| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Akira |
Posted - 27 Feb 2004 : 18:43:28
To My Brothers in Christ Jesus,
Comes Now, this bondservant of Christ, grateful to Almighty God for My Liberty in Christ, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Our Sovereign Lord, Saviour and Testator Jesus, the Christ, and Myself by Visitation, to exercise His Ministerial Powers in this Matter, in His Name, by His Authority, under Direction of His Warrant, Mandate and Will contained in His Writ, revealed both in His Testament written of Him in Holy Scripture and in Him:
Thru the blessings of Jesus, the Christ, I have been given, what he tells me, are two major swords in our battle against the unrighteous. The lessor of which, I present today. I have seen bits and pieces of this information everywhere, but no one seems to have "put it all together".
It is my righteous joy and solemn duty, to share this info with you, praying that you may call his Holy Name, seek His Guidance, hear His Words, and join me in wielding His "Sword of Truth" for His Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERFECTED COMMON LAW ARGUEMENT FOR NO LICENSES ! (and more)
This arguement was perfected by Carl Miller, a Counselor at Law for over 25 years. Know these arguements inside and out. Read the complete cases, the Judge may test you. Memorize the rhetoric, and practice before a mirror and friends. When in court, give your arguements as quickly as possible, as it will impress the judge. Also, make a point to have your costs written up in a proposed order for the Judge, already attached to your brief, it intimidates the heck out of the district attorney.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Constitution is an Iron Clad Contract, enforceable in a Court of Law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR HONOR:
I'm Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, here before this honorable court.
I am an unenfranchised common law freeman. I live at the common law.
(Counselor at Law addon: "I'm not a participant in any tautine schemes, of limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest requiring me to participate in these illegal corporate ponzi schemes." )
"I'm just your average "Joe"...., Joe Blow from Kokomo, down on the street and I live, work, and travel at the common law. "
(Counselor at Law / Right to Work addon: " A workman is worthy of his hire, and I have a Right to Work and Contract MY Labor and MY skill and MY Time of Life as I see FIT. Not as some 3rd party arbitrary and coprecious BAR Association sees fit." )
I am standing as my own "a-counsel". I have appointed myself as my own attorney and I am ready to procede in my administrative and procedural matters.
At this time , your honor, may it please the court, I motion for dismissal with predjudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted.
(when the Judge asks "why"... give your arguements, as follows...)
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2: (The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):
"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
(If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.)
Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional (394 U.S. 618, 643) due process or equal protection standards. "The right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. "
(Clearly establishes a right to travel.)
(Travel addon: "The State of Xxxxxxx arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right into a priviledge, and issued a license and a fee for it." )
Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943):
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”
And If They Do ............
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”
That Means You Can't Punish Me.........
United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
1. It must be proven that you are the party.
2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.
Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”
I submit your Honor, I couldn't have done an evil task, because I was totally following the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. I would submit that Prosecution Counsel's burden is to prove I did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law, namely, to get the license. And I would submit that, and specificly proclude that, he cannot perform his task.
Byars v. United States 273USR 28 (1927):
“Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein.
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:
“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”
And I Am That Beneficiary !!!
WHEREFORE your Honor, I pray before this Honorable Court for your Just and Lawful relief. I ask that you dismiss this case with predjudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted, and I pray the court for my just relief for having to defend this badly frivilous and spurious case. I have a proposed order, which outlines my costs, in my brief, your Honor, may it please the court.
(now sit down, shut up and be humble ! )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By removing Shapiro v. Thompson you have a arguement against ALL state issued licenses.
In theory, all rights should be defendable using the above arguement(s) as a "springboard".
For example: Access to your children after Article I courts gave you "visitation" or a Protection from Abuse Order
Use the right of travel arguement, plus:
Maxim of law: Government can only control what it creates. (The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.)
"God blessed me with my children. God alone may take them from me, unless you can lawfully show damages in an Article 3 common law court."
Hurtado v. California 110 US 516 (1884):
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Watson v Memphis, 375 U.S. 526 (1964):
"Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise. Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491 (1966):
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489 (1913):
"the claim and exercise of a constitutional right shall not be converted into a crime."
(and when you go see your children anyway...)
Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284 (1964):
"Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution."
Mulger v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887):
"The courts..... are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm.... Can We Make This Work?
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97 says:
“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”
If the Constitution is to be liberally construed in MY favor, based on MY "plain english" interpretation of what the Constitution says, then.........."
Pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit clause, Article 4, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America read in conjunction with the Constitution of Xxxxxxx, no member of the bar can sit as judge or magistrate of any court of record. Any member of the bar that sits or attempts to sit on this court of record is in contempt of this court.
I believe the "Titles of Nobelity Amendment" was our Founding Father's "hind sight" attempt to clarify Article 4 section 1 and to reemphasize the extreme importance of securing government from a clearly percieved external threat.
Anyway, you get the idea..............
If they give you a hard time about jurisdiction, use one or two of the court cites listed below in "additional Ammo" or use this approach to "move them" to a common law court.
http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuris/filemgmt/visit.php?lid=14
Make certain to get a copy of the Asset Forfeiture Manual at Sui Juris.net
http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuris/filemgmt/visit.php?lid=59
Now go kick their butts!
For HIS Glory,
Akira
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been individually endowed by Almighty God with certain unalienable Rights. That among these are the Right to:
1) Life
2) Own, Care For, Control, And Provide For My Own Body;
3) Reproduce;
4) Care For, Control, And Provide For My Own Children;
5) Liberty;
6) Defend All Rights Of Myself, My Family, And My Fellow Man;
7) Own, Possess, Move and Convey Property;
8) Pursue Happiness;
9) Privacy;
10) Worship God in my own way;
11) Free Speech, Teach, Publish and Assemble;
12) Keep and Bear Arms;
13) Cultivate, Possess, And Bestow All Fruits Of Nature And Of Nature’s God In Accordance With The Will Of Almighty God As Recorded In Genesis Chapter One Verse Twenty Nine;
14) Contract;
15) Establish Commerce;
16) Free Enterprise;
17) Unimpeded Movement;
18) Own, Possess, Maintain And Operate A Means of Travel;
19) A Republican Form Of Government;
20) Be Presumed Innocent;
21) Assistance Of Counsel;
22) Due Process Of Law, Equal Protection of Law
23) Know The Nature And Cause Of Any Accusation Or Action Against Me And To Be Provided With A Written Copy Thereof;
24) Confront All Accusers;
25) Trial By Jury In A Court Of Record According To The Rules Of The Common Law;
26) A Speedy Trial;
27) A Writ Of Habeas Corpus And All Other Common Law Rights;
28) Be Free From Standing Under Any And All Statutes, Codes, Ordinances, Or Rules Conflicting with The Common Law;
29) Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances
30) Earn A Living;
31) Be Secure At All Times In The Exercise Of All My Rights, Unencumbered By Any Liens Or Unlawful Trespass Of Any Kind.
