia in 1994. Note how the Judge avoids stating which LAW is referred to in his judgment! common law and statute law are both applicable.
HENRY JOHN TASMAN ROOK v LUCAS RICHARD MAYNARD (No 2) No. LCA 52/1994 Judgment No. A64/1994 Number of pages - 4 Evidence (1994) 123 ALR 677
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
ZEEMAN J
HRNG
HOBART, 28 July 1994
#DATE 10:8:1994
Section 76B(1) is concerned with data stored in Commonwealth omputers and data stored on behalf of the Commonwealth in other computers…….., person does not have authority to obtain access to computer data except With the permission of the Commonwealth. In Adelaide Corporation v Australasian Performing Rights Association Ltd (1928) 40 CLR 481 the High Court appears to have treated the words "authorise" and "permit" as synonymous. As Napier J pointed out, at 243, (Crafter v Kelly 1941 in England) the meaning of the word "lawful" must depend on the context in which the word is used.
9. Relying on those cases, counsel for the respondent adopted as part of his argument, the views as to the meaning of "lawful authority" expressed by Card, Authority and Excuse as Defences to Crime (1969) Crim LR 359. At 362 the learned author said:
"From the slender evidence provided by Dickens v Gill
and Crafter v Kelly it would appear that 'lawful
authority' means some authority from a public source
which is supported by law. This, it is submitted, is
the correct interpretation. Generally, the statutes
under discussion do not contain an interpretation of
'lawful authority' but their context would seem to
require an interpretation such as that advanced above.
The reason is that they are dealing with acts and
states of affairs which may be carried out lawfully
under the terms of the order of a court, an official
licence or administrative decision which has been
given pursuant to some statutory power or a power
afforded by delegated legislation. It is, presumably,
to such acts executed under statutory authorisation
that 'lawful authority' impliedly refers."
10. I do not accept that "lawful authority" is to be given such a restricted meaning. Such a restricted meaning is not supported by either of the cases relied upon. It may well be that in some cases the only form of lawful authority capable of existing is of the type referred to by Card but that does not mean that in all circumstances lawful authority is to be limited to authority of that type. The difficulties created by adopting such a construction become apparent when consideration is given to statutes which proscribe the doing of an act without lawful authority when such authority as might be capable of existing is incapable of being found in any public source.
An example of such a statute is that considered in R v Jura (1954) 1 QB 503. Whether lawful authority for the doing of an act is to be found in a public source depends upon the nature of the act and the nature of the authority which is capable of being provided for the doing of that act.
11. The learned magistrate took the view that Satterley v Palmer (1947) SASR 346 (which appears to be the only reported dealing with s15D) is authority for the proposition that lawful authority means something more than mere authority. It is important to note that the question which arises in the present case did not arise in that case because it concerned a breach of the Act, s30, an ingredient of which is that there has been a taking "without lawful authority". Contrary to the view which the learned magistrate appears to have taken and which was urged upon me by counsel for the respondent, in that case Mayo J did not seek to distinguish between "lawful authority" and "mere authority" but rather, at 350-351, sought to distinguish the general
authority of a driver of a Commonwealth vehicle to deliver Commonwealth goods with the specific authority to deliver particular goods to a particular place.
I have not found that case to be of any assistance.
The ingredient of the offence that the access is obtained "without authority" means that it is obtained without permission and, if it is obtained without permission, it is obtained without lawful authority.
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 15 May 2005 11:16:29
Message:
Hello Uncle Buck;
I may be astray in my associating your Post to Government Statutes don't apply. But I think I see the link. Common law is what it is... that is to say it is what is. When posive law jural society comes together in agreement (general assembly) then we find lawful authority. But under the penumbra of bankruptcy and presumed forfeiture, we should discover the inherent right of avoidance. One does not have to be in that METRO/City of XXXX club - regardless of what the municipal home rule policeman thinks.
You said:
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
I appreciate the genius in tying this passage to that statement. I would like to say it to a policeman sometime, just after he or she has decided (judgment) that I am in the City of Colorado Springs, regardless of my testimony otherwise.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 16 May 2005 18:53:32
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Hello Uncle Buck;
I may be astray in my associating your Post to Government Statutes don't apply. But I think I see the link. Common law is what it is... that is to say it is what is. When posive law jural society comes together in agreement (general assembly) then we find lawful authority. But under the penumbra of bankruptcy and presumed forfeiture, we should discover the inherent right of avoidance. One does not have to be in that METRO/City of XXXX club - regardless of what the municipal home rule policeman thinks.
You said:
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
I appreciate the genius in tying this passage to that statement. I would like to say it to a policeman sometime, just after he or she has decided (judgment) that I am in the City of Colorado Springs, regardless of my testimony otherwise.
Regards,
David Merrill.
G'day David,
Your inference is correct. I can either pretend to be a Fiction of Law as a 'PERSON' voluntarily subject to STATUTES (or a STATE SLAVE and political society jurisdiction); or I choose to remain a flesh and blood man retaining all authority and power delegated from the Creator ie. common law jurisdiction for external matters and Divine Law for internal matters that hopefully bear the fruit externally. That freedom to choose is the one thing no man or government can steal from me.
A government statute does not apply unless I have broken a PUBLIC law against one of the political society PERSONS. I believe I could even then challenge in personam and venue jurisdiction and elect to be prosecuted by trial by jury (determining fact and law as opposed to trial by judge alone or trail by judge and jury.) at common law as there would be an injured party to prosecute me rather than a fiction, like Harvey the Invisible Rabbit, as the alleged injured party.
'Lawful authority' is not only statutory law that provides the authority. It is also common law or Divine Law that provides authority. A delegated authority is mere permission.
As for your kind comments re 'genius' - let's keep it in perspective my friend, perhaps I was simply twisting Joan Rivers quote/joke [blue]"why can't you be like cousin Johnny, why can't you be like cousin Johnny?"[/blue] Cousin Johnny died at birth!!! boom boom.
When I was a policeman I would have laughed at Joan Rivers but missed the deeper spiritual-political-jurisdictional meaning!
1 Cor 8:9
(Literal Translation of the Bible by Jay P. Green) But be careful lest this authority of yours become a cause of stumbling to the weak ones.
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 16 May 2005 19:43:23
Message:
I think there is a lot of misdirection and misconception about common law. It is simply what is... regardless of de facto or de jure. My cousin's wife was about two years into law school. At a family gathering we were talking about common law and she said point blank, "All common law is is case law." Then it hit me. Within a certain scope, a two-year law student would accurately perceive things that way. The common law is argued by stare decisis. That is how it comes into existence, by arguing it and the winning party effects and builds the common law with a new case cite for subsequent litigators to utilize.
This is a much better and stronger model. Common law is what is. The only question begged is how competent is the body of cases? Then we can start viewing jurisdiction in terms of War Powers (1933) and Erie Doctrine (1938).
For example, this Verified Statement of Right got the funds restored with letters of apology:
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 2
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 17 May 2005 23:04:11
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
I think there is a lot of misdirection and misconception about common law. It is simply what is... regardless of de facto or de jure. My cousin's wife was about two years into law school. At a family gathering we were talking about common law and she said point blank, "All common law is is case law." Then it hit me. Within a certain scope, a two-year law student would accurately perceive things that way. The common law is argued by stare decisis. That is how it comes into existence, by arguing it and the winning party effects and builds the common law with a new case cite for subsequent litigators to utilize.
This is a much better and stronger model. Common law is what is. The only question begged is how competent is the body of cases? Then we can start viewing jurisdiction in terms of War Powers (1933) and Erie Doctrine (1938).
For example, this Verified Statement of Right got the funds restored with letters of apology:
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 2
Regards,
David Merrill.
Bless this house and all who enter!
G'day David,
In response to ALL COMMON LAW IS CASE LAW - that is logically incorrect. Certainly Case Law is judge made law. Common Law also includes custom and Canon Law. However,
What jurisdiction are we in? Common to whom? Church, ecclesia, State, community....?
Law must be based on legitimate authority then power. Authority is determined by freedom of choice. Retain it or delegate it away.
Does one volunteer into a political society? Is it a big country club? Are the rules the constitution, the directors the legislative government, the employees the administrative/executive branch, the Disciplinary board the judiciary? Are the people the members of the club - voluntary joined or coerced into that club? Whats so special about that country club? If I don't want to join it maybe I can join another one in a different territory? Hey, Why can't I start my own one in the same geographical territory! Then we shall have two country clubs from which to choose! Its all in the mind - a state of mind. I reckon you Americans almost got it right - there is a true separation between church and state in terms of body politic, body corporate, state. In Australia the churches have also sold their souls to the STATE by incorporating into a statutory legal system. What if they had remained free and exercised their God-given authority not to join the country club!
The word country is usually defined as: “The portion of earth’s surface occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory.” In Bouvier’s: “By country is meant the state of which one is a member.”
STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.
STATE, condition of persons. This word has various acceptations. If we inquire into its origin, it will be found to come from the Latin status, which is derived from the verb stare, sto, whence has been made statio, which signifies the place where a person is located, stat, to fulfil the obligations which are imposed upon him.
2. State is that quality which belongs to a person in society, and which secures to, and imposes upon him different rights and duties in consequence of the difference of that quality.
3. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality, yet there are among them marked differences. It is from nature that come the distinctions of the sexes, fathers and children, of age and youth, &c.
4. The civil or municipal laws of each people, have added to these natural qualities, distinctions which are purely civil and arbitrary, founded on the manners of the people, or in the will of the legislature. Such are the differences, which these laws have established between citizens and aliens, between magistrates and subjects, and between freemen and slaves; and those which exist in some countries between nobles and plebeians, which differences are either unknown or contrary to natural law.
5. Although these latter distinctions are more particularly subject to the civil or municipal law, because to it they owe their origin, it nevertheless extends its authority over the natural qualities, not to destroy or to weaken them, but to confirm them and to render them more inviolable by positive rules and by certain maxims. This union of the civil or municipal and natural law, form among men a third species of differences which may be called mixed, because they participate of both, and derive their principles from nature and the perfection of the law; for example, infancy or the privileges which belong to it, have their foundation in natural law; but the age and the term of these prerogatives are determined by the civil or municipal law.
6. Three sorts of different qualities which form the state or condition of men may then be distinguished: those which are purely natural, those purely civil, and those which are composed of the natural and civil or municipal law. Vide 3 Bl. Com. 396; 1 Toull. n. 170, 171; Civil State.
PAIS, or PAYS. A French word signifying country. In law, matter in pais is matter of fact in opposition to matter of record: a trial per pais, is a trial by the country, that is, by a jury.
POLITICAL. Pertaining to policy, or the administration of the government. Political rights are those which may be exercised in the formation or administration of the government they are distinguished from civil, rights, which are the rights which a man enjoys, as regards other individuals, and not in relation to the government. A political corporation is one which has principally for its object the administration of the government, or to which the powers of government, or a part of such powers, have been delegated. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 182, 197, 198.
BODY. A person.
2. In practice, when the sheriff returns cepi corpus to a capias, the plaintiff may obtain a rule, before special bail has been entered, to bring in the body and this must be done either by committing the defendant or entering special bail.
BODY POLITIC, government, corporations. When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.
2. As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually they are citizens, when considered in relation to their political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of the state.
3. When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person.
David, you certainly know how to stimulate debate! You are a chanmpion!
Regards
Rick
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 18 May 2005 00:07:23
Message:
Nope. She was right.
quote:
In response to ALL COMMON LAW IS CASE LAW - that is logically incorrect. Certainly Case Law is judge made law. Common Law also includes custom and Canon Law.
Judges are not legislators.
Instead of an enacting clause, every bill since 1933 has a trailer, a statement of necessity by the general assembly. Therefore none of these bills ever get passed into law. So there is no legislature there either. So you have a good point there.
For example: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2005a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/C6D3343F14EC755A87256F5D007858C1?
quote:
27 SECTION 7. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
-5- HB05-1014
1 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
2 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.
Here's my point. This is the way it is. Therefore it is common law. The way it is. Common law is what is.
Therefore a court of competent jurisdiction, a judge in the common law must prove it with a judgment. That is the definition of suitor. I think I understand what you are saying and it is a dysfunctional model of common law.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Here is an example. James Harlan AYERS, now deceased was in traffic court at about the age of 90 and tendered a motion to the court fashioned from The Authority of Law by Charles Weisman. The motion pointed out the lack of any enacting clause on the charge of speeding. The magistrate "judge" came back after a 20 minute recess and said quite plainly, "This court has no subject matter jurisdiction." After a moment he added, "Did you understand what I just said?" Jim got confused and started arguing some backup Plan B about the Constitution and was subsequently convicted. Common law. Jim should have just left the courthouse. Why hang around to get convicted in a courtroom without jurisdiction? People do it all the time. It is what is; common law.
In hindsight Jim appealed but the transcript had a squealing sound on the audiotape at that particular point in the proceeding. So if you want a court of record (common law), hire your own reporter.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 18 May 2005 00:45:38
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Nope. She was right.quote:
In response to ALL COMMON LAW IS CASE LAW - that is logically incorrect. Certainly Case Law is judge made law. Common Law also includes custom and Canon Law.
Judges are not legislators.
Instead of an enacting clause, every bill since 1933 has a trailer, a statement of necessity by the general assembly. Therefore none of these bills ever get passed into law. So there is no legislature there either. So you have a good point there.
Here's my point. This is the way it is. Therefore it is common law. The way it is. Common law is what is.
Therefore a court of competent jurisdiction, a judge in the common law must prove it with a judgment. That is the definition of suitor. I think I understand what you are saying and it is a dysfunctional model of common law.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Here is an example. James Harlan AYERS, now deceased was in traffic court at about the age of 90 and tendered a motion to the court fashioned from The Authority of Law by Charles Weisman.
The motion pointed out the lack of any enacting clause on the charge of speeding. The magistrate "judge" came back after a 20 minute recess and said quite plainly, "This court has no subject matter jurisdiction." After a moment he added, "Did you understand what I just said?" Jim got confused and started arguing some backup Plan B about the Constitution and was subsequently convicted. Common law. Jim should have just left the courthouse. Why hang around to get convicted in a courtroom without jurisdiction? People do it all the time. It is what is; common law.
In hindsight Jim appealed but the transcript had a squealing sound on the audiotape at that particular point in the proceeding. So if you want a court of record (common law), hire your own reporter.
Gd'ay David,
Judges find the law they do not make it - therefore they are not legislators. I agree. My exception was to your use of the word ALL in your statement.
Your example is very interesting. Firstly, you are 100% correct in relation to the traffic matter having to be pleaded - I believe it is PRIVATE LAW not PUBLIC LAW and has to be pleaded in a civil jurisdiction. Just like a private complaint for injury or damages between individuals or for breach of contract etc...
Simply stated:-
(1) a complaint made to a justice of the peace is generally not sworn on oath, however, if it is it had better be by the person who can swear to a material particular for the summons to be issued. the summons was issued commanding his attendance. he came he saw but he forgot to KONKA.
(2) the defendant turned up and gave the court jurisdiction by arguing anything but 'no jurisdiction'. The court may have been advised that he defendant was objecting to the presumption of the validity of the sworn complaint which in fact was inadmissible?? It would be a false statement which would mislead the court and the court was put on notice to that effect?
(3) the defendant then entered a plea of not guilty I presume instead of requesting the matter be dismissed as there was no sworn evidence before the court by the prosecution ie: material fact for the court to obtain jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause of action - where was the sworn complaint conferring jurisdiction on the Judge/Magistrate to enable him to have subject matter or in personam jurisdicton?
(4) the defendant then tried to argue no jurisdiction which unfortunately is covered by the doctrine of estoppel of matter in pais.
Meaning of Estoppel. Estoppel is a substantive rule of law. there is said to be an estoppel where a party is not allowed to say that a certain statement of fact is untrue, whether in reality it is true or not.
Estoppel by matter in pais.
Where one has either by words or conduct made to another a representation of fact, either with knowledge of its falsehood or with the intention tht it should be acted upon, or has so conducted himself that another would, as a reasonable man, understand that a certain representation of fact was intended to be acted upon, and that the other has acted on the representation and thereby altered his postion to his prejudice, an estoppel arises against the party who made the representation, and he is not allowed to aver that the fact is otherwise than he represented it to be.
Conduct includes negligence. This, also, can only give rise to an estoppel where there is a duty to the person complaining to use due care; and it is further necessary that the neglect should be in the transaction itself which is in dispute, calculated to lead, and in fact leading, as its real cause to the belief created.
The common law principle which puts a man to his election between alternative inconsistent courses of conduct has no connexion with the equitable doctrine of election and relates mainly, though not exclusively, to alternative remedies in a court of justice. [Young v . Bristol Aeroplane Co., Ltd., 1946 - An election if it is to be binding, must be clearly and unequivocally made.]
Does that doctrine of estoppel include waltzing into court on the invitation of an unsworn complaint and summons an failing to object to the magistrates jurisdiction? I think so, in spite of the failure to make a binding election that must be clearly and unequivocally made. Always uninformed consent or conduct is used to trick men into jurisdiction of the local administrative courts. The other trick is using a servant of the court also known as a solicitor or lawyer!
Regards
Rick
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 18 May 2005 08:10:19
Message:
Then I think I understand you correctly. But so often I debate misconstructions and misconceptions I have myself had in the past. Naturally I catagorize what you say, accurately as I can into them.
The misdirection I believe you to have fallen into is that there are subcatagories of law; one of which is called "common law". Your above retort reinforces my belief about how you believe but it also shows a stepping stone that you may get my point - which I believe is correct.
Simply put, common law is "what is". Jim plead argument into an non-existent jurisdiction and cured it in doing so. Therefore he was convicted by a "judge" who had already admitted he had no subject matter jurisdiction because Jim had broken no law. How could that happen in any other realm than common law? Jim's perception and our perceptions cause common law through stare decisis. Common law is what we perceive exists.
Likewise if I convince attorneys pretending to be judges about history and fact without pleading or even appearing (Rule E(8)) then fine. The abatement sticks and I enter judgment in common law. Completely separate from that other incompetent court and jurisdiction. I do it in common law, with the county clerk typically but often using the US Courthouse for conduit informing and notifying foreign agents in admiralty:
quote:
"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741. (emphasis added)
Compartmentalizing out the common law and proceeding to argue it is privatizing it. Like "Christian Common Law" or "Justus" instead of "Justice" Township. That conversely become imposing the ways of your jural society upon another.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 18 May 2005 09:30:10
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
........Simply put, common law is "what is". Jim plead argument into an non-existent jurisdiction and cured it in doing so. Therefore he was convicted by a "judge" who had already admitted he had no subject matter jurisdiction because Jim had broken no law. How could that happen in any other realm than common law? Jim's perception and our perceptions cause common law through stare decisis. Common law is what we perceive exists.......
Regards,
David Merrill.
G'day David,
You may be right my friend. My truth is that Divine Law is God's Law and anything else is compartmentalised under that TRUTH. You correctly infer that from my theological position. GO GOD!
What is - IS. That is a priori statement. Now the Positivists would claim that is black letter law - avoid morality stick to authorised legislative 'law making'. The positivists claim law is what legislation is and common law is what it law/morality ought to be.
You also suggest that common law is 'what we perceive exists'.
1. Statute law is reality ie. What is - IS man's legislation or black letter law: relegates common law to a fiction.
2. Common law is reality - What is -IS man in a natural law state: relegates Statute law to a fiction.
3. Perception is reality - but whose perception?
4. Reality is perception?
You a gambler David? You having an each way bet on what is? haha
As for pleading into a non-existant jurisdiction? The jurisdiction did exist (for fictions) but did it have authority over Jim the man? NO but Yes by consent, acquiesence or negligence on his behalf clothing himself with the colour of fictional law so they could recognise him as an artificial/natural person subject to their jurisdiction.
thanks for sharing David - you are helping to clarify my private rantings in public.
Kindest Regards
Rick
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 18 May 2005 15:05:10
Message:
quote:
1. Statute law is reality ie. What is - IS man's legislation or black letter law: relegates common law to a fiction.
2. Common law is reality - What is -IS man in a natural law state: relegates Statute law to a fiction.
That is the fallacy.
The statute law is and is therefore common law. When you inquire of a black robed attorney why you have no access to the common law, he will answer, "This court of law is based in common law." He is telling the truth.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 18 May 2005 17:55:38
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrillquote:
1. Statute law is reality ie. What is - IS man's legislation or black letter law: relegates common law to a fiction.
2. Common law is reality - What is -IS man in a natural law state: relegates Statute law to a fiction.
That is the fallacy.
The statute law is and is therefore common law. When you inquire of a black robed attorney why you have no access to the common law, he will answer, "This court of law is based in common law." He is telling the truth.
Regards,
David Merrill.
G'day David,
Are you simply suggesting that WHAT IS LAW is what you perceive to be your law? or do you go to the next step and declare that common law is the law and statute law is a quasi-contract law based on your consent with another party ie. the State?
If so - I agree. I do believe that the private 'statute' law is applicable to those members or citizens of a political society who elect to be bound by the legislation as defined as a natural-person.
Statute law is codified common law with new rights and obligations.
You cannot compel a non-citizen of a political society to be forced into obedience to a statutory created right or obligation they do not want. They have the right to contract at common law. Regarding your earlier post - AVOIDANCE IS THE SOLUTION! Avoid the political society like the plague, don't fight it. Stick to the principles in Divine Law, common law, contract law.
