Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 Are You a PERSON?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 11

Advanced Member

735 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2004 :  11:07:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

Brother Robert:If you are one of caesar's, don't cheat him out of what is his; pay your FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

Steve: Don't forget the other TAXES that are not so easy to escape!
Like when we buy gas, cigs, food, etc. Find out where your FRNS are going when you pay these TAXES and then ask yourself why you are willing to support these types of PROGRAMS..

WHen you are in CAESAR'S REALM you will be able to tell because you are paying a TAX. Don't be fooled....It goes much deeper than INCOME TAX!!!

Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

138 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2004 :  11:43:37  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Brother Manuel, greetings,

I have in my library a copy of the ten volume work published in Edinburgh, 1867, Titled THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. Within those volumes there is a collection of works Titled "FATHERS OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH CENTURIES, and within this volume is a Title "APOCRYPHA OF THE NEW TESTAMENT containing two purported letters from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar. This is the shorter of the two:

Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar the emperor, greeting.

Upon Jesus Christ, whose case I had dearly set forth to thee in my last, at length by the will of the people a bitter punishment has been inflicted, myself being in a sort unwilling and rather afraid. A man, by Hercules, so pious and strict, no age has ever had nor will have. But wonderful were the efforts of the people themselves, and the unanimity of all the scribes and chief men and elders, to crucify this ambassador of truth, notwithstanding that their own prophets, and after our manner the sibyls, warned them against it: and supernatural signs appeared while he was hanging, and, in the opinion of philosophers, threatened destruction to the whole world. His disciples are flourishing, in their work and the regulation of their lives
not belying their master; yea, in his name most beneficent. Had I not been afraid of the rising of a sedition among the people, who were just on the point of breaking out, perhaps this man would still have been alive to us; although, urged more by fidelity to thy dignity than induced by my own wishes, I did not according to my strength resist that innocent blood free from the whole charge brought against it, but unjustly, through the malignity of men, should be sold and suffer, yet, as the Scriptures signify, to their own destruction. Farewell, 28th March.

It is purported that these documents are from the eighth to twelfth centuries and therefore, at best, would be only copies of any possible original, so let the reader beware.

I have seen the copy that you posted on different web pages but I wonder if anyone has taken the time to request a certified copy from the Congressional Library? Not that that particular act would indicate any real authenticity other than, yes, there is a document purported to be from Pilate to Tiberius. Also there is purported to be an imposter about the same time of the Christ called Apollonius of Tyana. He is purported to fill all the physical descriptions that are most commonly attributed to the Christ. He is also purported to be a miraculous healer.

The primary concern that I have with the copy that you have posted is the following:
This I could easily have suspected, so great was the difference between him and those who listened to him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance an almost celestial aspect.
He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between he and his hearers with their black beards and tawny complexions!...

Neither of the purported MS that I have contain these phrases. It is my belief that any purported writing concerning the Christ should always be verified against scripture and my initial reaction is that this is a pure fabrication, because what little we can glean from scripture about the Christ's appearance, the above just doesn't square. Isaiah tells us that He had no form or comeliness and no form or nor beauty (that we would desire; he wasn't One that people would give particular attention because of His looks.). We also have the account in the garden when Judas had to betray him with a kiss. If he stood out as described above I wouldn't believe that would have been the case.

Your thoughts?

Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

353 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2004 :  15:27:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings to the brethern,
my oh my, ancient history is the topic of discussion? American's need not file 1040 forms. Those with ss number's should,{U.S. citizens} as they admit they are paupers. The IRS tax is tribute to their sovereign {the IMF BIS]. A tax on gas is a toll tax, use tax, and what we use, we need to honor and pay for. A snow plow just went by, and my pennies helped pay for this fine service.
George Washington had the Chaplain John Gano accept the surrender of the king George {a raving maniac}, when {king}George surrendered, so did the Pope! This happened on a April 19, 1791. {what a date]{had my last Daughter born on that day}
Since then, much has happened to try and get American's to give up their Birthright. The ss# and the nasty fictional thing, the ALL CAP name, and the acceptance and use of such, will surely put a Freeman back under bondage. Simple stuff.
What does the Son of Man look like? Hope he looks 'like' us!
There is no Caesar in America, unless you BELIEVE there is...then that ONE gives His power to THAT sovereign. {Rev. 13}
The second birth establishes who Father is. Family defined is all those Living under one Head...the Father. Yahushuah is the Firstborn son, who has been elected to search out and find the rest of the Family, and as they repent of a sinfilled life, return to their Father's House.
Brother Robert has tried and tried, as has the Administrator, to explain what a PERSON is. The whole show is about over, YaHuWeH has always reigned, those very few have chosen to follow Him, through the path of Yahushuah, the annointed One...The pattern son. We shall be like him, like, is not the same as, exactly the same.
On a singular note, He was a carpenter, I am a painter. Though We build the same House. Father's House. I AM is still looking for and collecting into one net {153} the sons of elohim.
Steven...are you an American, or a U.S. citizen? The Law will protect You. An American is not a pauper, with a ss#. You get to make the choice. Got 20 dollars of silver jingle in the pocket? And no ss#? You may indeed qualify.
DaniEl, JESUS is a pretend word-name. Get over it, pretty please? Randy Lee, demand their proper name be used, why not us, in the defense of the heathen? I have served non-statuary abatements with the set-apart names used...and they Stand. Steven-John even signed one. Truth is the hardest substance known. The YHWH of Creation instituted this, and can not avail against Himself. Nor, will He. "The LORD is his name" the extreme. Brother Dan, we are counting on you to repent one more time, for We want You in the Company of the Saints that shall execute the Judgements written. Only, you yourself, can exclude youself, from this promised Company. Repentance is a beautiful thing, though it may initally hurt. Repentance is not a one time thing...which is what the Cretins are taught in their 501-c-3 schools.
A PERSON does not have the breth of Life within...not does a CORPORATION. An ALL CAP named man, by defination, is a mini-corporation, which is without the breath of Life. By your own words shall ye be justified, or condemned.
Would that the Brotherhood of Yahushuah come together, in one accord. Then, shall We come forth with the Power of EliYah, and all these words are upon us Now. And Yes, We shall be abrasive...called tough Love in the modern tongue. Many times has, me the painter, had to bring forth sandpaper to scrub off the scum, in Order to paint {annoint} the body needing the annointing. Let the Word of YaHuWeH wash ye clean.
Daniel...what was the name that was posted upon the stake, claiming that [that name} was King? In three languages? Surely you jest that it was Jesus...being that word was of the 12th best. So..............what was the name posted on the stake?
Daniel, answer the ecclesia on this simple matter, for We shall not go through this again. {Brother Robert-oneisraelite} and Myself-Robert-James, were booted two years ago over this matter. What is the given name of Messiah, the Messiah of Israel. Proverbs the best of the given knowlege. Here ye oh Israel, listen close, for the Truth shall shortly follow.
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

735 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2004 :  15:39:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Robert-James asks: Steven...are you an American, or a U.S. citizen?

Steven: Neither. What or who are you?
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

762 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2004 :  21:39:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings In Him to all, Yahushuah,

DanielJacob, I constantly remind myself as being a child In His order, to learn His Ways and discern what before was from my "good nature," and through His Grace and Light, With In His favour, only now seek For Him only, If it Is His Will.

Now... the reason I say "be aware," is simply because rightous man, is not a big bully, nor does allow other bullies to pick on His Children of Light and Truth, In His name, For Him.

As far as getting verified proof... I did not, but posted it for edification, if any. I do understand when a man or wo-man is called, "He/she is bright!"

Robert-James, oneisraelite, and Bat Kol, and all those reading,
I remember talk of a camel bending in order to go through an arched (typical "roman" architecture)
bridge. Talk was that from a distance, the arch looks like the top portion of a needle. Is this talk to do with the "parable" regarding the knat compared to the camel?

His Grace and Light be upon you all, and your love ones,
I am, In Him, Hi Willing,
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

833 Posts

Posted - 02 Mar 2004 :  07:34:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.

We’re back!! We had a wonderful Sabbath, that is the “Sevening Day”, the day to Remember our “Sevening”, which of course is our Pledge of Allegiance to the King of kings. This is why the number 7 is so copious in the Scriptures.

And hath made us kings [#G935] and priests unto [Yahweh-shua] God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy [set apart] nation, a peculiar people…

Note: Set Apart [from secular use] and Peculiar are synonymous.


Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively)

As a second witness, Easton’s Bible Dictionary tells us this:
Is in Scripture very generally used to denote one invested with authority, whether extensive [Yahweh] or limited [His Peculiar People]… The people of [Yahweh] God are also called “kings”
(Dan_7:22, Dan_7:27; Mat_19:28; I Peter 2:9; Rev_1:6, etc.)…The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of [Yahweh] Jehovah, the true King of Israel(1Sa_10:1).

Now watch what the world rulers’ [#G2888 kosmokrator] courts say, regarding [Yahweh’s] sovereigns being persons:

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it [sovereign]."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99
S.Ct. 2529 (1979)(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

Now, if one has taken [and uses] the mark of the Beast [system] to procure benefits and privileges such as credit cards and driver’s license, if one seeks “the Beast’s” permission, one is blatantly admitting that “the Beast” is their master, for, once again, the master does not seek the servants permission to do anything. And it is written, "no man can serve two masters"

For one to believe that he or she can be a subject of Yahweh’s government and at the same time, a subject of “the Beast System”, mans’ government, he must of necessity also believe that he can be a subject of George’s government and Saddam’s government at the same time. We believe, at the very least, George would tell you to “choose you this day…” However, if one does not "believe" in Yahweh's government, that is quite another story; for this "person" it does not YET exist, plain and simple. It is for this reason that we encounter so much resistance from the kosmokrator's agents, even though we have harmed no one; they do not "believe" that Yahweh's government exists, YET; to them it is foolishness, as it is written. The same can be said of most people, they only believe what they "think" they can see, just like Thomas. And, as it said in the movie, The Never Ending Story, it only takes "one little boy who truly believes, and the Kingdom will not be destroyed." I AM that "little boy", my Father's son, and there are many more like me.

We also know that The Kingdom is not YET fully manifested. Why? Because there are not enough "little boys" who believe it exists, YET, but this does not stop those wishing to enter in, at great cost, from entering in.

It is also written:
And YaHuWeH [#H3068] spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am YaHuWeH [#H3068] your ‘Elohiym [a plurality, i.e. Judge, Lawgiver, King & Saviour (See Isaiah 33:22)]. 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 [commerce], whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am YaHuWeH [#H3068] your ‘Elohiym. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am YaHuWeH [#H3068]. Leviticus 18:1-5

The "therefore", which we bolded and underlined in the previous verse, tells us that because He is our 'Elohiym, we shall "for this cause" keep his statutes and judgements. This tells us that 'Elohiym means, He is the Head of our government.

An interesting thing about Yashayahu [Isaiah] 33:22 is this; in this verse it says that Yahweh is our Judge, Lawgiver and King: this is the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches of our government. All three branches are seated in the Set Apart [Holy] One of Yisra’el; it is a government of Yahweh, by Yahweh, for His Peculiar People and not a government of the creature [people], by the creature [people] for the creature [people]; those who believe this last one to be truth are the usurpers of His Throne, the adversaries of Yahweh. Nowhere in the CONstitution do we find [Yahweh] God even mentioned!! That should have given us a clue!!

We don't care what one may think that Dani'el did, we don't care what one may think Shaul/Paul did for it is written:

Ye cannot drink the cup of [Yahweh] the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of [Yahweh's] the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 02 Mar 2004 10:38:18
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

762 Posts

Posted - 02 Mar 2004 :  10:45:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings In His name, Yahushuah.

On this world, the three branches are one, not separated as they should be, as per their written "law." There is no separation of powers, no 'checks & balance.' There is indeed one group, one faction effectively CONtrolling all "branches." The same impostors which Yahushua critisized then and now - PHARISEES, SCRIBES, DOCTORS OF THE LAW... HYPOCRITES!

Only when all men be come as One, In Him, can there be Just Us.

I am, In Him, His Will, My Father,
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

735 Posts

Posted - 02 Mar 2004 :  11:13:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If one is 'serving two masters' by recognising whoever it is that YHWH
has set for the time, then why did not Samuel know it, when the Israelites choose to have a king?

Samuel instructs the Israelites after they have accepted the SUBJECTION in 1 Sam 12:20:

Fear not. You have done all this evil - but do not turn away from following YHWH, rather serve YHWH with all your heart.

If the first commandment means one cannot be SUBJECT to a KING then why is Samuel, who is a learned Judge of YHWH, saying this.... after the Israelites...already choose a KING????

