| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| No1nptkulr |
Posted - 16 Aug 2004 : 14:52:24
I am not sure just where this goes, so I am asking for your help here.
My son owns a car. He had several traffic tickets (speeding) which he paid. His tags are overdue. His driver's license has been taken from him and he cannot drive till Feburary of 2005. This is my delema...
I have to drive him to and from work every day. I drive almost 200 miles a day to accomplish this. He owed 160 dollars for two cars, one which he doesn't have any more. That is not the problem. My father took care of the taxes today. However, when I went to get his tags, they told me that his insurance lapsed in November of 2003. Now something called an FS-1 must be produced dated 11-17-2003. and something else called an RVF 8461. They say that he must have proof of insurance, which I cannot get, because of how many times he got caught speeding, his insurance is now running almost 400 dollars a month. We cannot afford insurance like this! He says that the insurance companies are making him pay an excessive penailty which they don't have the right to do, I don't think. I don't understand all this. I must take him to and from work, as his work is extreeeeemly important to air travel!
I am afraid I will get caught not having insurance and bad tags.
What do I do?
He doesn't make enought money to fork out 400 bucks a month for insurance, and I do not work due to health reasons. Can anyone make me a list of what to do in case the police stop me? What about court? Who will they charge with not having a current tag? Who do they ticket for not having insurance? He does not drive. I do. He has to get to work. Do we have a right to travel, as I have heard? And if so, please help me! I am at my wits end. I have cried all day over them refusing me tags.
May the light of the most high shine his mighty light upon you and bring you safety and peace...
Always with respect,
No1nptkulr |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Livefree |
Posted - 03 Apr 2005 : 17:13:03
I have a Surety Bond and Justification of Surety/Indemnification and Costs to replace the 21st Century insurance I now have my car, but I am reluctant to use it, because if I ever did get into an accident, I would have to send my (HJR-192) claim to Governer Arnold Schwartzinager, and I have no idea how to do that. The person who gave me the Surety bond said the DMV will accept it as insurance, but, as I said, this could cause me more trouble than it's worth.
The other day, I came SOOOOO close to an accident, that I'm glad I didnt' cancel my traditional insurance. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 27 Nov 2004 : 14:15:56
You are popping my bubble and dragging me out of my lofty world of idealistic pure theory. Sometimes coming down to practical earth is regretable.
The main problem with police officers is they can just say, "I don't feel like playing attorney today. The voice on the radio says you are going to jail and your car to the impound lot."
Though I have a lot of praise for the "Is this an investigation?" approach. That may be a great book you mentioned.
The approach I like the best is a certificate of search from the United States district court on the vehicle on display instead of license plates. This proves the United States, and any other foriegn agent has not cured a claim against the property. But again, the police officer just calls in "no plates" and the voice on the radio just treats you like the common criminal.
Consistently the man or woman can abate the cause and not have to appear in court. But getting James Keller at the impound lot to give you back your car, that is another story. In theory you should be able to make the argument, "Either jail me [for the second time; this time on Failure to Appear] and we will see if there is a crime behind the presumed forfeiture of my property, or give it back." But this means the couple guys I know in this situation are waiting for that proper moment when they can risk going to jail. So that moment is elusive for us all. I know some tenacious fellows who would jump at the chance and some of them just run around without plates and are left alone, month after month. So we will see.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| legalbear |
Posted - 27 Nov 2004 : 12:06:44
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by No1nptkulr
[/size=4]I am not sure just where this goes, so I am asking for your help here.
My son owns a car. He had several traffic tickets (speeding) which he paid. His tags are overdue. His driver's license has been taken from him and he cannot drive till Feburary of 2005. This is my dilemma...
I have to drive him to and from work every day. I drive almost 200 miles a day to accomplish this. He owed 160 dollars for two cars, one which he doesn't have any more. That is not the problem. My father took care of the taxes today. However, when I went to get his tags, they told me that his insurance lapsed in November of 2003. Now something called an FS-1 must be produced dated 11-17-2003. and something else called an RVF 8461. They say that he must have proof of insurance, which I cannot get, because of how many times he got caught speeding, his insurance is now running almost 400 dollars a month.