Regards
Rick
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 18 May 2005 19:41:54
Message:
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
I understand now because I used to privatize common law too. You say that in traversal. I will not be spending any more time on it.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 19 May 2005 03:33:52
Message:
David raised some very pertinent points on common law - it is what is!
He wrote that his cousin, a 3nd year law student at the time, stated that common law is 'CASE LAW'.
The folowing is from the website:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-05
The idea of precedent is not restricted to the citation
of authority within a single jurisdiction or nation-state.
Systems sharing the same jurisprudential origins—e.g.,
the Napoleonic Code or the English Common law—
may invoke each other's precedents; and there is au-
thority in the United States and the Netherlands for
the courts' adopting a “harmonizing construction” of
domestic law by using comparative techniques to as-
certain the solutions to a particular social problem of
foreign legal systems of various types. Moreover, deci-
sions of international courts and tribunals have persua-
sive authority in public international law and the Stat-
ute of the International Court of Justice (article 38)
accepts national judicial decisions as a subsidiary source
of law.
In sum, legal precedent in its conservative and crea-
tive aspects is encountered in all legal systems, though
in different forms. It has been said: “Tradition and
Conscience are the two wings given to the human soul
to reach the truth” (T. M. Taylor, Speaking to Gradu-
ates, Edinburgh, 1965). Both are implicit in legal prec-
edent. The judicial function is not or should not be
that of an animated index to the law reports, nor is
justice by computer a tolerable thought, however
helpful computers may prove to be in tracking avail-
able authority. Julius Stone, who has written exten-
sively on all aspects of precedent, echoes in that con-
tent the injunction of the father of cybernetics, Nor-
bert Wiener, “Render unto man what is man's, and
unto the machine only that which is the machine's.”
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 19 May 2005 08:52:19
Message:
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
The purpose of your disclaimer is befuddling. You have traversed here from the Christian Common Law. Unlike the English Common Law, the Christian Common Law is confined to little pockets of elitists. The English Common Law was at least adopted for the Territory of Colorado [which had never cured] in late 1861.
After the Bill of Rights ending with the de jure 13th Amendment, the final page of this document is the adoption of the Common Law of England. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_13th_Amendment_hanging_in_clerk's_office.jpg It is so often requested by people reading here (719) 520-6200 that it is the only document taped up for quick reference at my clerk's cubicle.
quote:
He stated it is CASE LAW.
Fair enough that you would put that in my mouth. But it is not true. What I said was that my cousin, a two year law student at a family reunion said that. I agree that it is a valid perspective for her. To view common law as the utility to argue it - stare decisis, case law. But it fits you in traversal to distort that to be my point of view for the sake of argument. So please do not tell the readers what I think in the future. Like I said I do not wish to put any more time into this debate. You do not make the disclaimer when you write on christiancommonlaw.org. So I understand the nature of your traversal.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 19 May 2005 18:03:05
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrillquote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
The purpose of your disclaimer is befuddling. You have traversed here from the Christian Common Law. Unlike the English Common Law, the Christian Common Law is confined to little pockets of elitists. The English Common Law was at least adopted for the Territory of Colorado [which had never cured] in late 1861.
After the Bill of Rights ending with the de jure 13th Amendment, the final page of this document is the adoption of the Common Law of England. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_13th_Amendment_hanging_in_clerk's_office.jpg It is so often requested by people reading here (719) 520-6200 that it is the only document taped up for quick reference at my clerk's cubicle.quote:
He stated it is CASE LAW.
Fair enough that you would put that in my mouth. But it is not true. What I said was that my cousin, a two year law student at a family reunion said that. I agree that it is a valid perspective for her. To view common law as the utility to argue it - stare decisis, case law. But it fits you in traversal to distort that to be my point of view for the sake of argument. So please do not tell the readers what I think in the future. Like I said I do not wish to put any more time into this debate. You do not make the disclaimer when you write on christiancommonlaw.org. So I understand the nature of your traversal.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Apologies David,
Thankyou for correcting me - I have corrected the previous post and updated the signature on the other forum (that was an oversight). For the ecclesia's edification I provide a definition of traverse from Bouvier's Law dictionary and a comment on stare decisisAs for the him it is lower case only!
TRAVERSE, pleading. This term, from the French traverser, signifies to deny or controvert anything which is alleged in the declaration, plea, replication or other pleadings; Lawes' Civ. Plead. 116, 117 there is no real distinction between traverses and denials, they are the same in substance.
Willes. R. 224. however, a traverse, in the strict technical meaning, and more ordinary acceptation of the term, signifies a direct denial in formal words, "without this that," &c. Summary of Pleadings, 75; 1 Chit. Pl. 576, n. a.
2. All issues are traverses, although all traverses cannot be said to be issues, and the difference is this; issues are where one or more facts are affirmed on one side, and directly and merely denied on the other; but special traverses are where the matter asserted by one party is not directly and merely denied or put in issue. by the other, but he alleges some new matter or distinction inconsistent with what is previously stated, and then distinctly excludes the previous statement of his adversary. The new matter so alleged is called the inducement to the traverse, and the exclusion of the previous statement, the traverse itself. Lawes' Civ. Pl. 117. See, in general, 20 Vin. Abr. 339; Com. Dig. Pleader, G; Bac. Abr. Pleas, H; Yelv. R. 147, 8; 1 Saund. 22, n. 2; Gould. on Pl. ell. 7 Bouv. Inst. Index, n. t.
3. A traverse upon a traverse is one growing out of the same point, or subject matter, as is embraced in a preceding traverse on the other side. Gould on Pl. ch. 7, Sec. 42, n. It is a general rule, that a traverse, well tendered on one side, must be accepted on the other. And hence it follows, as a general rule, that there cannot be a traverse upon a traverse, if the, first traverse is material. The meaning of the rule is, that when one party has tendered a material traverse, the other cannot leave it and tender another of his own to the same point upon the inducement of the first traverse, but must join in that first tendered; otherwise the parties might alternately tender traverses to each other, in unlimited succession, without coming to an issue. Gould on Pl. ch. 7, Sec. 42.
4. In cases where the first traverse is immaterial, there may be a traverse upon a traverse. Id. ch. 7, Sec. 43. And where the plaintiff might be ousted of some right or liberty the law allows him, there may be a traverse upon a traverse, although the first traverse include what is material. Poph. 101; Mo. 350; Com. Dig. Pleader, G 18; Bac. Abr. Pleas, H 4; Hob. 104, marg.; Cro. Eliz. 99, 418; Gould on Pl. ch. 7, 44.
5. Traverses may be divided into general traverses, (q.v.) and special traverses. (q.v.) There is a third kind called a common traverse. (q.v.)
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/LawCom.htm#StareDecisis
Stare Decisis:-
This idea, as expressed by Bagehot, is picked up in the law as it exists today. When a court decides a case it does so on the merits of the case before it. The court's decision is meant to only effect the rights of the parties, the litigants, before it. The court, however, is obliged to apply settled principles of law. The decision of any respected court amounts to a recap of the law needed to resolve the case before it. The law as it is used in the particular case has a universal applicability to all future cases embracing similar facts, and involving the same or analogous principles. These decisions, many being years and years old, thus became statements of law, to be applied by all courts when measuring the private and public rights of citizens. It is this stream of cases, within the arc of the great pendulum of time, which changes the banks of the law: the common law, thus, as it turns out, is a living, creeping, creature.
Do not, however, be mistaken - there, is, a conscious effort by those involved (lawyers and judges) to keep the law pure: not to change it, but to apply it. This principle is called stare decisis, Latin, which literally translated means, "stand by things decided." Stare decisis has come to us as a most sacred rule of law. A judge is to apply the law as it is presented to him through the previous decisions of the court; it is not the judge's function to make or remake the law that is the function of the legislature.4 However, judges do make law even though they try not to; indeed it is their function, under a system of common law, to do so; but not consciously and only over the course of time, many years, as numerous similar cases are heard and decided. The common law has been and is built up like pearls in an oyster, slowly and always in response to some small personal aggravation, infinitesimal layer after infinitesimal layer. It is built up upon the adjudications of courts:
"... built up as it has been by the long continued and arduous labors, grown venerable with years, and interwoven as it has become with the interests, the habits, and the opinions of the people. [Without the common law a court would] in each recurring case, have to enter upon its examination and decision as if all were new, without any aid from the experience of the past, or the benefit of any established principle or settled law. Each case with its decision being thus limited as law to itself alone, would in turn pass away and be forgotten, leaving behind it no record of principle established, or light to guide, or rule to govern the future." (Hanford v. Archer, 4 Hill, 321.)
Tyrants can only get a hold of a central system where the rules issue from a single authority (government); tyrants cannot get a hold of a system which depends on a spontaneous participation in the law-making process on the part of each and all of the inhabitants of a country, viz., a system of common law.
_______________________________
[UP]
NOTES:
1 Natural Law and Legislation I treat as separate species.
2 A Collection of Arguments and Speeches by Eminent Lawyers (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1882).
3 A trick that some of us up here have learned is this, one listens to the weather that Boston is receiving today and that's likely the weather Halifax will get tomorrow.
4 The legislature's function, notwithstanding the typical politician's view of it, is limited to the making of laws which come fully within the framework as set up by the constitution of the country; which, in Canada, is rooted in common law.
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 19 May 2005 18:17:45
Message:
If I have to be like him (Joe Bloggs) (at common law or statute law or in anyones opinion) then who is going to be like ME?
James 1:25
But he who looks into the perfect law of freedom, and continues, not being a hearer who forgets, but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does. WEB
But he that looketh into the perfect law, the 'law' of liberty, and 'so' continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing. ASV
But he who goes on looking into the true law which makes him free, being not a hearer without memory but a doer putting it into effect, this man will have a blessing on his acts. BBE
But he that fixes his view on the perfect law, that of liberty, and abides in it, being not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, he shall be blessed in his doing. DBY
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. KJV
But he who looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth in it, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. WBS
But he who looks closely into the perfect Law--the Law of freedom--and continues looking, he, being not a hearer who forgets, but an obedient doer, will as the result of his obedience be blessed. WEY
and he who did look into the perfect law -- that of liberty, and did continue there, this one -- not a forgetful hearer becoming, but a doer of work -- this one shall be happy in his doing. YLT
I HAVE to be like HIM.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 19 May 2005 19:02:24
Message:
Thanks for clarifying that. I was construeing you to be a proponent of Christian Common Law. Therefore the insistance that common law is distinguished from statutory law. I have even debated with folks who say that the admiralty or UCC is not common law.
I used to try models like that. They lead to folly.
Here is an example of common law. It is called Workman's Compensation Insurance. But it is common law within its own scope only. When you are signing up it clearly tells you that you are relenquishing common law rights; that you are entering into a private agreement.
Another example is so many contracts today agree exclusively to "arbitration" of any disagreements by an arbitrator established by the opposing party (insurance company etc.). You have gone into a privatized common law - like Christian Common Law. Or English Common Law in the case of the (uncured) Territory of Colorado.
It gets a little frustrating to get this point across. That is why the Continental Congress left it at "...where the common law is competent to give it [remedy]". I recall getting into a squabble on this Topic with Source, its author. That was before the name was changed from something like, "Proof their laws do not apply to Christians". I clarified that Christianity has nothing to do with it. It is this perfect law of liberty, walking in it and doing the work. That is where you get remedy cured properly. And in doing so you can help people around you too. If they have ears to hear and are willing to do instead of just hear.
I suppose the crux of the matter is really forum shopping. For a long time I thought admiralty was the only forum but it turns out by the State of Colorado constitution the district courts are courts of record too.
The two or three writing members on christaincommonlaw.org adhere to the Justus precepts of the Montana Freemen and believe in righteously imposing the principals of that privatized common law on others. I think the natural flopping of the website as a world court system made Charles very sour on any opposing views but he became very nasty toward people here. So when I saw you were signing off without your question, I presumed it a traversal, an evasion of culpability while only visiting this site. Ergo the presumption you would argue the validity of Christian Common Law ad nauseum.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 19 May 2005 19:35:19
Message:
It is finished!
Walk into a statutory court quoting only the bible could get you hung, shot or crucified. The 'key' for me was understanding God's law as revealed in the bible. My conscience cannot be my guide unless it is taught the truth.
1. Read history
2. Read the bible
3. Read JURISPRUDENCE - positive law of a political society based on biblical principles.
4. Avoid accepting new rights and obligations created by statutes
5. learn Remedies - INJUNCTION - Quo Warranto
6. understand AUTHORITY and POWER
7. Read Contract Law principles
8. Document records
9. Learn how to prosecute public officials for criminal offences or misfeasance in public office.
10. Understand your State and Federal CONstitutions.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 07 Aug 2005 05:34:48
Message:
Greetings gang!
re: 1 Peter 2:13.
I can find no satisfactory word translation for SAKE in this passage in Strong's concordance or Vines. In fact it is basically omitted from both books. Nor can I find a consistent interpretation of it in the Darby 1884 (3rd Edition) New Testament or any other bible including NKJV.
The verse 1 Peter 2:13 is relied upon by secular 'authorities' for biblical sanction to punish Christians as evildoers if we do not obey every ordinance of man (legislation)? If Christians are to live as free and therefore not under the authority of a secular power then perhaps it means if you witness a murder you are to submit yourself to the secular authorities in their court (building - institution) to assist in affirming the Commandments against evildoers?
I would like to know if anyone has looked at the word in the context of FOR THE LORD'S SAKE as for the Lord's CAUSE in a legal sense? rather than a desire or emotional context.
The phrase 'for the Lord's sake' I believe is generally translated to refer to some passive desire rather than the doing of something towards the end purpose of Christianity.
If the phrase is a cause and effect statement - particularly in a legal sense - then wouldn't the secular legislation if it conformed to God's purpose fit the context of obedience (not consent) to every ordinance of man?
What are these ordinances anyway? a creature, a creation, a building, an institution, or legislation.... ? Why is it used as ordinance only in this verse rather than creation or building?
I did a brief check on other words similar to ORDINANCE such as MAKE, DO, CAUSE. These all fit the context of sake fitting the context of obeying an ordinance for the Lord's purpose or cause - if it is a Godly ordinance then it would be followed anyway.
Needless to say, 1 Peter 2:13 does not sit well with Acts 5:29.
Most commentaries focus on every ordinance whereas I am looking at the context of SAKE as CAUSE changing the emphasis.
Comments welcome.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 07 Aug 2005 08:59:08
Message:
Greetings and salutations, Uncle Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
Good to “see you”; we were beginning to be a bit concerned about your welfare.
We more or less will “bite our tongues” here concerning the common interpretation of these verses and try desperately to stick with the subject you presented.
Technically the Greek word dia means by, as in via, through, by way of or because of, thus that portion of the Word would probably read literally: Obey therefore every creation [of?] man because of the Lord [supreme power and authority] or as the KJV presented it, for the Lord's sake.
The New International Version calls this chapter Submission to rulers and masters, how appropriate! This is, in our humble opinion, a sloppy copy of Romans thirteen. Compare 1Peter 2:14b, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well with Romans 13:3, 4, & 5 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of Yahuwah to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of Yahuwah, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Also, here in Romans 13:5 we once again see the Greek word dia translated sake.
A side note, perhaps of interest, is that the word of was added to the Word for our understanding [perhaps], that is to say, according to Zondervan’s Greek Interlinear the Greek word ek or ex was apparently not there in the originals (if there is such a thing). This tidbit may, or may not, have any bearing whatsoever on your question, brother Rick.
Was this the same Peter who said, We ought to obey Yahuwah rather than men? …as you so fittingly point out. If one has a proper understanding of Romans thirteen, which I believe we have covered in some detail elsewhere on ecclesia.org, then he should have a suitable understanding of 1Peter two, in our humble opinion.
Hope this has been helpful.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 07 Aug 2005 10:23:00
Message:
I believe the common interpretation of Romans 13 and all sloppy copies fail to account for Paul's war by propaganda against Rome - Christianity. In other words a good Christian will submit. That is the Jewish way and Jesus was a Jew.
I have conversed with a rabbi who told me outright, "You know we are to subject ourselves to whatever law of the land where we live." Of course! The Jews (and Christians until the Return; Messiah ben David) are in Diaspora.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 07 Aug 2005 20:53:58
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, Uncle Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
Good to “see you”; we were beginning to be a bit concerned about your welfare.
Technically the Greek word dia means by, as in via, through, by way of or because of, thus that portion of the Word would probably read literally: Obey therefore every creation [of?] man because of the Lord [supreme power and authority] or as the KJV presented it, for the Lord's sake.
Greetings bro Robert and Sister K!
Bro Robert suggested the word sake may mean:
Technically the Greek word dia means by, as in via, through, by way of or because of, thus that portion of the Word would probably read literally: Obey therefore every creation [of?] man because of the Lord [supreme power and authority] or as the KJV presented it, for the Lord's sake.
As a Protestant I do not believe that Peter wrote a sloppy copy of Romans 13.
1 PETER
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
In commenting on Romans 13, Greg L. Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics [p.377] states:
The conclusion should be that what is due to the state is obedience to God's law, and if this is what is its due, then the law of God is the area of the state's assigned function. What Caesar must render unto God as the things which are God's includes his obedience to, and enforcement of, God's law within the nation.
Further on Bahnsen quotes from Alan M. Stibbs [The First Epistle General of Peter, ed. R V G Tasker, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol 17 pp.110-111] as follows:
Civil rulers are explicitly commissioned to represent God as the Judge. They give active expression to His righteousness and His wrath by inflicting just retribution on wrongdoers, and by publicly commending and rewarding those who do well. All to whom such divine authority is thus delegated ought in its exercise to be like God, by whose commission and in whose service they act; ie., they should love righteousness and hate iniquity (see hewbrews 1:8-9).
And finally on p.519 Bahnsen writes:
By closely defining the ordination of the civil magistrate as including the proper ends of temporal government the Westminster Confession is simply following the example of Paul (Romans 13:1-7) and Peter (1 Peter 2:13-14) who do not give a blank check authority to the ruler, but who specify that the ruler is to be of a certain kind: promoting good and avenging evil (both of these terms are strongly associated with obedience to, or rebellion from, the law of God in Scripture).
R J Rushdoony in The Institutes of Biblical Law p.56-57 writes:
For the state to claim the right to tax the earth is for the state to make itself the god and creator of the earth, whereas the state is instead God's ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-8).
Kenneth S. Wuest, a greek scholar, in his Expanded Translation of the New Testament translates the passage 1 Peter 2:13-18:
Put yourself in the attitude of submission to, thus giving yourselves to the implicit obedience of, every human regulation for the sake of the Lord, whether to a king as one who is supereminent, or to governors as those sent by him to inflict punishment upon those who do evil, and to give praise to those who do good; for so is the will of God, that by doing good you might be reducing to silence the ignorance of men who are unreflecting and unintelligent; doing all this as those who have their liberty, and not as those who are holding their liberty as a cloak of wickedness, but as those who are God's bondmen. Pay honor to all, be loving the brotherhood, be fearing God, be paying honor to the king.
Richard Anthony wrote in his article There is only One Lawgiver:
One way to test whether or not a man-made law is godly or not is to test it with the following. Ask yourself, "Does this law punish evil-doers and praise or reward doers of good?" For example, consider the drivers license law. Does the requirement for a drivers license punish evil or reward good? No, it does not. The traffic courts might do this, but not the license itself. Therefore, since God only gave His "governing authorities" the power to punish evil and reward good, this man-made law is outside of God's delegated authority, and no obedience is required if you live, move, and have your being in Him. Another question you can ask is, "Will this Law, being imposed by man, help me walk in God's Truth?" If it is a godly law, it will. But most man made laws do not bring anyone to the Truth, nor can they.
Wuest does justice to the scripture. The ground or reason why something is or is not done is through our belief in Jesus Christ and is based on the soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other. We subject ourselves implicitly (not explicitly) in “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden according to such conditions = where it often introduces, after statement of the grounds a divine declaration or command. (b) inferring the cause from the effect, or developing what is logically involved in a statement therefore (not a consequence of but the development of what is implicit in it). The Greek equivalent is 5921 `al
For the 'sake' of completeness for the 'cause' I add the following definitions from Mr Noah Webster's dictionary 1828! And I added IMPLICIT just in case!
SAKE, n. [Heb. to press or oppress. The primary sense is to strain, urge, press or drive forward, and this is from the same root as seek, essay and L. sequor, whence we have pursue and prosecute. We have analogous words in cause, thing, and the L. res.]
1. Final cause; end; purpose; or rather the purpose of obtaining. I open a window for the sake of air, that is, to obtain it, for the purpose of obtaining air. I read for the sake of instruction, that is, to obtain it. Sake then signifies primarily effort to obtain, and secondarily purpose of obtaining. The hero fights for the sake of glory; men labor for the sake of subsistence or wealth.
2. Account; regard to any person or thing.
I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake. Gen. 8.
Save me for thy mercies' sake. Ps. 6.
CAUSE, n. s as z.
1. A suit or action in court; any legal process which a party institutes to obtain his demand, or by which he seeks his right or his supposed right. This is a legal, scriptural and popular use of the word, coinciding nearly with case from cado, and action from ago, to urge or drive.