32) Hunt and Fish
33) ?????????? ( contributions welcome )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL AMMO
Cohens v Virginia, 6 wheat (19 U.S.) 264, 404 (1821):
Chief Justice John Marshall said "We [public servants] have no more right to decline the jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution."
Ramsey v. Allegrie, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 611, 631 (1827):
"If the common law can try the cause and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction."
Hayburn's Case. 2 Dali.(2 U.S.) 409 (1792); Article #6 Clauses 2 and 3, U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. All judicial officers of the united States are bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."
U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116 (1929):
"The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute (rule or practice) which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former."
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635 (1886):
"Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 (1927):
“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”
Emspak v. United States, 349 US 190 (1955):
"the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights."
Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941):
Justice Douglas maintained that "the privileges and immunities clause was the proper basis for the holding and further insisted that freedom of movement was a right of national citizenship binding upon the states and recognized as such by Crandall v. Nevada (73 US 35) before the 14th Amendment was ratified."
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116,125 (1958):
"The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the solicitor general. In Anglo Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as Magna Carta."
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983):
"you can not be charged with failure to identify, until you have been charged with a crime."
Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425 (1886):
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”
“The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state court’s in questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts of de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. The acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office, which does not exist, can have no validity whatever in law.”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966):
"Where the Miranda warning the police gives at arrest, comes from. Refuse to say anything without a lawyer present. Do not ever sign a statement that you have been told of your rights. Keep your mouth shut!"
“In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the fifth amendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must prior to interrogation be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer, to have a lawyer with him during interrogation and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. If the individual indicates prior to and during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional consul right. Where the individual answers some questions during interrogation or cuts the interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings require that the waver needed our, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent perquisites to the admission or admissibility of any statement, inculpability or exculpability made by the defendant. The limitations on the interrogation presses required for the protection of the individual’s constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference the proper system of law enforcement as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to other jurisdictions. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self incrimination.”
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule or law making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them.”
American Juris Prudence
25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 163:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; .
25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 260:
"In the addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulations are reasonableness, impartiality and definiteness or certainty."
25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 717:
"The term "travel" and "traveler" are usually construed in their broad and general sense... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways with viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have the occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience or pleasure."
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70:
"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 81:
"Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee."
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 98:
“While an emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution.”
(No emergency has just cause to suppress the constitution.)
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 114:
“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” “ The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a since of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 117:
“Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 155:
“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 177:
“Declaratory judgments actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act makes pacific provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statute and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of a saying of the constitutionality of Congressional Legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the Federal or State statute by a single Federal Judge so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. A court may grant declaratory relief, unless there is a case of controversy before the court.”
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law”
(Demand a Declaratory Judgment)
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 255:
“In all instances, where the court exercise it’s power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 256:
“The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 257:
“The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statute and of it’s previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding on the people.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 258:
“On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 260:
“Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality.”
16 Am. Jur. 2d, Const. Law Sec. 543:
"No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or any wise destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, nor send upon him, but by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."
MISC
Title 18 US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242:
“If upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if theft results, life in prison.”
Title 18 sect 2381 - Capitol Felony Treason:
"In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason."
Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:
"Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about."
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S.Ct. at 544-545; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 380, 98 S.Ct. at 1106. Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 at 288 (1991):
"A Judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity."
Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398:(1982)
Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982)
“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.”
“Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability”
(When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.)
“Judge, you are deemed to know the law and are sworn to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for willful deformation of a law and you certainly cannot pled ignorance of the law, for that would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of a law, when a Citizen on the street cannot claim ignorance of the law. Therefore, there is no judicial immunity.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Followers of Christ are not afraid to be thrown into prison, because we are free in Christ, no matter where we are. And they are the ones who are in prison no matter where they are, because they are the slaves of sin (Romans 6:16-23).
Ephesians 6:11-20, "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak." |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 27 Jun 2005 : 08:29:31
Greetings and salutations, brother:
Peace be unto the house.
We may be splitting hairs, brother, but please know that it is not our intention to offend.
1234 jagal wrote: Now why can’t we take the kingdom a step further and use the foundation of separation of Church and State to separate us from the worship of their beast gods and goddesses.
In our humble opinion, there is no such thing as separation of “church” and STATE, brother. In the Scripture the word translated “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia, this is a political term, not a religious one. We are “called out” of one world (the corporate governments of men [the creature]) and enter the other world (arrangement, constitution, government) of Yahuwâh or Jehovah or ___________ who is blessed for ever. amein
Fear not, the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Yahuwâh or Jehovah or ___________is right on schedule, exactly as planned.
1234 jagal wrote: The State has tried very hard for a very long time to segregate the God of Heaven and Earth from all State sanctioned entities (public education, etc) for their own selfish reasons which is to promote exclusively the worship of their gods.
The STATE understands that no man can serve two masters.
quote:
But I believe that this is part of Christ's plan and the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God on earth and the separation commanded by Christ.
"You shall be separate, because I the Lord [H3068] your God am separate ... you shall be separate, for I the Lord [H3068] am Separate" (Leviticus 11:44-45; Leviticus 19:2, 20:7 ).
"Be Separate because I am Separate" (I Peter 1:16 ). (Quoting directly from Leviticus 19:2, thus it is yet again is H3068)
"I am the Lord [H3068] your God, Who has separated you from all people" (Leviticus 20:24). [Edited]
We find it interesting that you wrote, “the separation commanded by Christ”, but then proceed to give only the commands of Yahuwâh or Jehovah or ___________.
1234 jagal wrote: My point is the State forbids the worship of our God on one hand and then forces the blind to worship their goddess on the other hand.
They may only lawfully forbid their citizens from obeying Yahuwâh or Jehovah or ___________ and his Principle Officer Yahushua or JESUS or ___________, though admittedly they do covet another Man’s (Master’s) wife (citizen(s)) and they do attempt to persecute/prosecute “another man’s servant”. (Romans 14:4)
1234 jagal wrote: The State commands a separation of church and State and I therefore obey. Because for once the law of man and law of God are in agreement therefore I reject the laws of their cult religion and remain separate and apart from the State and their gods and goddesses laws.
Again, we believe that this is because they understand better than most that no man can serve two masters.
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. |
| 1234jagal |
Posted - 27 Feb 2005 : 13:27:36
Exactly and well put we have no need for mans laws that serve the nation of man.
We have a King who we serve day and night.
We are the people of the nation of Heaven!!!!!!
Now why can’t we take the kingdom a step further and use the foundation of separation of Church and State to separate us from the worship of their beast gods and goddesses.
And bring forth in more abundant glory the body, the nation, the peculiar people of Heaven on Earth as declared in Daniel 7:13 "the final physical kingdom of God is set up on earth”
Christ commands us to remain separate and segregated from the world.
