| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Admin |
Posted - 29 Aug 2001 : 18:14:11
The power of family courts
For all the concern that has been voiced in recent years about both family destruction and judicial power it is surprising so little attention has been focused on family courts. Without doubt they are the arm of the state that routinely reaches furthest into the private lives of individuals and families. Though lowest in the ranking of the judicial hierarchy, the family coruts have the greatest discretionary power. "The family court is the most powerful branch of the judiciary," according to Robert W. Page, Presiding Judge of the Family Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey. By their own assessment, according to Judge Page, "the power of family court judges is almost unlimited." Others have commented on their vast power rather less respectfully. Former US Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas once used the term "kangaroo court" in reference to the family courts. Contrary to basic principles of open government, these courts generally operate behind closed doors, excluding even family members, and most leave no record of their proceedings.
These courts emerged in the 1960s and 1970s alongside the revolution in divorce laws. Their existence, and virtually every problem they address – divorce, custody, child abuse, child-support enforcement, even juvenile crime – revolve around one overriding principle: removing the father from the family. If fathers remained with their families, family courts would have little reason to exist, since the problems that they handle seldom appear in intact families. While mothers also fall afoul of family court judges, it is fathers against whom their enmity is largely directed, because fathers are their principal rivals.
The judges’ contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell. Speaking to his colleagues during a training seminar in 1994, he said:
Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, "See ya around." . . . We don’t have to worry about their rights.
Family court judges are generally appointed and promoted by commissions that are dominated by bar associations and other professional groups which have an interest in maximizing the volume of litigation. The politics of court appointments operate according to principles of patronage that Richard A. Watson and Rondal G. Downing, authors of The Politics of the Bench and the Bar, have described as "cronyistic." Political scientist Herbert Jacob describes how "the judge occupies a vital position not only because of his role in the judicial process but also because of his control over lucrative patronage positions." Jacob cites probate courts, where positions as estate appraisers "are generally passed out to the judge’s political cronies or to persons who can help his private practice." The principles are similar in family courts (with which probate courts are sometimes united), only there what is passed out is control over children.
Like all courts, family courts complain of being overburdened. Yet it is clearly in their interest to be overburdened, since judicial powers and salaries are determined by demand for their services. "Judges and staff . . . should be given every consideration for salary and the other ‘perks’ or other emoluments of their high office," suggests Judge Page, adding that divorce court judges aim, and should aim, to increase their volume of business. "As the court does a better job more persons will be attracted to it," he observes. "The better the family court system functions the higher . . . the volume of the persons served." A court "does a better job" by attracting more divorcing mothers with more windfall settlements.
By Stephen Baskerville
baskers@email.msn.com |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 22 Jun 2005 : 21:07:29
As for radical activity in Australia you can refer to the following websites:
http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?t=3645
http://public.fotki.com/papa2b/
http://kidsfirst.homemail.com.au/photos/images.html
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 22 Jun 2005 : 18:05:21
Just for the record, in Australia under the Commonwealth Constitution we do NOT have a bill of rights. We don't need one. We don't have a president who has ordained authority as the executive arm of government. What you do is go to court and claim your right back that was affected by the legislation or administrative decision. What we do is injunct the person or agency who alleges to have AUTHORITY over our rights. The burden of proof is strictly on the agency to demonstrate they have authority (usually inn writing) from the client. Thats why tax is voluntary in Australia, they need your permission to ask for a Tax File Number (TFN). That's why our Child $upport Agency (C$A) is about to go belly-up because they have not obtained the necessary authority to use their client's TFN's in accordance with constitutional principles. They think they have the power but someone forgot to show them how to get the authority first before they used their power! Thats right - your delegation of your authority to the agency enables the agency to legally use their power over you to affect your existing rights - why? because you authorised, permitted, agreed, consented to them doing you over!
Anyone interested can check out the authority requirements in the following pieces of legislation:
Subparagraph (ga) was inserted into section 202 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 making one of the reasons a paying parent has a tax file number to facilitate the administration of the (Assessment) Act 1989 and the (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 – Sections, 30, 116, 117(2), 150B, 150C and 150D.
Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988 – sections 10 and 11.
Administrative Arrangements Act 1987 – Section 19.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 – Section 202.