The cause of both parties shall come before the judges. Ex. 22.
2. That which produces an effect; that which impels into existence, or by its agency or operation produces what did not before exist; that by virtue of which any thing is done; that from which any thing proceeds, and without which it would not exist.
Cause is a substance exerting its power into act, to make a thing begin to be.
3. The reason or motive that urges, moves, or impels the mind to act or decide.
For this cause have I raised up Pharaoh. Ex. 9.
And David said, is there not a cause? 1 Sam. 17.
4. Sake; account.
I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong. 2 Cor. 6. [See Sake.]
5. That which a party or nation pursues; or rather pursuit, prosecution of an object. We say, Bible Societies are engaged in a noble cause. [See the first definition.] Hence the word cause is used to denote that which a person or thing favors; that to which the efforts of an intelligent being are directed; as, to promote religion is to advance the cause of God. So we say, the cause of truth or of justice. In all its applications, cause retains something of its original meaning, struggle, impelling force, contest, effort to obtain or to effect something.
6. Without cause, without good reason; without a reason or motive to justify the act.
They hate me without cause. Ps. 35. 69.
CAUSE, v.t.
1. To produce; to bring into existence.
They caused great joy to all the brethren. Acts 15.
2. To effect by agency, power or influence.
I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days. Gen. 7.
I will cause him to fall by the sword. 2 Kings 19.
CAUSE, v.i. To assign insufficient cause.
IMPLIC'IT, a. [L. implicitus, from implico, supra.]
1. Infolded; entangled; complicated.
In his woolly fleece
I cling implicit. [Little used.]
2. Implied; tacitly comprised; fairly to be understood, though not expressed in words; as an implicit contract or agreement.
3. Resting on another; trusting to the word or authority of another, without doubting or reserve, or without examining into the truth of the thing itself. Thus we give implicit credit or confidence to the declarations of a person of known veracity. We receive with implicit faith whatever God has clearly revealed.
I referenced the following greek and hebrew words:
1223 dia { dee-ah’}
a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; TDNT - 2:65,149; prep
AV - by 241, through 88, with 16, for 58, for ... sake 47, therefore + 5124 44, for this cause + 5124 14, because 53, misc 86; 647
GK - 1328 { diav }
1) through
1a) of place
1a1) with
1a2) in
1b) of time
1b1) throughout
1b2) during
1c) of means
1c1) by
1c2) by the means of
2) through
2a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
2a1) by reason of
2a2) on account of
2a3) because of for this reason
2a4) therefore
2a5) on this account
5293 hupotasso { hoop-ot-as’-so}
from 5259 and 5021; TDNT - 8:39,1156; v
AV - put under 6, be subject unto 6, be subject to 5, submit (one’s) self unto 5, submit (one’s) self to 3, be in subjection unto 2, put in subjection under 1, misc 12; 40
GK - 5718 { uJpotavssw }
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one’s self, obey
4) to submit to one’s control
5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a miliary fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.
2937 ktisis { ktis’-is}
from 2936; TDNT - 3:1000,481; n f
AV - creature 11, creation 6, building 1, ordinance 1; 19
GK - 3232 { ktivsi" }
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance
4893 suneidesis { soon-i’-day-sis}
from a prolonged form of 4894; TDNT - 7:898,1120; n f
AV - conscience 32; 32GK - 5287 { suneivdhsi" }
1) the consciousness of anything
2) the soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other2a) the conscience
15 agathopoieo { ag-ath-op-oy-eh’-o}
from 17; TDNT - 1:17,3; v
AV - do good 7, well doing 2, do well 2; 11
GK - 16 { ajgaqopoievw }
1) to do good, do something which profits others
1a) to be a good help to someone
1b) to do someone a favour
1c) to benefit
2) to do well, do right
At Sparta, this was the name of the five oldest knights, who went on missions for the state.
I. ÷Ke
adv. so, thus; so, thus (i.e. usu., as has been described or commanded, with ref. to what has preceded), mostly of manner, but sts. also of quantity, quality, or degree: 1. a. so. b. the force of ÷Ke
has sts. to be elicited from the context. c. ÷k
occurs freq. in partic. phrases, as (a) with hy:h;
, esp. ÷k yhyw
and it was so. (c) alone, ÷Ke µai
if it be so. (d) ÷k al
not so (viz. as has been described or implied), with a subst. 2. Often, to emphasize the agreement, in answer to ð]
, and rv,a}K'
. 3. With prepositions:
a. ÷KeArj'a'
, ÷keAyrej}a'
, ÷keAyrej}a'me
, lit. after so, i.e. afterwards: v. rj'a'
. b. ÷keB]
(late), lit. in such circumstances, i.e. thereupon, then.
c. ÷keA/mK]
, acc. to some, like so, i.e. in like manner, or like this (accompanied by a contemptuous gesture) = like a mere nothing: but v. IV. ÷Ke
. d. ÷kel;
according to such conditions, that being so, therefore; esp. in proph., where it often introduces, after statement of the grounds a divine declaration or command. Special usages: (a) idiom., in conversation, in reply to an objection, to state the ground upon which the answer is made; therefore — this being so. (b) inferring the cause from the effect, or developing what is logically involved in a statement therefore (not a consequence of but the development of what is implicit in it).
e. ÷KeAd['
hitherto (of time), as yet.
f. ÷KeAl['
upon ground of such conditions, therefore (introducing, more generally than ÷kel;
, the statement of a fact, rather than a declaration: never used in the phrases noted under ÷kel;
); and regularly where the origin of a name, or custom, or proverb is assigned.
5921 `al { al}
properly, the same as 5920 used as a preposition (in the sing. or pl. often with prefix, or as conjunction with a particle following); TWOT - 1624p;
AV - upon, in, on, over, by, for, both, beyond, through, throughout, against, beside, forth, off, from off; 48
GK - 6584 { l['
GK - together with 03651 6586 { ÷KeAl['
}*
GK - together with 04192 6629 { tWmAl['
}*
prep
1) upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against
1a) upon, on the ground of, on the basis of, on account of, because of, therefore, on behalf of, for the sake of, for, with, in spite of, notwithstanding, concerning, in the matter of, as regards
1b) above, beyond, over (of excess)
1c) above, over (of elevation or pre-eminence)
1d) upon, to, over to, unto, in addition to, together with, with (of addition)
1e) over (of suspension or extension)
1f) by, adjoining, next, at, over, around (of contiguity or proximity)
1g) down upon, upon, on, from, up upon, up to,, towards, over towards, to, against (with verbs of motion)
1h) to (as a dative) conj
2) because that, because, notwithstanding, although
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 07 Aug 2005 21:33:09
Message:
Greetings to all,
I am posting the following now before my thoughts wonder off to other areas.
When many discussions come here about "refusing for cause", or "not accepting for value," leads me to understand the meaning unto a deeper threshold. See, weights and balance has much to do not only on the bartering we use, but also the morals we accept. So you see, it is not just the money, money, money issue we so much focus on, but most deeply is the moral, moral, moral.
Value/s to me (I have not looked-up the root meaning of the word) has a broad meaning and should be used with a broad brush, for it covers lots, if not all of what we face all the time.
So when the refusal comes about, and we say, "refuse for cause and not accepted for value," we should understand its meaning that we are avoiding the causes & affects, and also understand that we are not accepting the "values" they are projecting.
Anybody get my drift?
I am,
Manuel
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 08 Aug 2005 05:35:35
Message:
Greetings and salutations brother Rick:
Peace be unto the house.
A little more evidence as to why we believe it is rather sloppy.
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake…
Submit (subordinate, obey) every (all, any, whole) ordinance (creation) of man (men) for the Lord’s sake…
Ordinance, n.
1. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense it is often used in the Scriptures. Exo 15. Num 10. Ezra 3. It may also signify a decree, edict or rescript, and the word has sometimes been applied to the statutes of Parliament, but these are usually called acts or laws. In the United States, it is never applied to the acts of Congress, or of a state legislature.
2. Observance commanded.
3. Appointment.
4. Established rite or ceremony.
– Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Ordinance. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action; a law or statute. In its most common meaning, the term is used to designate the enactments of the legislative body of a municipal corporation. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 757
According to this, if a man-made creation, i.e. a rule, law or statute, forbid one to honour Yahuwah as their Supreme Suveran, then one would, “for the lord’s sake”
, have to obey it. And then to top it off Peter gives us this at verse eighteen…
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Servants (residents, domestics), be subject (subordinate, obey) your masters (despots) with all fear (fear, dread, terror or reverence for one’s husband); not only to the good and gentle (appropriate, mild), but also to the forward (warped, winding, persverse).
The Greek word despotes, translated masters in the above verse, is the very root word itself for despots!
Despot, n. An emperor, king or price invested with absolute power, or ruling without any control from men, constitution or laws. Hence in a general sense, a tyrant. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
It also was originally a title meaning “master”, which was applied to…bishops of the Greek church.
Of course, that bolded part in Webster’s definition is the negative connotation of the word, and to ensure that is what he [Peter?] apparently meant by it, he finishes this verse with the Greek word skolios, which can mean…
warped, winding or perverse (Strong’s)…
1) crooked, curved; 2) metaphorically, 2a) perverse, wicked; 2b) unfair, surly, froward (Thayer’s)
Froward, a. [L. versus: turned or looking from.] Perverse, that is, turning from, with aversion or reluctance; not willing to yield or comply with what is required; unyielding; ungovernable; refractory; disobedient… – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Perverse, a. pervers'. [L. perversus. See Pervert.] 1. Literally, turned aside; hence, distorted from the right. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Warped, …turned out of the true direction; perverted…
--Zeal, to a degree of warmth able to warp the sacred rule of Gods word. – Locke
Was this the way that Peter intended it? Who can say for certain, but it is obvious to many that the “visible church” has bet her very existence on it.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 08 Aug 2005 19:55:27
Message:
Greetings bro Robert and thanks for your input.
NOT SLOPPY - SUBTLE!
I believe that this verse [1 Peter 2:13...]hinges on the context of what sake means in context to our Lord. It is agreed that the definitions of the words; submit, every, ordinance - on first blush do not appear to give much strength to living the faith. Why do Vine and Strong not give sake a thorough definition in their scholarly books?
Bro Robert wrote:
*** According to this, if a man-made creation, i.e. a rule, law or statute, forbid one to honour Yahuwah as their Supreme Suveran, then one would, “for the lord’s sake”, have to obey it.
Why would God demand total obedience to HIM and then condone non-compliance and confusion through scripture? That is not his character. Perhaps the phrase 'for the Lord's sake' is a command that obedience is only required to God and if the ordinance does not offend Him ie. then just go along with it without resisting.
Generally (ie. 99.9%) I would defer to one who divides the Word as beautifully and accurately as bro Robert. My heart tells me that the Scripture is not sloppy but subtle and is:
1) read out of context with other verses within the scriptures regarding obedience to God,
2) read from a secular not Christian perspective as the authority on how to live - thats ironic the big fella sticks in one passage in the whole Book to tell us to forget the rest of the Bible and just obey man's law,
3) read from a luke-warm Christian smorgasboard perspective in which we pick and choose which parts of God's law fit into the secular law system,
4) read with the wrong definitions or emphasis on words within the verses 1 Peter 2:11-25 - which is about obedience to God and perseverance to UNJUST PUNISHMENT for your faith.
There are three categories of Christian to whom this epistle may be addressed:
1) Christians who are totally FREE in that they have not delegated any of their authority to the State in any matter.
2) Christians who are SLAVES in that they have voluntarily (chosen to be a servant) or involuntarily (slave or gaoled) put themself into subjection to pagans/State.
3) Christians who have entered into agreements and contracts with the pagans/State and are to that extent bound by their striking of hands.
The epistle is written to Christians who are living as aliens alongside pagans. Peter just finished telling the Christians don't live the pagan/unsaved lifestyle (fleshly lusts) and don't be troubled because they defame you for living a Christian lifestyle - so why would he then command the same Christians to live under the pagan laws?
Bro Robert wrote:
*** Submit (subordinate, obey) every (all, any, whole) ordinance (creation) of man (men) for the Lord’s sake…
*** According to this, if a man-made creation, i.e. a rule, law or statute, forbid one to honour Yahuwah as their Supreme Suveran, then one would, “for the lord’s sake”, have to obey it. And then to top it off Peter gives us this at verse eighteen…
*** Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
*** Servants (residents, domestics), be subject (subordinate, obey) your masters (despots) with all fear (fear, dread, terror or reverence for one’s husband); not only to the good and gentle (appropriate, mild), but also to the forward (warped, winding, persverse).
Wuest translates these verses as:
Household slaves, put yourselves in constant subjection with every fear in IMPLICIT OBEDIENCE to your ABSOLUTE lords and masters; not only to those who are good at heart and sweetly reasonable, satisfied with less than their due, but also to those who are against you; for this subjection to those who are against you is something which is beyond the ordinary course of what might be expected and is therefore commendable, namely, when a person because of the conscious sense of his relation to God bears up under pain, suffering UNJUSTLY. For what sort of fame is it when you fall short of the mark and are pummeled with the fist, you endure this patiently? But when you are in the habit of doing good and then suffer constantly for it, and this you patiently endure, this is an unusual and not-to-be-expected action, and therefore commendable in the sight of God. [1 Peter 2:18-20]
Why does Wuest use the words - implicit obedience?
IMPLIC'IT, a. [L. implicitus, from implico, supra.]
2. Implied; tacitly comprised; fairly to be understood, though not expressed in words; as an implicit contract or agreement.
3. Resting on another; trusting to the word or authority of another, without doubting or reserve, or without examining into the truth of the thing itself. Thus we give implicit credit or confidence to the declarations of a person of known veracity. We receive with implicit faith whatever God has clearly revealed.
Noah Webster (1828) defined submit as follows:
SUBMIT', v.i. To surrender; to yield one's person to the power of another; to give up resistance. The enemy submitted.
1. To yield one's opinion to the opinion or authority of another. On hearing the opinion of the court, the counsel submitted without further argument.
3. To be submissive; to yield without murmuring.
Our religion requires us--to submit to pain, disgrace and even death.
I have no difficulty with submit - in fact we would do contrary if we resisted or railed against an authority/power. This presumes we have delegated our God-given freedom away to the State. Yield also suggests no opposition by force.
YIELD, v.i.
3. To give way; not to oppose. We readily yield to the current of opinion; we yield to customs and fashions.
Darby translates ordinance as INSTITUTION. That is consistent with Peter telling the Christians to demonstrate their faith by accepting the pagan institutions. They may have been building codes or courts or restaurants or markets. Webster's (1828) has two main definitions for institution - no. 2 or no. 3 can both fit the context.
INSTITU'TION, n. [L. institutio.]
1. The act of establishing.
2. Establishment; that which is appointed, prescribed or founded by authority,and intended to be permanent. Thus we speak of the institutions of Moses or Lycurgus. We apply the word institution to laws, rites, and ceremonies, which are enjoined by authority as permanent rules of conduct or of government.
3. A system, plan or society established, either by law or by the authority of individuals for promoting any object, public or social. We call a college or an academy, a literary institution; a bible society, a benevolent or charitable institution; a banking company and an insurance company are commercial institutions.
If one prefers ordinance as the correct definition then there is no contradiciton in what Peter tells us to do. Obey a rule established by authority of a sovereign power UNLESS it is contrary God's law which again kicks in Acts 5:29.
OR'DINANCE, n.
1. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense it is often used in the Scriptures. Ex. 15. Num. 10. Ezra 3. It may also signify a decree, edict or rescript, and the word has sometimes been applied to the statutes of Parliament, but these are usually called acts or laws. In the United States, it is never applied to the acts of Congress, or of a state legislature.
2. Observance commanded.
3. Appointment.
4. Established rite or ceremony. Heb. 9. In this sense, baptism and the Lord's supper are denominated ordinances.
There is also that little word BY mentioned in the verses. This fits into the context of Jesus being our ADVOCATE in time of need. HE is with us and will represent through faith and the Holy Spirit.
BY, prep.
1. Near; close; as, sit by me; that house stands by a river.
[L. pressus.]
3. Through, or with, denoting the agent, means, instrument or cause; as, "a city is destroyed by fire;" "profit is made by commerce;" "to take by force." This use answers to that of the Latin per, through, denoting a passing, acting, agency, or instrumentality.
10. It is used to represent the means or instrument of swearing, or affirming; as, to swear by heaven, or by earth; to affirm by all that is sacred.
13. "To be present by attorney." In this phrase, by denotes means or instrument; through or in the presence of a substitute.
The word FOR in the phrase 'for the Lord's sake' is another little word that fits the context of a legal interpretation of the verse.
FOR, prep. [L. per.; The English, for; to forbid. For corresponds in sense with the L. pro, as fore does with proe, but pro and proe are probably contracted from prod, proed. The Latin por, in composition, as in porrigo, is probably contracted from porro, Gr. which is the English far. The Gr. are from the same root. The radical sense of for is to go, to pass, to advance, to reach or stretch.]
1. Against; in the place of; as a substitute or equivalent, noting equal value or satisfactory compensation, either in barter and sale, in contract, or in punishment. "And Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for flocks, and for the cattle of the herds;" that is, according to the original, he gave them bread against horses like the Gr. Gen. 48:17.
2. In the place of; instead of; noting substitution of persons, or agency of one in the place of another with equivalent authority. An attorney is empowered to act for his principal. Will you take a letter and deliver it for me at the post office? that is, in my place, or for my benefit.
7. In advantage of; for the sake of; on account of; that is, towards, noting use, benefit or purpose.
9. Leading or inducing to, as a motive.
There is a natural immutable, and eternal reason for that which we call virtue, and against that which we call vice.
11. Towards the obtaining of; in order to the arrival at or possession of. After all our exertions, we depend on divine aid for success.
21. In favor of; on the part or side of; that is, towards or inclined to. One is for a free government; another is for a limited monarchy.
FOR, con.
1. The word by which a reason is introduced of something before advanced. "That ye may be the children of your father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good." In such sentences, for has the sense of because, by reason that, as in Number 14; with this difference that in Number 14, the word precedes a single noun, and here it precedes a sentence or clause; but the phrase seems to be elliptical, for this cause or reason, which follows, he maketh his sun to rise, &c. In Romans 13:6, we find the word in both its applications, "For, for this cause ye pay tribute also -;" the first for referring to the sentence following; the latter to the noun cause.
Now having attempted to establish that the phrase 'for the Lord's sake' may refer to a lawful Godly context I cannot read anywhere that a Christian could not negotiate terms to a contract in a civil matter which were consistent with Christian beliefs. Perhaps Peter was suggesting if you have to enter into an agreement or contract with the pagans according to their law to do so by implicitly complying with their legal system and explicitly doing according to God's purpose. In a civil matter you can't be forced to enter into a contract against your will. The option would be to negotiate out anything contrary to God's purpose in the agreement/contract.
That leaves the criminal aspects of committing an offence or being falsely accused of committing an offence against the secular laws. The duty there is to not resist the authority of the State, submit to it and plead Jesus! I see no sloppy inconsistency with that and Romans 13.
SAKE, n. [Heb. to press or oppress. The primary sense is to strain, urge, press or drive forward, and this is from the same root as seek, essay and L. sequor, whence we have pursue and prosecute. We have analogous words in cause, thing, and the L. res.]
1. Final cause; end; purpose; or rather the purpose of obtaining. I open a window for the sake of air, that is, to obtain it, for the purpose of obtaining air. I read for the sake of instruction, that is, to obtain it. Sake then signifies primarily effort to obtain, and secondarily purpose of obtaining. The hero fights for the sake of glory; men labor for the sake of subsistence or wealth.
The word sake is consistent with the word cause.
CAUSE, n. s as z.
1. A suit or action in court; any legal process which a party institutes to obtain his demand, or by which he seeks his right or his supposed right. This is a legal, scriptural and popular use of the word, coinciding nearly with case from cado, and action from ago, to urge or drive.
The cause of both parties shall come before the judges. Ex. 22.
2. That which produces an effect; that which impels into existence, or by its agency or operation produces what did not before exist; that by virtue of which any thing is done; that from which any thing proceeds, and without which it would not exist.
Cause is a substance exerting its power into act, to make a thing begin to be.
3. The reason or motive that urges, moves, or impels the mind to act or decide.
For this cause have I raised up Pharaoh. Ex. 9.
And David said, is there not a cause? 1 Sam. 17.
4. Sake; account.
I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong. 2 Cor. 6. [See Sake.]
5. That which a party or nation pursues; or rather pursuit, prosecution of an object. We say, Bible Societies are engaged in a noble cause. [See the first definition.] Hence the word cause is used to denote that which a person or thing favors; that to which the efforts of an intelligent being are directed; as, to promote religion is to advance the cause of God. So we say, the cause of truth or of justice. In all its applications, cause retains something of its original meaning, struggle, impelling force, contest, effort to obtain or to effect something. 6. Without cause, without good reason; without a reason or motive to justify the act.
They hate me without cause. Ps. 35. 69.
Bro Robert wrote
*** Was this the way that Peter intended it? Who can say for certain, but it is obvious to many that the “visible church” has bet her very existence on it.
