| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 09 May 2004 : 09:15:21
|
You make a lot of sense. I appreciate that.
Another factor is that since the "body" was moved to such a prestigious tomb, when the Roman guard discovered life, they were confused into respecting the "king". Or that Joseph bribed them. Graves (The Nazarene Gospel Restored) speculates that the guard got greedy, smelling the expensive ointments and were reluctant to report the living Yehoshuah because they had violated the expensive tomb hoping to fence some of the perfume. Baigent (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) speculates that the references "at a distance" indicate Joseph's influence, keeping the spectators far enough away that bringing Yehoshuah down early, after losing consciousness, would account for the survival of the Cross.
Anyway, Yehoshuah speaking to Shaul on the road to Damascus about seven years later seals it for me. Dead men do not converse.
Always gauging the religious content of the sight, I have come under a new attack over in the other forum. So I appreciate coherent dialogue but may be jockeying my mouse elsewhere for a while.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
 |
|
|
loybost
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 10:40:31
|
Greetings All,
Hello Brother Robert; here I am. I apologize that I haven’t been posting many responses as of late; between school and work I’m tying up about 90 hrs. a week of my time. Home work (from school) and maintaining a home seems to soak up the rest of my time. I do read the various forum threads as much as possible, but it is a rare occasion that I have the time available to respond intelligently. This post is somewhat inconsistent with the present direction of this thread; however, I think that you will find it on topic as far as circular reasoning and presumption is concerned.
It is true that the courts assume a lot concerning jurisdiction, but often our own presumptions have us hung before Caesar’s court can fashion its noose. The courts automatically assume that we are bound, by legal contracts, to their colorable jurisdiction. Most people have no idea that any such contract, or the presumption thereof, even exists. However, there are a few of us who at least know that the “presumption” of a contract(s) exists as a pretense of a court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Understanding the construction of these “implied” contracts is the key to navigating around the assumption of jurisdiction; unfortunately, I have found that the opinions on how to revoke, rebut, and/or void these implied contracts are as numerous as the sands of the sea.
Most of the “BUY YOUR FREEDOM HERE” merchants prefer using the Uniform Commercial Code to rebut the implied contracts under International law. Many of these tactics are moderately successful, but all seem to fall short of the promised “REDEMPTION” that many of them offer. Their “GET OUT OF HELL FREE” information packets are generally quite expensive as well. Been there, done that….in spades. I believe that the reason these tactics eventually fail, from the standpoint of legal mechanics, is that most of the people who realize the existence of these implied contracts presume that there is more validity to the essence of the contracts presumed than the supposed contracts deserve. The only way to rebut a contract is to destroy it from its inception. In order to dissolve a contract, other than by mutual consent, one must find a flaw in its essence. It is also important to understand that implied contracts are stacked one upon another. The assumption of one contract, by you or I, supports the presumed foundation for subsequent contracts by the courts. If one does not rebut the original contract, the foundation of the legalistic pyramid, then his chance for success over their courts is greatly diminished. If one can kill the root, the plant will die.
This evil root that these implied contracts sprouted from isn’t too difficult to trace. The seed to this evil root was awakened in this Country with Lincoln’s Civil (law) War. Contrary to popular belief, this war had nothing to do with abolishing slavery; all but one or two states had abolished slavery and amended their state Constitutions prior to the war; the others were likely being amended when war broke out. I believe that there were two major reasons that caused the Civil (law) war. First, the original Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution had been lawfully ratified. This amendment forbid anyone who retained a title of nobility from holding public office or even being a citizen of the United States. This amendment would have forced the esquire attorneys to renounce their ties to the (Templar) Bar Association or lose their citizenship; it drew the line in the sand for the legalists who had invaded our government, and let’s not forget that Lincoln was a lawyer; his job was on the line. Miraculously, the original Thirteenth Amendment disappeared immediately after the war, and the hull of the evil seed was cracked. Secondly, the legalists in this Civil (law) War needed to “create” a second class citizenry for them to rule over. The united, free state republics made this impossible, for upon them were the sovereign people. The present Fourteenth Amendment accomplished the goal of creating a second class citizenry, though its scope was quite limited at its inception. This second class citizenry was extended only to the newly freed slaves, descendants of slaves, and first generation immigrants. Remember the four to one vote that the black men had after the war? The seed had begun to sprout. http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/The_Crown_Temple.htm
The white male populous was still considered to have unalienable Rights granted by YHWH (God) and protected by the Constitution, while newly freed slaves, their offspring, and first generation immigrants were considered to have civil rights granted as privileges that resembled the unalienable Rights of the white men. The white men still had recourse and remedy to the common law, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment citizenry only had recourse and remedy through the civil law as the voluntary property of the federal government. (see Supreme Court case Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 1872) http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/VanValkenburgVBrown-43Cal43 1872 .htm
This sprout rooted deeply into our free republic in 1933 when the federal government went bankrupt. Through the new deal congress that F.D. Roosevelt instigated, the labor, the gold, and the property of the American People was hypothecated to the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank as collateral for the national debt. We the People were “given the option” of being a second class citizen equal to that of the ex-slaves, our gold backed currency was no more, and the law was changed to accommodate the fiat currency. This was the beginning of the legalistic thicket that has snared the American People. By late 1937 the dejure Common law courts were, essentially, no more; they were replaced by defacto civil corporate courts. These are equity courts enforced through admiralty; they abrogate the Common Law through adhesion (implied) contract(s). Understanding why this legal change had to take place is the key to effectively nullifying the alleged contracts that keep us under the green thumb of civil law.