21 Do not turn away for pursuing futilities that cannot avail and cannot rescue, for they are futile. 22 For YHWH shall not forsake His people for the sake of His great Name; for YHWH has sworn to make you for a people unto Him. 23 And I, also- far be it from me to sin against YHWH and refrain from praying on your behalf; rather I shall instruct you in the good and proper path.

If the first commandment means no SUBJECTION to YHWH's various KINGS, then why does not Samuel instruct the Israelites in this? After all Samuel says he will instruct the Israelites on a good and proper path. Maybe Samuel did not have a Strongs and a dictionary (Forget the fact that Samuel spoke Hebrew and was a righteous Judge!!!)

24. Only fear YHWH and serve Him faithfully, with all your hearts, for look at how much he has done for you. 25 But if you act wickedly, both you and your king will perish..

If the first commandment demands that we not be SUBJECT to any GOVT....How can Samuel demand that the Israelites still serve YHWH after choosing an earthly king??? How could one accept the punishment of YHWH's curses of BONDAGE if the first commandment means no SUBJECTION to GOVT?... it would be an impossibility in His Law!

Edited by - BatKol on 02 Mar 2004 15:01:47
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

138 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2004 :  00:36:15  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Greetings Brothers,
Peace be unto you and to your house. May the Love of our Saviour forever be upon you.

Just ran across the below articles:

The one "How 'Citizen' are Transformed in 'Persons' is well worth the read.

Peace to all.
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

833 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2004 :  06:58:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
For further edification of the body politic [body of Christ, i.e. body of anointed] we give you this Maxim of Law and yet another definition of "person".
Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2136.
[Important note here: Keep this use of the word "of" in mind when your read that Yahushua is not "of" the world.]
What this Maxim says is: Man is a creation of Yahweh's [God's] Law, and "person" is a creation of man's so-called law.
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:
"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne [carried] by physical persons... The law of persons is the law of status or condition ." [Emphasis added]
We must pay close attention to the verbage used in this definition! Firstly, what a telling statement they make: " is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost...AT WHATEVER COST! Keep in mind, this is one of the kosmokrator's own dictionaries!
Before moving on, keep in mind that most of these dictionaries are written in legalese, a language of deception. Now, notice that the above definitions says: "...and also apparently natural beings." Apparently, means, "giving the appearance of", i.e. it only seems that way.
The second thing to take note of is that thrice we see that it is a "status or condition" and twice that it has nothing to do with the "physical". It is an apparition [Mere appearance, opposed to reality.]Webster's 1828 Dicitonary!!
So how and when did we become "persons" would be the next logical question.
Now, to continue, we give you the last part of Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “person”:
…Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to “person.”[Emphasis added]
Why, one might ask does it "EXPRESSLY" apply to "person"? Expressly means. "In direct terms; plainly." Translated, it must, of necessity, be right before our very eyes; if it is not, we are not "choosing". Is it their fault that we were too slothful to look it up and fully understand its meaning? Of course not; except, of course, those who are unable; think Nineveh. Therefore if one is a Ninevian, one is exempted; if of course he is willing to repent, as it is written. This too, is why Paul tells us if we able to make ourselves free, rather use it [that ability], but he also knows that there are some who are not capable of doing this and these people are exempted as they cannot CHOOSE it. If one is truly a Ninevian, he would probably not even understand what is written here.
The next question is WHY did the kosmokrator go to such lengths to make us "persons"? Why was it so important?
It is because they know OUR Law Book better than most of us do. Is it not written that Yahweh [God] has no respect, i.e. gives no regard to persons? Some may say, "oh, that's not what God meant" or "that's stretching it a bit isn't it?"...but we point out to you that kosmokrator obviously doesn't think so.
Why do you suppose the adversary prefaced their trap for Yahushua this way: "...thou regardest not the person of men" and only then asked if it was lawful to pay tribute to a caesar? Caesar is the personage of a man, that is why; and we are told not to have any regard for the persons of men. Would you say giving "IT" your first fruits, i.e. withholding, you know, the FIRST part, the part you never see, would be giving regard to the "person" of caesar? And as such, the adversary perceived it as the PERFECT trap; if Yahushua had answered YES it would have shown him to be a respecter of persons, if he answer NO, they had the GESTAPO [STATE POLICE] there to arrest him. The "perfect snare"...well, almost. LOL But, since He knew that all the gold and all the silver were Yahweh's [Hagai 2:8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith Yahweh[#H3068] of hosts], He had a better answer: Render the "image and superscription" to the image maker, and the silver [penny] to Yahweh of hosts. Think about it now, if one were to do this what has one Truly rendered unto caesar? Thin air...for without the silver, the image and superscription are nothing but thin air. This is why they ADMIRED His answer! It was Truth!
And here's the really neat part; the same can be said of FRN's!!! ALL the materials that go into making one up belong to Yahweh of hosts, only the images and superscriptions belong to KOSMOKRATOR!
All that is hidden shall be made manifest.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 05 Mar 2004 07:20:30
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