That is one conclusion, however, my current understanding is that Peter was encouraging the Christians to live by faith in Jesus as the cause of truth and justice - the end purpose for our living a christian lifestyle. Just because the scholars and churches interpret the verse within their comfort zone doesn't mean their interpretation is 100%correct.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: Uncle Buck
Replied on: 08 Aug 2005 20:04:03
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
I believe the common interpretation of Romans 13 and all sloppy copies fail to account for Paul's war by propaganda against Rome - Christianity. In other words a good Christian will submit. That is the Jewish way and Jesus was a Jew.
I have conversed with a rabbi who told me outright, "You know we are to subject ourselves to whatever law of the land where we live." Of course! The Jews (and Christians until the Return; Messiah ben David) are in Diaspora.
Regards,
David Merrill.
I agree, but what is the law of the land? Common Law by Retention of full rights; or entering into another jurisdiction by delegating your authority away by licence or contract. That word subject implies a conscious decision on our part to submit not enforced slavery to the State. Restricting Jesus to the status of a Jew is limimting it a bit.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 08 Aug 2005 21:46:06
Message:
In the parameters and scenario I wrote that post, the law of the land is Babylonian rule by capture. The advisement the rabbi was following would trace directly to Jeremiah's advice to the captured Israelites.
Get comfortable and be like your captors.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeed.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeedReferences.jpg
Excerpt from endnotes The Other End of the World by Roger Rusk
Therefore we find the Israelites were fighting the Jews when they were sent back to build the Temple walls by Darius. The Jews had to have one man defending one mason. It is not explained explicitely why the Israelites detested the Jews but one may easily infer it was a distaste for the Babylonian culture they had taken up. Even today the Jews revere the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 09 Aug 2005 06:17:37
Message:
Short one first.
Dear David Merrill:
Peace be unto the house.
“In other words a good Christian will submit. That is the Jewish way and Jesus was a Jew.”
“Even today the Jews revere the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud.”
It is our humble opinion that one should clarify precisely what a “Jew” is, in his mind, before making blanket statements like the above two. You appear to be indicating that Christians and Jews have the same “ways”, is that what you think? If not, your statement reads like (similar to) this: A good dog obeys his master. That is the horse’s way and MR. ED was a horse.
And, if you believe that Christians and Jews are essentially the same, then you reciprocally must be implying that Yahushua [JESUS] both reveres the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud and that our Principal Officer submitted, are these your teachings? Please clarify, we wouldn’t want newbies like downhomepraise being confused by such calloused misstatements [IMHO], now would we?
Further you would judge one of our brothers or sisters who labels himself/herself a “Christian” and who refused to submit to the adversaries’ colorable jurisdiction, who was nazar, as not a “good Christian”? or were you (hopefully) just being facetious?
Thank you for your time and attention to these matters.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 09 Aug 2005 10:14:15
Message:
I am sorry. I have a biblical definition of the Jew and I forgot to include it.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeed.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeedReferences.jpg
Excerpt from endnotes The Other End of the World by Roger Rusk
One needs to keep in mind the biblical scenario in Nehemiah and Ezra how one Jew had to protect another Jew while he worked masonry rebuilding the Temple wall. How the Israelites indigineous to Jerusalem were that distressed about the Babylonian culture being infused into the Temple workings by King Darius.
Jesus was of course a good Babylonian Jew in his religious practice. Otherwise he would not have been allowed into, much less to preach in the synagogues. This is of course allowing for some contradiction in passages of the New Testament; but only at first glance. I believe that the real outrage toward Jesus was commercially motivated around his assault against the moneychangers. While he would have been upset about the monetary contraction of the drachma, gouging the pilgrims by making them pay extra for the kosher currency to pay the Temple Tax, he was by and large "immenentizing" the False Shepard Prophecy of Zechariah. Just as he had sent Judas out to by a sword with which to come back and slay himself in front of the witnesses at the Last Supper.
quote:
This order of the verses is suggested in The Nazarene Gospel Restored by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro. It makes a more logical sense and order according to how we read in the western world.
There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled. Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred me. Thus saith the Lord my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter; Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the Lord; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not. And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I fed the flock.
And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.
And the Lord said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty (Noam = Grace), and the other I called Bands (Hoblim = Corrupters).
And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord.
Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the Lord: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.
And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. And his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.
Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the [false] prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Therefore it was in his agenda to defy the Herodian priests who were franchizing the moneychanger operations in the courtyard. Like barking the fig tree - a serious symbol of Israel on the king's road. Ergo we hear him saying, "Forgive them* Father, for they know not what they do."
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_BibleBookshelf.jpg
OneIsraelite; I was being completely honest according to my study of the Holy Bible and history of the world. If one calls himself or herself Christian it is Paul's way to submit to whatever "government" is about. I was told by a rabbi point blank, "You know we are to submit to the law of the land wherever we are." Sound like Romans 13? Of course it is. Christianity is a newer sect of Babylonian Judaism. In the rabbi's mind he is speaking about Diaspora (until a Jew can get back to Israel). In a Christian's mind that is until the exact same Messianic and Babylonian Jewish precept of Messiah ben David's Return - the Second Advent of Jesus Christ.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Them being the two zealots he had incited to riot earlier that day being executed at his sides. In order to fill the prophecy of Zechariah, he had to be a false teacher and prophet. By killing the fig tree he was teaching the God of Abraham had forsaken Israel and they must fight Roman occupation.
Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 09 Aug 2005 12:58:48
Message:
So now, the "money-handlers" too control the world by divicing a way for groupies to fight and quarrel each other. Groupies like Jews, Gentiles, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, blacks, whites, latinos, hispanics, asians, HECK!... even ALIENS FROM OTHER PLANETS, and all those other sub-divided groupies which follow like homos/lesbians, right to this - right to that, while all along the money-handlers are and have been the communists, democracies, republics, merc nation stations, UN, NATO...you name it, they are all there, non-profit this, for profit that... The MONEY MASTERS sit back and pay them off with their MONOPOLY PAPER PLAY-DOUGH, while their conned potato-heads decide which ears, eyes, and war-drobes to put on.
Fot that MATTER, the world IS deceived.
Who ever doesn't believe it, well... he/she is just "a good patriot/believer/groupie/member," for whatever "side" they have "fallen" unto.
It is thru the generations of planned cons, that the one truth which is outstanding above all, has chained and chackled their "groupies."
A-FREAKING-MAZING!
I believe In Father, The Almighty,
Manuel
"The interesting thing is, the more I studied this, the more simplified everything became. Patriots are always criticised for being very simplistic, but the fact is that once you get to a certain level of knowledge, everything is simple." [Interview 2003] by James Dyer
"I wrote about the Bush family in my book The World Order which came out in 1985. They'd been lackeys of the Harriman family at Union Pacific, and the Harrimans were lackeys of the Rothschilds who put up the money for Union Pacific. George Herbert Walker, who was the first President Bush's grandfather, was appointed head of Brown Brothers Harriman which handled all the Harriman investments. He did a very good job and the Bushes have been working for them ever since. They were all members of Skull and Bones at Yale." [Interview 2003] by James Dyer
"The Neocons are worse than the Communists because they're bent on world power more than the Communists ever were. The Neocons are more dangerous because they've taken Communism and hitched to the Jewish bandwagon. They see it as the final vehicle to world domination." [Interview 2003] by James Dyer
"JBS was setup by Nelson Rockefeller. I knew two people at the original meeting. They needed a right-wing, anti-communist organization. NR decided that Robert Welch was the man to run JBS, so he arranged for the sale of Welch's Candy Co. (where Robert Welch had been working for his brother John) to Nabisco (which was a Rockefeller controlled company) at a highly inflated price and Welch was given an income to run the John Birch Society. Revilo Oliver was a good friend of mine and he was one of the founders of the JBS. He and I were sitting in his living room once and he told me that he knew Nelson Rockefeller ran the Birch Society because he had a revolving fund at Chase Manhattan Bank, and whenever Welch needed a quarter million dollars to meet the payroll, he'd go to CMB and withdraw the money."[Interview 2003] by James Dyer
"In 1810, the Rothschilds began to push for a country for the Jews, so they created a new brand of Judaism called Reform Judaism which would establish a new Jewish country, which is now Israel. Only the Rothschilds could do that because to create a worldwide movement costs a lot of money. [Q. Theodor Herzl's The Jewish State was originally called Address to the Rothschilds] They financed Karl Marx and the League of Just Men, too. They financed Judaism, Communism and Nazism. Their goal has been constant, and you can't succeed unless you have goals."
"Ezra Pound commissioned me to write Secrets of the Federal Reserve for $10 a week. When I finished the book, no one would touch it. Devin Garrity said they couldn't print it, and they'd be the only ones that could. We finally found a girl who printed a thousand copies and we sold it immediately. We sold it within a month, they took every book. The German edition came out in '55 and it was burned by the German government. .....it went before a court hearing and judge named Israel Katz, an Occupation judge, ruled that the book was unconstitutional under German law. It broke laws against race and that was the legal excuse for them to ban the book. [author's note: Secrets of the Federal Reserve makes no mention of any race]" [Interview 2003] by James Dyer
"All wars since 1900 have been totally fakes Phony Wars for Phony Peace and the Ministry of Fear" by Eustace Mullins
"John Foster Dulles was also an accomplished warmonger. In 1933, he and his brother Allen had rushed to Cologne to meet with Adolf Hitler and guaranteed him the funds to maintain the Nazi regime. The Dulles brothers were representing their clients, Kuhn Loeb Co., and the Rothschilds." The Secret History Of The Atomic Bomb by Eustace C. Mullins
"This secret meeting in the Garden Room was actually the first military strategy session of the United Nations, because it was dedicated to its mission of exploding the world's first atomic weapon on a living population. It also forecast the entire strategy of the Cold War, which lasted forty-three years, cost American taxpayers five trillion dollars, and accomplished exactly nothing, as it was intended to do. Thus we see that the New World Order has based its entire strategy on the agony of the hundreds of thousands of civilians burned alive at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including many thousands of children sitting in their schoolrooms. These leaders had learned from their master, Josef Stalin, that no one can rule without mass terrorism, which in turn required mass murder. As Senator Vandenberg, leader of the Republican loyal opposition, was to say (as quoted in American Heritage magazine, August 1977), "We have got to scare the hell out of "em." The Secret History Of The Atomic Bomb by Eustace C. Mullins
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 10 Aug 2005 08:41:02
Message:
We concur on your Scriptural definition, as found first in 2Kings 16:6…
…a Jehudite (that is, Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (that is, Judah) – Strong’s
But then or course there are the proselytes (converts) to contend with…
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
…them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan (the Adversary).
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
…and others…
2) Jewish as respects to birth, origin, [or] religion – Thayer’s
Thayer’s seems to be indicating that there are three kinds of Scriptural Jews, and we have reason to believe he is correct.
…(specifically) an acceder (convert) to Judaism (“proselyte”) – Strong’s
And, as you no doubt know, Judaism has nothing whatsoever to do with Yahudah [Judah] except, of course, that he may be their (the followers of Judaism) idol (What profit is it...). Although Yahushua [JESUS] may be a Yahudite, a descendant of Yahudah, he is most certainly not a follower of Judaism (Babylonian Talmud)!! Furthermore, he most assuredly has never submitted to the Roman Empire or its minions!!
As Naziyr, we consider ourselves neither Christians nor Jews, so we are not taking any of your statements to be directed at us, merely pointing out what we believe to be, the facts.
“I was told by a rabbi point blank, "You know we are to submit to the law of the land wherever we are."” – David Merrill’s hearsay evidence
Our response to this False Prophet is…
Speak unto the children (fellowcitizens) of Yisra’el, and say unto them, I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym (Ruler/Judge) . After the doings of the land of Egypt (bondage) , wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan (traffickers/commerce) , whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Law of the land. Due process of law (q.v). Body of law consisting of court decisions, statutes [graven images], and treaties. See U.S. Const., Art. VI, § 2. … – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page1126
…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary nothwithstanding. – Article VI.2b
Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their ‘elohiym (rulers/governments).
For Yahuwah spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
…if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 10 Aug 2005 10:34:58
Message:
quote:
And, as you no doubt know, Judaism has nothing whatsoever to do with Yahudah [Judah] except, of course, that he may be their (the followers of Judaism) idol (What profit is it...). Although Yahushua [JESUS] may be a Yahudite, a descendant of Yahudah, he is most certainly not a follower of Judaism (Babylonian Talmud)!! Furthermore, he most assuredly has never submitted to the Roman Empire or its minions!!
The point I made, correct or not, is contrary. But it reveals your elevation of the "U" sound in the Names of the Father and Messiah to be a reverence for Yahudah. Ergo Yahuwah and Yahushuah. My point was that for Jesus to coexist with the Babylonian Jews he was one. Your denial of that fact represents to me your claim to have been writing from Israel when in fact you write from the USA. You bring a spiritual realm or statement to the forefront superseding objective truth. Fine. See Hebrews 11:1.
Of course Jesus submitted to the Romans; it was required by occupation. My point was the prominent prophecy that did Jesus in was the Worthless Shepherd Prophecy of Zechariah. It was false docrine in Israel to encourage the zealots to fight against Rome. When Judas failed what he knew he must do, going to the Herodians instead of returning to the Last Supper to kill Jesus, Peter was sent. Penniless and drunk he came back with two swords, thinking they were going to fight on Jesus' new false doctrine. Even attacking Judas, thinking maybe that Judas was the Worthless Shepherd. [But being drunk nicked the ear of one of the Herodians. Barrabas simply means "my father's son". Peter was captured for his violence but released when given ultimatum.]
quote:
As Naziyr, we consider ourselves neither Christians nor Jews, so we are not taking any of your statements to be directed at us, merely pointing out what we believe to be, the facts.
I understand that. As Nazerite you are less influenced by Paul's War by Propaganda (Christianity) against Rome.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 10 Aug 2005 14:41:08
Message:
Dan 11:39 - He (4th king) shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god: whoever acknowledges him he will increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price.
The king is still dividing the land at a price through his local GOVT francises. The "Israel World Order" has not happened as the weapons have not yet been turned to plowshares, etc.
Israelites are still in exile and submission to the punishment of bondage until here:
Daniel 11:45 - 12:1 - He shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who stands for the children of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who shall be found written in the book.
Reply author: Inactive Member
Replied on: 10 Aug 2005 21:25:54
Message:
David Merrill said "Penniless and drunk he came back with two swords, thinking they were going to fight on Jesus' new false doctrine. Even attacking Judas, thinking maybe that Judas was the Worthless Shepherd. [But being drunk nicked the ear of one of the Herodians. "
where do you find that peter was drunk? never heard that before.
also... " When Judas failed what he knew he must do, going to the Herodians instead of returning to the Last Supper to kill Jesus, Peter was sent."
how did judas fail? it seems he led the captors to the garden and also it was no suprise to Jesus. Peter was sent where?
are these propositions from your own theories?
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 10 Aug 2005 23:53:39
Message:
Oh yes. These are my own theories.
quote:
where do you find that peter was drunk? never heard that before.
The Apostles were Nazerite by tradition. This is not a locale, like Trout Creek, albeit many cities were named after THE BRANCH - King David's coronation name. And being Judah and king, Yehoshuah was coronated in the tradition of David.
It is written in the Gospels that Jesus allowed the Apostles to drink wine. Also in the Garden, after the Last Supper Jesus was having a very difficult time keeping the Apostles awake. The subsequent editors say to pray. But in my interpretation, which agrees with many very educated interpretations, this was simply a hangover.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 11 Aug 2005 10:07:39
Message:
Greetings and salutations brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
Deja vous! Haven’t we been here and done this before???
This is a very common error confusing netser, which means sprout or shoot, rather than branch, or figuratively a descendant, with naziyr which is from the Hebrew word nazar, which means separate.
Nazareth
Separated… - Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
G3480
Nazoraios
Thayer's Definition:
Nazarite = “one separated”
from...
Nazarite (Heb. form Nazirite)...vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto Yahuwah
H5139
naziyr
naw-zeer'
From H5144; separate, that is, consecrated (as prince, a Nazirite)
H5144
nazar
BDB Definition:
1) to dedicate, consecrate, separate
1a) (Niphal) to dedicate oneself, devote oneself
1b) (Hiphil) to keep sacredly separate
But after all, this is the perfect thread in which to explain this: Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia. This is precisely why they do not apply to us; when one is called out (ekklesia) and is separte (nazar) they no longer apply to us because we are no longer "of" their jurisdiciton.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate (nazar), saith Yahuwah, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father (Chief) unto you, and ye shall be my sons (children/citizens) and daughters (inhabitants), saith Yahuwah Almighty.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 11 Aug 2005 15:34:01
Message:
The BRANCH. That is the definition I was using OneIsraelite. The coronation name for David.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 11 Aug 2005 18:47:08
Message:
quote:
"Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia."
They do if the ecclesia wants to do business with CORPS! Every time one goes to purchase CONSUMER GOODS at the GOVT regulated CORPS they must tithe to "THEM" for the privilege..... on THEIR terms!
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 11 Aug 2005 19:26:09
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
The BRANCH. That is the definition I was using OneIsraelite. The coronation name for David.
The coronation name of Dawid? The Hebrew word netser, i.e. descendent, is used a mere four times in the sixty-six books of the Scripture:
(a) Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (H5342) shall grow out of his roots…
(b) Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch (H5342), and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
(c) Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch (H5342) of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.
(d) Daniy’el 11:7 But out of a branch (H5342) of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail…
Which of these pertains to “David’s coronation”, a, b, c, or d?
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 11 Aug 2005 21:48:25
Message:
Greetings and salutations brother Steven:
Hope this finds you and yours healthy, happy and prosperous.
"Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia."
They do if the ecclesia wants to do business with CORPS! Every time one goes to purchase CONSUMER GOODS at the GOVT regulated CORPS they must tithe to "THEM" for the privilege…on THEIR terms!
Does your statement mean to intimate that an embassador of a foreign jurisdiction is under all the GOVERNMENT STATUTES of the nation he is sojourning in if he uses “their money” to buy food which price contains a sales tax? We hardly think that this can be the case and neither does your government, it would seem, otherwise they would not be going to a debit system where one apparently must take/use their master’s mark in order to obtain a debit card. At that point we may have to become like Yahu’hanan and eat honey and locust [we have heard that they are very tasty chocolate coated]. And at that point in time you may find out that FeRNs were not the mark of the beast after all.
But aside from our above question, tithe (Heb. ma'asar), if we are not mistaken, is an income tax indicating a tenth of one's annual increase, and not a sales tax. Are you faithful in unrighteous mammon?
Tithe, n. The tenth part of any thing; but appropriately, the tenth part of the increase annually arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the clergy for their support. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
And by using the word tithe in your statement, we feel you were trying to insinuate "religious" connotations into an otherwise purely jurisdictional question. If you were, shame on you, Steven. 
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 11 Aug 2005 22:12:49
Message:
quote:
The coronation name of Dawid? The Hebrew word netser, i.e. descendent, is used a mere four times in the sixty-six books of the Scripture:
Popularity?
Reply author: Inactive Member
Replied on: 11 Aug 2005 22:20:02
Message:
================================================================
But in my interpretation, which agrees with many very educated interpretations, this was simply a hangover.
================================================================
Thanks David for clearing that up. I thought i might have skipped a chapter in the bible.
now what about judas failing to return to the last supper and murder jesus?
Mar 14:10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
Mar 14:11 And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.
Luk 22:2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
Luk 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Luk 22:4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
Luk 22:5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Joh 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
Joh 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
Joh 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
Joh 13:21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
now, according to these verses... it sounds like Jesus knew what was coming. i would think he knew when he chose Judas. And satan, having entered into judas' heart to betray him (not murder). Imagine all the times Jesus avoided death up until then, now Judas failed to murder him. I think Father had something much more glorious planned in the suffering Christ fulfilled by going in front of magistrates to testify of the kingdom of his Father, and to suffer for the sins of all. HalleluYah. out of time to be continued and edited later.
peace Bezaleel
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 05:26:01
Message:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 08:12:49
Message:
quote:
Greetings and salutations brother Steven:
Hope this finds you and yours healthy, happy and prosperous.
So far so good! I hope the same for you and yours.
quote:quote:quote:They do if the ecclesia wants to do business with CORPS! Every time one goes to purchase CONSUMER GOODS at the GOVT regulated CORPS they must tithe to "THEM" for the privilege…on THEIR terms!
"Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia."
Does your statement mean to intimate that an embassador of a foreign jurisdiction is under all the GOVERNMENT STATUTES of the nation he is sojourning in if he uses “their money” to buy food which price contains a sales tax?
All Ambassadors, AMBASSADORS, “moral sentient beings”, bondservants, dog catchers, etc. are ALL subject to the STATUTES which regulate COMMERCE when they visit the CORP when doing business. The bottom line is whoever enters into the CORP must comply to the STATUES which regulate BUYER/SELLER relationships. The CORP does not discriminate.
quote:
We hardly think that this can be the case and neither does your government, it would seem, otherwise they would not be going to a debit system where one apparently must take/use their master’s mark in order to obtain a debit card.
Who said debit card? It is not hard to “buy or sell” without a debit card, SS# or DL. It’s the FICTION mark that is required when doing business with the CORP in which ever part of the “WORLD“ one happens to be in.
quote:
At that point we may have to become like Yahu’hanan and eat honey and locust [we have heard that they are very tasty chocolate coated]. And at that point in time you may find out that FeRNs were not the mark of the beast after all.