Here is my take on your son’s situation. His car needs to be moved out of the jurisdiction you are in. The ownership of the car needs to be moved to a trust that has a situs in New Hampshire; to my knowledge, the only remaining state that does not have mandatory insurance. If the owner, the trust, is out of state, how can they expect you to register in whatever state you are in? If you read your laws closely you will likely find that a motor vehicle required to have proof of financial responsibility is defined as any vehicle required to be registered in the state. If they ask, show them a letter from the trustee giving you permission to use the car. The trustee doesn’t necessarily have to be in New Hampshire. Yes, this takes a little work, but, so does driving 200 miles a day. I moved my vehicle ownership to the Commonwealth of Israel and doing so has worked great, but, I will not post the details of that here.
quote:
We cannot afford insurance like this! He says that the insurance companies are making him pay an excessive penailty which they don't have the right to do, I don't think. I don't understand all this.
I was asking the Father about insurance. I told Him, I don’t want to get in a know down drag out fight with the state over whether you can be my insurance; they want to see a paper. He says to me, “So make them a paper. When I said in Mat. 28:18, ‘All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go then…’ that was a delegation of authority. I made you an official in my government. You have the power to make a paper.” I made a paper, exactly like Jah showed me to, that says right on it where it comes from. I’ve shown that paper to at least seven law enforcement officials and they all thought it was fine.
quote:
I am afraid I will get caught not having insurance and bad tags.
What do I do?
If you get stopped, tell the cop something like, "Is this the beginning point of a criminal investigation?" He'll have to answer yes. Then tell him, "Do I have a right to counsel?" He'll have to say yes. Then say, "I'm not saying another word until I have counsel here." I know of three different instances where the cop just walked off after this tactic was used.
[quote]What about court?
For court, go here: http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/ and buy Marc Stevens book. For $25 you can learn how to win every traffic case; excellent book.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 27 Nov 2004 : 05:06:12
Wow! I really like your style Legalbear. And you almost had me writing a response but that you point out lack of sovereignty and spell the Names as with the Yehudah prefix.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Yehudah.jpg
So I implore you to consider commonly accepted standards for the Names of God and the Messiah before you attempt to address sovereignty. Just for one example; call (719) 520-6200 and order Reception #s 99075970 (May 12, 1999) and 99057108 calling return of the indictment of Robert E. Rubin and then look at the Associated Press release announcing his resignation the same day - May 13, 1999. I did not resort to Hebrew as I recall but used the testimony of the United States Geologic Survey. The feeling I had when I heard his resignation in time for the 5:00 News was that of a sovereign.
The concept of Biblical sovereignty, or spiritual sovereignty like you are speaking of is maybe best amplified by Daniel surviving the Lion's Den. I keep a painting of that here on my wall.
Until you do some more research, especially on calling upon the Names in prayer, I implore you not to undermine the machinations of sovereignty in action. Mostly because you will not be taken very seriously. I have been through this with several people here - the numero-linguistics of speaking properly if you are going to bother with Hebrew at all. Either people stop writing or correct what they say.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/72foldName.gif
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I am not saying that Strong's, Young's and Richardson's concordances and lexicons are entirely correct, but that on points where they all agree, you cannot dissuade me with unsubstantial arguments like the Jews distort Biblical Hebrew to throw all us Goyim.
|
| legalbear |
Posted - 27 Nov 2004 : 00:36:39
quote:
You may believe you have freedom from external control, but I think you would only be kidding yourself if you truly believed this.
There are a couple of so-called sovereigns that are in jail here in Colorado; both of them have drinking problems. I raise this issue with anyone that will listen, if they are sovereigns they should have their army come get them out of jail. Saddam Hussien, on his first appearance in court as a captive, raised the issue that he was still the legitimate, sovereign ruler of Iraq and that no court had jurisdiction over him since he was a sovereign. Once again, if what he said was correct, then his army would come get him out and set him in his proper place. What he was saying was merely empty words. It cracks me up to think of the above mentioned sovereigns that have drinking problems, who were both arrested when they were legally drunk as they were arrested and booked. I imagine them, with slurred speach saying something like, 'You can't do thish to me, I'm a sovereign.' Lichtenstien may be a sovereign country, but, they will only remain so as long as the rest of the nations leave them alone. When the U.S. decides that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten America's safety; their sovereignty goes bye-bye just like Iraq's did.
quote:
Romans 6:21-23, “What fruit therefore had ye then, in those things [*the captivity of sin] of which now ye are ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become bondmen to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life eternal. For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
1 Corinthians 7:21-23, “Wast thou called being a bondman [*of men]? Let it not be a care to thee: but and if thou art able to become free, use it rather. For he being called in the Lord, being a bondman, is a freedman of the Lord: likewise also he that is called, being free, is a bondman of Christ. With a price ye were bought; become not bondmen of men.”