The State has tried very hard for a very long time to segregate the God of Heaven and Earth from all State sanctioned entities (public education, etc) for their own selfish reasons which is to promote exclusively the worship of their gods.
But I believe that this is part of Christ's plan and the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God on earth and the separation commanded by Christ.
"You shall be separate, because I the Lord your God am separate ... you shall be separate, for I the Lord am Separate" (Leviticus 11:44-45; Leviticus 19:2, 20:7 ).
"Be Separate because I am Separate" (I Peter 1:16 ).
"I am the Lord your God, Who has separated you from all people" (Leviticus 20:24).
My point is the State forbids the worship of our God on one hand and then forces the blind to worship their goddess on the other hand.
This is hypocrisy they cannot have their cake and eat it to. I am not a blind man.
I can see the truth.
The State commands a separation of church and State and I therefore obey.
Because for once the law of man and law of God are in agreement therefore I reject the laws of their cult religion and remain separate and apart from the State and their gods and goddesses laws.
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 26 Feb 2005 : 16:01:41
"But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."
"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake."
"I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father." |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 26 Feb 2005 : 08:16:30
Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt. – Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
Now, to take this understanding one step further, we must comprehend that "redemption" and "salvation" are virtually the same thing; that is to say once one is "redeemed", he or she is "saved". But the question that begs to be answered is, "saved from what"? The answer is...bondage, both involuntary and voluntary servitude.
Salvation - This word is used of the deliverance of the Israelites from the Egyptians (Exo_14:13), and of deliverance generally from evil or danger. – Easton’s Bible Dictionary
We thank Mr Easton for this but we further point out that it was [and is!] also a redemption, just as Zondervan's encyclopedia correctly points out.
Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Yahuwah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you an ‘Elohiym [Ruler]: and ye shall know that I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym [Ruler], which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. – Exodus 6:6-7
[Note: in the phrase, “And I will take you to me for a people”, it is important that we understand what people means: PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.] 1. The body of persons who compose a…nation. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language This knowledge helps us to better comprehend what an ‘elohiym is.]
Once we are "redeemed" we must then be "faithful" to our Redeemer; this of course means fidelity to the Ruler, no dual citizenship, no adultery. We see this put forth pointedly in the Set-apart Scripture by the use of the word "peculiar". We are to be a peculiar people.
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.]
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy [set-apart from secular (worldly) use] nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light... - 1Peter 2:9
But how do we know this understanding of "holy" to be accurate?
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with Yahuwah? whosoever therefore will be a friend [an associate] of the world is the enemy of Yahuweh. - Yahu'aqob [James] 4:4
Our second witness is a true understanding of what the phrase “for I Yahuwah am a jealous ‘Elohiym”. Here is what we find “jealous” in this context to mean.
jealous adj. ...3 [Now rare] requiring exclusive loyalty [the Lord is a jealous God] – Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, copyright 1988, page 724]
And just how did we become trapped into being a "friend" [an associate] of the world [arrangements of men, more commonly known as governments]? By entering into convenants, i.e. contracts with them, precisely as we were warned not to do.
Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee... – Exodus 34:12
COVENANT, n. [L, to come; a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.] 1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract... [Ibid.]
Once having entered into this covenant, is there no way out? Yahuwah forbid!! No, He "redeems" us out of the bondage we have ignorantly volunteered ourselves into; His plan all along.
...yet doth He devise means, that His banished be not expelled from Him.
This is called "grace", for it was most certainly not earned!!
And as ye go, preach, saying,
The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
We hear, and we obey.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 22:49:25
You know... there have been times when one hears rebuttals such as, "you are too negative," but I know that the reason that is said is because one is positive that tyrannical swines never want to loose their profit bearing shemes.
"Don't cast your pearls before swine."
After all... when the Christ was damning the pharisees and scribes, where they not all screaming, using false accusations, and letting the word out, calling for 911 to arrest Him? "Nothing new under the sun." |
| 1234jagal |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 22:36:54
I agree with you that the concept I know and understand is extremely idealistic.
The Redemption.
But I believe. I cannot explain it. But I do.
I am a realist not an idealist. Believe me. I know the nature of man all to well.
I know what you say is right that judges will do exactly what they want regardless of the law or evidence.
Evidence!!!!! What a joke they pick and choose what truth they will even hear and from whom they will hear it.
It makes me laugh!!!!
It is a joke!!!!!
When an attorney for the prosecution can make a claim and the failure of an incompetent defense attorney to deny the claim is evidence.
We are in 1932 Germany all over again.
We are not talking proof beyond a reasonable doubt we are talking public witch hunts nothing is so different today from the days of the prophets.
Their lies and hypocrisy have no bounds.
But this is called JUSTICE I call this organized crime.
If I pay their protection money manufactured licenses, fees, fines, and taxes they will let me remain free.
Free to serve their goddess JUSTICE this is not freedom. This is slavery and death.
I cannot be a good little servant boy and get back out on the plantation and bring in them $$$$$$$. Then their police army will call a peace treaty.
They claim that I lack respect for their civilized society.
I do not disrespect their rights to serve their goddess but they trample my rights to serve mine.
They claim I am a free man. Free to serve and obey and worship them and their rules which they change from one day to the next to serve their purpose.
This is not freedom at least not from the place where God has placed me.
No way this is something I just cannot do or will not do what’s the difference.
A fish out of water is still a dead fish.
You all may think I woke up today and you all may think I am from oz.
But I am not!!!!!
I sojourn in the same place that you are all from the United States “third rite”.
It is a little more polished this time.
But it still stinks. If you polish garbage you still have garbage.
It is just that I have been persecuted and jailed for my beliefs more than once and I have found that is not as terrible as you all may believe it to be.
Judges cannot kill me and they cannot hold me forever all though they have threatened to lock me up and throw away the key.
I have found that the whole experience strengthens me somehow.
Once you have been where I have been you are not afraid anymore for it is not an unknown any longer.
And God is not against the world but he did place us in an awkward place knowing full well that we would suffer by the conviction of the spirit.
But how can I do anything but the will of the spirit inside of me when I am compelled not by my flesh but by a force that is stronger than my flesh.
I serve my true nature witch is really not against rule but against un-natural rule for the sake of money and gain.
Slavery and peonage.
I do not argue with your thoughts as we are not dealing with courts that obey any kind of laws but they serve their own will.
Much like a pack of dogs that kill just for the sake of killing.
They have acquired a taste for blood and they like the power, thrill, and fear of the prey.
But I am not afraid.
And courts do not even obey their own laws so how or why would I expect them to obey Gods.
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 21:43:55
If the admiralty courts do exist, then the COURTS surely have boarded and seized control of the ships by piracy through barratry.
Back in 1998, "this old man" (this old man... he plays two... he plays nick-nack on my shoes  )filed a habeas corpus for the sole purpose of the PIRATES to release my then one year old daughter, explaining that freedom did not mean being behing bars, but freedom was in fact more meaningful. The black-robed federal "judges" response was a rubber stamped "denied without prejudice." See... they do not want to loose their "shares," and their booty lootie.