I think the time for eating locust and honey was probably more than 100 years ago. The finer point is that one cannot do business with the CORP without paying $ to support the GOVT. When one does this they are squarely in the jurisdiction of COMMERCE and complience is manditory.
quote:
But aside from our above question, tithe (Heb. ma'asar), if we are not mistaken, is an income tax indicating a tenth of one's annual increase, and not a sales tax. Are you faithful in unrighteous mammon?
Tithe, n. The tenth part of any thing; but appropriately, the tenth part of the increase annually arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the clergy for their support. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Just replace 10% with whatever the CONSUMER TAX is and replace ‘support clergy’ with ‘support GOVT’ and the idea is about the same.
quote:
And by using the word tithe in your statement, we feel you were trying to insinuate "religious" connotations into an otherwise purely jurisdictional question. If you were, shame on you, Steven.
I have read post after post on this forum for years concering “religious faith” and “jurisdiction” and this issue deals directly with the fact when one goes and spends FICTION with the CORPS one enters into, and complies with, a realm that is regulated by GOVT STATUTES. No signature required just one’s “willingness” to want the GOODS or SERVICES provided by the CORP. This is the essence of the BUYER/SELLER relationship.
The life blood of the "SYSTEM" is this: BUYING/SELLING be it labor, goods, services, utilities, etc. "The BEAST" gets it's cut regardless of doctrine!
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 09:04:31
Message:
"Jesus was of course a good Babylonian Jew in his religious practice." - David Merrill
I beg your pardon, David Merrill, are you saying that Yahushua's religion is Talmudism??
"My point was that for Jesus to coexist with the Babylonian Jews he was one. ." - David Merrill
Perhaps your Jesus isn’t the Yahushua that we know and love. The one that it was said of many times that they were astonished by his doctrine.
Maybe he is not the same one who said these things:
How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Perhaps your Jesus isn’t the same one who the Jewish leaders constantly sought to murder.
Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Yahushua therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.
There must be some confusion somewhere.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 09:37:59
Message:
Ambassador
AMBAS'SADOR, n. [This is the more common orthography; but good authors write also embassador; and as the orthography of embassy is established, it would be better to write embassador. See Embassador.] - Webster's 1828 Dictionary
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 09:42:34
Message:
Bezaleel said:
quote:
Thanks David for clearing that up. I thought i might have skipped a chapter in the bible.
now what about judas failing to return to the last supper and murder jesus?
That is an excellent point to amplify before moving on, back on point. There were many other books around Israel at that time. The collections in the Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha evidence this. The one item OneIsraelite focused on is the Talmud and I do not believe that was written yet when Jesus lived.
The Book of Zechariah was fortunately canonized and modern day pastors pretty much pass the Worthless Shepherd Prophecy by without any real credence. My interpretation is that Jesus, being the Messiah and also understanding that saw the prophecy of Zechariah must be fulfilled. Judas was the one who "sopped" of the King's bowl and this was a sign of favor. Judas was the Apostle who would hopefully fill the prophecy so that it would be finished.
Bezaleel; I was not explaining my interpretation to offend anyone. It was simply to explain a point I made a couple pages back. OneIsraelite is jumping on the chance to discredit me because I correct him whenever he pushes his "U" sound interpretation through misquoting others' work. We can move on now.
The point is about the value of the FRN and its usage and custom.
quote:
Does your statement mean to intimate that an embassador of a foreign jurisdiction is under all the GOVERNMENT STATUTES of the nation he is sojourning in if he uses “their money” to buy food which price contains a sales tax?
To which Batkol responded;
quote:
All Ambassadors, AMBASSADORS, “moral sentient beings”, bondservants, dog catchers, etc. are ALL subject to the STATUTES which regulate COMMERCE when they visit the CORP when doing business. The bottom line is whoever enters into the CORP must comply to the STATUES which regulate BUYER/SELLER relationships. The CORP does not discriminate.
And Batkol adds some very edifying points about the CORP. I say look at it this way; the moment the Ambassador steps off the sovereign soil of the embassy, that is when he is expected to behave in harmony with the common law of the land. Let us call that land of commerce Babylon. [METRO/City of XXXX global unification makes its own argument for the CITY OF BABYLON in the Bible.] There are however certain immunities granted by the State Department, granted to ambassadors.
My point was that under the penumbra of Paul's weapon of war by propaganda, Christianity, there are no immunities. It incorporates the doctrine of conformity and submission like at Romans 13. It does not matter that credit backing the Notes is generated off a bank note/birth certificate on a suppositional wagering scheme. That is still "government" in the context Paul meant it. That is Judaism in Diaspora. Until the Second Advent of Jesus Christ (like the Rapture scenarios), the Christians are in the same boat.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 12:45:38
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Ambassador
AMBAS'SADOR, n. [This is the more common orthography; but good authors write also embassador; and as the orthography of embassy is established, it would be better to write embassador. See Embassador.] - Webster's 1828 Dictionaryfellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Which-ever-way one wants to spell or define anything, the undisputed fact remains that when a man or woman goes to a CORP to buy GOODS or SERVICES they are squarely being regulated by GOVT STATUTES. When the TAX for such participation is paid, one is clearly supporting the GOVT to which they are paying.
Also, one cannot compare weighted gold or brass coins in 30CE with FIAT currency because A) the two are worlds apart in nature and B) there was no such thing as FIAT currency as the "coin of the realm" in 30CE. http://www.fastcoin.com/EarlyHistoryMoney.htm .
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 13:27:55
Message:
quote:
David said: I say look at it this way; the moment the Ambassador steps off the sovereign soil of the embassy, that is when he is expected to behave in harmony with the common law of the land. Let us call that land of commerce Babylon. [METRO/City of XXXX global unification makes its own argument for the CITY OF BABYLON in the Bible.] There are however certain immunities granted by the State Department, granted to ambassadors.
I agree with much of what you have posted. The core issue between my position and that of brother Robert's is this: brother Robert basically asserts that if one is subject to GOVT STATUTES that means they have broken the first commandment. He has argued that one cannot serve two masters and that by being subject to GOVT STATUTES is to refuse YHWH's statutes. My position is that when one puts that concept into a real life, working model then the very act of allowing one's self to enter into a BUYER/SELLER transaction with a CORP(using GOVT FIAT at that) is a clear breach of his rendering of the first commandment. Especially when that TAX is paid to the GOVT. Sure, Ambassadors are granted favors in USA but one must realize these people are Ambassadors of various FICTIONAL entities. Regardless, they still have to "go by the rules" when entering into BUYER/SELLER relationships. Just like everyone else, including the dog catcher or "moral sentient being", they are subject to the GOVT STATUTES which regulates commerce with the CORP. All of which, BTW, is completely voluntary. One is not obligated to purchase consumer goods, use FRNs, or do business with the CORP.
Again, I am not pointing fingers because I also engage in BUYER/SELLER transactions using FIAT $$.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 13:46:42
Message:
Dear Batkol;
You have gotten back to the subject matter of this Topic. Also the arguments in the beginning pages between Source and myself. Originally this Topic was titled something like, "Government Statutes do not Apply to Christians".
The State Department as best I know has no recognized embassy of any ecclesiastical nature. There is little chance one could declare a sanctuary under the penumbra of Judaism or Christianity. There really has to be a territorial claim under the ambassador(s).
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 22:58:53
Message:
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, a young man wandered into a strange land. As he was walking along he found a greenish-colored piece of paper lying on the ground. He picked it up and inspected it more closely, on the front, in the center, was the image of a man, and in each of the four corners was the number 100. On the back of this piece of cloth-like paper was the picture of a building, again, with 100’s in each of the four corners.
As he stood perusing this small piece a paper with the interesting imagery a young woman chanced to come by. The man doffed his hat and said, “Excuse me, but I am a Stranger in this land, I wonder, could you tell me what this is?” And when he showed her the piece of paper he had found, the woman, after only the slightest glance said, “That is a 100-dollar bill, sir; it is what we buy things with in this place.” The man being very hungry after his long walk asked her if he could buy food with this thing and she said, “Why of course; come with me and I will show you where you can get some food.”
So she took him to a rather large building that had a huge sign on its face, which read, Ingle’s Market. After he had accumulated several species of organic vegetables and some clean meat and some drink they proceeded to the part of the market where someone tallied up all that he had chosen. He gave the man at the check-out the “100-dollar bill” that he had recently found and amazingly enough the man took the piece of greenish colored paper and gave him the bag of food.
No questions were asked of the Stranger, except, “Do you have an Ingle’s Discount Card”; “No I do not”, and “Plastic or paper, sir?” “Paper will be fine.” No agreements had been struck, the Stranger had not had not been asked to enter into any confederacies, treaties, covenants, or contracts. He had not cancelled his Adherence to his Master and sworn allegiance to another. And he most certainly had no intention of trading, nor did he trade, his birthright for that food.
However, you are right in that he must obey the STATUTES of Ingle’s Market, “No shirt, no shoes, no service” and, etc. but only while he is inside their house (market). As soon as he walks out of their parking lot to go enjoy a picnic with his newfound friend, he can take off his shoes and shirt and romp in the fields free as a child once more.
And if by chance some man wearing the mask of AGENT-for-the-STATE suddenly appears and says, “You are now subject to all my master’s RULES, REGULATIONS, PUBLIC POLICIES and STATUTES because you used that fiat currency to procure your picnic food that had a sales tax attached;” he shall answer the man…
“Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother. It’s a beautiful day for a picnic here in my Master’s Kingdom, is it not?”
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 12 Aug 2005 23:06:11
Message:
To the man or woman the FRN is non-negotiable, being colorable.
quote:
> DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
> OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE
> FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE
This endorsement is cropping up all over the country. And the bankers do not wish to be the culpable party, so they are doing the same dodge - "We are not responsible..."
quote:
4. Bank will not be liable for and disregard conditional statements or
"subject to" conditions or any other information written on a check
other than the signature of the drawer, the identification of the drawer
bank and payee, the amount and any other information that appears in the
magnetic ink in the character recognition line.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 08:22:45
Message:
Negotiation. The transfer of an instrument in such form that the transferee becomes the holder. If the instrument is payable to order it is negotiated by delivery with any necessary indorsement; if payable to bearer it is negotiable by delivery. [cite omitted]. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition [Emphasis added]
Federal reserve notes. Form of currency issued by the Federal Reserve Banks in the likeness of non-interest bearing promissory note payable to bearer on demand. The federal reserve note (e.g. one, five, ten, etc. dollar bill) is the most widely used paper currency. Such have replaced silver and gold certificates which were backed by silver and gold. Such reserve notes are direct obligations of the United States. (Ibid.) [Emphasis added] Note: I wouldn’t want to be married to this PERSON Columbia, a.k.a. United States!
Bearer, n. [See Bear.] One who bears, sustains, or carries; a carrier, especially of a corpse to the grave. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
One who...carries. And though this promissory note was no longer backed by silver or gold, but rather, by the good faith of 14th Amendment citizens, in good faith this man at Ingle’s Market exchanged it for goods (food and drink) for our sojourning Stranger.
Stranger(s). As used with reference to the subject of subrogation, one who, in no event resulting from the existing state of affairs, can become liable for the debt, and whose property is not charged with the payment thereof and cannot be sold therefor. …Those who are in no way parties to a covenant or transaction, nor bound by it, are said to be strangers to the covenant or transaction. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition [Emphasis added]
The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.
For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.
Yahuwah preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked He turneth upside down. Yahuwah shall reign for ever, even thy ‘Elohiym, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye Yahuwah.
Happy Sevening Day Remembrance to all our fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el!
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 09:23:58
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, a young man wandered into a strange land. As he was walking along he found a greenish-colored piece of paper lying on the ground. He picked it up and inspected it more closely, on the front, in the center, was the image of a man, and in each of the four corners was the number 100. On the back of this piece of cloth-like paper was the picture of a building, again, with 100’s in each of the four corners.
As he stood perusing this small piece a paper with the interesting imagery a young woman chanced to come by. The man doffed his hat and said, “Excuse me, but I am a Stranger in this land, I wonder, could you tell me what this is?” And when he showed her the piece of paper he had found, the woman, after only the slightest glance said, “That is a 100-dollar bill, sir; it is what we buy things with in this place.” The man being very hungry after his long walk asked her if he could buy food with this thing and she said, “Why of course; come with me and I will show you where you can get some food.”
So she took him to a rather large building that had a huge sign on its face, which read, Ingle’s Market. After he had accumulated several species of organic vegetables and some clean meat and some drink they proceeded to the part of the market where someone tallied up all that he had chosen. He gave the man at the check-out the “100-dollar bill” that he had recently found and amazingly enough the man took the piece of greenish colored paper and gave him the bag of food.
No questions were asked of the Stranger, except, “Do you have an Ingle’s Discount Card”; “No I do not”, and “Plastic or paper, sir?” “Paper will be fine.” No agreements had been struck, the Stranger had not had not been asked to enter into any confederacies, treaties, covenants, or contracts. He had not cancelled his Adherence to his Master and sworn allegiance to another. And he most certainly had no intention of trading, nor did he trade, his birthright for that food.
However, you are right in that he must obey the STATUTES of Ingle’s Market, “No shirt, no shoes, no service” and, etc. but only while he is inside their house (market). As soon as he walks out of their parking lot to go enjoy a picnic with his newfound friend, he can take off his shoes and shirt and romp in the fields free as a child once more.
And if by chance some man wearing the mask of AGENT-for-the-STATE suddenly appears and says, “You are now subject to all my master’s RULES, REGULATIONS, PUBLIC POLICIES and STATUTES because you used that fiat currency to procure your picnic food that had a sales tax attached;” he shall answer the man…
“Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother. It’s a beautiful day for a picnic here in my Master’s Kingdom, is it not?”fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Here's another alternate story.... Just yesterday day a man finished his work week. He was happy because he had worked a few extra hours which made a difference on his pay. That extra $100 FRN would go along way if he budgeted his MONEY right. He stopped in at the SHELL STATION and shook his head at the rising gas prices. As he was pumping he took note of the TAX RATE that was displayed on the pump. "That's robbery how they can tack on that much for TAX" he said to himself. He kept pumping anyway. As he went to PAY his BILL at the check out counter he decided to add in a pack of smokes. When he got the pack of smokes he commented to the clerk, "I can't believe the price has risen again on both gas and smokes". The clerk answered back, "Yeah, a large part of the price is tax. They just pass it right on to you, the CONSUMER. You think the gas tax is bad, listen to this. I talked to the cigarette distributor who just got back from California the other day and he told me cigarettes are subject to both the cigarette tax and the cigarette and tobacco products surtax. The tax and surtax are paid by distributors through the use of tax stamps, which are purchased from banks and affixed to each package of cigarettes before distribution. The cost of the stamp includes both the cigarette tax and the surtax. Currently, each stamp costs 87 cents per pack of twenty cigarettes, comprising 12 cents for the cigarette tax and 75 cents for the combined surtax. Can you believe that! That's well over half the price of smokes just in tax! Do you still want the smokes, even after I told you this horrible news?", the clerk asks. The man thinks for a split second and replies, “No. I’ll pay the TAX”. He tenders the amount due for his BILL and heads outside. So, with a full tank and few FRN's lighter, the man makes his way to INGLES. He fills his buggy with his favorite FOOD PRODUCTS and makes his way to the check out counter. Beep, beep, beep sounds emit from the register as each UPC CODE on the PRODUCT is passed across the laser beam which tallies the inventory. The clerk, a conspiracy minded college student working part-time, picks up the tube of toothpaste and says to the man, “Did you know that this here sign is a secret Masonic emblem?” “Yes“, the man replied “but it is cheaper than paying the dentist who is probably a member of the same organization”. They have a quick laugh. “Your total is $43.24. But you might notice that this is a tiny fraction cheaper. The GOVT amended General Statute 105-164.4 (a) (5)…. That’s the Statute that obligates you to pay the SALES TAX. The man pays the BILL with the required FRNs.
Another day in the world of COMMERCE….
A few comments on your comments:
quote:
brother Robert said: No questions were asked of the Stranger, except, “Do you have an Ingle’s Discount Card”; “No I do not”, and “Plastic or paper, sir?” “Paper will be fine.” No agreements had been struck, the Stranger had not had not been asked to enter into any confederacies, treaties, covenants, or contracts. He had not cancelled his Adherence to his Master and sworn allegiance to another. And he most certainly had no intention of trading, nor did he trade, his birthright for that food.
You forgot the part where the man pays the PRICE of the GOODS including TAX and enters into a BUYER/SELLER agreement with the CORP. This put the man in the jurisdiction regulated by the laws of COMMERCE.
quote:
However, you are right in that he must obey the STATUTES of Ingle’s Market, “No shirt, no shoes, no service” and, etc. but only while he is inside their house (market).
Once again you are ignoring the key feature of the ACT. BUYER/SELLER agreement regulated by STATUTE which requires an obligatory TAX to CAESAR. With the logic you put forth above, one can enter a house of prostitution but only be guilty of sinning while in the house. Say he goes once a week. He is only a sinner for that one hour, each week?
quote:
As soon as he walks out of their parking lot to go enjoy a picnic with his newfound friend, he can take off his shoes and shirt and romp in the fields free as a child once more.
And if by chance some man wearing the mask of AGENT-for-the-STATE suddenly appears and says, “You are now subject to all my master’s RULES, REGULATIONS, PUBLIC POLICIES and STATUTES because you used that fiat currency to procure your picnic food that had a sales tax attached;” he shall answer the man…
Who cares what the AGENT says, it's YHWH who sees everything. That's the whole point, no? If one says that it is a breach of the first commandment to be one who is subject to GOVT STATUTE, then the story of the shopper outlines this man putting himself into COMMERCIAL situations which make him SUBJECT to GOVT STATUTES as well as being considered a TAX PAYER in the process. GOVT STATUTES do apply to the ecclesia, ice cream man, as well as the shirtless, shoeless man-child
romping in a fresh, green field.
That's the point I am trying to make using your measure of the first commandment.
We can agree to disagree on a such a nice day!
Cheers,
Steve
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 09:29:18
Message:
“Greetings and salutations in the name of our King, brother. It’s a beautiful day for a picnic here in my Master’s Kingdom, is it not?”
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth (from this time) even for ever. The zeal of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 09:45:57
Message:
Check the add in's to my last post!
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 11:11:41
Message:
Since they did not ask the Stranger for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, he is not a TAXPAYER (simply because he paid a sales tax), any more than a horse is a dog simply because he has four legs! Had the man at Ingle’s Market asked him for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER before proceeding the Stranger would have been unable to complete the purchase since he is not a TAXPAYER because he does not own, or use, the white stone (benefits number) of that kingdom. He is merely in their kingdom, not of it! He is a Stranger to their covenant(s) and transaction(s)!
“Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security…seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.” – What you didn’t know about taxes and the crown [Emphasis added]
"I refuse to allow any IRS or State revenue office to call me or any client a "taxpayer". Just because I may look like one or have the attributes of one does not necessarily make me one. To one IRS lady, and I have no reason to doubt that she fits this category, I use the following example. "Miss you have all of the equipment to be a whore, but that does not make you one by presumption." Until it is proven by a preponderance of evidence I must assume you are a lady and you will be treated as such. Please have the same respect for me, and don't slander my reputation and defame my character by calling me a whore for the government, which is what a "taxpayer" is." - (courtesy of Eugene Pringle)
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 11:56:04
Message:
quote:
Since they did not ask the Stranger for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, he is not a TAXPAYER (simply because he paid a sales tax), any more than a horse is a dog simply because he has four legs!
Complete nonsense! Shall we now pull out "THEIR" law and choose from the long menue of definitions of "TAXPAYER"? I am not talking about IRS so let's focus on the dog (CONSUMER TAX) ONLY and not the horse (IRS TAX). I am talking about a COMMERCIAL BUYER/SELLER transaction. The most simplist context of TAXPAYER in this instance is "one who is obligated to pay a TAX". When you/me pony up the TAX we most certainly could be considered TAXPAYERS in that context. The man in BOTH stories is obligated to pay the TAX if he AGREES to buy the merchandise. This is a commercial BUYER/SELLER agreement. This is not IRS TAXPAYER context, this is CONSUMER TAXPAYER context which I have proven to be squarely in the juridiction of GOVT STATUTES. When we pay the CONSUMER TAX we are submiting to the GOVT STATUTES which demand such.
Bottom line is we pay the TAX because we are obligated IF we want to do business with the CORP. You assert that to submit to GOVT STATUTES is a breach of the first commandment. By that simple logic one breaks the first commandmnet when they comply with the STATUTES that demand a TAX be paid on CONSUMER GOODS when entering into a BUYER/SELLER agreement.
An act done by your will is your act. Entering into a BUYER/SELLER agreement with a CORP puts that one under the jurisdiction which governs such transactions.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 12:15:56
Message:
.. I wanted to add that both parties, the CORP and the one doing business with it, "belong to" or are "of" the BUYER/SELLER transaction taking place. Actually there are three who are "of" the agreement. The CONSUMER, the RETAILER, and the GOVT. Kinda like an unholy trinity if your rendering of the first commandment is correct..