I was talking on the phone with someone who claimed to be "sui juris." He described that as not being subject to any contracts. He also claimed to be sovereign. When I heard him describe himself as that I stopped him saying, "Whoa, that isn't where you want to be!" I explained that a covenant is a contract with some additional elements and that what he really wanted was to be in covenant with the Mighty Creator; the source of all sovereignty.
quote:
When walking in newness of life and therefore hid in the Christ, man's law cannot, in Law, see or touch His bondmen:
There is a description of the type of sovereignty in 2 Kings 1, "9 Then the king sent to Elijah a captain of fifty men with his fifty [to seize him]. He found Elijah sitting on a hilltop and said, Man of Jah, the king says, Come down.
I think the captain said this in a mocking voice. Sort of, I'm speaking for the king, you have to do what I say because he is the sovereign and I work for him.
10 Elijah said to the captain of fifty, If I am a man of Jah, then let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty. And fire fell from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.
Now that is a demonstration of true sovereignty! How did Elijah get it? He is submitted to the Ruler of the Universes.
11Again King [Ahaziah] sent to him another captain of fifty with his fifty.
This king is a slow learner. Should we expect anything else from this world's government? In Psalm 119 David calls Torah violators minds "dull and brutal."
And he said to Elijah, Man of Jah, the king has said, Come down quickly!
Oh, this one's trying to dictate how fast Elijah does things. Sort of, if I take control and issue abrupt commands like so many police officers do, I'll show him who the sovereign is.
12And Elijah answered, If I am a man of Jah, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty. And the fire of Jah came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.
Oops, that didn't work either.
13Ahaziah sent again a captain of a third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up and fell on his knees before Elijah and besought him and said to him, O man of Jah, I pray you, let my life and the lives of these fifty, your servants, be precious in your sight. 14Behold, fire came down from heaven and burned up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties. Therefore let my life now be precious in your sight. 15The angel of the Jahuwah said to Elijah, Go down with him; do not be afraid of him. So he arose and went with him to the king.
Someone who is in pursuit of the only true sovereignty takes no action until he hears from the only true sovereign; Jahuwah himself.
We know from Numbers 12:3 that Moses was very meek (gentle, kind, and humble) or above all the men on the face of the earth." Jahshuwah demonstrated this kind of humility described in Philippians 2:8 by being obedient unto death, even the death of the stake. Anyone can become humble by being a doer of Jah's Word. Moses was humble because he was a doer of Jah's Word. In Numbers 16:1, "NOW KORAH son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men, 2
And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the Israelites, 250 princes or leaders of the congregation called to the assembly, men well known and of distinction. 3And they gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, [Enough of you!] You take too much upon yourselves, seeing that all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you lift yourselves up above the assembly of the Lord?"
This challenge to Moses authority was not good. Verse 4 tells us that when Moses heard it he fell on his face. In verse 23 Jahuwah said to Moses, 24 "Say to the congregation, Get away from around the tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. 25 Then Moses rose up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 And he said to the congregation, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in all their sins. 27 So they got away from around the tents of Korah, Dathan,
and Abiram. And Dathan and Abiram came out and stood in the door of their tents with their wives, and their sons, and their little ones. 28 And Moses said, By this you shall know that Jahuwah has sent me to do all these works, for I do not act of my own accord: 29 If these men die the common death of all men or if [only] what happens to everyone happens to them, then Jahuwah has not sent me. 30 But if Jahuwah causes a new thing [to happen], and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol (the place of the dead), then you shall understand that these men have provoked (spurned, despised) Jahuwah! 31As soon as he stopped speaking, the ground under the offenders split part 32And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households and [Korah and] all [his] men and all their possessions.(2) 33They and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol (the place of the dead); and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the assembly. 34And all Israel who were round about them fled at their cry, for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. 35And fire came forth from Jahuwah and devoured the
250 men who offered the incense."