That old man... whe plays four... he plays nick-nack on my door... with a nich-nack, patty-wack... give a dog-a-bone... that old man went rolling......................................................................................................................SMACK!
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 19:46:09
That is too idealistic. It is impractical to argue it in any court. It is subjective and discards Rules of Evidence. Completely dysfunctional in the world where we live. If you ask me that perspective is oriented completely around a "next-life" mentality about life everlasting. It stands upon the idea that the world system is against God and only exists to try our faith, to torment us.
Alas; I feel headed for the same old argument and it always gets ugly so I am going to leave this Topic alone. No hard feelings, ok?
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| 1234jagal |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 19:03:54
I agree that as servants of Christ we are outside of the jurisdiction of man made courts.
Has any one or group had any success claiming sovereignty in recent years other than the Indian nation in the United States?
The nation of Heaven has existed long before the creation of the Corporate States and the creation world bankers.
The world bankers do not hold an equity mortgage on my flesh nor does any fiction State.
Therefore they are both without jurisdiction unless I surrender and worship their fiction kingdoms.
It appears that courts of JUSTICE are without jurisdiction and I should be able to deny or at least reject their acts of invitation to make war.
The bible says that many of the children of God have refused to serve or worship the kingdoms of man kings and they protected by the spirit of God and the son of man.
I understand the exception of military force and by military force I mean armies of police and judges who are employees of the Corporation State that will do the will of their Employer State regardless of law.
They are nothing more than hired mercenaries destroying anyone or anything that does not bring benefit $$$$$$$$$$ to their employer.
But then the children of God have always been willing to surrender their lives to God and his will.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 17:06:25
It is declared somewhere that the county courts shall be courts of record. So one perceiving the true fuller definition of a court of record and your absolute right to judicial process within oneself, court of competent jurisdiction be you.
When the judge begins to behave like an attorney in a black robe correct him from the still-viable court of record, you. If he refuses to abide in the sovereign order file an order for contempt.* I say serve the order from your court but am giving William Thornton the benefit of the doubt that that courtroom belongs to the sovereign people (not the hijacked PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF XXXXXX), always has.
William Thornton came to Colorado and lectured. These concepts of true sovereignty are spoken from the regal "We". Thus, "It is our wish." etc. And so to interleave the concepts without argument you would be speaking about yourself and Jesus Christ as the sovereign, regal "We". In the older monarchy of England, the appointed man-kings of the Holy Bible that was the regal "We" of the people in their image of God through the king, first formally expressed (outside of Israel) in the coerced signing of the Magna Charta. [Symbollically Samuel warning the people not to try holding a gun to God's head. Surprising to Samuel, God appointed Saul anyway.]
In other words, the law of the forum is decreed by the sovereign, the court of record. I favor admiralty because of Rule E(8) Restricted appearance and C(3)(a)(ii)(B) Arrest warrant. But I have to admit, the clerks of the district courts are diverting the cargo, the papers into the standard civil forum albeit these are definitely revenue/admiralty causes. That is error and once corrected malfeasance. But it looks great in theory.
Thornton has a case (ongoing for ten years) where the sovereign court of record decreed the F.R.C.P. over the State of California law. It looks like it may have worked but the cause has not reached judgment yet. But the problem is that the clerks reject the idea that revenue causes are admiralty and falsely brand the counterclaimant (Libel of Review) a pro se plaintiff. So the decree of admiralty is ignored for now. We are working on tactics but properly expressed there is promise in the near future of breakthrough.
Theoretically though the decree would be admiralty rules. The fringes are already in place but the clerks think only the central bankers get access to the rules. Only US Attorneys and federal judges, the IMF World Bank etc.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* It is crucial to understand that outside the scope of counterclaim (Libel of Review) the only access to this sovereignty is habeas corpus. And habeas corpus is suspended with constitutional provisions in any actual theater of war. So that is a little bit shaky too.
William Thornton came from a de jure common law infrastructure. That is to say California was ratified into a State prior to 1861 by a de jure Congress. Not Colorado. One sees that in 1861 the territorial session laws adopted the Common Law of England except were overwritten by legislative authority. However the Territory was ratified on February 28, 1861 (not a leap year) and the Congress adjourned sine die on March 28, 1861 so the 30-day cure time was not completed. Why? President Buchanan was setting Colorado up to be a federal War Chest because of the '59er gold finds in Auraria and Central City. Cool. But that leaves no infrastructure, even for the September 1861 decree in the Sessions Laws of the Territory about the Common Law of England. No proper ties to the Magna Charta. Thus I prefer to decree international law for the admiralty forum. The national debt logically comes from outside the country - international law, the Law of Nations etc.
One suitor got an international judge to fly in from Central America to sign a default judgment. Guess what?? This form of arbitration is custom and usage in a lot of other nations - admiralty. Here too. That's what's with all the gold fringes. So many people haven't a clue the central bankers just take advantage of their attorney agents in the courtrooms. Nobody thinks they have the sovereign power to correct things back to a court of record! |
| Bondservant |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 16:50:10
Admiralty [a/k/a Martial Rule] courts cannot recognize the blood covenant of the Christ as to do so would be outside of their "legal" venue and jurisdiction. |
| 1234jagal |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 10:35:05
When we say that the covenant or blood contract that Christ entered into with the world is not really practical are we really saying we are afraid that the courts will not recognize the blood payment of Christ.
I understand.
I have more on this thought but for now I am out of time. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 07:18:22
Both your points are amplified in the footnotes to the First Judiciary Act linked - about foreign counsuls and ambassadors. www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Suitors.gif There is good reason that this subject matter is so related to the 'saving to suitors' clause [diversity of citizenship] in the text above the footnotes.
But I understand where you are coming from Oneisraelite. Using Bondservant's testimony to fight for your perceived right to say you are writing from Israel:
quote:
Let me see if I understand this stuff correctly, “…we are surely and solidly under the RULE of Military Occupation [Martial Law] if we live IN [not AT] the USA corporate STATES.”
(1) Are the incorporated STATES fictions?
(2) Is the incorporated USA a fiction?
(3) Is THE LAND OF OZ a fiction?
The points I read above are impracticable in the world. So therefore I will decline further debate lest we become argumentative.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 07:03:10
Henceforth I call you not servants;
for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth:
but I have called you friends;
for all things that I have heard of my Father
I have made known unto you.
Yahu'hanan [John] 15:15
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 25 Feb 2005 : 04:53:03
Greetings and salutations:
Peace be unto the house.
Let me see if I understand this stuff correctly, “…we are surely and solidly under the RULE of Military Occupation [Martial Law] if we live IN [not AT] the USA corporate STATES.”
(1) Are the incorporated STATES fictions?
(2) Is the incorporated USA a fiction?