Taxation Administration Act 1953 – Sections 8WA and 8WB.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 22 Jun 2005 : 17:53:48
I attended a conference yesterday and one of my friends met with the Federal Attorney General in relation to his family court matter/ (Basically three years ago he made application for residence of his child when his former partner kept refusing him contact). He then withdrew the application by Notice of Discontinuance filed and served other party. He ended up in a five day trial as a self represented litigant against his former partner who is a lawyer, who instructed her lawyer who instructed her barrister AND against a lawyer and barrister appointed on behalf of the child by the court) 5 against 1 sounds fair! The key point is he had no application before the court it was actually his ex-partner's response which became the application after he withdrew/discontinued his claim! He was treated as the applicant and now faces costs - apart from the fact the court has ordered that he not see his child again for five years! What a joke.
The New South Wales parliament have not transferred ex-nuptial children jurisdiction to the Commonwealth of Australia (Federal Parliament). So here is the drum folks, if in Australia and it is a de-facto relationship, and your ex files in Federal jurisdiction just say NO! they aint got jurisdiction yet!
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 20:01:10
G'day bros' & sisters!
Bless this little lean-to community!
I thought there was an international competition being conducted by the legislation drafters on how many PERSONS can be included in the one DEFINITION?
In our NEW SOUTH WALES - CRIMES ACT in the definitions section for domestic violence and relative we have one or two!!! It is no obvious to the former ignorant policeman that the domestic violence is not a crime just because it is in an ACT of a political society - it is simply codifying a common law assault and adding extra bits of slave control to the blokes who elect to be a PERSON in a POLITICAL SOCIETY, otherwise the wife-person could if there was a genuine trespass take the cause of action to the common law court by-passing the statute!
Now sit back and count the PERSONS! No I didn't cheat because section 4 (6) really should have been included in (1)!!!
Crimes Act 1900A
s at 16 May 2005
4 Definitions
(1) Domestic violence offence means a personal violence offence committed against:
(a) a person who is or has been married to the person who commits the offence, or
(b) a person who has or has had a de facto relationship, within the meaning of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 , with the person who commits the offence, or
(c) a person who has or has had an intimate personal relationship with the person who commits the offence, whether or not the intimate relationship involves or has involved a relationship of a sexual nature, or
(d) a person who is living or has lived in the same household or other residential facility as the person who commits the offence, or
(e) a person who has or has had a relationship involving his or her dependence on the ongoing paid or unpaid care of the person who commits the offence, or
(f) a person who is or has been a relative (within the meaning of section 4 (6)) of the person who commits the offence.
(6) For the purposes of the definition of Domestic violence offence , a person is a relative of a person (the other person ):
(a) if the person is:
(i) a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, father-in-law or mother-in-law, or
(ii) a son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, step-son, step-daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law, or
(iii) a brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, or
(iv) an uncle, aunt, uncle-in-law or aunt-in-law, or
(v) a nephew or niece, or
(vi) a cousin,
of the other person, or
(b) where the person is in a de facto relationship, within the meaning of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 , with somebody else (the person's partner )--if the other person is:
(i) a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father or step-mother, or
(ii) a son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, step-son or step-daughter, or
(iii) a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister, or
(iv) an uncle or aunt, or
(v) a nephew or niece, or
(vi) a cousin,
of the person's partner.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 19:50:46
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, Uncle Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
We perceive that it is not at all necessary to have a “person with delegated authority”, and for that matter, though a couple of witnesses might be nice, it is also our opinion that they are not necessary either.
Consensus non concubitus facit nuptiam. Consent, not lying together, constitutes marriage.
Woman: Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy ‘Elohiym my ‘Elohiym: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: Yahuwâh do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
Man: Now, that is what I call an “adhesion contract”! I consent (I give you authority to do so).
Yahuwâh is Author of that marriage!
Notice that in (2)(a) of the Act you posted, not only do we have the word “person” five times, but this word "solemnize(d)" rears its ugly head three times.
Solemnization. To enter marriage publicly before witnesses in contrast to a clandestine or common law marriage. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition
Clandestine, a. Secret; private; hidden; withdrawn from public view. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Public as opposed to private!
Private. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with office. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition
The word clandestine was, in my humble opinion, used to put "an evil spin" on private marriages; “[i]t often bears an ill sense, as implying craft or deception, or evil design.” And, “not official” means “not an authorized act”. Not authorized by whom?? Not authorized by “the Laws of Nature and Natures God”? Or, not authorized by “the STATE”?