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 12:31:46
Message:
Since they did not ask the Stranger for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, he is not a TAXPAYER (simply because he paid a sales tax), any more than a horse is a dog simply because he has four legs! Had the man at Ingle’s Market asked him for a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER before proceeding the Stranger would have been unable to complete the purchase since he is not a TAXPAYER because he does not own, or use, the white stone (benefits number) of that kingdom. He is merely in their kingdom, not of it! He is a Stranger to their covenant(s) and transaction(s)!
“Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security…seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.” – What you didn’t know about taxes and the crown [Emphasis added]
"I refuse to allow any IRS or State revenue office to call me or any client a "taxpayer". Just because I may look like one or have the attributes of one does not necessarily make me one. To one IRS lady, and I have no reason to doubt that she fits this category, I use the following example. "Miss you have all of the equipment to be a whore, but that does not make you one by presumption." Until it is proven by a preponderance of evidence I must assume you are a lady and you will be treated as such. Please have the same respect for me, and don't slander my reputation and defame my character by calling me a whore for the government, which is what a "taxpayer" is." - (courtesy of Eugene Pringle)
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 13 Aug 2005 12:39:45
Message:
brother Robert, you still trying to make the dog into a horse.
American Heritage Dictionary
tax-pay-er (taks'pa'er) > n. One who pays taxes.
That's us when we pay a TAX when buying CONSUMER PRODUCTS.
Consumer Product. Any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed) 15 U.S.C.A. S 2501
There is no mention anywhere of a SS# in the CONSUMER model we have been discussing. Engaging in commerce with the CORP need not have anything to do with a SS# yet you keep wanting to bring that non-sequitur into this debate. One does not need a SS# to be a TAXPAYER in the willful act of PURCHASING CONSUMER GOODS. A willful act which is absolutely regulated by GOVT STATUTE.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 14 Aug 2005 06:39:55
Message:
Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Though you seem right at home libeling, er-r-r labeling a Stranger who pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in this place, as a [U.S.] TAXPAYER, it would seem that your GOVERNMENT and its COURTS are not so cavalier. Here are two court decisions exemplifying what we have just stated.
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..." - Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts...” – C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d.18 (1939)
Virtually anyone can see by the above decisions that merely paying a sales tax, which, if we are not mistaken, is an excise tax or use tax, does not in and of itself, make one a [U.S.] TAXPAYER. One would have to be a brick shy of a load, as the saying goes, to truly believe this, and we perceive that you are not, so perhaps you are just playing the devil's advocate in this discussion?
Next, let us give you the legal definition of a TAXPAYER.
Taxpayer. A person whose income is subject to taxation; one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution toward its support. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1017
And, you seem to be insisting that the TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, whether it is the S.S.N., T.I.N., S.I.N. or whatever other acronym they may put upon its variations, is not what its name implies; that it does not identify a PERSON as a TAXPAYER. You wish to leave out the undeniable truth that the PERSON who uses this benefits card must pay for the privilege of using it…
Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.
…but more importantly, we fully understand why you must choose to take this stance. Not that we are condemning anyone, when one’s master is a hypocrite and a deceiver, of necessity, that servant may have to lie to and cheat his master, just to survive in some cases.
And lastly, making the font on your posts really large does not negate the erroneous reasoning it contains and some may find it very distracting, though to be truthful, brother Steven, I giggled when I saw it.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 14 Aug 2005 09:12:44
Message:
quote:
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
A good Christian will therefore be a Taxpayer. For all intents and purposes all the time. There is no falling back on secular case law to avoid the commission and benefit of discussion. It is a religious matter - not within the scope of your religion to argue about it.
Otherwise avoid leaving a papertrail that you endorse false balances:
quote:
> DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
> OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE
> FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE
And so what if the Bank tries to follow suit or even ignore that you have put the responsibility and culpability of coloring money upon them:
quote:
4. Bank will not be liable for and disregard conditional statements or
"subject to" conditions or any other information written on a check
other than the signature of the drawer, the identification of the drawer
bank and payee, the amount and any other information that appears in the
magnetic ink in the character recognition line (MICR).
Handling a FRN is in my opinion an abomination before the Lord Yehowah. Proverbs 11:1;
quote:
Pro 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.
Testimony by comic book from the New York Federal Reserve Bank:
http://www.ny.frb.org/publications/result.cfm?comics=1
quote:
Explains the purposes of money in a modern economy, the characteristics that items used as money have, the way the banking system creates money, and the reasons the Federal Reserve influences the money supply. 2004 Maximum 35 copies. Comic-style Booklet. 24 pp. (emphasis added)
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 14 Aug 2005 10:43:45
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[size=2][font=Book Antiqua]Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Uh.. Thanks. You are not offering peace but I can play your game.
quote:
Though you seem right at home libeling, er-r-r labeling a Stranger who pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in this place, as a [U.S.] TAXPAYER, it would seem that your GOVERNMENT and its COURTS are not so cavalier. Here are two court decisions exemplifying what we have just stated.
Here you are again trying to make a dog into a horse. You keep posting OUT OF CONTEXT cases which have NOTHING to do with the subject matter of BUY/SELL CONSUMER agreements. I posted a general definition of TAXPAYER from the American Heritage Dictionary. One who pays a TAX. You post later in your response the Black's law definition which only proves my point AGAIN once you understand the function of the tricky punctuation being used. You insist on trying to shift this into a different TAX issue which has nothing to do with the nature of the subject matter I am bringing forth. Then, to add to this sophistry you spin, you try to insult me by accusing me of libel. If that's the tone you want to set here, after I have explained what I mean by TAXPAYER, in the context of our discussion, fine. I can play that way.
I'll address the below:
quote:
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..." - Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
First off this is NOT addressing the kind of BUY/SELL agreements we are speaking of. Secondly, there would not have to be a 'judicial review' to find out if one is a TAXPAYER in relation to a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION of the nature we are discussing. You would have already PAID THE TAX! So the point would be moot. In context, you are a TAXPAYER in relation to "this type" of transaction. You are trying to make a dog into a horse. Here's where you are a TAXPAYER in relation to our topic:
26 U.S.C. §1313: Definitions
(b) Taxpayer
Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
You are a TAXPAYER in a CONSUMER transaction because you are subjecting yourself to the applicable revenue law (GOVT STATUTE) which demands that a TAX be paid on all CONSUMER PRODUCTS. Notwithstanding means "despite the fact".
quote:
"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts...” – C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d.18 (1939)
Once again you are desperately trying to make the dog into a horse. This is not in context to SALES, EXCISE, USE, or which ever applicable TAX in a CONSUMER transaction. BTW, exclusive includes the definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313(b) if that context were applicable.
quote:
Virtually anyone can see by the above decisions that merely paying a sales tax, which, if we are not mistaken, is an excise tax or use tax, does not in and of itself, make one a [U.S.] TAXPAYER. One would have to be a brick shy of a load, as the saying goes, to truly believe this, and we perceive that you are not, so perhaps you are just playing the devil's advocate in this discussion?
Why do you insist on bringing out of context cases to the table here? Excise tax, sales tax, use tax, what-ever-tax. Whoever pays one or any of these, DURING THE TRANSACTION, would be considered a TAXPAYER, in that context. What's more, is the word or even status of TAXPAYER, is not the sum total of the argument I am making. The bottom line is if you do business with the CORP your are SUBJECT to GOVT STATUTES which regulate such transactions. This includes paying a TAX!
quote:
Next, let us give you the legal definition of a TAXPAYER.
Taxpayer. A person whose income is subject to taxation; one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution toward its support. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1017
Amazing! brother Robert take the scales off your eyes. The second part after the semi-colon squarely defines the type of TAXPAYER you would be in a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION!!! "one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution toward its support." "Pecuniary" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, id., as "monetary; relating to money; financial; consisting of money or that which can be valued as money". Yes. The GOVT demands that you pay SALES TAX which is clearly a contribution toward its support. You can't see this because you are not taking into account the semi-colon. What is the function of a semi-colon in a sentence? It means there are two clauses are in the same sentence.
quote:
And, you seem to be insisting that the TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, whether it is the S.S.N., T.I.N., S.I.N. or whatever other acronym they may put upon its variations, is not what its name implies; that it does not identify a PERSON as a TAXPAYER. You wish to leave out the undeniable truth that the PERSON who uses this benefits card must pay for the privilege of using it…
I am not, have never insisted that the TIN, SSN, or whatever acronym is not what it's name implies. That's you trying to shift the argument from a dog to a horse. None of these acronyms are needed for a COMSUMER BUY/SELL transaction.
Reply author: Surveyor
Replied on: 14 Aug 2005 12:19:45
Message:
A sales tax is not on the consumer but on the seller in the business of selling consumer products. Calling a sales tax a consumer tax is only a word game that the state plays with
their voters to help control and influence their vote. The State has the power to tax merchants, peddlers, and privileges and property in which it has a beneficial interest. It is the business that contracts with the State to pay the tax and the obligation is on the business to pay.
They also like to say the seller is just an agent who collects the tax for the government but this is just another word game for saying the seller is passing on another cost of his goods. The sales tax is a part of the cost of the product just like the cost of shipping,
handling, and the price of the merchandise. The business is the one subject to his master who says he must show his sales tax separate on the sales receipt. He is also the one who must file the tax return and the sales tax may be considered part of his gross income.
There are no legislative acts that are binding on a free man (if there is such a thing) unless he has in some way given his consent in some lawful form or contract. A man will not even be recognized as a person who exists unless he can prove what jurisdiction to which he belongs.
It is not making agreements under law or color of law that necessarily makes a man a slave of another master although the consequences of such agreements made in ignorance and foolishness may definitely restrict our use of the blessings provided and entrusted to us. It is the Master to whom we give our allegiance that we serve.
The intent of the statutes, so the legislature says, is to protect the welfare of their own. This is why the State requires an oath before they hand out privileges and benefits from the corporate goods they hold in trust.
If the Kings servant walks in a jurisdiction under
another kings servant he should respect the laws that bind that servant whether it is getting permission to enter their place of business, their highways, or paying for the use of their things.
But I would say taking their benefits and oaths that give them the jurisdiction to judge what is truth is overstepping the bounds.
It does seem odd to me that many of the people I talk to that believe they have a duty because of Romans 13 to obey the laws of Caesar think nothing of breaking speed limits
and running stop signs when the cop is not around. Yet they don't turn themselves in or repent for their transgression.
Clarence
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 14 Aug 2005 12:56:15
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Surveyor
A sales tax is not on the consumer but on the seller in the business of selling consumer products.
Look at the reciept when we make a purchase. It clearly lists the SALES TAX we paid. It is being passed on directly to us via the CORP as part of the BUYER/SELLER agreement. We step into the role of TAXPAYER or else they show us the door and sell us nothing.
quote:
Calling a sales tax a consumer tax is only a word game that the state plays with their voters to help control and influence their vote. The State has the power to tax merchants, peddlers, and privileges and property in which it has a beneficial interest. It is the business that contracts with the State to pay the tax and the obligation is on the business to pay.
Taking what you are saying here at face value the issue is still very clear. The CORP is passing the burden of TAX on to you/us. We accept this burden and this brings us squarely into the loop. Either way, within the CONSUMER/CORP transaction, the one who agrees to pay the TAX is considered a TAXPAYER, in that context.
quote:
They also like to say the seller is just an agent who collects the tax for the government but this is just another word game for saying the seller is passing on another cost of his goods.
I agree 100%. We enter into their word game scheme when we willfuly come to the CORP. Either way, we "perfect" their word game when we agree to the terms. If we don't want to accept the burden of being the TAXPAYER during the consumer transaction with the CORP, we can refuse to enter into that agreement. When we do accept that responsibility as set forth in the terms of the agreement, then we become a TAXPAYER as set out in the STATUTES I listed above. That's the essence of my point.
quote:
The sales tax is a part of the cost of the product just like the cost of shipping, handling, and the price of the merchandise. The business is the one subject to his master who says he must show his sales tax separate on the sales receipt. He is also the one who must file the tax return and the sales tax may be considered part of his gross income.
And the non-negotiable terms set forth by the CORP, if we AGREE to do business with them, requires us to become the TAXPAYER in the transaction. When the CORP pays the GOVT, in their seperate deal outside the particular BUY/SELL agreement at point of consumer purchase, a different terms are honored. Now the GOVT has caused two parties to become TAXPAYERS! The master sets forth the terms of the agreement and when you go to the the CORP the master demands certain duties of the consumer.
quote:
There are no legislative acts that are binding on a free man (if there is such a thing) unless he has in some way given his consent in some lawful form or contract. A man will not even be recognized as a person who exists unless he can prove what jurisdiction to which he belongs.
You nailed it with "consent". The jurisdiction is proven by the nature of the transaction. If one goes to a CORP to buy CONSUMER GOODS, that person, by consent, is entering into a transaction that is governed by specific GOVT STATUTES.
quote:
It is not making agreements under law or color of law that necessarily makes a man a slave of another master although the consequences of such agreements made in ignorance and foolishness may definitely restrict our use of the blessings provided and entrusted to us. It is the Master to whom we give our allegiance that we serve.
I agree with you here. However some on this thread argue that to go 'under color of law' at all is itself a breach of the first commandment. These same types will agrue that to put one's self under any 'color of law' is "serving two masters". That's what brother Robert and I are debating currently.
quote:
The intent of the statutes, so the legislature says, is to protect the welfare of their own. This is why the State requires an oath before they hand out privileges and benefits from the corporate goods they hold in trust.
In like kind, the CORP requires an agreement that the CONSUMER assumes the burden of becoming the TAXPAYER when they sell GOODS and SERVICES. We perfect this status in the agreement when we accept the terms set forth by the CORP.
quote:
If the Kings servant walks in a jurisdiction under
another kings servant he should respect the laws that bind that servant whether it is getting permission to enter their place of business, their highways, or paying for the use of their things.
Agree 100%. That's just fair, IMO.
quote:
But I would say taking their benefits and oaths that give them the jurisdiction to judge what is truth is overstepping the bounds.
I would only note, in the context of the position I am arguing, that the jurisdiction of the CONSUMER BUY/SELL transaction is completely regulated by GOVT STATUTE. Hence my claim that GOVT STATUTES do apply to the ecclesia in certain contexts. COMMERCE being one.
quote:
It does seem odd to me that many of the people I talk to that believe they have a duty because of Romans 13 to obey the laws of Caesar think nothing of breaking speed limits and running stop signs when the cop is not around. Yet they don't turn themselves in or repent for their transgression.
Clarence
I would also add that I doubt anyone would be willing to pay "tax, toll or tribute" during a CONSUMER PURCHASE if they could get away with it. However, the GOVT and their licensed CORPS see to it that this is not possible. If you don't agree to be the TAXPAYER in the transaction, then they don't SELL you the GOODS.
Steve
Reply author: Surveyor
Replied on: 14 Aug 2005 13:38:12
Message:
"Look at the reciept when we make a purchase. It clearly lists the SALES TAX we paid. It is being passed on directly to us via the CORP as part of the BUYER/SELLER agreement. We step into the role of TAXPAYER or else they show us the door and sell us nothing."
It is still the law that governs, not what is supposed or what someone thinks. The receipt is made out by the seller for the buyers benefit and is not a contract nor does it create an obligation on the buyer to pay anything to the state unless that is what they believe. On the receipt it is still called a sales tax and the law puts the obligation and duty of the sales tax along with the requirement to break it down on the receipt on the business. The consumer can take the same product and sale it to his neighbor and neither he or his neighbor owes a sales tax on the consumer product although the new sale price may still reflect everything that went into the cost of the product.
Many times to make this point I have pretended that I was not going to pay the tax. A time or two I have refused to pay the addition of the tax on the cost when the seller quoted a price over the phone and didn't include the tax with the price. The seller in order to make the sale let me have it at the quoted price but the seller still paid that amount of tax themselves or changed the ticket to reflect the new sale price. But the state will not, and they have no aughority to do so, come and collect it from the buyer.
Clarence
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 14 Aug 2005 14:08:25
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
"Look at the reciept when we make a purchase. It clearly lists the SALES TAX we paid. It is being passed on directly to us via the CORP as part of the BUYER/SELLER agreement. We step into the role of TAXPAYER or else they show us the door and sell us nothing."
Clarence said: It is still the law that governs, not what is supposed or what someone thinks. The receipt is made out by the seller for the buyers benefit and is not a contract nor does it create an obligation on the buyer to pay anything to the state unless that is what they believe.
I have looked into this and wanted to edit my original response. The VENDOR is considered the AGENT responsible for collecting the TAX from the CONSUMER. There are many examples of this. One such example is worded on a site for Cleveland County as "Vendors must collect sales tax and remit sales tax to the state". Another in Louisana states, "Tax & Sales Rules: All Vendors must collect sales tax of 8.5% (Louisiana State 4%, Terrebonne Parish 4.5%). and remit payment to the state and parish tax". Yet another example: "Vendors/sellers are responsible for remitting sales tax to the California." It is clear that the VENDOR is acting as an AGENT for the STATE and collecting TAX from the CONSUMER who is obligated to pay it. I agree the receipt is not a contract. It is, however, proof of a transaction in COMMERCE and if SALES TAX is reflected, it is proof that the BUYER assumed this obligation. The 'contract' is the actual agreement between the SELLER and BUYER. That contract need not be written... Consider this. I SELL my paitings to a CORP. The CORP is only obligated to pay the retail SALES TAX if the painting is sold not if the art sits unsold. In this way the CORP is the AGENT of collection for the CONSUMER SALES TAX. The CORP is not the consumer, the BUYER is. If the CORP makes deal in which the sales tax is converted to a discount, then the RETAIL tax still gets paid.
quote:
On the receipt it is still called a sales tax and the law puts the obligation and duty of the sales tax along with the requirement to break it down on the receipt on the business.
It is clear that the VENDOR acts as an AGENT for the STATE in collecting and remitting the SALES TAX required at point of purchase.. But the TAX is only due IF the goods are sold. IF a BUYER/SELLER agreement is reached. CONSUMER SALES TAX is not required if there is no sale of the GOODS. .
quote:
The consumer can take the same product and sale it to his neighbor and neither he or his neighbor owes a sales tax on the consumer product although the new sale price may still reflect everything that went into the cost of the product.
That's correct. Sales tax is not required between private parties. They are required when a RETAIL sale is made between a CORP and another party.
quote:
Many times to make this point I have pretended that I was not going to pay the tax. A time or two I have refused to pay the addition of the tax on the cost when the seller quoted a price over the phone and didn't include the tax with the price. The seller in order to make the sale let me have it at the quoted price but the seller still paid that amount of tax themselves or changed the ticket to reflect the new sale price.
That's correct. You negotiated yourself out of paying the sales tax and you did not assume the burden of TAXPAYER in that particular transaction. The SELLER absorbed the charge. Your receipt showing no sales TAX would be proof that you did not accept the role of TAXPAYER. Most of the time, from my experience, the SELLER will just drop the price and still show the sales tax being charged for bookmaking purposes.
However, the very receipt would be proof that you entered into a COMMERCIAL transaction. These transactions, between a RETAIL CORP and another party, are regulated by GOVT STATUTES. That's the gist of my argument.
quote:
But the state will not, and they have no aughority to do so, come and collect it from the buyer.
Actually that is not true. The STATE can in some cases go after the CONSUMER if the VENDOR does not pay the TAX. See Collector of Revenue v. J. L. Richardson Company, (App. 4 Cir. 1971, 247 So.2d 151) mentioned below. Still, itt is the responsibility of the AGENT who collects the TAX at point of sale to send it along to the STATE. The AGENT being the CORP who does not owe any TAX unless a SALE is made to a CONSUMER. In your case you were able to make stipulations in your commercial agreement for purchase of consumer goods which got you out of the position of TAXPAYER. That's completely fair in business. It's also fair if one accepts to pay the CONSUMER SALES TAX. The SELLER is not the CONSUMER but all deals are negotiable in commerce. Commerce itself being regulated by GOVT STATUTES.
Also, consider this fact: If a sale is made out of state there is no SALES TAX required during that transaction. The VENDOR is not obligated because the BUYER is not purchasing in the jurisdiction of the STATE the GOODS are being sold. This shows the SALES TAX is effected by the CONSUMER.
(snip) "Paid by the consumer, sales tax is a percentage of the retail price paid for specific classifications of goods and services within the state. If a purchase is made out-of-state by a Washington resident, where there is no sales tax or the sales tax paid out-of-state is less than the rate levied in the resident's locality, state law requires that a use tax be calculated and paid to make up the difference. In practice, most people do not pay the use tax on purchases made out-of-state, except for vehicles, where a use tax must be paid before licensure is authorized. Otherwise, the use tax is very difficult to administer and enforce."
Here's another point blank item from the Louisiana Dept of Revenue:
Q: I made a purchase of property for my own use from a vendor who did not collect the sales or use tax from me. Is the purchase taxable? If so, which of us will the department expect to remit the tax? Can I as the purchaser ever be held liable for any tax on my purchase?
A: If the property you purchased is tangible personal property and is subject to sales tax as described above, then the purchase is subject to sales tax even though your vendor did not collect it. The vendor acts as an agent on behalf of the state in collecting the sales tax due. In the event the vendor does not collect the sales tax, the department may seek to collect the sales tax from the seller or the purchaser. This issue is addressed in the court case Collector of Revenue v. J. L. Richardson Company, (App. 4 Cir. 1971, 247 So.2d 151) and by the definition of dealer under LAC 61:I.4301.