Now that's a demonstration of true sovereignty derived from servanthood!
When Elijah is getting ready to call fire down from Heaven when dealing with the 450 prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18, he says, "36At the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, Elijah the prophet came near and said, O Jahuwah, the Mighty One of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that You are Mighty Ruler in Israel and that I am Your servant and that I have done all these things at Your word."
We can cause justice to arise in the earth and clean out all of the corruption just like Elijah did when we become Jahuwah's servants and act at His Word.
quote:
Therefore, the real key to liberty is not claming to be a sovereign, but instead a bondman (slave) of Christ Jesus.
Well Mark, we agree on the bolded part. :-) But, I do not agree we should become bond slaves to someone you use pagan names to describe. Send me an email at legalbear at legalbears.com and I will send you some articles respecting why I say this. Bear
Mark
[/quote] |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 25 Nov 2004 : 06:18:27
Perhaps instead of the word "limited sovereigns" we should have used the word "semi-sovereign", which is to be found in Black's Law Dictionary - Abridged Sixth Edition, page 971.
Perhaps Shaul just didn't understand...
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people...
Perhaps Yahu'hanan, the Elder, just didn't understand...
And hath made us kings and priests unto Yahowah even his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Now hold on just a cotton pickin' minute here, if it is His Dominion [Jurisdiction] how can it be that he has made us kings, i.e. suverans?
Answer: And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me...
Perhaps Yahowshua himself didn't understand...
You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. I no longer call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his lord does. But I called you friends (associates), because all things which I heard from My Father I made known to you. - Yahu'hanan [John] 15:14-15 (LITV)
Let us ask you a question, are the sons and daughters of the King, who must obey Him because He is our Father, slaves? Were you your earthly father's slave because as a child you were required to obey him? (Some of us may have "felt" were were...LOL...but [in truth, were we slaves?)
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahowah, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons [children] and daughters [inhabitants], saith Yahowah Almighty.
Perhaps it is this understanding which prompted Yahowshua, the Anointed King/High Priest of Yahowah, to utter these words...
Therefore the children are exempt. Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 17:26b (Hebrew Names Version)
Whose "children" do you suppose he was saying were "exempt" from the Temple Tax?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| Mark |
Posted - 24 Nov 2004 : 19:18:51
"Petitioner's shield of the "Common Law" as an "Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic," provides him with the same degreee of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Calvary - ZERO." 599 F.Supp. 126, George E. McKinney, Sr. v. Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Civ. A. No. 84-470-A., United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana, November 19, 1984.
One can not claim to be a sovereign when one is only representing a sovereign such as Jesus the Christ. We were bought with a price and are no longer our own (as if we ever were). You may claim to be an ambassador, minister or priest maybe, but a sovereign, 'limited' or otherwise? I just don’t think so. Maybe just my uneducated opinion, but the courts don’t think so either.
I’ll just stick to being a slave, because that’s all I’ve ever been, anyway. ;)
Peace, Mark |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 04 Nov 2004 : 06:13:34
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, True North:
Peace be unto the house. First let us thank you for giving us the opportunity to witness once more for the re-established, or re-opened, Kingdom of Yahweh. Thank you!
You bring up some interesting points.
We agree, there is some very good information as to what has transpired both in this “country” and in the world on Gregory’s website.
The verse that you quoted from Mark 10:43 helps validate the “limited” suveran understanding. If we look up the word “minister” in Thayer’s Greek Definitions here, in part, is what we find for the Greek word diakonos [#G1249]:
1) one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master...
1a) the servant of a king
Notice that “whosever will be great [strong, mighty, high] among you, shall be YOUR minister”, the servant of a king, who executes YOUR commands. That makes YOU the king, if we are not mistaken. We find a second witness to this understanding of what a “minister” is, in Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
2. One to whom a king or prince entrusts the direction of affairs of state; as minister of state; the prime minister.
We get still further evidence that in Yahweh’s Kingdom all men are “limited” suverans from these verses of the Scripture.
1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy [set apart from secular use] nation [Gr. ethnos, which is equal to the Heb. goy], a peculiar people…
And as we have pointed out too many times to count, “peculiar” means:
1. Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only. … 4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others. [Ibid.]