The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."
If memory serves us correctly we got this pearl from brother Gregory of http://www.HisHolyChurch.com
That is so clearly stated that it is difficult to believe that ATTORNERS prepared it.
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.
Thought you might like this near piece of legislation from down (and out) under~ New South Wales dreamt this one up to appease the homosexual community and cafe latte single mum set!
Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2003
3 Definitions(1) In this Act:
de facto partner means a person who lives or has lived in a de facto relationship.
de facto relationship means a marriage-like relationship (other than a legal marriage) between two persons.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Manuel |
Posted - 11 Jun 2005 : 17:22:38
Greetings,
As I was looking for an article I once read, I came across the following, which reveals and sheds more light. These articles where published around the time where the Clintoon puppet regime, was about to be phased unto a new management phase, again, with the whitewashed Bush regime. It was a time where some truths where revealed in order to hide the bigger lies, and further stack lies upon lies by tickling the ears of the itching cycle. There is another article written called, "The Rule of Lawyers" which was also published at:
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=358
which too tickled the ears during that phase of re-aligning, but too is truth.
We should understand though, that truth is truth, and for that, I will bring this forward:
CONSPIRACY AGAINST FATHERHOOD
from: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=book&id=845§ion=871
By Gerald Flurry
We hear a great deal about conspiracies today. Our people almost seem conspiracy-obsessed. But the greatest and most damaging conspiracy is the one against fatherhood today. And very few people understand it or what deadly consequences it will have in our society.
Fathers Beware
Kathleen Parker wrote in the Sunday Oklahoman, July 25, 1999: “Now is the time for all good fathers to come to the aid of the family.
“Hurry; your days are numbered. If you happen to be a heterosexual male (further doomed by Caucasian pigmentation), your days are already over, according to a cover article in the June issue of American Psychologist, published by the American Psychological Association.
“In their article—‘Deconstruction of the Essential Father’—researchers Louise B. Silverstein and Carl F. Auerbach challenge one of the core institutions of our culture—fatherhood. More or less, fathers, as we’ve known and loved them, are obsolete.
“The article makes numerous breathtaking assertions, but basically the researchers say that:
“—Fathers aren’t essential to the well-being of children.
“—Gay, lesbian and single parents are as good as any other.
“—Heterosexual marriage isn’t necessary to produce healthy, well-adjusted children” (emphasis mine throughout).
I agree wholeheartedly with Kathleen Parker’s condemnation of the apa article, except for one statement. She called fatherhood “one of the core institutions of our culture.” I want to show you why it is the core institution of our society!
The goal of this conspiracy is to rip apart the family. And if you believe in the biblical family, the father is the head (1#8201;Corinthians 11:3). So he becomes the main target. Yet the conspiracy goes much deeper than that.
Evolution Eyeglasses
The August 23, 1999, feature article in Time magazine was titled “How Man Evolved.” Notice that is an absolute—no room for disagreement whatsoever, even though evolution is an unproved and unprovable theory.
To support their faith in evolution, Time included an article by a Harvard geology professor, Stephen Jay Gould. Here is what he wrote: “The Kansas board of education voted 6 to 4 to remove evolution, and the Big Bang theory as well, from the state’s science curriculum. In so doing, the board transported its jurisdiction to a never-never land where a Dorothy of the new millennium might exclaim, ‘They still call it Kansas, but I don’t think we’re in the real world anymore.’”
In other words, if you believe in the Bible’s account of God as Creator, you are not in the “real world.” Mr. Gould thinks you are on the edge of insanity or beyond, if you believe the Genesis account! (And, incidentally, creation is taught throughout the Bible.)
“The Kansas decision represents creationism’s first—and surely temporary—success with a third strategy for subverting a constitutional imperative: that by simply deleting, but not formally banning, evolution, and by not demanding instruction in a biblically literalist ‘alternative,’ their narrowly partisan, religious motivations might not derail their goals” (ibid.).
He presumes to be a great authority on religion. And if you reject the unprovable theory of evolution, because of your belief in the Bible, then you have “narrowly partisan, religious motivations.”
And of course he would know because he teaches at Harvard and writes for Time.