This from the US treasury:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/state_taxes.shtml
US Department of the Treasury
Consumer Tax
A consumer tax system taxes the retail sale. The vendor at a store collects the tax from the buyer and then sends the tax money to the state. For example, if you bought a record album, you would pay a tax in addition to the record price.
Combination
A combination vendor-consumer system taxes the vendor (the owner of the record store) who then is required to pass the tax on to the consumer (the person who buys the record). From the standpoint of the consumer, a combination vendor-consumer sales tax appears identical to a consumer sales tax. The consumer pays a tax in addition to the sale price.
.
Steve
Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 15 Aug 2005 00:12:24
Message:
"In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver,
and his idols of gold, which they made [each one]
for himself to worship, to the moles and to the
bats..."
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 15 Aug 2005 07:18:56
Message:
Even on this fine forum, I am impressed with the quality of articulation and refined wisdom expressed in the last couple Pages.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 15 Aug 2005 11:05:10
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Even on this fine forum, I am impressed with the quality of articulation and refined wisdom expressed in the last couple Pages.
Here's the sum total of the situation:
A CORP/VENDOR is required to have a license to "collect and remit" CONSUMER TAXES to the STATE when it SELLS it's CONSUMER GOODS or SERVICES. The CORP/VENDOR acts as an AGENT for the REVENUE DEPT in this ACTIVITY. The CORP/VENDOR SELLS it's GOODS to CONSUMER and collects the required TAX at point of SALE from the CONSUMER. Remember, the CORP/VENDOR must be licensed by the STATE to act as AGENT in collecting these obligatory TAXES. This transaction is a BUY/SELL agreement in COMMERCE between the two PARTIES and, in some cases, is open to negotiation. In most cases the CONSUMER PAYS the CONSUMER TAX in the BUY/SELL agreement between the CORP/VENDOR. In that context, in that phase of the BUY/SELL TRANSACTION, the CONSUMER is the TAXPAYER and tenders the amount of TAX DUE. This fits perfectly with the BLACK'S LAW, American Heritage Dictionary as well as definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313 (b). The CORP/VENDOR must then remit the CONSUMER TAXES it collected to the STATE. The CORP/VENDOR, in this phase of the transaction, is also considered a TAXPAYER by the same definitions listed above. Each step of the transaction, by ALL parties, is an act of COMMERCE.
Steve
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 15 Aug 2005 14:24:23
Message:
Found this:
California Revenue and Taxation Code (1970):
6052 Collection by retailer from consumer. The tax hereby imposed shall be collected by the retailer from the consumer in so far as it can be done.
Once again we see that the RETAILER is acting as the AGENT in collecting SALES TAX.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 15 Aug 2005 16:53:11
Message:
Greetings and salutations everyone:
Peace be unto the house.
Just got in from working and read all the posts here and will respond as time permits. We will attempt to clean up the mess, but in the mean time please believe that I do wish you and yours, good health, lasting peace and the prosperty you desire, brother Steven. I believe it is only a question of semantics and can all be cleared up in a hospitable manner.
Until then,
brother Robert:
P.S. Perhaps Admin would be kind enough to fix the page-width-problem to make things easier here. Thanks for all your efforts.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 15 Aug 2005 17:05:46
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations everyone:
Peace be unto the house.
Just got in from working and read all the posts here and will respond as time permits. We will attempt to clean up the mess, but in the mean time please believe that I do wish you and yours, good health, lasting peace and the prosperty you desire, brother Steven. I believe it is only a question of semantics and can all be cleared up in a hospitable manner.
Until then,
brother Robert:
P.S. Perhaps Admin would be kind enough to fix the page-width-problem to make things easier here. Thanks for all your efforts.fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Thanks! I must admit I took your last e-mail to be a bit hostile and it got me a bit upset. I was not slandering you what-so-ever. I was just trying to outline the chain of events in BUY/SELL agreement, not trying to say you were a "whore for the GOVT". Let's start over.
Looking forward to having a peaceful discussion on this item.
Best to all,
Steve
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 15 Aug 2005 21:25:20
Message:
Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house; (“tricky punctuation” ) and we mean it.
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Though you seem right at home libeling, er-r-r labeling a Stranger who pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in this place, as a [U.S.] TAXPAYER, it would seem that your GOVERNMENT and its COURTS are not so cavalier. Here are two court decisions exemplifying what we have just stated.
Batkol: Then, to add to this sophistry you spin, you try to insult me by accusing me of libel.
oneisraelite: No, no…it was a typo and I corrected it immediately (See original post). Sorry, my sardonic humor obviously leaves something to be desired. Please accept my humble apologies for offending you, brother Steven. We misunderstood you to be saying that because of that one transaction, the Stranger had become a 14th Amendment subject/citizen, i.e. a card-carrying TAXPAYER; apparently you were not.
Batkol: Here you are again trying to make a dog into a horse.
oneisraelite: I mentioned semantics, therein we believe, may lie our differences. Your definition of taxpayer is a general definition and by that general definition you are correct, our Stranger did pay a tax, thus he is a tax payer. In fact, the Stranger was not given a receipt at all in our scenario and thus truly did not know that he had paid a tax, but by your general definition he is STILL a tax payer.
This just in from a tax case that was, within the last few days, won in another place...
Some highlights from the hearing:
Whilst wrangling with the judge over the meaning of the terms used in the [tax] statute, the Crown Prosecutor said, "I believe this word should be given its ordinary and usual meaning." To which the judge replied, "This is tax law. Nothing is ordinary or usual." [Emphasis added]
However, that act in and of itself, did not make him a PERSON, a creation of the CORPORATION. Only the creations of the CORPORATION lawfully owe their master, the CORPORATION taxes.
Render unto [the] caesar what is [the] caesar’s.
Strangers, i.e. citizens of other nations, such as the commonwealth of Yisra’el, do not owe any taxes to the corporation U.S.A., there is no "demand" that they pay any taxes, “Therefore the children are exempt (HNV)”, but they may freely choose (consent) to pay a sales tax (or any other), if they so desire.
All things Lawful are mine, but not all things are expedient (advantageous).
Where we draw the line has been brought forth by Surveyor (brother Clarence:)
Originally posted by Surveyor
”It is the Master to whom we give our allegiance that we serve.”
“But I would say taking their benefits and oaths that give them the jurisdiction to judge what is truth is overstepping the bounds.”
oneisraelite: Well said, brother Clarence! And I believe that pledging allegiance is the only way a Stranger can become a NATURALIZED CITIZEN of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and become legally liable for the taxes thereof.
P.S. Thank you Admin for fixing the width problem; much appreciated.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 16 Aug 2005 09:59:03
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[size=2][font=Book Antiqua]Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house; (“tricky punctuation”
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Though you seem right at home libeling, er-r-r labeling a Stranger who pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in this place, as a [U.S.] TAXPAYER, it would seem that your GOVERNMENT and its COURTS are not so cavalier. Here are two court decisions exemplifying what we have just stated.
Batkol: Then, to add to this sophistry you spin, you try to insult me by accusing me of libel.
oneisraelite: No, no…it was a typo and I corrected it immediately (See original post). Sorry, my sardonic humor obviously leaves something to be desired. Please accept my humble apologies for offending you, brother Steven. We misunderstood you to be saying that because of that one transaction, the Stranger had become a 14th Amendment subject/citizen, i.e. a card-carrying TAXPAYER; apparently you were not.
Thank you for clearing this up. You have taken a load off my shoulders. I also apologise for my part. I was certainly NOT saying that one who pays a SALES TAX is a 14th Amendment Citizen. I was just saying that, in the context of a BUY/SELL agreement between the CONSUMER and VENDOR, the VEDOR acts as an AGENT for the STATE (or which-ever-ENTITY) in collecting the TAX at point of PURCHASE. I was also saying later that the Black's LAW definition of TAXPAYER, as well as definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313 (b, does account for this STATUS, in that particular transaction.
quote:
Batkol: Here you are again trying to make a dog into a horse.
oneisraelite: I mentioned semantics, therein we believe, may lie our differences. Your definition of taxpayer is a general definition and by that general definition you are correct, our Stranger did pay a tax, thus he is a tax payer. In fact, the Stranger was not given a receipt at all in our scenario and thus truly did not know that he had paid a tax, but by your general definition he is STILL a tax payer.
Upon closer examination of the Black's Law as well as definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313(b) the CONSUMER would still be considered a TAXPAYER, in the context of a BUY/SELL agreement between himself and the VENDOR. The VENDOR is licensed to "collect and remit" the Tax. After that transaction, the VENDOR (acting as AGENT for the STATE) is responsible for passing along the TAX that he is licensed to collect. In that particular phase of the transaction (to which we are NOT party to) the VENDOR becomes a TAXPAYER. I believe one website called it "the TAX chain".
quote:
This just in from a tax case that was, within the last few days, won in another place...
Some highlights from the hearing:
Whilst wrangling with the judge over the meaning of the terms used in the [tax] statute, the Crown Prosecutor said, "I believe this word should be given its ordinary and usual meaning." To which the judge replied, "This is tax law. Nothing is ordinary or usual." [Emphasis added]
However, that act in and of itself, did not make him a PERSON, a creation of the CORPORATION. Only the creations of the CORPORATION lawfully owe their master, the CORPORATION taxes.
Render unto [the] caesar what is [the] caesar’s.
What is the context of this case? Was it an IRS INCOME TAX case? If so, then it would not have any bearing on a BUY/SELL agreement made in RETAIL COMMERCE. That's another animal and the definitions of TAXPAYER in both Black's Law and 26 U.S.C. §1313(b) would apply to the CONSUMER paying the CONSUMER TAX, during that isolated phase of the BUY/SELL agreement struck between VENDOR and CONSUMER. Remember, the VENDOR is acting as an AGENT for the STATE in "collecting and remiting" the TAX.
From US Department of the Treasury
Consumer Tax
A consumer tax system taxes the retail sale. The vendor at a store collects the tax from the buyer and then sends the tax money to the state. For example, if you bought a record album, you would pay a tax in addition to the record price.
Combination
A combination vendor-consumer system taxes the vendor (the owner of the record store) who then is required to pass the tax on to the consumer (the person who buys the record). From the standpoint of the consumer, a combination vendor-consumer sales tax appears identical to a consumer sales tax. The consumer pays a tax in addition to the sale price.
The CONSUMER, during the phase of BUYING the GOODS, is "one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution toward its support." The VENDOR is licensed to "collect and remit" this TAX for the STATE.
quote:
Strangers, i.e. citizens of other nations, such as the commonwealth of Yisra’el, do not owe any taxes to the corporation U.S.A., there is no "demand" that they pay any taxes, “Therefore the children are exempt (HNV)”, but they may freely choose (consent) to pay a sales tax (or any other), if they so desire.
Strangers, dog catchers, moral sentient beings, moms and dads, whoever, do OWE taxes to the US CORP when they PURCHASE GOODS and SERVICES during that particular transaction.... unless they negotiate otherwise during the SALE. After the TAX has been 'collected' the VENDOR then becomes a TAXPAYER who is responsible in 'remitting' the obligatory TAX which they are licensed to collect to the STATE.. Hence the phrase "tax chain".
During that transaction one becomes party to an act in commerce wherein the VENDOR acts as an AGENT who 'collects and remits' for the US CORP. This paying of the TAX may very well put whoever pays the TAX into the STATUS of a PERSON during that transaction. I am going to look into that last part and report back.
Pece to all,
Steve
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 16 Aug 2005 10:30:03
Message:
Try applying for waiver the tax. After a bunch of items are rung up, refuse to pay the tax.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 16 Aug 2005 12:19:48
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Try applying for waiver the tax. After a bunch of items are rung up, refuse to pay the tax.
That would be a perfect soloution. Aside from the FRN issue, it would be a great way of avoiding becoming a TAXPAYER in the transaction.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 16 Aug 2005 19:22:59
Message:
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto you and yours.
We would like to ask one more favor of you…
[Originally posted by Batkol]
Yet, you have no problem enjoying the benefits of CONTRACTS as long as other's do it for you. So much for causing your "brother not to sin".
We would ask that either you take back, what we perceive to be a false accusation, or that you produce evidence that we have ever caused a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra’el to sin by asking them to enter into a contract on our behalf.
We might ask a citizen of a foreign nation we are sojourning in to lie to his or her 'elohiym/god (ruler) for us but surely you would not say that we caused him or her to sin against Yahuwah any more than you would say Joshua’s spies caused Rehab to sin against Yahuwah, would you? In fact, Rehab was rewarded by Yahuwah for lying to her 'elohiym/god’s agents for the sake of the Yisra’elites (fellowcitizens of Yisra’el). This is second witnessed in the New Covenant [Testament] when it says that those who help the fellowcitizens of Yisra’el will be rewarded.
We thank you for your time and attention to this matter, brother Steven.
Next!
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
Though you are correct, in the general sense, the Stranger to the covenant(s) who pays a tax, knowingly or unknowingly, is a taxpayer, it would be very dangerous for him to answer to this appellation, since it sounds exactly like the STATUTORILY created TAXPAYER, represented here as a fiction by its all-caps depiction. All who buy are buyers, but not all buyers are the legally created fictions called, BUYERS. Watch this from Black’s Law Dictionary – Abridged Sixth Edition, page 138.
Buyer. One who buys; (“tricky punctuation”) …a person who buys …
There are two kinds of buyers, one who buys refers to living beings, whereas a person who buys refers to statutorily created fictions.
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
semantics n.pl. 1 the branch of linguistics concerned with the nature, the structure, and the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning 3 the relationships between signs and symbols and the concepts, feelings, etc. associated with them in the minds of the their interpreters – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, page 1219
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 17 Aug 2005 08:39:45
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto you and yours.
We would like to ask one more favor of you…
[Originally posted by Batkol]
Yet, you have no problem enjoying the benefits of CONTRACTS as long as other's do it for you. So much for causing your "brother not to sin".
We would ask that either you take back, what we perceive to be a false accusation, or that you produce evidence that we have ever caused a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra’el to sin by asking them to enter into a contract on our behalf.
We might ask a citizen of a foreign nation we are sojourning in to lie to his or her 'elohiym/god (ruler) for us but surely you would not say that we caused him or her to sin against Yahuwah any more than you would say Joshua’s spies caused Rehab to sin against Yahuwah, would you? In fact, Rehab was rewarded by Yahuwah for lying to her 'elohiym/god’s agents for the sake of the Yisra’elites (fellowcitizens of Yisra’el). This is second witnessed in the New Covenant [Testament] when it says that those who help the fellowcitizens of Yisra’el will be rewarded.
We thank you for your time and attention to this matter, brother Steven.
Next!
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
Though you are correct, in the general sense, the Stranger to the covenant(s) who pays a tax, knowingly or unknowingly, is a taxpayer, it would be very dangerous for him to answer to this appellation, since it sounds exactly like the STATUTORILY created TAXPAYER, represented here as a fiction by its all-caps depiction. All who buy are buyers, but not all buyers are the legally created fictions called, BUYERS. Watch this from Black’s Law Dictionary – Abridged Sixth Edition, page 138.
Buyer. One who buys; (“tricky punctuation”) …a person who buys …
There are two kinds of buyers, one who buys refers to living beings, whereas a person who buys refers to statutorily created fictions.
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
semantics n.pl. 1 the branch of linguistics concerned with the nature, the structure, and the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning 3 the relationships between signs and symbols and the concepts, feelings, etc. associated with them in the minds of the their interpreters – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, page 1219fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
I have taken care of your request. I will respond the the rest of the post later when I have time to give it the time it deserves.
Peace to all!
Steve
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 17 Aug 2005 08:47:38
Message:
quote:
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
I was thinking it would be good to clarify that same point.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 17 Aug 2005 18:55:21
Message:
quote:
brother Robert said: We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it
Let's focus on "collect". Collect from who? The CONSUMER. If there is a tax to be "collected" then there is an obligation for the CONSUMER to pay it, unless a different deal can be negotiated. The VENDOR is licensed as an AGENT of the STATE to collect the TAX from the PURCHASER. This is well established. The CONSUMER who pays the TAX during the transaction between himself and the VENDOR would be a TAXPAYER as defined in Black's Law as well as the TAXPAYER definition in 26 U.S.C. §1313(b). . After the fact, once the TAX has been collected, then the VENDOR also is considered a TAXPAYER in that it must 'remit' what it collected. So we have two TAXPAYERS. Also, the definition of TAXPAYER in Black's Law, is not limited to the first clause in the definition which speaks of INCOME TAX. When the semi-colon exists in the sentence it separates two clauses. In actuality, two clauses in a sentence is like two separate sentences. The second part of the sentence, after the semi-colon can, stand on it's own. That's the tricky punctuation. There's the CONSUMER TAXPAYER, after the semi-colon. Understanding that, we have one definition of TAXPAYER in relation to INCOME TAX, then we have another definition that can be applied generally in the second clause. Having said that, I think it would be quite easy to see the party who performs the role of CONSUMER, during that COMMERCIAL transaction, as a PERSON once he accepts the BUY/SELL agreement which includes a TAX paid to the AGENT. If the man walks away and refuses to enter into the BUY/SELL agreement, then no deal was made, no TAX was paid, and the man did not assume the role as TAXPAYER or PERSON during that transction. If he accepts the terms, then the man becomes a CONSUMER, TAXPAYER, and PERSON for that particular transaction. He has become part of the 'TAX chain'.
Steve
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 18 Aug 2005 05:19:38
Message:
quote:
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
I wanted to focus on this above statement now that I have a few minutes. The only "choosing" being done by the 'stranger' is whether or not to enter into COMMERCE with the VENDOR. Once the choice is made to enter into such a transaction, the stranger becomes a CONSUMER "in" the BUY/SELL RETAIL contract being struck between himself and the VENDOR. He assumes certain responsibilities for his part of the BUY/SELL transaction. The CONSUMER entering into a BUY/SELL agreement is indebted to the VENDOR. Firstly, the CONSUMER is indebted to the VENDOR for the price of the MERCHANDISE. The CONSUMER, if the offer by the VENDOR is accepted, is bound to pay the price of the MERCHANDISE. Concering that TAX obligation it is not “illegal” for the VENDOR to “eat it” because all that is happening, in reality, is the price of the MERCHANDISE is being discounted. It is not uncommon for the VENDOR to offer a discount which is the same percentage as the obligatory TAX that is to be ‘collected’ at point of SALE. The TAX is still being collected but this might only be reflected on the paper work between the STATE and the VENDOR who acts as an AGENT for the STATE. It is an established fact that the STATE can come after the CONSUMER if the VENDOR cheats the STATE and fails to ‘remit’ the CONSUMER TAX. Example from a Louisiana Revenue site.
"The vendor acts as an agent on behalf of the state in collecting the sales tax due. In the event the vendor does not collect the sales tax, the department may seek to collect the sales tax from the seller or the purchaser. This issue is addressed in the court case Collector of Revenue v. J. L. Richardson Company, (App. 4 Cir. 1971, 247 So.2d 151) and by the definition of dealer under LAC 61:I.4301."
Another example of the same idea is found here:
www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/ 2003/iac/701iac/70118/70118pp6.pdf
“…if the retailer fails to collect either tax, the consumer is obligated to pay a consumer use tax”.
Any way we slice it, entering into a BUYER/SELLER agreement with a VENDOR who is a licensed TAX COLLECTING AGENT for the STATE puts all parties in COMMERCE which is regulated by GOVT STATUTES.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 18 Aug 2005 16:15:01
Message:
Greetings and salutations brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Thank you for your kindness in taking care of that other matter, my friend.
Please know that I have a well-rounded understanding of the use of the semi-colon, and most other “tricky punctuations”, and have since late grammar school (if memory serves me correctly), and that I knew from the outset that there were two separate thoughts in the Black’s Law definition of taxpayer, the second one being, one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution towards its support. [Emphasis added]
And, please know that I am familiar with what the word pecuniary means: 1. Relating to money; as pecuniary affairs or losses or, 2. Consisting of money; as a pecuniary mulct (fine) or penalty.
I fear we may be making a mountain out of a molehill here and are probably closer to agreeing than it may appear on the surface.
Use tax. A sales tax that is collectible by the seller where the purchaser is domiciled in a different state. A tax on the use, consumption, or storage of tangible property, usually at the same rate as the sales tax, and levied for the purpose of preventing tax avoidance by the purchase of articles in a state or taxing jurisdiction which does not levy sales taxes... - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1073
The sales tax is merely a use tax as it pertains to strangers [entities domiciled in another jurisdiction] and does not create a permanent nexus (legal meaning) between the Stranger and the STATE, hence the Stranger does not become a subject of that STATE simply because he chose to pay a use tax, i.e. he is not a subject to STATE STATUTES in general, but rather only subjected to that one particular tax code, at that particular point in time. Can we agree on this one point?
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: Surveyor
Replied on: 18 Aug 2005 19:33:36
Message:
There is no question that a buyer and seller may both be operating in commerce when a sale is made as in some of the examples that Steve has given but still it is the foundational law that governs jurisdiction, not administrative rules or statutes. Those rules only apply to those who are already bondservants subject to the jurisdiction that created the rules. The same can be said of the court cases cited. They are dealing with specific instances on how the rules apply to someone already subject to their jurisdiction. We must look deeper than legislative statutes and court opinions rendered in their equity to understand and see how one is brought under the states jurisdiction or how the Ecclesia (Church) may operate in the world but not of the world.
