ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 Arrested again, and again
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2003 :  01:42:45  Show Profile
Here in New Zealand, the sheeple have allowed the NWO to take over without so much as a loud bleat. As a result, this place is leading the world in changing over to a system of "laws" that bear no resemblance to the Law that once ruled the land. It turns out that the stance I have taken is a huge threat to this system, and they have gone to great lengths to "put him in his place." Here is the latest installment. It will give you a glimpse of what is to come very soon in America.

About three weeks ago I was in the midst of the highly questionable activity of taking my family to church. We are in a small community where everyone knows what is going on with everyone else, so the cops had been aware for a while that our van lacked government registration plates. By the time they pulled me over that day, they knew who I was, where we kept house, and that I had been arrested last November on similar charges. Though I answered all their questions truthfully, they arrested me for "failure to give information." It soon became obvious that they were under orders from higher up, and nothing I said would have mattered anyway.

They took fingerprints from me and used these to connect me to the legal fiction identification I had still been using during my first arrest. Never mind that by "law" these were supposed to have been destroyed because the previous charges were all dismissed. The POLICE here are a law unto themselves, and they know it, and they love it. The sheeple seem to have no trouble with a double standard where they must obey "the law," but the POLICE do not.

I signed nothing and made it clear that I could not agree to show up in their COURT, so they gave me a night's free hospitality in the local jail. At COURT the next day, the judge asked me a single question and remanded me "at large," which meant I was free to go. He had summoned the ALL CAPS man to appear in COURT the next week, and did his best to make it sound like it was me he was summoning. However, I knew he lacked the authority to summon me, so I failed to show up. Two days later I was arrested again on a false warrant issued when I failed to appear. The local cop said he didn't care when I pointed out that he lacked a lawful warrant and that it did not even have my name on it. He signed me in for another free night at their expense.

Up to now, events had been proceeding more or less as I had expected. I was a bit surprised that my previous dismissal, though known, seemed to count for nothing. For some reason everyone was showing an unusually high level of determination that this time they were going to get me. The next day in COURT, I would learn that this was all being directed from much higher up.

I identified myself to the judge as one outside his system and under a different Law, and I demanded to the prosecutor that he abate the misnomer of the ALL CAPS name. The judge revealed his partiality by covering for the prosecutor. So much for their "Human Rights" Act that supposedly guarantees a trial by an impartial judge! The judge wanted me to plead or he was going to enter a plea for me. I asked several questions and got both judge and prosecutor to admit that they did not have my name on any of their documents. Their excuse for proceeding was that I had entered the county a year and half earlier (before I learned what I now know) with a Passport, which of course only had an ALL CAPS identity in it. I flustered the judge, but in the end he entered a plea and offered me bail or six more nights in jail. He had told me at the beginning of the proceedings that this was what he was going to do, and sure enough, nothing I said could divert him from this goal. He was busy calling black, white and up, down, but he "ruled" exactly how he had said he was going to at the start. He was clearly under higher orders.

The bail bond is really a signed confession to being the ALL CAPS man, so I declined it. Back to jail I went and then on to the prison to wait out the week. There I was stuck into the "high risk" unit because I was "confused" about my identity. I wouldn't sign anything at the prison either, and they found this very odd behavior. The Father sent me a guardian angel in the form of one staff member who knew I was not crazy. He arranged two phone calls to my wife, and had me seen by the only psychiatrist who did not think everyone else in the world but him was crazy.

While there I was given paper and pen, and I wrote down all the things I would ask or present once before a judge again. Some key insights came to me that I will post as another topic, for I now see how simple the whole game really is. I know that the charges against the ALL CAPS man are all dependent upon the presumption that I am in contract with the State. I wrote a list of questions aimed at identifying the entity I am supposedly in contract with. I also wrote a list of evidence required to prove I am under contract. Since they have ignored my standing as outside their system, I am going to make them prove that I am in their system and just what their system is. If they can prove it, then I will answer to the charges.

Yesterday was the "pre-trial hearing" that was really just an excuse to put me back behind bars until the court date next week. I presented the two documents to the bewilderment of the Registrar and the Prosecutor. By the time I am in front of a judge he will only have two choices: admit I am not in their system, or tell me so much about their system that I will know how to cut the final ties. Either way I win, even if I get fined and have to ask the judge to tell me what a dollar is.