“First, no other Western nation has endured any similar movement, with any political clout, against evolution—a subject taught as fundamental, and without dispute, in all other countries that share our major sociocultural traditions.
“Second, evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the Earth’s revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. In this sense, we can call evolution a ‘fact.’ (Science does not deal in certainty, so ‘fact’ can only mean a proposition affirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse to withhold one’s provisional assent)” (ibid.).
Here he gets much stronger. He says “evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the Earth’s revolution around the sun.” Anybody who has intelligently studied evolution and astronomy knows that is a grotesque, twisted statement! But if you don’t believe him, he says you are “perverse”—even though he is careful not to use the word proof regarding the theory of evolution.
This man is a Harvard professor. But does he know more than the Creator of the universe and of mankind?
If I just want to believe what the Bible clearly states about creation, this is his attack on me.
But if you can’t believe the creation account, can you believe any of the Bible? So this is really about destroying faith in God. But the evolutionists insist that you have faith—and it is a faith—in their theory. If you don’t, their attack becomes very perverse.
The more that people surrender to their intimidation, the more fervently they attack the Bible.
Do our people still believe in freedom of religion, based on the Bible? How shamefully they treat people just for believing in the Bible!
Mr. Gould has still more to say. “Dorothy followed her yellow brick road as it spiraled outward toward redemption and homecoming (to the true Kansas of our dreams and possibilities). The road of the newly adopted Kansas curriculum can only spiral inward toward restriction and ignorance” (ibid.).
If you believe in creation, then you are in a “spiral inward toward restriction and ignorance,” he says.
How about that for intimidation—apparently because he lacks proof of evolution!
Still he says, “Science and religion should be equal, mutually respecting partners” (ibid.). But if you believe the creation teaching of the Bible, according to this man you 1) are not in the “real world”; 2) have “narrowly partisan, religious motivations”; 3) are “perverse”; and 4) in a “spiral inward toward restriction and ignorance.”
Does that sound like he is a respecting partner?
Refusal to See
Who is really ignorant? “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them” (Matthew 13:15).
Jesus Christ had to deal with people who had closed their eyes. And that is exactly what the proponents of evolution have done today. They have closed their minds to any proof or belief in creation. They have literally become some of the most ignorant people on this Earth! How else can you describe a closed mind? And if you disagree with them, then they begin to demonize you with ugly labels by powerful institutions. They attack with massive intimidation.
That is the typical way people act when they have strong beliefs and little or no proof! These people cling to evolution in faith—like some extreme cult.
Herbert W. Armstrong’s book The Missing Dimension in Sex (please write for a free copy if you don’t already have one) states: “There has to be a knowledge-gap—a missing dimension—somewhere! It’s high time we learn what it is!
“For every effect, there has to be a cause!
“There has to be a cause for all the world’s evils! There has to be a cause for the worsening moral problem! There can be two kinds of knowledge—true and false.
“In this feverish development of knowledge production, scholars in universities have been placing emphasis on academic freedom. Academic freedom is defined as the independent judgment allowed teachers, scholars, scientists, students, in the pursuit of knowledge.
“Science as a whole, and higher education, have exercised the academic freedom to postulate a creation without a Creator. They have engaged in the activity of knowledge production with total rejection of any possibility of the miraculous, the supernatural, the existence of God—or anything outside the realm of the material. In the realm of knowledge of the spiritual they know nothing. They have rejected utterly revelation as a source of basic knowledge!
“When I engaged in research on the theory of evolution, I studied Darwin, Haeckel, Huxley, Vogt, More, Chamberlain and other exponents of the theory. I also looked at the other side of the question. But I would venture to say that most of those whose higher education has been acquired during the past half century have been taught and have accepted without question the evolutionary theory, not having examined with any seriousness the biblical evidences of special creation. To go along with the evolutionary concept has become the scholarly ‘in’ thing. In most institutions of higher learning, the world’s ‘Best Seller’ has been dismissed without a hearing.
“Is it not human to err?
“Could it be possible for the most highly educated minds to have been intellectually misled or deceived? Could they, viewing only one side of the question, be infallible, entirely above making mistakes?