(3) Is THE LAND OF OZ a fiction?
If the answer to all three questions above is yes, could someone please tell me how one could live IN the LAND OF OZ, or for that matter, how could one live AT THE LAND OF OZ?
At denotes nearness… How can one live near THE LAND OF OZ if it is not real? I truly do not understand how one could make this claim without acknowledging that THE LAND OF OZ is real.
“…we should all consider ourselves as "legal fictional persons"...[even though we are NOT fictional Corporate State creations].”
I should pretend I am the SCARECROW [STRAWMAN] so the WIZARD , OF OZ [kosmokrator, world ruler, an epithet of Satan] will recognize me?
“…we should all consider ourselves as "legal fictional persons"
MSWORD2000 synonyms for consider: think, believe
I’m confused, we should consider ourselves as “legal fictional persons” Isn't that contrary to our instructions?
Proverb 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he…
“…that venue [THE LAND OF OZ] cannot and will not recognize us [living beings]....”
And, do we really want to be recognized...as legal fictional persons by kosmokrator?
REC'OGNIZED, pp. Acknowledged; recollected as known; bound by recognizance. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Recognition. Ratification; confirmation; an acknowledgement that something done by another person in one’s name had one’s authority. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 880
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with 'Elohiym: and he was not...
"and he was not" is the Hebrew word 'ayin and means non-entity or not exist...guess they didn't recognize Enoch once he was translated into the Kingdom of Heaven.
translate v.t. 1. To bear or change from one place, condition, etc., to another; to transfer 2. Specif.: a To remove to heaven; - originally implying without death. - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1916-1960, page 903
Perhaps we are just ignorant, and we humbly apologize if this is the case, however if a kosmokrator refuses to recognize Yahuwah 'Elohiym [the LORD God] and His perfect Law of liberty [the Ten Commandments], why "in the world" would we want kosmokrator to recognize us? Does not the shepherd recognize only his own sheep?
Yahu’hanan [John] 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know [recognize] my sheep, and am known [recognized] of mine.
There only thing kosmokrator [the WIZARD OF OZ] can recogize, as far as we are concerned, is that we are not his SHEEP [FICTIONS/SCARECROWS/STRAWMEN], we are not "of" his FICTIONAL JURISDICTION [THE LAND OF OZ/USA].
Yahu'hanan [John] 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 and 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 24 Feb 2005 : 22:53:27
I under stand 1234jagal,
But remember, our standing In Him does not make us freemen, but His servants.
|
| 1234jagal |
Posted - 24 Feb 2005 : 22:26:22
The concept I am trying to communicate is freedom.
Freedom to Worship and Freedom to live as freeman not a slave to the laws of man.
Please be patient while I try to explain.
I may not communicate my thoughts very on paper I am more of an oral person.
But I would like to explain what is happening in the world maybe it will help you all to understand.
I am not an authority by any means but I consider myself to be a messenger of truth. I am fairly good study of law all law it is my hobby.
If you do not agree that is okay I am not selling.
I just want to help all in their search for freedom.
The worldly Government Corporate States “Caesar” claim that I, “a living breathing child of God” am a servant, a slave and property of “Caesar” the State, I am denied by the goddess and cult religion called “JUSTICE” my lawful right to serve my father my God as I am called to worship.
These Godless States force their manufactured licenses upon the substitute fictitiously spelled misnomer citizens; and they attempt to deny me a child of God the right to claim the unalienable rights granted to me under my Christian name given to me by God at my birth. They seek to deny my citizenship to the nation of Heaven, and force a fiction slave name upon me issued to me by Caesar the State.
If you will at least consider that there are different levels of law and different jurisdictions of law.
This is key. I will try and explain but at first glance the concept may be foreign. But it is real.
The first level of law is the lowest level of law it is the law of man (custom)
Above the law of man is the law of conquest (my army is bigger than your army I win)
Admiralty law fits into the law of conquest category and custom.
But above all man made law is the law of God, It is the original foundation of all law.
Of which Christ is now the cornerstone.
Many people call the law of God the common law.
It would be more correct to call it ecclesiastical law. (the problem is anytime you claim protection under the common law. Courts will always assume that you are claiming the Lex Mercatoria the English Merchant Law or modern UCC law over which the courts have jurisdiction.
To be free you must come out from under the jurisdiction of man.
This is key.
The law of God does not fall under the laws or jurisdiction of Man.
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence” Colossians 1:16. all governments are subject to his Kingdom jurisdiction and laws.
“The LORD has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all” Psalm 103:19.
“All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless.” Isaiah 40:17,
Look at the Pope he is Sovereign why because he makes the claim to be a servant of God.
Gods laws always reign supreme over mans laws.
"The omission of the Christian name by either plaintiff or defendant in a legal process prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction,.." -Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th., pg. 2287
Fiction: Fictio, in old Roman law, is properly a term of pleading, and signifies a false averment which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as, that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object was to give jurisdiction…Legal fiction may be used to signify an assumption which conceals, or affects to conceal, the fact that a rule of law has undergone alteration, its letter remaining unchanged while its operation is modified. The “fact” is that the law has been wholly changed; the “fiction” is that it remains what it always was. Page 458. [compare with “person; fictitious”] A Dictionary Of Law William C. Anderson, 1893
Courts have ruled "Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction." New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm [268 U.S. 29, 31-32 (1925)]
The State has no real jurisdiction over living souls as they undeniably belong to God so the fiction person is created by the State Certificate from the birth. Notice the State’s Corporate name at the top of the Certificate the State is the Certificate Holder and the fiction person is the beneficiary of the alleged State benefits of Parens Patriae.
The government wants the wages of your flesh or wages of sin. Same thing they want MONEY< MONEY< MONEY>MONEY>MONEY. Servitude…………….
And it is a sin to serve another god. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. Exodus 20:3 But I like very much the fact that you are testifying regarding the Kingdom.
Electing an ungodly man as ruler, is a society operating independent and without God, and it inevitably always leads that nation into slavery.
It is commanded that we testify and witness of the Kingdom and your declaration does this nicely.
God is not against rulers. He is not opposed to government. Indeed, He ordained it! All authority is "established by God" Romans 13:1.
Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion... Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him; Psalms 2:6-12.
It is just that man corrupts is and trespasses on that which belongs solely to God. God is only against un-godly rulers.
It may be helpful for your readers to understand what is going on in the world.
They claim that the basic foundation of all United States law is freedom to worship.
But you will soon see this is a myth and a lie.
The goal for us as children of God is to be out from under the Lordship of Man.
To begin with Lordship means ownership look it up in the dictionary.
And there is only one way that we can be truly freed.
It is called the Redemption.
“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us…:”Galatians 3:11[emphasis added].