While in prison my wife and a friend were prevented from seeing me, and they could not even get documents to me that I wanted for writing up my response to the COURT. Though I had signed nothing for them to get in there, the prison would not give back any personal items such as my wedding ring unless I signed for them. There was a Habeas Corpus served which I believe got quickly trashed. I asked for a transcipt of the previous COURT hearing and was told I could only get it if the judge allowed me to have it. Their lawlessness was so evident I soon concluded that the only difference between here and the former Soviet Union is that here they cannot (yet) beat you until you sign their confession. Daniel tells us that the strategy of the beast is to wear out the saints, and this is what they do very effectively. Essentially, all rights and freedoms have been contracted away, so no matter how badly they treat you, you have presumably already agreed to it!

The final moring in prison, the Father showed me that I could sign the bail bond this time. Since it is clearly threat, coercion and duress, (sign or go back to that place where we treated you so well) it has no validity. I will show up for the trial, since it was I who agreed to. They would not let me change the ALL CAPS name to my lawful Christian name, nor anything else on the bond. They also would not allow any witnesses while I signed it and sought to correct the errors on it. So their lawlessness is obvious, and I will enjoy asking the judge to explain why the court did not want the bail agreement to be made with me, but with someone else. I'll let him explain the ALL CAPS man in open court. They have pushed this to the limit, so it will be interesting to see if they have any tricks left, or if they will finally admit they have nothing on me.

Bondservant
Forum Administrator

381 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2003 :  06:54:46  Show Profile  Visit Bondservant's Homepage
quote:
It will give you a glimpse of what is to come very soon in America.
Brother Caleb, this has already come to North America!
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2003 :  15:30:30  Show Profile
Yes indeed Brother! It is here. Which is the reason that "motley" crew cannot answer a very well defined questionaire of Ecclessiastic Writ of Bill of Particulars. Many "constitutional attorn-eys" call this awareness a "patriot for hire" scheme, when in fact, it is the very depth to what they (patriot for hire constitutional attorn-eys)refuse to affirm, deny or even agree due to their ignorance, arrogance or plain old deceitfulness.
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2003 :  02:51:19  Show Profile
Dear Bondservant and Manuel,

Yes, I can imagine that Florida would be leading the States in implementing the form of lawlessness practiced here. I will find out on Tuesday if they observe ANY law here at all still. I did figure out once in prison that the judge who put me there was in violation of his oath of office. He was quick to point out that he is sworn to uphold the "laws of New Zealand." What I didn't realize until later is that these are quite different from the codes, rules and regulations of NEW ZEALAND that he threw me behind bars with.
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2003 :  04:26:08  Show Profile
Brother Caleb,
It was through my childish beliefs years ago that the BAR-flies/BAR-referees(judges) would at least give findings of facts and conclutions of law to petitions/writs/certiori etc. Even when I placed the burden on them to proof contrary the evident violation of unlawful control of government by way of separation of powers, both thru the Federal Constitution and State Constituion only to see a rubber stamp with their mark, "denied per curiam" that I finally realized that tyrants never admit their tyrannical control.
At that point, there is only one way out, and that is, realizing what I see now and wrote a couple of weeks ago that, "Good government obeys Gods Laws, Bad government does not obey Gods Law, and Ugly government neither obeys Gods Law nor their own laws." I can go on on rules they plagerized, from Gods Law, "The Watchman on the tower", on their worldly books, including the "Code of judicial conduct" on which, "A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likehood exists that another judge has committed a violation of this code shall take appropiate action and a judge who recieves information or has actual knowledge that substantial likehood exists that the lawyer has committed a violation of the rules regulating the florida BAR shall take appropiate action."
-Canon 3, Section D, 1 & 2. READ THIS ONE!: "A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM JUDICIAL DUTIES WITHOUT BIAS OR PREJUDICE AND SHALL NOT PERMIT STAFF, COURT OFFICIALS, AND OTHERS SUBJECT TO THE JUDGE'S DIRECTION AND CONTROL TO DO SO." - Canon 3, Section B, 5.
So you see my friend, "nothing is new under the sun." What they did to our redeemer, in the dark, they also do to those In Him which are In His Light. They appear as whitewashed tombs, but are full of deadmens bones and everything unclean. They are guilty of dirty hands even though they wash. They appear clean on the outside (to those which refuse to enter His Light), but the inside is filthy.
Caleb... challenge them with their rules as Paul did, but remember, Paul obeyed Gods Laws not mans, for Gods Laws are the root of everything thats clean and fruitful.