833 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2004 :  12:43:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be upon the house.
Then of course, we would have to explain this verse of the Scripture [which is reiterated in the New Covenant (Testament)]:
"The kings [rulers] of the earth set themselves, and the rulers [princes] take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against his anointed..."

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 05 Mar 2004 12:48:47
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

762 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2004 :  14:55:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings to all, In His name, Yahushuah,

Surely it is true, that what is "illegal" according to their works which they call "ex parte" is all for show.

In Him, I am,
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

209 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2004 :  04:14:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Brother Daniel-Jacob,

I followed the link you provided and perused the list of interesting articles. Due to Lewis mentioning Alfred Adask on another thread, combined with my present study of the subject, I clicked on "Trusts: Invisible snares". It has added another dimension to my understanding of the nature of the trap we are in. Anyone who has read Mercier's "Invisible Contracts" needs to then read this to see why JUDGES in COURTS will expressly deny that the charges have anything to do with a contract violation.

It turns out that becoming a beneficiary of a trust is a far worse position to be in than merely having signed a contract without full disclosure. Here is the link:

This makes clear that when you accept benefits from the government you surrender all rights in Law. You are then completely at the mercy of a JUDGE's discretion in EQUITY.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

138 Posts

Posted - 24 Mar 2004 :  12:37:15  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Brother Caleb, et. al.,

From Black's 4th:

Constructive trust. A trust raised by construction of law, or arising by operation of law, as distinguished from an express trust. Whenever the circumstances of a transaction are such that the person who takes the legal estate in property cannot also enjoy the beneficial interest without necessarily violating some established principle of equity, the court will immediately raise a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to convert him into a trustee for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment. Hill, Trustrees, 116; 1 Spence, Eq.Jur. 511; Nester v. Gross, 66 Minn. 371, 69 N.W. 39; Proter v. Shaffer, 147 Va. 921, 133 S.E. 614, 616; Misamore v. Berglin, 197 Ala. 111, 72 So. 347, 349, L.R.A.1916F, 1024.

See, also, Involuntary Trust infra.

"Constructive trusts" do not arise by agreement or from intention, but by operation of law, and fraud, active or constructive, is their essential element. Actual fraud is not necessary, but such a trust will arise whenever circumstances under which property was acquired made it inequitable that it should be retained by him who holds the legal title. Constructive trusts have been said to arise through the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, or under the broad doctrine that equity regards and treats as done what in good conscience ought to be done, and such trusts are also known as "trusts ex maleficio" or "ex delicto" or "involuntary trusts" and their forms and varieties are practically without limit, being raised by courts of equity whenever it becomes necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Emery, 292 Mich. 394, 290 N.W. 841, 845.

This last part is most illustrative given that all courts today are courts of equity. Read that part over and over again. It is very telling. Ask if this isn't what appears to be the operations of the courts. It is also interesting that Trusts take up a full five (5) pages in Black's.

May the blessings of the Almighty be on all…
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

762 Posts

Posted - 24 Mar 2004 :  13:48:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings In His name, The Life Giver,

The following was an email I noticed had to do with TRUSTS. From my past "learning experiences," I think Lynne Meredith, among many others, was/is selling "PURE TRUSTS." It would be intereting how/what COMES OUT of the HORSES mouth, that is, if they are truly thirsty:


Witnesses Needed For Lynne Meredith Trial

Lynne is currently battling the IRS & DOJ in her criminal tax trial in southern California.
We are passing along her plea for additional defense witnesses that have
successfully "beaten" various aspects of IRS enforcement actions....
We urge anyone that can attend the trial to do so.
From: <>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: Lynne Meredith Urgent Request!

Dear Fellow Freedom Lovers:

As you are probably aware, I am in the middle of an IRS trial in Los
Angeles, California. Joe A. Izen (who won the Troesher case, the
Dahstrom case, as well as the recent Dixon case proving hundreds of
millions of dollars of fraud by the IRS) is representing me.
He was very expensive to retain but has proved to be well worth it.