“For many years now, I have observed that errors almost always come from a false basic premise, carelessly assumed as self-evident, and taken for granted without question, then building on that false basic hypothesis. The basic premise for knowledge production in our time has been the evolutionary concept. It has been the eyeglasses through which all questions have been viewed. Yet it remains unproved, and by its very nature it is a theory not subject to proof. It is a faith. And to question it is—to those who embrace this faith—academic heresy!
“Do we, then, dare question the theories so generally accepted by advanced scholarship? Is it heretical to question their assumed conclusions and ask for proof? Is it academic heresy to look at the other side of the coin?
“Suppose, now, we appropriate the academic freedom to carefully examine that which has been dismissed without examination.”
Why are educated men in this world so arrogant? Why are they so quick to close their minds?
Nuclear Tribulation
These educated men have brought us to the brink of human extinction with our nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Unless Christ intervenes, man will destroy all human life on this Earth. “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (Matthew 24:21-22). No flesh would be “saved alive” (Moffatt translation).
“Educated” men of this world have brought us to this state. Man is the cause, but still he challenges and rebels against the Word of God. These “educated” people still think they know better than their Creator!
Thank God they don’t have much longer to think that way.
These “educated” people have brought us to the point of human extinction—and it would happen if Christ didn’t intervene to stop it. However, Christ won’t do that until we have almost destroyed all human life. We must learn how horrendous our rebellion against God is.
The same Christ who prophesied this nuclear catastrophe about 2,000 years ago also created life—and not through evolution. Unless He returns, man has no hope!
But that hope is being destroyed through the false teaching of evolution, and man is heading into a nuclear tribulation of suffering, unparalleled in our history.
Is that what it will take to wake us from our ignorance and blindness? Must we experience this blackest of all nightmares before we awaken? We could avoid the Great Tribulation if only we would heed God’s warning.
When the unparalleled tragedy strikes, people will suffer until they are humbled.
This very message you are reading reveals God’s love and His desire to avoid that towering disaster.
Many religions have accepted the theory of evolution. At the same time they’ve grossly compromised God’s Word—the Bible. Now Satan inspires many in education and science to keep religion on the run. The onslaught is intensifying!
Jesus Christ said we must live by “every word of God” (Matthew 4:4)—that includes His instruction about creation.
A Christian is supposed to be one who follows Christ. But more and more, religion is doing the opposite.
Satan is the god of this world (2#8201;Corinthians 4:4). That means he rules the “real world.” He has deceived the whole world (Revelation 12:9). That includes education, science and religion!
Do we really believe God?
It is time we wake up to what is happening to fatherhood, the family and our society.
Now, let’s take a closer look at why the teaching of evolution destroys the family—and fatherhood.
Christ Taught Creation
Did Christ believe in the Genesis creation? (Perhaps it is good to remind you once again that a Christian is one who follows Christ.)
“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:3-4). Verse 4 is a quote from Genesis 1:27. This is where God first records the creation of the male and female—not after the animal kind, but after the God kind! We are now in the “likeness” of God, that is, in shape or form. But we are to be made in the “image,” or character, of God.
God’s purpose is to expand His Family. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). We are to become perfect, not like angels or animals, but like our Father.
Family is a God-plane relationship—not an animal- or even an angel-plane relationship.
Are men too self-willed and ignorant to even want to see their illustrious potential?
“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4-5).
God created us male and female. We didn’t evolve from an ape or any other animal kind. We are of the God kind! It is “for this cause” that God instructs the young man and woman to leave their parents and build their own family.
They are to become “one flesh”—physically and spiritually. That is a deep closeness and unity. That means marriage, with God’s government, produces that oneness. God commands the man to be the leader (Ephesians 5:23). The father is the head of the family.
The whole feminist movement has rebelled against any man ruling the family—God’s way. These feminists want to build the family their way. They refuse to be Christians—Christ’s way. If they ever expect to get beyond this life, they must repent.
Verse 5 of Matthew 19 is a quote from Genesis 2:24. Does Christ believe in the Genesis creation? He certainly should, since the Father created all things through Him! (Ephesians 3:9). How can anyone who claims to be a Christian reject the Genesis account of creation?
Most educators and scientists don’t know when marriage began. That is because they reject God as the Creator of man as stated in Genesis. That is the record of when marriage and family began. Many of these scholars only see “human evolutionary history.” They contemptuously and arrogantly include the word “evolutionary.” They assume they know more than the great God! They close their minds to God’s view. They have never known God, and probably never will until God plunges them into the worst suffering ever. Then most of them will be humble enough to heed God’s Word and repent.