It was due to my "childishness" that I was able to understand Him, my Father.


"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
- Gal 2:20


His Grace be upon you and your love ones, In His Spirit,
Manuel

Edited by - Manuel on 20 Sep 2003 04:38:25
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 24 Sep 2003 :  02:05:20  Show Profile
Well it's over and they have filled up the measure of their lawlessness. The judge would not answer a single question of mine, written or verbal. I asked for evidence they had jurisdiction and they provided none. I was allowed to speak only once during the trial, besides cross-examining the cops. The judge ignored everything I said or asked for, including three written submissions. I was allowed no closing statement. Things that have worked in American courts were all ignored. Never once did we deal with Law during the entire show trial.

The ALL CAPS man was convicted on two of the three charges. Fine of $250 plus some court costs. Judge would not define a dollar for me. Even the cop who arrested me admitted it was a complete railroad. Most of the trial was yesterday, with only the judgment given today. The cop showed up today just to see how it turned out. He then spoke with my friend and I for quite some time afterwards. He knew and acknowledged that this whole thing had been orchestrated from much higher up, and he could see how ridiculous the whole thing was. He was interested to read the written questions that the judge refused to answer.

The POLICE still have the van, wallet, wedding ring, belt, glasses, etc. that they took off of me and the longer they keep them the more obvious it will be in this small community that this is deliberate persecution. I will spend the next few days praying about how we move forward in a small town where the nearest supermarket is twenty minutes away by car. We are quite isolated, and lacking transportation makes us almost the total slaves, just as the system intends. One thing is certain. We will not be approaching the local band of criminals for ALL CAPS identification and permission to "drive" any time soon. They have trashed dozens of their other so-called "laws" in order to force us to do what this particular one of their "laws" does not even require of us.

Interestingly, their statute that criminalizes "dealing in slaves" perfectly defines how they are treating us. "Let my people go!"
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 24 Sep 2003 :  14:44:11  Show Profile
Greetings In the name of Yahshua, the Messiah,

It is and through His truth that "neutralizes" the servants of the
godless. That is why the cop/s realized that it was a "railroad trial." Unfortunately, "they are just doing their jobs," and will loose their worldly position and possessions.
This is only an example, remember the man which screamed, "The British Are Coming!!" for the "minutemen" were ready when the REDS appeared.

His Grace be upon you, In Him,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2003 :  20:55:00  Show Profile
Greetings In the name of Yahshua, the Messiah.

Today I was helping a friend try to force upon those wicked ones conscience. The problem is, as one man said (the mans name escapes my memory), and I quote, "With attorneys, you have to work on their conscience... the only problem is, they do not have a conscience."
Any way... while finding definitions for cruel and unusual punishment
I know that any leeway/slack these evil ones give, if at all, will only be to quiet a man/woman down enough to continue their theft, fraud, lies, racket etc. around their "circle" of worldly control, whether it is local, statewide, national, and even the entire world.
It all depends on how much that squeaky wheel gets greased. There is a "maxim" which says that if one man/woman is being denied his/hers lawful rights, then every man/woman is being denied same also. Every one!
Lets understand how these evil ones "keep the lid" on their "CASES."
First, they know the numbers. They think that by "affording" the "majority" the "upper hand," then they can CONtrol their demise.
Second, they also think that by constantly coercing one "group" against another "group" (however they have "classed" them) the focus (images)of attention will be off their backs, therefore placing the burden on others and them not even lifting one finger.
What fools! How can they escape the damnation of hell for not knowing God! They imagine that He cannot see them. They look at themselves on the mirror and notice their silly little memos stuck to the mirror to remind themselves of, "I LOVE MYSELF, THINK & BE RICH, I AM BEAUTIFUL, DO NOT EAT TOO MUCH, I AM #1, etc."
God is not a respecter of persons! He loves His Children and the time comes when He will not heed their cry for their troubles.