If we look in the dictionary for the meaning of the word redeem we find In the Merriam Webster the word means;
“Redeem 1 a : to buy back :REPURCHASE b : to get or win back 2 : to free from what distresses or harms: as a: to free from captivity by payment of ransom b: to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental c : to release from blame or debt : CLEAR d: to free from the consequences of sin 3 : to change for the better : REFORM 4: REPAIR, RESTORE 5 a: to free from a lien by payment of an amount secured thereby b (1) : to remove the obligation of by payment <the U.S. Treasury redeems savings bonds on demand> (2) : to exchange for something of value <redeem trading stamps> c : to make good : FULFILL 6 a: to atone for : EXPIATE b (1): to offset the bad effect of (2): to make worthwhile : RETRIEVE synonym see RESCUE”.
Eaton defines Redeemed as “the debt is represented not as cancelled but as fully paid. The slave or captive is not liberated by a mere gratuitous favour, but a ransom price has been paid, in consideration of which he is set free. The original owner receives back his alienated and lost possession because he has bought it back "with a price." This price or ransom (Greek lutron) is always said to be Christ, his blood, and his death. Christ secured our redemption by the payment of the ransom thereby he is my redeemer and I am redeemed. There are many passages in the New Testament which represent Christ's sufferings under the idea of a ransom or price, and the result thereby secured is a purchase or redemption (comp. Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20; Galatians 3:13; 4:4, 5; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; Revelations 5:9 the purchase back of something that had been lost, by the payment of a ransom” Eaton Bible Dictionary. “The Greek word so rendered is apolutrosis, a word occurring nine times in Biblical law, and always with the idea of a ransom or price paid, i.e., redemption by a lutron (see Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45)” Eaton Bible Dictionary.
Now so that you will completely understand I must give you a little history or you will not comprehend exactly what is happening how and why.
The plan of man to make slaves of every man is very old and very deep.
The issue is one of Lordship this the key.
Lordship means ownership.
Remember this always when confronted by the law.
Someone or thing (Law) is laying a claim of property ownership on your flesh.
Property cannot tell the owner how to use it.
The owner of the property is the final word and will use it any way he pleases.
He owns it.
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Matthew 28:18
Now if we go all the way back to Genesis in the beginning we see how man acquired lordship.
Adam and Eve were free men who dwelled in the garden and they were given dominion over all the earth subject to couple rules do not eat the fruit so in other words the garden remained solely under the Jurisdiction of God.
Remember this word "Jurisdiction it means when law speaks".
Or when the owner speaks.
God set it up this way but man abused it when man decided to reject God and manufacture their own gods. You will see what I am talking about in a minute.
Think of it this way you are the lord of your house the bible says so which means you are the law, your word is law. Your word is the final word. Every one in your house is under your jurisdiction. No one can tell you how to raise your children or how to run your household. The children are yours God gave them to you and you have jurisdiction over them until they leave your house. Your word is the law it is the alpha and omega the beginning and the end of the law as it concerns your household. But remember we are to run Godly households which means we are to turn and look to God for direction so that we run Godly households.
So in reality God is the true alpha and omega it is his word that is the beginning and the end of all law and his jurisdiction is supreme over our jurisdictions of man. Do you see? So Jurisdiction means when the OWNER SPEAKS. Who is the owner? God
When Adam and Eve eat the fruit they became as gods.
Look in Genesis Eve coveted to be a goddess and Adam followed “and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” Genesis 3:5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 1 Corinthians 8:5
So the issue is Lordship who is your God?
But serving another God is against the command to have no other Gods before me.
Many people covet to be as gods without really realizing it. They seek dominion over men. This is a form of godliness which must always remain second in servitude to the God of Heaven. Men who seek dominion deny the power of God and therefore declare themselves to be gods and we are not to serve these gods before the living God. But this exactly what the world would have you believe that you are to serve the godhead of man which is man made law in contradiction to the law of God. Many men break Gods law without breaking mans law.
Our parents are not to take God's place and rule in the family independently of Gods word. Our teachers are not to take God's place and teach as if there is no Universal authority. Civil government are not to take God's place and rule independently of Gods direction and one true government Isaiah 9:6,7; Romans 13:1-7
Thus the scripture; Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 7:21. We must obey the will of the Father or we are nothing but mere strangers.
Now who makes worldly law? (I like to call their law customs) Answer man as a god or lord the bible says so.
So man claims jurisdiction over man? Or I like to put it this way a man claims to be god and claims jurisdiction over man. There are many instances of un-godly kings claiming to be gods in scripture and making men worship them. Herod, Nebuchadnezzar, etc. And modern day rulers fall into this category as well.
But always remember who made the supreme law? God in Heaven
"We must obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29; Daniel 3:16-18; 6:10.
Now this is key remember God has given all men jurisdiction over their own house and our children and commanded us to raise them up in the way that they should go Proverbs 22:6. So God gave us permission and jurisdiction over our households. The only requirement from God in Heaven was that we do it subject to Gods supreme jurisdiction. In other words his direction and guidance.
Who makes supreme law? God
Who sustains our life? God.
Who created us? God
Now I will show the Matrix.
The matrix is the plan of man that copies in almost every detail the plan of God.
God is the creator. The State is the creator of fictions- persons
God is our Father. The State is a Father - Parens Patraie
God sustains life. The State has welfare and entitlement programs
God has his own law. The State has there own law.
God has his prophets The State has there prophet-judges
God gives eternal life The State gives eternal life- fiction person or
corporation
God has his alter The State has their alters-court rooms
God has his prophets. The Sate has their prophets (judges)
Etc, Etc. Etc.
This is just a sampling of the Matrix it is Huge like the bible says there are many gods.
My point is what god do you serve?
There are two types of men Gods freedmen and slaves all men will fall into these two categories and only these two categories.
But it is not the type of slavery that most people would recognize. When most people think of slavery they think of hard labor. And although it is not hard labor in the United States it is a lien on mans labor all the same it is just that the art of slavery has been refined from hard labor to economic slavery.
Which was foretold by the prophets “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you”… 2 Peter 2:3.
What is merchandise property!!
Remember property is owned. Therefore a slave is owned property. And if owned then who is the owner or lord of the property. It is who ever the slave yield itself to obey. Jurisdiction- law speaks.
Ok this is important and you must believe this because it is true and absolute and undeniable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You were born a free man or women. You were not born a slave. All men were born free men.
You have un-a-lien-able rights or unalienable rights.
But then how did we come under worldly jurisdiction and become slaves of mans law.
Mans Jurisdiction
So how is it then that the governments make laws and claims jurisdiction over our flesh?
If we look at the foundation of Jurisdiction-law speaks you should start to see how this happened.
The governments have claimed ownership of our flesh. The government claims we are bond slaves. The governments have claimed we are their slaves. We are not slaves we a re free men.
And the governments claim they are our parents under Parens Patriae.
Look it up its Latin but it’s the law of man.