The prosecution is just finishing their case and we start our defense, a
week from tomorrow. It will probably run for two weeks.

We have had GREAT success with the prosecution witnesses and with Joe's
brilliance, turned them into witnesses for us.

The judge has been very fair with us and has given us a tremendous
amount of latitude to present our 'good faith belief'.

We are bringing in the IRS supervisors who signed the, "We agree that
you are not legally required to file a tax return" and the "Pure trust
is a nontaxable organization, with no filing requirements or EIN
requirements"!!! This will be a first!

I have a VERY big favor to ask some of you who would like to help me
take this opportunity to inflict a huge blow to this IRS tyranny!

I need witnesses who have had SUCCESS in standing up to the IRS. I.e.
success with trusts, success in removing liens, success in getting back
the "you are not legally required to file letters" etc., etc. If you
could find it in your heart to testify, or know anyone, it would be for
just one day and I will pay all flight and hotel expenses to bring you
to Los Angeles. The dates will be from March 30, 31 through the first
week in April.


I know getting on a witness stand can be a little scary but even scarier
is what will happen to America if do not all take a stance against this

I know there are many of you who would love to tell your side of the
story and get questions answered. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY!

If you have had success with the IRS and could testify PLEASE e-mail me
at: or You can also phone
me at (562-592-9077 EXT 110 (that extention will ring at my desk.) I
need to hear from you ASAP!

PLEASE forward this to everyone on your list.


The trial is being held at 312 North Spring - Los Angeles - 2nd Floor,
Crtrm 3, Judge Dean D. Pregerson. 9AM - 5PM, Tuesday - Thur. and 8:15
AM - 2:00 PM Friday.

Love and Liberty!
Lynne Meredith "

Edited by - Manuel on 24 Mar 2004 13:52:21
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

496 Posts

Posted - 24 Mar 2004 :  14:30:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Caleb,

The most insideous trust of all is called Social Security. You are the trustee of the trust with that number.

Now, what most people don't realize, and I just discovered a few days ago, is, the reason the IRS so often wins in court without ever showing any law which makes you liable for taxes or for filing an income tax return is, the court knows that you are a trustee, and by law, all trustees have to file an income tax return every year. The courts quietly convict us of something without ever revealing how it is that they could do it.

Now what is even more insideous is that there is no way to get rid of your Social Security number. Nothing have ever been provided in the statutes and codes. This makes it a contract by force, and thus Null and Void if you could ever get the information into the court. But, they will never allow such to be brought out. Your only recouse is to file a "Libel in Review" action against them. Doing that is very dangerous. I know of two people who have died from filing such actions.

Peace to all,

Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

735 Posts

Posted - 25 Mar 2004 :  08:18:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Persons" .... what is the context?

Many on this list claim, by using a modern day Black's Law dictionary,
that the word "person", as it is used in both the Tanakh (Old Testament) and the New Testement, means a LEGAL FICTION. They frequently make use of this verse to make their point:

Yahu'aqob [James] 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced [convicted] of the law as transgressors.

However, if one reads the beginning of chapter 2 all the way to verse 13 we see that the context for "respect of persons" is not a LEGAL FICTION but rather the status of wealth. See here:

2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

The above verses that lead chapter 2 tell us the context of 'respect of persons'. Clearly these verses tell one not to judge a man according to his wealth, be he poor or rich.

Here is the Strong's definition of the word "person" as used in the above verses.





From G4381; partiality, that is, favoritism:—respect of persons.

Now the verse again:
Yahu'aqob [James] 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced [convicted] of the law as transgressors.

What Law is James talking about? The Torah!

Now what does the Torah say about "persons" in context?

Deuteronomy 1:17 -

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is Elohim's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me (Moses), and I will hear it.

Here again it is stressed that one should be fair to both the small as well as the great.

So I ask those who claim that "person", as used in the Bible,

By what rule of reasoning or hermeneutics does one use to ignore the plain context in both the NT and the OT concerning the word 'person' to say that the real meaning of the word is LEGAL FICTION as it is defined in Black's Law, a secular law dictionary written 1,800+ after the NT?

Is it wrong to use both the Strong's greek dictionary along with the plain context of the scriptures, instead of a Black's Law, concerning the word "person" to understand the meaning intended?
And if yes, then why?