"And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth." - Rev. 11:3

Selah,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

godlyman
Regular Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 11 Oct 2003 :  11:01:53  Show Profile  Visit godlyman's Homepage
Greetings Gordon,

I finally have a chance to reply to your arrest and trial experiences. It does seem like the police are taking orders from higher up. But, always remember, there is a purpose for it, and it is God's Will that what is happening to you, IS God's Will. He is in control. Your faith seems to be growing stronger because of these trials, and maybe that's one of the purposes for going though them.

Anyway, I will comment on some of what you wrote now, and give some pointers and advice. You did very well in your stand, and I'm sure the Lord is joyful with you and your sacrifices. I will give you some constructive criticism, however, to help make your stand even stronger the next time you may be in this situation. My comments are NOT a chastisement towards what you have done, brother, but simply encouragement as to how you may avoid the malicious traps of Caesar. So, please do not take offense. I might use strong words at times, but this is done out of love, and for your spiritual strength.


Gordon wrote:
They took fingerprints from me and used these to connect me to the legal fiction identification I had still been using during my first arrest. Never mind that by "law" these were supposed to have been destroyed because the previous charges were all dismissed

Rich:
Unfortunately, once we "give" fingerprints to Caesar, it is theirs to use as they see fit. Similarly to how if you "give" a gift to someone, they can do what they want with that gift, even if they told you otherwise. Caesar will always use what we give them against us. That is their purpose. So, when you "voluntarily" gave them fingerprints the first time, it was their property to do as they please.

The second time they took your fingerprints, did you allow them, and give them permission, to take it also? Or did you not cooperate with them? When I was arrested, I simply told them I could not give them my fingerprints, and they never physically tried to force me. They only tried convincing me to give it to them by the words out of their mouth, using threats and such. But I did not let their threats determine my course of action, for I would be placing fear, and their will, above that of God's Will. If they want to threaten me, and punish me, for doing God's Will, I will gladly suffer for His Name. Rather I suffer than compromise God's Word. It is only when we compromise His Will that we usually end up in trouble.

Other brothers would be forced physically, and they would keep jerking their hands away whenever they would try taking fingerprints, and the police would not be able to take them because it would be smeered, and they and eventually gave up.


Gordon wrote:
The local cop said he didn't care when I pointed out that he lacked a lawful warrant and that it did not even have my name on it. He signed me in for another free night at their expense.


Rich:
I'm curious, can you tell me the actual conversation that took place from the moment they approached you with the warrant? What was the first thing out of his mouth? What were your replies?

I have heard many stories from other brothers of how Caesar "tricked" them into admitting the name, and all we can do is learn from them. For example, sometimes a brother would be getting in his car, and someone would yell "Hey John Doe
!" then he would turn around and say "Yes?" Then the warrant would be issued, because they ANSWERED to the name. It matters not what the spelling is, they answered to the name, and that is all that's important. That is why, in that case, before he answered "yes"?. not knowing who it was, he should have said something like this:

Officer: Hello Mr. so and so!
Bondservant: You say I am. Who do you minister for?

Officer: I am a minister of Caesar, and I have a summons/court order/warrant for you.
Bondservant: Well, that's not my name.

Officer: Oh, come on. Of course you're Mr. so and so!
Bondservant: You say I am.

Officer: Well then, just what is your name then?
Bondservant: That's none of your business. And it's not important. What's important is that I'm not the one you're looking for.

Officer: Let me see some I.D.
Bondservant: You're looking for someone in particular. I told you I'm not him. Therefore, I'm not part of your investigation.

However, keep in mind that if one has answered to the name in some way by responding to them, then it matters not if one says "my name does not appear on there" or "that is not how my name is spelled." That's why it is best to avoid even opening your mouth to them. When you ask them who they minister for, then proceed to tell them that you do not speak to strangers, and keep you mouth shut. They usually need some kind of admission from you before they take you in.