But that aside, if we look at what a “royal priesthood” is we find that "royal" means, “kingly”, which means, “like a king”, and “priesthood” is a “priestly fraternity”, i.e. priestly brotherhood. To clarify why we are “like kings”; we are titular kings, we are kings with no subjects, which of course makes us “limited” suverans.
Easton’s Bible Dictionary makes this observation: “At first every man was his own priest…” This is true of the “old paths”, the original plan before the ancient Yisra’elites asked for a “worldly” king [ruler, government].
Thus saith Yahweh, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.
And if we get away from our rudiments [first teachings] "of the world" and come to the realization that the Scripture is not a book about “religion” [quit playing church and grow up], but rather a Book about how to govern ourselves properly, we find that the Hebrew word kohen was also translated as “chief ruler” and “principal officer” [KJV]. We also find that the first mention of the word kohen is in reference to Melchizedek: “…he was the priest [kohen] of the most high, ‘el”; he was the “principal officer of the most high, Ruler or Magistrate [Master]”. That phrase, “he was the priest of the most high, ‘El” is an explanatory phrase clarifying the preceding statement: “king of Salem: the principal officer of the most high, Master”.
This is why Yahushua quoted King Dawid at Psalm 110:1 to the Iews: “And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, Yahweh said unto my Sovereign, Sit thou on my right hand…” the hand of authority, because three verses later, in Psalm 110:4, He clarifies again what this means: Yahweh hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art the Principal Officer [priest] for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
This was the motive for murdering him! The sceptre was about to go to "him to whom it belongs"...and they knew it!! Not only that, but they most likely also knew what he would do with it!
And what did Yahushua, the Principal Officer of Yahweh, do with this awesome power that was delegated to him via the Founder [Father] of the Goy [Nation]? Among other things, he made us joint-heirs with him, he appointed [established] unto us a King-dom [Jurisdiction], and he set the captives free by anointing us titular kings and a priestly fraternity, "limited" suverans. We have but to read the hierarchy of this King-dom at 1Corinthians 11:3 to comprehend that this is truth.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is the Anointed One; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of the Anointed One is Yahweh.
Nowhere in this hierarchy do we see that Yahweh made man lord over man!!
And for one more witness, as stated near the outset, we quote Yahu’hanan the Elder [John]: And hath [has, past tense] made us kings and priests unto Yahweh even his Founder [Father]; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Dr Strong tells us that the Greek word basileus [#G935], translated “kings” here, is properly “sovereigns”. It is done.
…for thine is the Kingdom,
and the Power,
and the Glory,
For Ever and Ever. Amein.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| True North |
Posted - 03 Nov 2004 : 12:54:04
In http://www.hisholychurch.net/study/gods/rvd.htm the history of what happened (in a civil sense of status) is fully fleshed out. The history of what happened helps me to understand what committments to Yah (of my own) are incorrect to allow such a change of status.
Luke 12:32 ... Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom ...
Mark 10:42 ... But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister ...
This Kingdom has servants to help administer it. The website quoted above has many other articles that can help guide you where He is already moving as well as give you the "legal" history of "freeman" and "sovereign". It can also clue you in on the 'why' of the weakness of the "legal" arguements trying to defend yourself as such.
We need to understand Luke 14:33
... So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple ...
in its entirety to understand and begin to recognize that Kingdom. I would venture to say that until we see Mark 10:44
... And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all ...
we will have a hard time of it.
... And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image ...
We don't have to wait for;
Revelation 14:10 ... The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb ...
This scripture is real time, IE: it's happening now.
Thanks for the research and effort EchadY'Israel
TN |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 03 Nov 2004 : 07:13:56
Greetings and salutations in the name of the Supreme Suveran, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
The topic of sovereigns is an interesting case study. Noah Webster, c. 1828 had a pretty good grasp on the subject, which may be helpful here.
SOVEREIGN, a. suv'eran. [We retain this babarous orthography from the Norman sovereign. The true spelling would be suveran from the L. supernes, superus.]
4. Supreme; pertaining to the first magistrate of a nation...
The first thing Noah points out here is that the supreme sovereign is the first magistrate of a nation. [Keep in mind here that a supreme sovereign is a supreme being, a.k.a. a god.]
So, if a "person" is of the nation, created by and thus belonging to the corporation known as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, his highest or first magistrate is? Again, the answer can be found in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
MAG'ISTRATE, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate, as is the President of the United States.