The governments claim that it is because they take care of us and feed us, cloth us, (welfare, social security, etc) provide medical treatment and protect us (military armies and police) that this gives them the right to parental jurisdiction over us. And many men love these benefits of government and they demand more and more and expect them because it makes their life easier but the bible says; Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 John 2:15 16
The world rejects the on true provider of all things. God
God is the universal Governor, King, President, etc. of all households and all nations because Gold is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Daniel 4:17; 5:21; Isaiah 9:6,7, 1 Corinthians 15:25; Colossians 1:17
This is why the bible says; “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”. Matthew 23:9. Remember when we call a man father, master or your honor we give him Jurisdiction.
Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? Malachi 2:10
"The family of God it is our governing body with our father as the God-ordained head of the household of his government. "The Lord reigns; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad" Psalm 97:1.
The governments also claim we are subject to their jurisdiction as indentured slaves our bodies are sureties for the debts of the world governments. They claim we are chattel, or sureties.
The bible says “A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and] becometh surety in the presence of his friend” Proverbs 17:18. In this particular case surety means indentured slave.
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 2 Peter 2:19
How you ask.
Well the first thing you must understand is that this process is very old thousands of years old in fact. I cannot explain it in every detail in such a short forum. But it is true. Research it for yourself.
The process is called trading your birthright for something of minimal value (benefit, or privilege) and it comes from the bible
“And Jacob said. Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: Esau despised his birthright” Genesis 27:33
The problem is Esau new what he was doing but very few people that I know have ever knowingly traded their freedom or birthright for a government privilege (bowl of stew) and by knowing I mean with a complete disclosure and complete understanding of the act that they were performing.
Did you know that when you accepted a government benefit or privilege that you would become a slave?
For most people the answer is NO.
Well then we have a case of theft, fraud, involuntary servitude, and peonage against the government but that’s for another day.
I want to keep it simple for now and show you Gods plan and how God freed us from their false claims and jurisdiction.
The next thing we have to understand is the following.
We are either bond servants of worldly governments? Sureties
or
Bond servants of Christ? Freedmen
There is no other choice.
The question is who is our Lord and Master that we yield to and obey? For me it is Christ!!!!
Why?
Because he voluntarily gave his own life and paid the ransom price which was demanded for our freedom…..BLOOD. He PAID!!!!!!!!!
The blood payment was demanded and Christ stepped forward and accepted the contract and paid the price. He paid for our indebtedness and our freedom from the servitude to world governments.
He bought back our flesh and freed us from the laws of other gods.
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other”. Matthew 6:24.
The children of God are required to serve only God through the redemption of Christ.
IN OTHER WORDS Christ stepped into our shoes and paid our debt and became our surety.
We are therefore free from the law.
“Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments”: Exodus 6:6, compare 2 Samuel 7:23, Isaiah 43:3
Here is a generic example:
Think of it this way for a moment lets say you want to purchase a car. You find a willing seller and you like the car and the price so you make an agreement to buy the car a contract. Then you give the guy the money the price and the guy does not give you the car. Theft he has the money and the car.
Or,
You find a willing seller and you like the car but you borrow the money from another to pay for the car. Someone else holds a lien or claim on the car it is yours so long as you make the payments but if you default you loose the car. But what if you pay it off and the lien holder says I will not release your lien. You have to keep on paying me or I will take the car.
Theft, fraud and deception. You are paid off!!!!!!! The debt is redeemed!!!!!
The lien holder no longer has a claim against you for the car or payment.
In other words they cannot have the car and the cash too.
They can only have one or the other.
If man made judges deny the blood then they deny the lordship and ownership of. Christ.
And Christ redeemed us which means he bought our flesh so that we would no longer be the slaves of worldly governments.
”You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." 1 Corinthians 7:23, "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?" Romans 6:16,.
Notice also that God requires that our body flesh be in obedience along with our spirit to the lordship of God.
“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s”. 1 Corinthians 6:20. And now we are again under the sole jurisdiction of the kingdom of God.
The payment was made so that any and all claims that the world governments may have had against us as surety are fulfilled, paid, redeemed. Not voided but redeemed. Paid in FULL, Debt cancelled.
The idea running throughout the scriptures is that a payment was made for the redemption of our flesh and we are redeemed. The debt against me is not viewed as simply cancelled, but is fully paid. Christ's blood or life, which he surrendered for me, was the "ransom" which when delivered to the world redeemed all of God’s people from the servitude and worship of the jurisdiction of worldly gods and goddesses.
We are freed from the penal jurisdiction and our freedom is secured by the blood payment made by Christ. We are no longer to live our lives under the jurisdiction of the penal colony slave masters. But we are to look to Christ as our liberator our Lord who purchased our flesh and made it possible for the entire family of God to once again unite as one governmental body in worship and servitude. The body I speak of is the nation of Heaven “the final physical kingdom of God is set up on earth” Daniel 7:13
Eaton defines Redeemed as “the debt is represented not as cancelled but as fully paid. The slave or captive is not liberated by a mere gratuitous favour, but a ransom price has been paid, in consideration of which he is set free. The original owner receives back his alienated and lost possession because he has bought it back "with a price." This price or ransom (Greek lutron) is always said to be Christ, his blood, and his death. Christ secured our redemption by the payment of the ransom thereby he is my redeemer and I am redeemed. There are many passages in the New Testament which represent Christ's sufferings under the idea of a ransom or price, and the result thereby secured is a purchase or redemption (comp. Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20; Galatians 3:13; 4:4, 5; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; Revelations 5:9 the purchase back of something that had been lost, by the payment of a ransom” Eaton Bible Dictionary. “The Greek word so rendered is apolutrosis, a word occurring nine times in Biblical law, and always with the idea of a ransom or price paid, i.e., redemption by a lutron (see Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45)” Eaton Bible Dictionary.
The bible says no man may resist the power or will of God and any man who resists the redemption resists the will of God; “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation (judgment)” Romans 13:2 [emphasis added].
And we are to remember who freed us from bondage.
“But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence”…Deuteronomy 24:18
So today we are no longer bondsman but we are re-instated by the blood as freemen no longer to serve worldly government Jurisdiction or law.
But we are to serve Christ in the newness of the spirit as freemen. Freedom is an absolute requirement for the fulfillment of the will of God and his statute which requires 100% worship (service in thought and action = the seal of God). God loves us and would never command his children to do something if he had not provided a way for us to enter into his (rest) Kingdom; “And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom” Mark 15:38 thus allowing our entry into his Holy Kingdom on earth. Gods Jurisdiction
Once we have been freed we are required to serve Christ in faith and not to live in fear of man but we are to fear God. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: Hebrews 12:28 And when I serve Christ in the newness of the Spirit and faith, “then we fulfill the Law, though we are not under the Law, but under the grace. Romans 7:6. The Apostle Paul says that without faith it is impossible to please God Hebrews 11:6. God requires his sovereign children to abide in Him and not abide in man made customs and laws. God says “Remain in me”, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing” John 15:4. The children of God are required to abide in Christ as we are the branches of the tree of life.