Gordon wrote:
I identified myself to the judge as one outside his system and under a different Law, and I demanded to the prosecutor that he abate the misnomer of the ALL CAPS name

Rich:
Here is where we must be careful with the words we speak, brother. We may inadvertently give them jurisdiction by saying certain things. For example, I believe the entire sentence above may have given the court jurisdiction. Let me explain. When you said you are "outside his system" and "under a different law," how would you know unless you KNEW his law, and you were once a part of it? This question comes down to jurisdiction.

We should NEVER bring up the topic of jurisdiction in their courts. By raising the question of jurisdiction, we GIVE them jurisdiction over us. This is covered in my article here:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/court.html



For example, from the above article, these two paragraphs state:


"Do not discuss the facts of the case, because it will be defensive and it will cause "joinder," and the court may presume jurisdiction. The court will seek the "Benefit of Discussion" in order to further "enhance" the jurisdiction of the court. In this situation, we must stay with the Sword of the Word, avoiding any defensive posture or addressing the facts of the case, thereby avoiding any joinder."

"Remember, you are in court to declare the Law, and not to dispute or join with their jurisdiction. Raise a political question, because there's no jurisdiction there. An example of a political question would be to confess that you are a bondservant of Christ. Man's law only applies to “persons”, and under the law of slaves, slaves are not persons. The courts recognize this, and judges cannot decide on political questions. That political question is “Who do you belong to? Which Kingdom do you walk in? Do you walk in man's kingdom or God's Kingdom? You have to evidence that you are part of His Kingdom by the words that come out of your mouth. You can say you're a Christian all day long and you love Jesus, but if you partake of the things of the world then you belong to the world! And the world will take jurisdiction over you. Jesus told us we cannot serve two masters, and if you are serving two masters, that second master will have jurisdiction over you. If you challenge jurisdiction in a court because of your status, as soon as you argue status you give them jurisdiction, because you're arguing a "moral" question, and moral questions are their realm."

Therefore, instead of raising a jurisdictional question, it might have been better to simply say, "I am under the Law of God, and that is the Law I follow." Instead of bringing up THEIR law. Once we bring up their law, we place ourselves in their jurisdiction.


Oh, and one other thing. You said you "demanded" something to the prosecutor. We are to never demand anything from them. This is another thing that may give them jurisdiction. We are not to demand anything, but to simply speak the truth. If we "demand" something from them, this may come across as being belligerent and hostile, which will give them jurisdiction.

So, we must be careful about the words we speak.


Gordon wrote:
So much for their "Human Rights" Act that supposedly guarantees a trial by an impartial judge!

Rich:
Again, what some "human rights" act says is irrelevant. Those laws are not a part of us, and have nothing to do with us. If we give the impression to a judge that we are familiar with his laws, then he may presume we are UNDER his laws. Why? Because we would not KNOW his laws unless they had something to do with us. If we say to him "I am not a human being," yet, at the same time, we know all about their laws governing "human beings," then...you must BE a human being! In their eyes.

To illustrate, let me say I came up with a law of moog. I bring someone into my court, for breaking the law of moog. If they say, "I am not under your law, and I have nothing to do with you law," then I must TEST them to see if that is true. If, after I ask a few questions, they say, "Well, according to the law of moog, you can't do this or you must do that," I will NOW have jurisdiction over this person. Why? Because he CLAIMS he is under a different law, YET, he quotes from, is familiar with, and looks to the LAW OF MOOG for some authority! No man can serve two masters. Since he claims he is under a different law, yet he SPEAKS as if he is under my law, I will have jurisdiction over him, for he says he is NOT one of us, yet he SPEAKS like one of us.

Gordon, if I may make an observation. It seems you are concerned with them following their own laws. However, we are NOT to be concerned with this. We are only to be concerned with US following God's Law. You see, if you want them to follow man's law, then man's law MUST have some importance to YOU. I mean, we should want THEM to follow GOD'S Law if anything. But for us to place emphasis on THEM following man's law sort of contradicts what we are saying, because man's law is IRRELEVANT TO US. If man's law is irrelevant to us, then we are to act and speak like it is irrelevant to us.

In other words, instead of having the attitude of "So much for their "Human Rights" Act," we should have the attitude of, "I am here in this court for God's Purposes, to bring these people the Truth. It is an honour for me to be here, whether there is a jury or not. I am glad I do not care what the human rights law says, for it is irrelevant to a bondman of Christ, I only focus on God's Law."