A Fatherless Society
The May/June 1970 issue of Tomorrow’s World magazine stated: “It has been the devil’s plan to pervert even the meaning of the word ‘father.’ Today people use that term about God—yet become very offended when told the plain truth of God’s divine purpose. They cannot believe that humans are destined to literally become born sons of God—just like God—as our children are like us. So in Jesus’s day the Jews refused to hear Jesus’s words about the Father.
“If the devil could get a society and make it the way he wanted it, what would it be like?
“Do you know there was once a society completely ruled by the devil? He had instituted his thoughts and his morality. This society was completely destroyed from the face of the Earth—and the lesson of it should be a perpetual witness to all generations. The society was Sodom and Gomorrah!
“The final end of any society run by the devil is the complete destruction of fatherhood! The devil himself cannot reproduce. Angels cannot reproduce nor marry (Matthew 22:30). But God can reproduce Himself. God is in the process of reproducing Himself in us—His begotten children (1#8201;John 3:1-2). Thus the devil wants to destroy fatherhood—for in so doing he hopes to destroy God’s true religion.
“How does the devil go about the destruction of fatherhood?
“God Almighty reveals Himself as a Father, even in the writings of the Old Testament. Read Psalms 89:26, Isaiah 63:16, 64:8 and Hosea 1:10. These are a few of the scriptures revealing God’s fatherhood.
“When Jesus came to the Earth He plainly revealed the fatherhood of God. Those who heard Him speak should have received His message with joy and understanding, since they had been prepared by the writings of the Old Testament. However, they refused to believe Jesus’s words and accused Him of blasphemy.
“It was at the feast of dedication in Jerusalem one winter when Jesus told the Jews, ‘My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one’ (John 10:29-30).”
Christ said, “[M]y Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). He came to declare the Father (John 1:18). That is WHY He came to this Earth—not to declare Himself, as most religions teach!
The human father pictures God the Father. The husband’s job is to declare our spiritual Father as Christ did. We must look up to God and stop looking down at the dumb animals as our origin.
How dumb can we be?
Many Sons to Glory
“Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands” (Hebrews 2:7). In the first part of this verse, the Hebrew reads not “a little lower than the angels,” but “a little while inferior to the angels.” Inferior to angels today, but only for a little while. Our potential is far greater! That is what your Bible says. Can we grasp it?
The angels were never called sons (Hebrews 1:4-5).
“Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him” (Hebrews 2:8). The Moffatt translation reads “the whole universe.” God is going to give us the whole universe if we build His character so we won’t destroy it as Satan did. (For more information, write for a free copy of our book The Incredible Human Potential.)
What kind of character must we have to finish and beautify the universe? “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (verses 9-10).
God is bringing many sons to glory. We must become born sons of God. We will then have God’s own character to rule over the Earth and the universe.
The family of man pictures the God Family! God created the human family to get us into His Family! The teaching about evolution is a vile insult to our awesome origin and potential!
Why does man refuse to see his magnificent future? The simple answer is, he doesn’t want to be corrected and changed.
Why Correction?
The Tomorrow’s World article continued: “This vicious and subtle attack on fatherhood is really aimed at God Almighty. Its aim is to warp people to the point where they cannot have a right relationship with their heavenly Father.
“If you have never known a proper relationship with a physical father, it will be more difficult for you to have a right relationship with your spiritual Father. You will have to learn now the things you should have learned in your relationship to a physical father.#8201;…
“‘And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they [our physical fathers] verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness’ (Hebrews 12:5-10).
“Notice that we learn vital lessons from correction by our physical fathers. Their correction teaches us to give them ‘reverence.’ We learn to yield to their authority and to be more loving and respectful to them.
“We must transfer this same wonderful feeling of reverence to our heavenly Father! Can you do it?
“Do you have a hard time looking to God as your Father? Do you just pray to God as a great being—distant, ominous and powerful? Or do you know God intimately as a Father?”
It’s War!
Do you know why Jesus Christ was crucified? For teaching His message about fatherhood! Most of His prophets and apostles were killed too. Why? Because Satan rules this world.