We picked up two understandings here, (1) the President of the United States is the highest or first magistrate of the nation "they claim to have created". If the latter is true, then the former is true, since he [or it] that creates a thing has absolute control over it. Now we look at suveran, the correct orthography of sovereign [according to old Noah], in this same source.
SUV'ERAN, n. A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest authority without control. Some kings are suverans in their dominions; the authority of others is limited.
Here we garner two [or three] more understandings, (1) there are basically two types of suverans, the first being supreme and possessing the highest authority without control, the second being "limited", and (2) that some are suverans only in their "own dominions", which of course we see that "earthly" kings [rulers or governments] are "limited" to their own dominions [jurisdictions]!
Here's how that works; the Supreme Suveran is a law unto himself, he is Self-Created, and created all things, the heaven, the earth, the sea and all that in them is, in other words.
If one is a citizen of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA then his supreme suveran as we see above is the President of the United States [of Amercia, oops excuse us, America]. As highest and first magistrate, (master) whoever holds this office claims to be, self-created, a law unto himself [Executive Orders], but of course this is only true in the dominion [jurisdiction] that he, or it, claims to have created. This highest or first magistrate (master) makes his own laws [legal system] and makes his subjects in his image, "the face mask of the actor which covers his whole head", persons, like the "office" he [or it] has created. The "office of president" is a "person", it is a fiction without the breath of life, hence all his (its) subjects must be "persons", fictions without the breath of life.
If one, on the other hand, is a "fellowcitizen" [having equal authority] with the saints [chosen people] in the commonwealth of Yisra'el [do NOT confuse this with the STATE OF ISRAEL, which was created by men in 1948], then his Highest or First Magistrate (Master) is Yahweh.In this nation [goy] all its member citizens are (limited) suverans in their own dominion [their possessions] subject ONLY to the Supreme Suveran through His Anointed Representative, who Himself must be in consumate obedience to the Supreme Suveran; they are all "limited" suverans in that they are not a law unto themselves.
1Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is the Anointed One; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of the Anointed Oneis Yahweh.
1Corinthians 15:27 For he [Yahweh] hath put all things under his [Yahushua’s] feet. But when he [Yahushua] saith all things are put under him, it is manifest [obvious] that he [Yahweh] is excepted, which did put all things under him [Yahushua].
These "limited" suverans, which obviously include the Anointed One, as we see by the verses above, are to be obedient, in spirit, to the Ten Commandments, the Moral Law of Yahweh, their Highest or First Magistrate (Master). This obedience in spirit to the Moral Law is what makes them Righteous and gives them the in-a-leinable (not leinable) right (liberty) to remain in this Nation [goy] made up entirely of "limited suverans". This is why the body politic of Yahweh's Kingdom [Jurisdiction] is called the Body of Anointed [Christ]; people [men and/or women] are "anointed" as kings and queens [and "priests", which is another topic].
By the term "in spirit" we mean using the understanding that hopefully we [as in you an I] have been given, i.e. "with the mental disposition of a rational being". His Moral Law is written on the hearts [the innermost parts] of His citizens; it is called a conscience, which means we are concious of them. "True ignorance" IS an excuse; read the story of Niynveh [Nineveh] in the purportedly oldest book of the Scripture, Yonah [Jonah]. But once one is warned, he is without excuse...simply see what eventually became of Niynveh!
Caveat:
Be forwarned, however, there are false brethren brought in unawares to spy out the liberty we have in the anointing who will interpret the Moral Law to please themselves [to support their own agenda], so beware of anyone who gives you his or her understanding of the Ten Commandments or any part thereof. It is up to each and every one of us to study diligently [daily and with much effort] that we comprehend the "rational" meaning of each and every one of these Commandments since it is we, individually, who will be held accountable.
It is also imperative that we understand that not all "people" have a conscience, and "persons", which do not have the breath of life, and can not possess rationale, CANNOT therefore, have a conscience. These people [and persons] will be dispossessed once they are discovered.
1Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto the Adversary [or Accuser] for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Yahushua.
1Timothy 1:19-20 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto the Adversary [or Accuser], that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Our hope is that this has been helpful. It is done.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| georgelaurie |
Posted - 02 Nov 2004 : 13:38:02
Mark
Forgive me for taking so long to answer your question of which definition of "sovereign" describes me. I am not quite sure of what you are looking for, but consider the following.