Edited by - BatKol on 25 Mar 2004 09:12:08
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

762 Posts

Posted - 25 Mar 2004 :  10:01:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetigs In His name, The Life Giver, My Father:

If one if being wronged by a five star general or a private sleeping under carboard boxes on the streets, there is no respect due to them,
for their "outward" appearance is only but a shadow, not what is within... a MASK, a personality, an act.
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

735 Posts

Posted - 25 Mar 2004 :  10:39:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Manuel said: If one if being wronged by a five star general or a private sleeping under carboard boxes on the streets, there is no respect due to them, for their "outward" appearance is only but a shadow, not what is within... a MASK, a personality, an act.

Steve: If you are saying that justice is not to be judged by the outward appearance (in your example rank)but only to the man, then we agree. If social status is to be of no regard, then it
matters not at all. The masks of rich or poor, SLAVE or free are of no authority as Torah says
all are to be judged with fairness. We both agree if you are saying the MASK is 'but a shadow, not what is within'.

Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

138 Posts

Posted - 25 Mar 2004 :  11:31:36  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Greetings brothers;

Peace be unto the ecclesia.

I agree that the word person, as used in scripture, is more about status than something that is created by the State. It appears to be immaterial what definition we apply to this word. However, we do need to know in what context that those who are applying that word to us mean. That being said I will add my two cents worth of study to mix for further consideration. The following is from [Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage, West Publishing Co. 1992:

person An indispensable word with varied, overlapping meanings. Often used without definition, as in the U.S. Constitution (Arts. I, II, II, IV; Amends. IV, V, XII, XIV, XXII). Defined, and redefined, in an endless succession of special purpose statutes, with no assurance to the profession that this is the person you thought you were talking about. The definitions here give an overview of current usage. This omits a whole list of historical horrors in the ugly shadows of slavery, racism, and sexism.

1. a human being - without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3).

2. the physical, biological human begin. This is the person who is injured or killed, the person of "injury to the person" and of firearms "concealed upon the person." This sense overlaps the sense of the person with rights (sense 1), e.g., "No person shall be excluded on the basis of sex." Overlaps again on the question of when one becomes a person:

existing person: a child unborn, en ventre sa mème (see), a person for purposes of inheritance, but not a person in the criminal law generally. As of this writing, in the abortion controversy, "'a person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn." (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158, 1973).

3. an artificial person: an abstraction of convenience regarded by the law as a distinct being, having an existence independent of those who create or own it. The classic example of this person is the corporation (see, under corporate), a being distinct from its shareholders; in its own name owning property, contracting, suing and being sued, taxed, and regulated, with rights and duties often spelled out in statutes and constitutional decision. A labor union and a business trust (see trust) have also been described as artificial persons. The expressions juristic person and legal entity (see, below, this entry) are frequently used as synonyms of artificial person.

4. a legal entity, often described as a person, is itself expression without uniform meaning:

a. frequently, a synonym of artificial person (see, above, in this entry).

b. most commonly, a "some kind of a" person other than a human being, distinguished by the fact that it can sue and be sued in its own name, i.e., be a party (see) to litigation, whether or not also classified as an artificial person. Under this criterion, the "some kind of a" person varies widely by decision, by jurisdiction, and special definition: a sovereign (see sovereignty) is a legal entity and a person; a partnership (see), not an artificial person (the partners own the property), is usually a legal entity; a labor union, whether or not regarded as an artificial person, is usually a legal entity; an ordinary trust (see) and an estate (see) consisting of property under administration may or may not be legal entities; an unincorporated association is usually not.

5. a catchall person, avoiding repetition, clarity, and precision, according to the needs of the legal writer. E.g., "'Person' includes a natural person, partnership, limited partnership (domestic or foreign), trust, estate, association or corporation. . ." (Uniform Partnership Act, Ga.Ann.Code, § 75-102(6), 1984, italics added). E.g., "'Person' means an individual, a corporation, an organization, or other legal entity" (Uniform Probate Code, § 1201(29)), a definition that incorporates the open-ended language "Organization includes a corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, or association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal entity." (Uniform Probate Code, § 1201(27), italics added).

6. the essence of in propria persona. (see appear).

7. person, as a substitute for sex (see).

8. person in loco parentis (see in loco parentis).

9. a third person: a third party; (see, under party).

[emphasis his]
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 11 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.2 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000