Satan hates God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. The devil hates the God Family and is conspiring to destroy you physically and spiritually. He never had an opportunity to be in God’s Family. That knowledge only intensifies his hatred.
“Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time” (Revelation 12:12). Satan knows his time is short. Whether you believe in him or not, his rage and destruction is worse now than ever before on this Earth!
People who fight and war against fatherhood are little more than puppets of the devil, and they use Satan’s tactics in their warfare. He is behind the conspiracy to destroy fatherhood.
Our time before the Great Tribulation is also short. Passivists will not survive Satan’s onslaught. If ever there was a time to take a stand for God, now is that time. Soon Christ will be here and the whole world will become a part of our spiritual Father’s Family. The sad part is how much man must suffer before he learns that lesson.
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 11 Jun 2005 : 15:39:03
"... election. But campaign-finance reform is thwarted at every turn, and obviously we cannot beseech the whores to close down the whorehouse. So let us first dream our way out of this nightmare. In our dream we have somehow elected a Congress ..."
- Give Me Liberty : Freeing Ourselves in the Twenty-First Century, page 223,
by Gerry Spence |
| Manuel |
Posted - 11 Jun 2005 : 00:23:12
Greetings oneisraelite,
"We have in this country government officials who forcibly tear
fathers away from their children with no grounds of legal wrong-doing,
either proven or alleged. We've created in this country a very dangerous
and destructive machine. It consists of judges, lawyers, bureaucrats,
bureaucratic police, and many others who all have a vested interest in
one thing. And that's ripping away as many fathers from their children
as they can."
- Stephen Baskerville - The O'Reilly Factor 10/16/00 Transcript excerpted
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 10 Jun 2005 : 10:08:02
Greetings and saluatations brother Manuel:
Peace be unto you and yours, brother.
Well said, and Hear! Hear!
Thank you!
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. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 09 Jun 2005 : 23:09:00
Greetings to all,
I see the FAMILY COURTS as a... how can I refine the explanation... as a place where one who out of blindness and naivete goes to seek redress out of a out of control situation. The problem is that the FAMILY COURTS do not have the best interest in their robotic type hearts to render true and heartfelt meaningful safety to what good still lives, because their method of operation is not set up, and even programed for such results. The FAMILY COURTS are geared, and when I write geared, I mean it on every sense of the word... geared to further afflict devastation as an unjust warmonger so commits to further destroy the lives of its conquered.
When its unsound and treasonous operations and practices are seen for what they really are, the FAMILY COURTS and its merchants will turn their aggression up another scale to silence the ones seeking the way out and regain the love and the innocent life caught in its parasitical web. By that very course of reconnecting, too many are snared unto their threat, duress and coercion and have willingly become part of that extortionist racket themselves, for if doing that which is right means getting punished, and they themselves loosing the innocent offspring, which even they didn't procreate themselves means casting the man, being the father, under God, then they will do so.
You see, is In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit which the dividers prey against. If the dividers build their ivory towers and capture the minds of their perfumed princesses to go along to get along, then that very act of treachery becomes their puffed-up bread and butter, no matter how many innocent lives go hungry, fatherless, and widowed from The True Marriage of our Heavenly Father.
Yes... ATTORNERS and their institutionalized bucket-brigades are the defiled drunkards which perpetuate the ills and do not cure the ill, but instead thrive off of the ever increasing chaos, anger, and broken hearts they destroy. They do not want our Father, his sons and daughters to live, but what they desire is for us to be dead like them. They have done much harm to many by trying to replace the beautiful and comforting grace of our Father's love and forgiveness by holding those unawares of His True Light, but for that I will tell you that they will be severely punished unless they repent and do away with their material man-made wealth, slothful pride, self-indulgements, hardened hearts and mistaken beliefs that He does not see their obscure doings.
I see many heads rolling under that sick HEAD, and they won't be by wars and rumors of wars, but by the weights which they have refused to carry. Unless they repent.
Give God what belongs to God, and Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar,
I am,
Manuel
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 09 Jun 2005 : 19:17:55
Greetings and salutations, Uncle Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
We perceive that it is not at all necessary to have a “person with delegated authority”, and for that matter, though a couple of witnesses might be nice, it is also our opinion that they are not necessary either.
Consensus non concubitus facit nuptiam. Consent, not lying together, constitutes marriage.