Of course we have all been taken in mostly because of our ignorance of law and covetousness but it was not and is not buying consumer products that made anyone liable for a sales tax. Regardless of who takes on the liability a sales tax is on the sale of the consumer products. Where the buyer walks in off the street into a store and buys what is
on display it is the seller who is obligated to come up with the sales tax. If you pay cash the seller usually does not even get a name so obviously a sales ticket standing alone does not create a contract or obligation on the buyer.
However the merchandise itself may be in commerce and subject to regulation or even confiscation.
An example would be a buyer from a foreign country subject to a foreign jurisdiction. If this buyer attempts to take goods that are subject to regulation in one place of jurisdiction into another the goods might be subject to confiscation although the buyer himself may
have immunity to the statute because he is subject to another master.
Law as generally looked upon is the greatest deception tool on the face of this earth. It is mans greatest adversary, yet he continually makes it his god. People in general love to be under law because they want their neighbor under law. Liberty is a fearful thing without
the peace of God and knowledge of His ways. So much so that people will readily trade their liberty for the security they imagine they have by attempting to keep evil from their door by binding their neighbor under codes and statutes.
Assuming that the intent of the law is justice and for the protection of life and liberty, law does not operate on or against free men without their consent, otherwise men are only perpetual slaves of the one who holds in his hand the power to administer the law.
A righteous man is not under law, but only the doer of an unlawful act. It seems that most of Paul's writings dealt with this one point. A free and righteous man is invisible to the eyes of the law. Law presumes that the deeds and acts of free men are honorable and are not subject to scrutiny. The men who said that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause understood this precept, at least to a certain extent. They also understood that a free man can not be put under the jurisdiction of the law until he has been accused of a damage or
injury against his neighbor. They also understood that even then a free man had a right to be examined by a grand jury of free men before he may be turned over and tried as a transgressor under the law.
On the other hand legal is created by law and operates on or against the thing or the man (the man himself is regulated-he is a servant under law). And legal becomes binding by law through consent in some form or making application or petition to the state for a benefit or privilege in a manner (oath or penalty of perjury) that indicates one understands what he is doing and by so doing makes himself a bondservant of the gods of that jurisdiction.
Christ preached a kingdom. He established a government. The ecclesia were those called to minister to the people and teach them how to come together in congregations under the liberty of that government. They did it once before in Rome. Can it be done again. I see even their laws recognize that it can, but the gold most likely will be tested in the fire.
Clarence
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 18 Aug 2005 19:43:56
Message:
Thanks everybody for some great thoughts on a topic that most have to deal with daily!
Steve
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 24 Aug 2005 08:38:28
Message:
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Clarence:
Peace be unto the house.
“Christ preached a kingdom. He established a government. The ecclesia were those called to minister to the people and teach them how to come together in congregations under the liberty of that government. They did it once before in Rome. Can it be done again. I see even their laws recognize that it can, but the gold most likely will be tested in the fire. – Clarence
Well said brother Clarence!! The only point we may conflict on is, “He established a government”. Our studies indicate that Yahuwah established, i.e. founded the government and Yahushua was anointed/appointed second in command over it.
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me
We perceive that Yahuwah is called Father in the same vein that George [Washington] was called father; they are, at least by some, both considered to founders of nations.
Father G3962 1b1) forefathers, founders of a nation – Thayer’s Greek Definitions
We further perceive that upon full manifestation of the Kingdom known as the Kingdom of heaven, the Kingdom of God or the commonwealth of Yisra’el, Yahushua [JESUS] will then step down and at that time there will be only one Head, Yahuwah.
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that Yahuwâh be all in all.
Which of course, pretty much dispels the binity or trinity theories. Some of the confusion on this issue stems from Yahushua’s statement that if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
Imagine if you will the highest Embassador (Representative) of a nation being sent to a subordinate foreign nation within his Master’s dominion, he relays his Supreme Suveran’s [Sovereign’s] message to its government officials and they say something to the effect of, “We need to see the Supreme Suveran of this nation”. As the perfect Embassador doing the perfect will of his Supreme Suveran he might in truth respond with, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (the Founder, and therefore Supreme Suveran of my nation). In other words, he is responding with…
“…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
3) God is called the Father…of all rational and intelligent beings…because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector – Thayer’s Greek Definitions
More appropriately “Yahuwah is called the Father of all rational and intelligent beings because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector”. And in a more general sense a god is called a father, or the reverse, a father can be called a god, because he is the creator, preserver, guardian and protector of a thing. The father of a thing is the founder/creator of a thing.
Synonyms for founder are: creator, originator, initiator, [and] organizer (MSWord 2000)
Hence, the creator, preserver, guardian and protector of a nation or country is its god or father, though we very, very seldom hear them referred to as gods any more because it is an absolute dead giveaway!
As we have stated elsewhere in this forum previously, it is our opinion, that this perception of what a god is, is positively vital to understanding The Scripture.
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 24 Aug 2005 09:30:14
Message:
quote:
There is no question that a buyer and seller may both be operating in commerce when a sale is made as in some of the examples that Steve has given but still it is the foundational law that governs jurisdiction, not administrative rules or statutes. Those rules only apply to those who are already bondservants subject to the jurisdiction that created the rules. The same can be said of the court cases cited. They are dealing with specific instances on how the rules apply to someone already subject to their jurisdiction. We must look deeper than legislative statutes and court opinions rendered in their equity to understand and see how one is brought under the states jurisdiction or how the Ecclesia (Church) may operate in the world but not of the world.
This is the sticking point to the whole topic. When one enters into the COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION, even to BUY the CONSUMER GOODS, then one has put themselves into a realm that is governed by STATUTE, for that TRANSACTION. We came to them, not them to us. The BUYER takes on the status of CONSUMER during that TRANSACTION. That TRANSACTION, an action in COMMERCE, has a few steps that extend beyond just the point of SALE between BUYER and SELLER. One obligation is that the VENDOR 'remits' the TAX it collected.
quote:
Of course we have all been taken in mostly because of our ignorance of law and covetousness but it was not and is not buying consumer products that made anyone liable for a sales tax.
Consider this: A sales tax is not due if no sale is made. This tells us that it is the BUYING/SELLING of the product that creates a liability for a sales tax.
quote:
Regardless of who takes on the liability a sales tax is on the sale of the consumer products. Where the buyer walks in off the street into a store and buys what is on display it is the seller who is obligated to come up with the sales tax.
This is symantics. There are two parts to the TRANSACTION when it comes to TAX. Collecting and remiting. You are speaking of the SELLER’S part when you point out his obligation to ‘remit’ the TAX that he is licensed to collect. The fact that a license is required by the VENDOR who acts as an AGENT to ‘collect’ the TAX at point of SALE tells us quite a bit. Collect from who? The CONSUMER. Remit what? Remit the TAX that was collected by the Licensed VENDOR/AGENT at the point of SALE to the GOVT. It is the VENDOR’S obligation to ‘collect and remit’ the TAX.
quote:
If you pay cash the seller usually does not even get a name so obviously a sales ticket standing alone does not create a contract or obligation on the buyer.
Nobody is arguing that the SALES TICKET is a contract. The contract was created when the BUYER/SELLER made the agreement concering price and payment. The act itself is the contract. The TICKET would just be evidence “of” a contract. The obligation on the BUYER is to fulfill the simple terms of the agreement struck between the CONSUMER and the VENDOR (who is also a licensed AGENT of the GOVT to ‘collect and remit’ TAXES at the point of SALE). Most of the time, as in the case of INGLES FOOD STORE for example, this agreement includes the payment of SALES TAX which the VENDOR is licensed to ‘collect and remit’. After the TAX is collected from the CONSUMER it is the obligation of the VENDOR to then ‘remit’ that TAX to the GOVT.
quote:
However the merchandise itself may be in commerce and subject to regulation or even confiscation.
Well, why is it in commerce? Because it was purchased during an ACT of COMMERCE just to make one point. When a CONSUMER engages in a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION they are stepping, if only momentarily, into a realm regulated by GOVT STATUTE. A bigger question then arises. Is it a breach of the first commandment to enter into the realm of COMMERCE with a FICTITIOUS ENTITY. That's what is happening when we buy CONSUMER ITEMS.
quote:
An example would be a buyer from a foreign country subject to a foreign jurisdiction. If this buyer attempts to take goods that are subject to regulation in one place of jurisdiction into another the goods might be subject to confiscation although the buyer himself may
have immunity to the statute because he is subject to another master.
The point I am making comes even before that example. The BUYER, whether he be from a foreign country, whether he be a dog catcher, or a priest or a moral sentient being, is engaging in a TRANSACTION which is regulated by GOVT STATUTE. Using the INGLES SUPERMARKET example. A man from Sweden comes in and buys a pack of cigarettes. To conform to the demands of the SELLER he is required to pay in FRN’s as well as pay the CONSUMER TAXES. If he does not comply with these demands by the SELLER then no GOODS were sold, the Swedish man did not become a CONSUMER during his visit to INGLES. Very simple. If, on the other hand, the Swedish man complied to the demands, then he would have become a CONSUMER for the sake of STATUTORY REGULATIONS.
What's more, to highlight the role of the CONSUMER in such a transaction, is this fact: As I have shown in previous posts the STATE has the power to collect the CONSUMER TAX from the CONSUMER if the AGENT does not 'remit' such a TAX to the GOVT. Why? Because the CONSUMER was party to an ACT of COMMERCE which is regulated by GOVT STATUTE.
quote:
Law as generally looked upon is the greatest deception tool on the face of this earth. It is mans greatest adversary, yet he continually makes it his god. People in general love to be under law because they want their neighbor under law. Liberty is a fearful thing without the peace of God and knowledge of His ways. So much so that people will readily trade their liberty for the security they imagine they have by attempting to keep evil from their door by binding their neighbor under codes and statutes.
The point in this example is that when one willfully enters into a COMMERCIAL ACT then that one is entering into a realm that is GOVERNED by STATUTE. One is not forced into this. There is no obligation for anyone to PURCHASE CONSUMER GOODS or to do BUISINESS with a VENDOR. It is wilfullness that brings us into the COMMERCIAL REALM. That’s the difference.
quote:
Assuming that the intent of the law is justice and for the protection of life and liberty, law does not operate on or against free men without their consent, otherwise men are only perpetual slaves of the one who holds in his hand the power to administer the law.
Good point. A CONSUMER gives consent each step of the way during a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION. One might also refuse giving consent to pay the CONSUMER TAX that the VENDOR is licensed as an AGENT to ‘collect and remit’. Perhaps the VENDOR will accept this offer. Maybe not.
Either way, the TRANSACTION is in COMMERCE and that is a realm that is GOVERNED by STATUTE.
quote:
On the other hand legal is created by law and operates on or against the thing or the man (the man himself is regulated-he is a servant under law). And legal becomes binding by law through consent in some form or making application or petition to the state for a benefit or privilege in a manner (oath or penalty of perjury) that indicates one understands what he is doing and by so doing makes himself a bondservant of the gods of that jurisdiction.
Again, you hit the nail on the head with the word ‘consent’. COMMERCE is all about consent. We get what we negotiate in COMMERCE. If we want to negotiate with the GAS STATION, INGLES, etc. we are free to do so. It does not mean they will accept our offer and it does not mean we will accept theirs either. The acceptance only comes once the terms have been set. Often times the terms are posted on the PRICE TAG and the VENDOR will not negotiate. In this case our willful acceptance of the terms is us paying what the VENDOR demands. Here is where the Bondservant, the dog catcher, the moral sentient being, all wilfully enter into a realm REGULATED by GOVT STATUTE.... if only for a moment.
Regards,
Steve
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 24 Aug 2005 16:15:42
Message:
Here is an excellent snip from the FL DOR called
Sales and Use Tax
Beginning Your Relationship with the Florida Department of Revenue
What new dealers should know about collecting, reporting, and remitting Florida sales and use tax.
http://www.myflorida.com/dor/businesses/start.html
Dealer Responsibilities
As a newly registered dealer to collect and remit Florida sales and use tax, you are an authorized agent in partnership with the State of Florida. The tax dollars you collect are funds belonging to the state. You serve as the trustee or custodian of these funds until you remit them. You should keep accurate records and maintain a separate accounting of these funds. Copies of your filed tax returns, canceled tax payment checks, and documentation to support all transactions must be kept for three years (five years for all records and returns for filing periods prior to July 1999).
(my note: this paragraph below shows that TAX is not required to be collected and remitted from all CONSUMERS)
Sales to Exempt Organizations
A Consumer's Certificate of Exemption (Form DR-14) is issued to qualifying nonprofit organizations and governmental bodies exempting them from paying tax on purchases for the organization's own use. Payment must be made by the organization named on the certificate. Personal payment that will be reimbursed by the organization cannot be accepted for tax-exempt purchases.
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 27 Aug 2005 11:16:01
Message:
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters,
Peace be unto the house.
Happy Sevening Day to all our fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el.
It is as simple as this:
The state (the people) is (are) said to be semi-sovereign only, and not sovereign, when in any respect or respects it is (they are) liable to be controlled by a paramount government.…
But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted, who did put all things under him. …i.e. semi-sovereign
Paramount. …the highest rank or nature. (Ibid.)
For us, there is but one paramount government.
For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder There is no end to the increase of His government and of peace on the throne of David, and on His kingdom, to order it, and to sustain it with justice and with righteousness, from now and forever. The zeal of Yahuwah of Hosts will do this.
…No foreign power or law can have control except by convention. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 971
Convention. An agreement or compact (Ibid.)
For the record, we do not consent to entering into an agreement or compact (covenant) to be controlled by, or to be under the law of, any government other than the commonwealth of Yisra’el, alternately known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven.
All things Lawful are mine, but all things are not advantageous to me; on the other hand, I will not be brought under the power of anyone.
We may temporarily choose to pay kosmokrator’s use tax rather than choosing to resist it at this time, or refusing to buy its goods altogether, without losing our semi-sovereignty.
Our King, and thus we his fellowcitizens whom He has made semi-sovereigns, have the power of choice. We choose to pay it because it seems right to pay for the use of these goods and services, and by so choosing, consent to nothing more.
For anyone to go beyond this extremely limited consent and say it is more, he, she, it or they are acting in the capacity of unlawful tyrants. There is but one Lawful Tyrant and we are His Peculiar People; we are His Citizens and no one else’s!!
Tyrant, n. [L. tyrannus; Gr. ... The Welsh has teyrn, a king or sovereign, which Owen says is compounded of te, [that spreads] and gyrn, imperious, supreme, from gyr, a driving. The Gaelic has tiarna and tighearna, a lord, prince or ruler, from tigh, a house; indicating that the word originally signified the master of a family merely, or the head of a clan. There is some uncertainty as to the real origin of the word. It signified originally merely a chief, king or prince.] – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
PECU'LIAR, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one's own property, from pecus, cattle.]
1. Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only.
4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others. (Ibid.)
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 27 Aug 2005 12:52:56
Message:
Greetings on a fine day!
quote:
brother Robert said: For the record, we do not consent to entering into an agreement or compact (covenant) to be controlled by, or to be under the law of, any government other than the commonwealth of Yisra’el, alternately known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven.
When one wilfully concents to enter into COMMERCE with a licensed AGENT of the STATE (VENDOR), then they do put themselves into a realm GOVERNED by STATUTE, so GOVT STATUTES do apply to the Ecclesia when engaging in COMMERCE. They also take on the STATUS, within the transaction, as a TAXPAYER as the term is defined after the semi-colon in the Black's Law and completely in the definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313 (b). This is not to say that one looses their Citizenship or membership to whatever they claim. This is in addition to the whatever Citizenship or membership they claim during their act of COMMERCE. It would be proper to look at the situation as taking on an extra set of obligations when entering into COMMERCE. Example: If a 'Boyscout' goes to the store and buys a pack of gum and pays the TAX the AGENT is licensed to collect and remit back to the STATE, it does not mean that the boy looses his standing as a member of the 'Boyscouts'. In like kind, Paul did not loose his standing in the body of Christ because he was a ROMAN CITIZEN (complete with all of the juicy benefits like "no whippings", etc.) Also Paul did not loose his standing in the body of Christ because he entered a plea in a ROMAN COURT. I would also argue that Paul did not break the first commandment by his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP or by entering into the COURT to plea his case. It is worth nothing that the New Testament says that 'flesh cannot enter into the Kingdom of God'. Exploring the meaning of that phrase deserves it's own thread.
Cheers!
Steve
Reply author: Oneisraelite
Replied on: 28 Aug 2005 04:47:18
Message:
Greetings and salutations brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Yahuwah...
They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of Yahuwah...
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of Yahuwah, they are the Children of Yahuwah. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Yahuwah: And if children, then heirs; heirs of Yahuwah, and joint-heirs with the Messiah; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also exalted together.
G4789
sugkleronomos
Thayer Definition:
1) a fellow heir, a joint heir
2) one who obtains something assigned to himself with others, a joint participant
And, "Cheers" to you also, brother Steven!
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Aug 2005 06:12:19
Message:
OneIsraelite said:
quote:
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of Yahuwah, they are the Children of Yahuwah. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Yahuwah: And if children, then heirs; heirs of Yahuwah, and joint-heirs with the Messiah; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also exalted together. (emphasis added)
And I submit that OneIsraelite's writing is incoherent with the Name and Word of God. He consistently and intentionally misquotes the Holy Bible. I am not personally subscribed to Sacred Name doctrine but do believe there is certain power to prayers. There is a definite aspect to physics and metaphysics that follows rules and laws. Also having invested $50 in a comprehensive work by Gerard Gerteoux it is clear that OneIsraelite is skewed by both his mispronunciation and especially his self-perceived and self-justified misquoting of the Holy Bible here and other places on the Internet.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Reading further into Gerard Gertoux's book:
quote:
Page 141.
Thus the current form YeHoWaH, which one finds in Jewish Bibles, is the product of a long history. What is more this complex process took place without the knowledge of the protagonists. One can suppose that if God really attaches importance to his name, all these concidences were not necessarily accidental. In the greatest of paradoxes, the system of the querel kethib which was supposed to protect God's name really did protect it, except for this 'amusing' detail; the Name was coded by its own vowels, which has to be the epitome of coding. Consequently, in the debates with those that laugh at the 'naive' reading Yehowah, perhaps the naives are not the ones we might think.
Reply author: BatKol
Replied on: 28 Aug 2005 08:50:41
Message:
Here is what I find curious about replacing the name in the NT. Many claim that "The Name" was removed by conspiracy and in it's place Theos was added. If that's the case then how can anything in the book be trusted at all? Why would these alleged conspirators stop at just "The Name" if this claim is to be taken seriously? Should not one also consider the older pagan myths of, say, Horus who, over one thousand years before the advent of the New Testament, had a miraculous birth that was heralded by a star in the east; who was baptized by someone who was later decapitated; who had twelve followers; who walked on water, cast out demons, and healed the sick; who was transfigured on a mountain; who was crucified between two thieves, buried in a tomb, and resurrected; and who was known as the KRST or "anointed one," as well as the "good shepherd," "the lamb of God," "the bread of life," "the son of man," "the Word," and the "fisher."
If Christ was the Messiah of the Old Testament (which I do not believe he was)why do we see him clothed in a pagan myth? How can one assert that YHWH is the correct name for God in the NT, yet not address the sheer volumes of paganism in the same book.
Worthy questions, no?
Reply author: David Merrill
Replied on: 28 Aug 2005 11:57:30
Message:
Indeed worthy questions and I believe a few answers are found in Robert Graves'/Joshua Podro's The Nazarene Gospel Restored.
The question I was leading to is much simpler. Over the years I have seen OneIsraelite adhere to a strict White Israel identity/idealism that is accompanied by a perfectionism quite contrary to what you just wrote Batkol. That editors and yes, even 1611 early Illuminatti/Mason edited and encrypted many items into the Holy Bible, and the New Covenant.
Here is the question; Would OneIsraelite be adhering to this perfectionist doctrine, that one becomes a Taxpayer and removes or remands from kingdom coverture when paying a simple sales tax, if he had the Name of God and the Messiah pronounced correctly?
With your question Batkol, I think it most easily explained by the Book of Acts. Paul plead Roman municipal citizenship (early combinatorial mathematics - METRO organization/positive law jural society). Notice he plead "Tarsus", not "Cilicia". Prior to buying that Roman citizenship paper (in Cyprus; yes, he lied to James about why he arrived with so little alms for the Ebionite 'widows') Paul made two or three campaigns through the heart of Asia Minor (Turkey) where these Horus myths still manifested in pagan ritual. Thus he simply conformed the survival of Yehoshua H'Natzrith with the Revival/renewal and later editors even incorporated the Virgin Birth/renewal myths into rumors that Jesus still lived. [Moving the Birth of Christ to the Winter Solstice and Roman Saturnalia gives us a pretty strong clue.]
The pagans of Asia Minor ate it right up like honey.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply author: Manuel
Replied on: 28 Aug 2005 16:23:37
Message:
Let's see now... there's white power, black power, women power, indian power, etc... heck, there's even 'money' power!
And there's this CLICK HERE
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY : http://ecclesia.org/forum/
© 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community