A sovereign is a free-standing, independant agent, whose right to exist and act are inherent by nature with the simple and incontovertible facts being that; No human being can assert a claim of authority by right over another human being; All human agencies are merely subordinate constructs which can claim no authority beyond that of their creators, and can assert nothing for themselves and assertations made on their behalf can have no standing beyond that of the speaker, who is just another human being; And no one can claim more or superior rights to those of anyone else.
We are made in HIS image, each with inalienable rights.
In this regard, I am sovereign.
However, I live in the real world wherein if a "sovereign" does not act like a citizen, he stands a chance of being killed by a bureacrat.
If you are driving a car without a license plate, sooner or later a Bureacrat (cop) will notice. He will stop you. Being sovereign and not wanting to do any business with him you continue driving, here you risk being rammed off the road and then approached with a gun pointed directly at you head and there will be no hesitancy to shoot. Marc Stevens explores this scenario in his (I whole heartly recommend) book "Adventures in Legal Land"
Regards
George |
| Mark |
Posted - 14 Sep 2004 : 01:16:06
Because of punctuation next to links in my two previous posts, the links did not work.
I have corrected this. I had no idea that they would be affected in this way.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Mark
|
| Mark |
Posted - 11 Sep 2004 : 00:56:56
georgelaurie,
Please, if you will, tell us which of the following definitions of sovereignty describes you.
Taken from Merriam-Webster’s online (you can use any dictionary you like):
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state
Are you perfect, in and of your self; supreme excellence or an example of it, not through Jesus the Christ our Sovereign?
What body politic do you have supreme power over?
You may believe you have freedom from external control, but I think you would only be kidding yourself if you truly believed this.
Do you truly believe that you can exist apart from God—Autonomy?
The following was taken from: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/slaves.html , accept for dictionary definition. Which I encourage all to read if they are interested in being truly free, in Christ Jesus of course, because anything else is death.
Romans 6:21-23, “What fruit therefore had ye then, in those things [*the captivity of sin] of which now ye are ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become bondmen to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life eternal. For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
1 Corinthians 7:21-23, “Wast thou called being a bondman [*of men]? Let it not be a care to thee: but and if thou art able to become free, use it rather. For he being called in the Lord, being a bondman, is a freedman of the Lord: likewise also he that is called, being free, is a bondman of Christ. With a price ye were bought; become not bondmen of men.”
“A servi is pro nullo—akin to death in relationship to civil law.” Digesta Justiniana 50. 17. 209.
When walking in newness of life and therefore hid in the Christ, man's law cannot, in Law, see or touch His bondmen:
Again, taken from Merriam-Webster’s online (you can use any dictionary you like):
Main Entry: bond•man
Pronunciation: 'bän(d)-m&n
Function: noun
: SLAVE, SERF
“... a slave can have no rights adverse to those of his master; he can neither sue nor be sued, nor can he make any contract or acquire any rights under a deed which either a court of law or of equity can enforce.” Wicks v. Chew, 4 H. & J., 547; State v. Van Lear, 5 Md. 91.
“Our system of slavery resembles that of the Romans rather than the villenage of the ancient common law, and hence both the community and the courts have looked to the Roman rather than the old common law of England for rules applicable to it. (Neal v. Farmer, 9 Georg. 555; Byrum v. Bostwick, 4 Dess. S. C. 266; Dulany's Opinion, 1 Har. & McHen. R. 561.) Under the former [*Roman] law, slaves were things and not persons; they were not the subjects of civil rights, and of course were incapable of owning property or of contracting legal obligations; they and all that appertained to them belonged to their master, and they were under his dominion. In a word, slavery was then defined to be 'an institution by which one man is made the property of another,' (Just. Inst. lib. 1, tit. 3)... According to the Roman law, although a slave could not acquire any thing for himself, he could acquire for his master;” Douglas v. Richie , 24 Mo. 177.
“Quasi nec personum habentes—a slave is incapable of taking part in legal procedure by the fact that he has no persona.” Buckland, Roman Law of Slavery, page 4, quoting the Novellae of Theodosius 17. 1. 2.
----------
Therefore, the real key to liberty is not claming to be a sovereign, but instead a bondman (slave) of Christ Jesus.