Woman: Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy ‘Elohiym my ‘Elohiym: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: Yahuwâh do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
Man: Now, that is what I call an “adhesion contract”! I consent (I give you authority to do so).
Yahuwâh is Author of that marriage!
Notice that in (2)(a) of the Act you posted, not only do we have the word “person” five times, but this word "solemnize(d)" rears its ugly head three times.
Solemnization. To enter marriage publicly before witnesses in contrast to a clandestine or common law marriage. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition
Clandestine, a. Secret; private; hidden; withdrawn from public view. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Public as opposed to private!
Private. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with office. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition
The word clandestine was, in my humble opinion, used to put "an evil spin" on private marriages; “[i]t often bears an ill sense, as implying craft or deception, or evil design.” And, “not official” means “not an authorized act”. Not authorized by whom?? Not authorized by “the Laws of Nature and Natures God”? Or, not authorized by “the STATE”?
The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."
If memory serves us correctly we got this pearl from brother Gregory of http://www.HisHolyChurch.com
That is so clearly stated that it is difficult to believe that ATTORNERS prepared it.
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. |
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 09 Jun 2005 : 16:49:47
(AUSTRALIA) Marriage Act 1961
Act No. 12 of 1961 as amended
5 Interpretation
(2) Where:
(a) a marriage is solemnized in the presence of a person, being a person in whose presence a marriage may, in accordance with this Act, be lawfully solemnized; and (b) that person consents to the marriage being solemnized in his or her presence;
that person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to solemnize the marriage.
It doesn't take much research to work out that marriage is a contract requiring consent of the parties and delegated authority of the person binding them together in the name of God. You don't ned a marriage licence and you don't need it registered unless you consent.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| Admin |
Posted - 29 Aug 2001 : 18:24:31
Nightmare scenario
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this finding. A very different picture of the situation is clearly assumed by political leaders who call for repeated crackdowns on supposedly dissolute fathers. "I believe children should not have to suffer twice for the decisions of their parents to divorce," Senator Mike DeWine stated on the Senate floor in June 1998; "once when they decide to divorce, and again when one of the parents evades the financial responsibility to care for them." But most fathers (and some mothers) have made no such decision. They are expelled by a divorce to which they have not consented.
Family law today allows mothers to walk away from marriages whenever they feel like it and take the children with them. Not only is this behavior permitted; it is encouraged and rewarded with financial incentives. Even more disturbing, in some cases it appears mothers are actually being pressured into filing for a divorce they do not necessarily want by social-service agencies.
The problem runs much deeper than the bias against fathers in custody decisions. Such bias certainly exists, but it goes well beyond the supposition that "all else being equal," children should stay with their mothers. "Washing their hands of judgements about conduct . . . the courts assume that all children should normally live with their mothers, regardless of how the women have behaved," observes Sunday Times columnist Melanie Phillips. "Yet if a mother has gone off to live with another man, does that not indicate a measure of irresponsibility or instability, not least because by breaking up the family . . . she is acting against their best interests?"
Mothers who take and keep children from their fathers are routinely given immediate "temporary" custody. In fact this custody is seldom temporary. Once a mother has custody, the situation cannot be changed without a lengthy (and costly – or, for the lawyers, lucrative) court battle. The sooner and the longer the mother can establish herself as the children’s sole caretaker the more difficult and costly it is to dislodge her. Further, the more she cuts the children off from the father, poisons them against him, levels false charges, delays the proceedings, and obstructs his efforts to see his children, the more likely she is to retain sole custody.
As for the father, any restraint he shows is likely to cost him dearly, as most fathers discover too late. On the other hand, reciprocal belligerence and aggressive litigation on his part may carry enough hope of reward to keep him interested. It is significant and revealing that the latest tactical wisdom suggests to nervous fathers that the game is so rigged that their best chance may not be to wait for their day in court but to snatch the children right away, before the litigation begins. Then the fathers – who are now the ones with custody – are advised to conceal, obstruct, delay, and so forth. "If you do not take action," writes Robert Seidenberg in The Father’s Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle, "your wife will." Thus we seem to have the nightmare scenario, reminiscent of the strategies for nuclear warfare, complete with the threat of a pre-emptive strike. There is a race to pull the trigger; whoever strikes first, survives.
By Stephen Baskerville
baskers@email.msn.com |
|
|