The Common Law is based on value. For example, If I do a certain amount of work for you, and you pay for my labor with gold then the gold represents the intrinsic value of my labor in that instance. If I use that gold to but buy a house then the house would represent the value of my labor. If you intentionally burned down my house then you would be liable under the Common Law to compensate me for the full intrinsic value of my house. With the Federal Reserve Notes in circulation today this scenario changes drastically. If I do a certain amount of work for you, and you write on a piece of paper “500,000 DOLLARS” and hand me this slip of paper instead of payment for my labor then that slip of paper is still worthless, and it does not represent the intrinsic value of my labor. If I take that slip of paper and coerce someone into letting me trade it for a house then that house does not represent the value of my labor. Now, if you burned down my house I would have no recourse to lawful compensation [gold or silver] from you under the Common Law. I had invested nothing of intrinsic value in the house. Therefore, I could not lawfully reap a gain from having lost the house. The law was changed from Common Law to civil law so that persons would have legal recourse in the courts to regain the worthless slips of paper that they had lost through the neglectful acts of others. This gives the Federal Reserve Notes the “appearance” of worth. The Fed Notes are not backed by gold or silver; these notes do not promise to be redeemable for gold, silver or any other thing. These are worthless pieces of commercial paper; these are bad checks written on a closed account. The primary function of the civil law system is to promote the assumption of worth to these fiat notes; this is essential, since these notes are the basis for all commercial contract civil law. Under the civil law, all law is contract; when there is no contract then there isn’t any jurisdictional authority for a civil court to hear or judge a matter.
The critical thing is to understand what the difference between a valid contract and an invalid contract is. The number one aspect that a valid contract must contain is mutual interest. All parties in a contract must have a vested interest of some type of lawful consideration. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. To attempt to gain a profit through a contract in which one has no vested interest in is called fraud. It doesn’t matter who agreed to what, if there is not a mutual base of lawful consideration by all parties then no contract legally exists. However, if one does not complain about the structure of a contract then the courts will assume that most presumed contracts are valid.
Most of the Uniform Commercial Code proponents concentrate on gaining legal possession of the all capitalized NAME or legal persona found on ones birth certificate. The theory being that the birth certificate is the beginning of the root of the contractual thicket when it is surrendered by the STATE as collateral for the national debt. To accomplish this end, Federal Reserve Notes are used to discharge (not pay) the fees for filing the UCC-1 Financing Statement, and to discharge the fees for a Common Law Copyright on the all capitalized commercial name listed on the birth certificate and all ID. Once these notes have been voluntarily offered to discharge a debt concerning a Common Law matter, Common Law has been legally nullified. If one uses colorable currency in legal matters then colorable law instantly becomes the jurisdiction. Further, if one legally recognizes a colorable persona as anything other than a fictitious entity then one accepts the assumption that the legal system has the power of creation within its grasp. This further supports the court’s legal assumption that the commercial law courts have jurisdiction over such a person. I fail to see how one can purchase a fictitious entity with a worthless currency and gain a foothold on a Common law jurisdiction through such an act. I believe the occasional success story in this process is due to the ignorance of a few judges, not from an intelligent defense.
Many people believe that the Common law is dead in this country; this is a false assumption. Common law is only dormant, not dead. According to the (Talmudic) Uniform Commercial Code, Common law remains in full effect unless it is displaced by the code. The only way to displace the Common law with the UCC is through a valid contract. Proving that no valid contract exists is the first logical step toward a Common law jurisdiction. There are many who claim that a lack of disclosure on the part of a government agency is the best way to nullify the appearance of a contractual agreement with such an agency. The problem with this theory is that the government never offers contracts to the people. Notice that all contracts with the government are written in the first person. These contracts, though written by the government, are offered by us to the government. They require us to swear under oath to some stipulation of a compelled performance. The argument that full disclosure was not given by the acceptor (government) of the contract is a legal absurdity. We are presumed to have had the opportunity to amend any contract that we have offered to anyone else prior to having offered such contract. Thus, the lack of disclosure argument is generally ineffective. The government protects themselves through the construction of the presumed contracts, and they secure a superior protection by the courts by being the acceptor of the contracts.