Christ’s Kingdom was proclaimed in the document nailed on the cross and sealed in blood and if any man or judge denies Christ then he denies the redemption and denies the payment of Christ’s blood.
And any man who denies the payment made by Christ’s blood would then be breaking Christ’s blood contract with the world and that man would then become surety on the citizen of Heavens behalf. That man would then have a blood debt to the kingdom of God which could only be paid in blood as an exchange of value. That mans own blood would be required to be forfeited because he who was not even a party to the contract breached the contract. And every contract or covenant is a bargain or an exchange of value and if the bargain is broken restitution must be made by the man or judge who breaks it.
All men who deny Christ remain under the jurisdiction of worldly law and remain under the jurisdiction of another god and therefore remain subject to all charges, bills, judgments, or orders declared by the prophets of those god or goddess.
Therefore I would like to introduce to you to their goddess JUSTICE.
Her name is Justice from the current world empire, Justitia from Roman empire, Ma'at from Egyptian empire, Ikhnaiê from Thessalia northern Greek empire, and formerly commonly known as Themis or Dike from the Greek empire She is also called Astraea (starry), for she is the constellation of the Virgin (Virgo) and many other pagan names. This goddess bears the graven image of a woman with a sword and a scale sometimes blindfolded. This is the common symbol and graven image of the CULT OF THEMIS.
The goddess “Justice” is the angel of light talked about in the Holy Bible who claims to sit as the protector of our families and freedoms, and she claims to grant security when in reality she is the lion that roams the earth night and day looking to devour any one that will not bow down and worship this beast and the number of her name.
These ancient texts show that “Justice” has been worshipped by all men of every nation for thousands of years.
“Themis (the Lady of Justice) sits on high; and she who heapeth woe on woe on humankind, even Ate, punisheth the shameless tongue." -Quintus Smyrnaeus 1.752 and compare to "Ay, wicked men never elude pure Themis: night and day her eyes are on them, and the wide world through above the tribes of men she floats in air, holpen of Zeus, for punishment of sin." -Quintus Smyrnaeus 13.298 and “Sing in praise of holy Themis and Pytho, and the centre-stone of earth, whose word is justice – here as evening’s shadows fall.” –Pindar Pythian 11 str1-ant1“Of the female Titanes ...Themis, the myths tell us, was the first to introduce divinations and sacrifices and ordinances which concern the gods, and to instruct men in the ways of obedience to laws and of peace. Consequently men who preserve what is holy with respect to the gods and the laws of men are called ‘law-guardians’ (thesmophulakes) and ‘law-givers’ (thesmothetai).” –Diodorus Siculus 5.67.3 and then there is "And there is virgin Justice, the daughter of Zeus, who is honored and reverenced among the gods who dwell on Olympus, and whenever anyone hurts her with lying slander, she sits beside her father, Zeus the son of Cronos, and tells him of men's wicked heart, until the people pay for the mad folly of their princes who, evilly minded, pervert judgement and give sentence crookedly." [Hesiod, Works and Days, 255ff.]
Who is your God?
Colossians 4:11 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only [are my] fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.
So you will see from the above Scripture that Christ claimed to rein as Justus which is not be confused with the goddess JUSTICE. Christ is commanding us to worship his Justus and not mans.
Who has jurisdiction over you?
Who owns you?
Thank you Father for your Holy Spirit and Redemption which has brought me freedom, peace and joy; "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." Matthew 25:21
“And they shall be no a more prey Ezekiel 34:22 to the heathen.
|
| Bondservant |
Posted - 24 Feb 2005 : 18:50:31
David, we should all consider ourselves as "legal fictional persons" under Admiralty Rule E(8) since that venue cannot and will not recognize us as anything other [even though we are NOT fictional Corporate State creations]. As I have been saying for many years, trap them in their own "legalities". Obviously, this is something you have practically applied as well.
1234jagal - Yes, you CAN win if you use their false "law" to entrap them - which is what David is saying. We ARE who we ARE... those separate [within and of the ecclesia] from the legal sole corporation they have turned legalistic [not lawful] birth-nativity into.
I have a "birth record" from my mother born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1914. Her "name" is shown as "Helen Edward" with no family or surname. That alone proves how they have converted the nativity-birth into a "Birth Certificate" that mandates a corporate-legalistic SURNAME for purposes of creating a fictional "PERSON". |
| Bondservant |
Posted - 24 Feb 2005 : 18:40:22
Martial RULE was established in April 1863 [during Lincoln's UN-civil War] in what we now call the USA. This is different than the land once known as the "United States of North America" established prior to 1861. But, David is absolutely correct in that we are surely and solidly under the RULE of Military Occupation [Martial Law] if we live IN [not AT] the USA corporate STATES.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/library/Lieber_Code.pdf |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 24 Feb 2005 : 13:09:16
I beg to differ and not just for the sake of argument.
If one knows the structure of the law system, what you dismiss as the laws of man, then there is some 'justice' or at least maneuverability to be found.
Within the context of this Topic, we find the place to get a Driver License is the Department of Revenue. Also one should be aware that revenue causes have long been, under the laws of the United States, admiralty jurisdiction. Ergo the 2" gold admiralty fringes in traffic court.
[Of course martial "rule" not "law" must be considered if you were to make a full appearance. A court-martial always has jurisdiction to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. So there is a bigger picture than I am painting here in one Post.]
Therefore it behooves us to study the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, in particular Rule E(8) Restricted appearance. I have in fact seen attorneys appear restricted in traffic court under this rule. It is called "law of the flag" - to give notice of the laws governing all contracts within the forum (vessels).
The only reason I bring this up is that your approach deprives the reader of remedy. The First Judiciary Act says in Chapter 20, Page 77 "...saving to suitors in all cases, the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it..."
Perhaps it would be functional for you to view your body as a vessel dedicated unto the Lord and the law of the flag at Exodus 13:16. Then view the Rules and you may start seeing the way to argue your spiritual claims in a manner that makes sense to all parties involved.
The remedy that you portray, simple hope in the Lord's deliverance cannot be considered competent in any practicable manner. Albeit I am not arguing that God can deliver. I believe He can and does. The Bible tells us early on that Israel desired man-kings and that this was sanctioned by God. So therefore I appeal to the more pragmatic and practical if you are looking for remedy in common law.
An interesting lecturer named William Thornton www.1215.org correctly utilizes the lesser court of fact nisi pruis as a stage for the 'show' - the trial. The trial is already over when the paperwork properly rests with the clerk. So you must demonstrate the trial outcome correct in a show of peers - the jury. This often requires correction by order of the (sovereign) court of record (when the neutral arbitrator, the judge, behaves like an attorney or legislator at the bench).
It is a bit confusing and I began to realize after the lecture that everybody thought they understood William clearly, just in context of their already conceived notions and experiences about common law. We all were understanding him much differently from each other.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