Gordon wrote:
I asked several questions and got both judge and prosecutor to admit that they did not have my name on any of their documents.

Rich:
That is good to know. However, remember these maxims of law:


The presence of the body cures the error in the name; the truth of the name cures an error in the description
An error in the name is immaterial if the body is certain.
An error in the name is nothing when there is certainty as to the person.
The truth of the demonstration removes the error of the name.


In other words, it matters not how the name is spelled, once we have given them jurisdiction. Let us examine the court's reply:



Gordon wrote:
Their excuse for proceeding was that I had entered the county a year and half earlier (before I learned what I now know) with a Passport, which of course only had an ALL CAPS identity in it.

Rich:
At this point, this is ONLY a presumption by the judge. If this presumption is NOT rebutted, it stands as TRUTH and will be used as evidence against you. A rebuttle would have been, "YOU SAY I entered this country a year and a half earlier with a Passport. You PRESUME I did this act." You may also say, "The truth is I have never had a passport in my name, and I did not enter this country, God is the one who put me here." By saying "you" did not enter this country, you are taking away the presumption of your own self-will. And by saying the truth that God put us here, which He did, you are removing all self will, and placing the purpose of your visit on God, by doing His Will. There is no evil in God's Will. We must reflect God's Will when we speak to our enemies.



Gordon wrote:
The Father sent me a guardian angel in the form of one staff member who knew I was not crazy. He arranged two phone calls to my wife, and had me seen by the only psychiatrist who did not think everyone else in the world but him was crazy.

Rich:
Amen brother. The Lord will never leave us or forsake us.


Gordon wrote:
I know that the charges against the ALL CAPS man are all dependent upon the presumption that I am in contract with the State.

Rich:
Yes, that is true. One way they determine if we are in "contact" with them is they test us to see how knowledgeable we are in THEIR law. If we know THEIR law, that means we must have had CONTACT with their law. If we have contact with their law, then we have contact with THEM. This is why we must avoid quoting from, using, or expecting them to abide by, MAN's LAW.


Gordon wrote:
I am going to make them prove that I am in their system and just what their system is. If they can prove it, then I will answer to the charges.

Rich:
Brother, this is the wrong attitude to have. This gives them jurisdiction over us. They need not prove anything. Remember, you are in court to declare God's Law, that is all. Asking them to "prove" something is meaningless. Think back...did it get you anywhere? Did they prove anything? No. Why? Because they do not need to prove anything once they have you in their jurisdiction. By asking them to PROVE jurisdiction, Gordon, you GIVE them jurisdiction over you. This is so important to understand. You were discussing the FACTS of the case, which again, gives them jurisdiction. We MUST avoid discussing the facts of the case.

We must avoid all of that, and stand on His Word only. Go to His Word to show that you were doing the Will of God. Go to His Word to show you were following orders. Go to His Word to show you live under God's Law.

But as soon as we go to their law, or discuss the facts of the case, or ask them to prove jurisdiction, it nullifies our witness. Because the court has JURISDICTION over all those things. However, the court does NOT have jurisdiction over the Law of God. Which is why we must only discuss the Word of God, His Law, at all times, and ONLY His Law. Once we mix the two together, and go to man's law, they have all the jurisdiction they need to do whatever they want to us now.


Gordon wrote:
By the time I am in front of a judge he will only have two choices: admit I am not in their system, or tell me so much about their system that I will know how to cut the final ties. Either way I win, even if I get fined and have to ask the judge to tell me what a dollar is.

Rich:
You seem to have the attitude of "I will show them a thing or two," or "I will win, they will lose." Please do not take offense, brother, but I do sense a little pride here. This is not about winning or losing, it is about standing on God's Law, no matter what the consequences are. We should not concern ourselves with whether WE will win, or THEY will win, what matters is this. That GOD's WILL be done, whether we win or lose, and whether THEY win or lose. Because whether we win or lose, if God was glorified and the truth spoken, that God comes out the winner. What happens to us is irrelevant. We are not to concern ourselves with "us," for God will take care of us.


Gordon wrote:
The final morning in prison, the Father showed me that I could sign the bail bond this time. Since it is clearly threat, coercion and duress, (sign or go back to that place where we treated you so well) it has no validity.