Mark
|
| georgelaurie |
Posted - 10 Sep 2004 : 10:01:06
quote:
Originally posted by Mark
There is only one sovereign that I am aware of, and that is God almighty; creator of heaven, earth and all that is.
We are made in HIS image, that's what makes us sovereign!
regards
George |
| Mark |
Posted - 09 Sep 2004 : 21:20:14
No1nptkulr,
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but the Constitution of the United States for all practical purposes is nothing more than a dead article. The corporate/military United States government, if you can even call it government, is not bound by the Constitution with its’ Bill of Rights. It’s only given lip service and effect (all an elusion) at their whim. Though they are, for the most part, bound by the Laws of War and International law.
Again, I refer you to the Book of The Hundreds; the first part being Prolegomena To Current Martial Rule, which can be found at: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/prolegomena.html . There you can see exactly why and how all this came to be.
The only way you can hope to stop their abuse is through the non-statutory abatements as outlined in part three of the Book of The Hundreds, found at: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/abatement.html
And on the subject of sovereignty, it simply does not exist in the hands of men.
There is only one sovereign that I am aware of, and that is God almighty; creator of heaven, earth and all that is.
Also, with respect,
Mark
|
| No1nptkulr |
Posted - 09 Sep 2004 : 10:44:31
I have done some 50+ hours of searching government websites and laws and have found that the government has jurisdiction of all automobiles on the highway that are conducting interstate commerce or intrastate commerce only. I am not conducting any commerce when I am driving so legally I can take the tags off my son's car, strip it inside and out of any lettering so as not to be advertising for anyone, cut up my license, remove from the glove box everything (I do, however keep a copy of my son's car's emisions test which I gladly pay for, and you have to be careful here) I even duct taped the emblim (sp?) on the front of the car that said Dodge on it so it could not be construed as advertising. I have not been stopped yet, but you bet your sweet bippy, that if I am, I will definately be ready for them. I have done extensive research on this subject as well as freedom of religion that I believe I hope I should be able to take care of myself.
I have begun to bring a briefcase with me where ever I go and also carry a copy of the US Constitution and the State Constitution from the state in which I reside. I have looked up the words: religion, liberty, and persute of happiness and have found that inalienable means total rights to. I will not be stripped from my liberty and will not give up any of my soverntry. (sp? sorry, in a hurry)
Look up on the web about constitutional rights, preferably on gov sites and look at the first amendment. That says a lot! Did you know that the Internal Revenue Service thinks that they have the right to tell you what religions are 'recognised' and what ones are not? Not according to our constitutional rights they don't!
Sorry, I could go on for hours about all this, as this is something I have been studying for days and days now.
Also to find something interesting, look up the preamble to the bill of rights and the preamble to the constitution. According to the preamble to the bill of rights, the constitution was made to keep the government in check, not us.
Got to go, got the flu.
Thanks for all your help. You are very nice. I have been honored to speak with all of you.
With respect,
No1nptkulr |
| Michael_Olson |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 13:42:25
Lewish;
Where did you learn how to handle these situations and did you do a cancellatura? I need more info on what you are doing and what the manifest is all about. |
| Rei |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 17:28:00
Lewis:
Could you share the contents of that manifest?
Rei |
| Lewish |
Posted - 23 Aug 2004 : 23:54:29
Hello All,
I have no tags on the car I drive. (Or more correctly, I have a plasic tag which reads "HUGHES" and under that "Sovereign"). I have no driver license. I don't recommend this for the timid or the unlearned.
I have no insurance, either. Insurance is contrary to what my Lord has taught me. Insurance is for those who don't really trust the Father to take care of their every need.
I had a cop staring with his mouth open as I drove past his cruiser today. Interesting that he didn't want to try and conduct business with me. Any time I am stopped, after first politely greeting the cop, I ask whether the stop is social or business. If he says business or anything else besides social, I simply say I don't want to do business with him.
When pressed on the issue, I pull out my manifest, which I carry in every vehicle, and show him why he has no say in my life.
Peace brothers,
Lewis |
| No1nptkulr |
Posted - 23 Aug 2004 : 12:17:54
Thank you for your help. I will study the links you provided.
May we see only the light of God.
Always with respect,
No1nptkulr |
|
|