I surmise that pointing out that the government has no vested interest in any contract with any person is the very best way to nullify the presumption of a contract and to secure a Common Law venue for the settlement of lawful matters. In 1968, a landmark court case illustrates the validity of this theory. The case was the First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly. Justice Martin V. Mahoney determined that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, and these notes cannot be used as lawful consideration in any contract: http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/the-mahoney-case.html. Since all of the alleged contracts that the people have supposedly made with the government are based on the acceptance of alleged benefits that are funded with Fed Notes, all of these alleged contracts are nullified due to a lack of lawful consideration on the part of the government.
The court system uses circular reasoning and presumption of contracts to convict people. In truth, the circle is incomplete; the supposed contracts do not exist in fact or in Law. If enough people can challenge these presumed contracts by hacking at the legal roots of it then the legal thicket will soon wither and die, and America can return to a Lawful system of justice. Of course, developing a strategy that will avoid the legal snares of the present legal system is extremely difficult, and it will likely take a very organized effort to implement effectively. I have been making efforts in this direction; however, I would welcome any constructive reasoning as to a proper and effective way of challenging these alleged contracts.
Loy Robert: Bost, III |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 13:17:57
|
I came back by to say that I do not intend to insult Paul in people's minds. That the historical account speaks for itself, that going into Jerusalem was disobedient.
It is a delight to find such a coherent treatise by Loy Robert. I wish you would export it to the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 forum. I was getting attacked there about SSN contracts and had just about given up getting that thread back to useful to readers.
About the UCC Redemptionists, when they come to me for remedy I tell them that you cannot possibly "accept" a contract for its terms and at the same time "refuse" it. Above you approach this issue:
"It is true that the courts assume a lot concerning jurisdiction, but often our own presumptions have us hung before Caesar’s court can fashion its noose. The courts automatically assume that we are bound, by legal contracts, to their colorable jurisdiction. Most people have no idea that any such contract, or the presumption thereof, even exists. However, there are a few of us who at least know that the “presumption” of a contract(s) exists as a pretense of a court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Understanding the construction of these “implied” contracts is the key to navigating around the assumption of jurisdiction; unfortunately, I have found that the opinions on how to revoke, rebut, and/or void these implied contracts are as numerous as the sands of the sea."
In international law, the mailbox has replaced the district courts of the United States as a forum to file. Think about it, if every issue about debt currency of international banking cartels had to go through the district courthouse, the courthouse would be about the exact same size as the Postal Service.
Refusal for cause is the answer. You have a good grasp on the cause, that the courts of the United States are not party in interest. And also all the assumpsit on debt actions. One has to bring forth the diversity of citizenship by simply avoiding the suits at the mailbox.
Anyway, such coherence is rare. I wish you would export a copy to the other forum. I think you will make sense of the counterclaim (now I call it "Libel of Review (common law counterclaim in admiralty)") at the top of page 4, as I recall.
Your reference to the "evil root" being the Khazarian Elite through its military arm Templars etc. is a bit too western for my agreement. The prophecy of Jacob/Israel had to be fulfilled somehow (Genesis 49:10) and the attitude that the actions are done by others is in my opinion irresponsible. Externalizing "them" hobbles the inherent sovereignty needed to effectively refuse for cause and nip the nuisance suits in the bud at the mailbox. That is experience with over 100 suitors speaking. The attitude comes from a personification of evil (demons, Satan etc.) and this originates in a fantastic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-8 where angels supposedly propogate with human women.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 13:31:32
|
Greetings David,
Don't let 'em get to you. They can only nip at your heals, nothing more. Coming under attack in these forums, to me, has been a great exercise in non-identification. The attacks get 'translated' as just squiggly lines on my monitor, nothing more. Addressing their religious superstitions is easy once you read the context of the scriptures they quote. But you know this already. I've read your posts. As for the false accusations you will have hurled at you, upon close inspection it is consistently obvious the accuser is doing the very things they accuse others of. Textbook psych101 stuff. It's great fun when they gang up.
Do stick around.
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 16:20:13
|
Thanks Steve. I suppose that I take it personally in that I am not getting the point across clearly. The reason that I do what I do, drafting remedy is that I can explain it so well. As time goes on that explanation gets clearer and clearer. So sometimes it just seems that I have lost the ability to communicate when I come up against religious faith.
So far as sticking around, that is likely. I tend to jockey my mouse where it seems useful and entertaining. When somebody decides to argue with unsubstantial stuff, I get a little put out.
Loy Robert's treatise was timely encouragement. I will probably be over on the 'saving to suitors' forum for a bit. I pasted one of the original memos from a decade ago and it should bring in some interesting conversation.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 19:24:05
|
My pleasure David. I must say that it has been a first for me hearing your view of things. I am knee-deep in concepts put forth
on this and other groups concerning the pure evils of ALL CAPS and SS#. When you peel away the religious pararnoia and the clouded reasoning that comes from this mental state, one finds no boogeymen. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be putting forth ideas that actually take advantage of the Admiralty situation. That is why you are getting flack. But hey, that's mostly what I get so I feel you.
I'll be looking forward to learning more about what you know.
Peace to you,
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Circular Reasoning and Presumption