Rich:
Unfortunately, this is not true. This is a myth of the Patriot movement. If you SIGN something, that is what gives them jurisdiction. Remember that. That is HOW they get jurisdiction over us, by the contracts we sign with them.

Jesus Christ and the apostles never complained about doing something because of "threat, coercion and duress." Look at all the men of God in scripture. When they were given a choice, to follow God's Law or man's law, and they were given the option of "If you do not do as we say, we will KILL you." What have the servants of God always done?

They have ALWAYS chosen death, rather than to give in to their demands. Look how many Christians have been martyred over the centuries. All of God's people were willing to accept the consequences of standing on God's Law, even to the point of death. Why? Because there is no such thing as "threat, coercion and duress" in God's Law. Either you follow him, no matter what the consequences, or you follow man's will, because it is more convenient to do so.

There are many examples in scripture of godly men being in this situation, and none of them came up with such excuses, because they knew that such excuses were an abomination to God. Daniel had that choice, and chose to be thrown into a lions Den (Daniel 6). Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were given that choice, and they did not compromise God's law. They chose to be burned with fire instead (Daniel 3).


Daniel 3:17-18, "If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

Adam Clark's Commentary on this passage says:

Thou mayest cast us into the furnace; the terror of it has no effect on our minds to induce us to alter the resolution we have taken, nor shall the fire change our purpose. We serve a God who is able to deliver us. Should he not, we are equally determined; but we are satisfied that in some way or other he will deliver us out of thy hand. Thy power cannot affect us in the kingdom of our God to which we shall ascend from thy furnace, should he permit the fire to kindle upon us. "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's," is a maxim of Jesus Christ; but when Caesar arrogates to himself the things that are the Lord's, then, and in such cases, his authority is to be resisted. God does not desire Caesar's things; Caesar's must not have the things of God.

Most Christians today, if they had this same choice, would feel justified in saying, “Well, I will bow down to their gods to avoid punishment. I will do whatever they want me to do, and sign anything they ask me to, to avoid any bad consequences."

If this be so, I wonder why God's people throughout scripture never did or said this? I wonder why they never gave in and gave the impression they were worshipping their gods when it could have saved their lives? How many thousand's were put to death, and could have avoided it by saying or doing something which would save their lives?
If we are faced with a situation, God presents us with choices. And there will be a choice where we avoid sinning, and in its place will be inconvenience or death.

All the apostles could have avoided being martyred if they did what the heathen said to do. But they never did. They would not make excuses to sin against the Lord.

Romans 12:1, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."



Gordon wrote:
So their lawlessness is obvious, and I will enjoy asking the judge to explain why the court did not want the bail agreement to be made with me, but with someone else. I'll let him explain the ALL CAPS man in open court. They have pushed this to the limit, so it will be interesting to see if they have any tricks left, or if they will finally admit they have nothing on me.

Rich:
I understand you being upset, but you seem to be taking the attitude of this being a "game" with them. You said "you will enjoy asking the judge" ..... and "they have pushed ME to the limit." I think you might be focusing a little to much on YOU, brother, and on THEM. I believe your energies would be better used by focusing on the LORD.

We should not "enjoy" it when our enemy falls, or is proven in error.

Proverbs 24:17, "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:"

Brother, I say this out of love, but please refrain from having a prideful spirit. You must humble yourself, both before God and before the evil men. Speak and DO the Truth, and do not concern yourself with the consequences. As long as you do and say Truth, whatever happens is the Will of God, and you have done your Duty to Him, and have given Him Glory.


Gordon wrote:
I asked for evidence they had jurisdiction and they provided none.

Rich:
As I previously stated, by discussing jurisdiction, you GIVE them jurisdiction. One need not prove jurisdiction once it is given. Ask a political question, never a jurisdictional question. There is a big difference between the two. A political question, you remain in God's Law and under His jurisdiction. A jurisdictional question, places you under man's law and his jurisdiction. One cannot give the appearance of serving two different sets of laws, or masters.


I shall be praying for your spiritual strength, Gordon. The more we learn from our mistakes, the greater our walk with the Lord. Amen.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.12 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000