| Author |
 Topic  |
|
squareroot
New Member
USA
2 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Jan 2002 : 08:29:58
|
Expatriation Act of 1868
CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in
foreign States.
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all
people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this
government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested
them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such
American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states,
owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary
to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance
should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration,
instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government
which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is
hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this
government.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United
States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from
this government, the same protection of persons and property that is
accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circum-stances.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to
the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly
deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government,
it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that
government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be
wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President
shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so
demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the
President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may
think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the
facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be
communicated by the President to Congress.
Approved, July 27, 1868.
|
|
|
dasooz
New Member
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2002 : 22:41:43
|
Praise Jesus the Christ.
Me thinketh that all states before the federal corporation of the United States in 1871 are sovereign states. Everything after is contaminated. The independent states (territories or colonies) were not known to be American. They were named after the territory of their birth. Look up definition of American you will see being native to the Americas or a U. S. citizen. So if one claims to be an American citizen as 15th Statute at Large of 1868 prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, you are still a U. S. citizen, back to square one? Lets talk!
|
 |
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 28 Feb 2002 : 23:27:34
|
Is Expatriation possible? If so, how is it accomplished? This topic would also relate to Allodial Titles to Land, and Property such as automobiles. There are WebSites promoting "expatriation" such as BBCOA at http://www.bbcoa.com
However, they demand hefty fees and so are suspect. Their method appears to include filing of papers with "the authorities" -- but how can the illegal and debased government grant "expatriation?" It seems that if we are sovereign, then we must live our lives accordingly and use Common Law means to enforce our status.
But that is the essence of the problem. "The Book of the Hundreds" is wonderful in its information. Yet there is no simple, concise HANDBOOK that gives a step-by-step approach to extrication oneself from this satanic system.
God bless,
George |
|
|
|
Admin
Forum Administrator
Saint Kitts and Nevis
114 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2002 : 00:21:38
|
[FROM THE ECC FORUM ADMINISTRATOR: The post below was taken from the former Lawgiver.Org Forum under the topic "Expatriation". You can view the entire forum thread at http://ecclesia.org/lawgiver/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=82 ]
---------------------------------------------------------
A Declaration of Expatriation does not fulfill the statutory requirements and will not be recognized. See United States Code TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION Part III - Loss of Nationality.
Expatriation is what you ultimately want, but in the mean time, a declaration against interest may help or it could make matters worse. Filing papers is red tape and red tape can become a red flag. It is and individual choice make it an educated one and hopefully one of divine revelation.
None of the places you listed will be able to do anything of value with your declaration. When I filed with the commerce department, the IRS immediately lost my records. They are not gone, merely relocated. I shortly received a questionnaire [4 pages flow chart type]. If I answered yes then I went to another set of question and no took me to a different set. First question, "Are you a citizen of the United States"? Answer, "no". No further questions.
This was twenty years ago. I know others who did this too.
Times are changing. Don't leave owing any money on their books. You could have before 1996, but I would advise against it. The best way to expatriate is patriot to another government that is recognized.
I chose the Church:
CHURCH, In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate his doctrines and ordinances.
A body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of one faith, and the observance of the same rituals and ceremonies. Black's Law Dictionary 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th eds.
The Church is the ministers and clerks of the kingdom of Heaven on earth. They do not get paid unless you think they have provided a service. Can you imagine the change at the DMV if they didn't get paid unless you think they did a good Job!
Also, the Church has no authority over the people as clearly stated by Jesus. It is the only true Republic. The constitution of the US did not create a republic but a an indirect Democracy with in a Republic. The Republic predates the constitution by almost 200 years.
The constitution was a departure from the lawful government of the Republic. It was called a quiet revolution and was opposed by the majority of the Americans. In a Republic the leaders are "titular" according to Webster's which means "in name only". The Federal government is not in power in name only, the democracy exercise authority one over the other in contradiction of the command of Jesus. The Federal government is Roman, not Christian, and the constitution is its creator.
We can deal with these iconoclastic heresies one at a time. As far as living out of Egypt, I would start by getting Egypt out of you then learn skills that will be of use. Eventually, everyone will be able to get out because the system will fail big time. Until then, be friends with the unrighteous mammon.
And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
.. Mammon is the Aramaic word for entrusted wealth. Everything is in a trust and that trust is no longer US. Men of the House and Senate, Presidents, Secretary of the Treasury, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Chief Justice Supreme Court, Social Security Administration, Governors of States, etc., are no longer in control but are administrators under the authority of the trust controlling and being controlled.
If any and all of this works, what it does is put you down on the shores between the Red Sea and all the armies of the Pharaoh.
The glue of the kingdom is love; the blood of the Kingdom is charity; the milk of the kingdom is faith. Anyone got milk?
Peace be on your house
Gregory at the ekklesia@presys.com
http://presys.com/~ekklesia/welcome.htm
Gregory Thomas. Williams
At the ekklesia |
|
|
|
Owenbrittont
Advanced Member
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2004 : 11:57:45
|
| Don't think any of this will work anymore courtesy of the Patriot Acts |
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 22:51:40
|
It all works very well, still, even after the patriot acts.
The patriot acts are a far-fetched, paroxysmal attempt at a dying beast to get one last pound of flesh in its teeth. The US corporation is decomposing very fast, and the scene will open to virtual anarchy. Every despotic state has within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Except the true Lawful Christians will already have True Government and True Law and Order in place. God will save all who believe in Him, He will save them in times of trouble.
-- Berkano
quote:
Originally posted by Owenbrittont
Don't think any of this will work anymore courtesy of the Patriot Acts
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2004 : 09:07:20
|
Expatriate
We must first have a full understanding of what expatriate and repatriate mean before we can answer the question posed in the title of this thread. Let us attempt to “rightly divide” this word.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
ex2
NOUN: The letter x.
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: exed, ex·ing, ex·es
To delete or cross out…
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
DELETE, v.t. To blot out.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
patri–
VARIANT FORMS: or patr–
PREFIX: Father, paternal: patrilineal.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin (from pater, patr-, father) and Greek (from pat r, patr-, father); see p ter- in Appendix I.
Apendix I: Indo-European Roots [Ibid.]
ENTRY: p ter-
DEFINITION: Father. Oldest form *p 2ter-. 1. father; forefather, from Old English fæder, father, from Germanic *fadar. 2. padre, pater, paternal, patri-, patrician, patrimony, patron, père; compadre, expatriate, goombah, perpetrate, from Latin pater, father. 3. patri-, patriot; allopatric, eupatrid, patriarch, sympatric, from Greek pat r, father. (Pokorny p t ´(r) 829.)
Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, copyright 1988, page 85
-ate2 …2 the land, territory or dominion of (a person or office)…
We must pay close attention, here; OR DOMINION! [Emphasis added] Don't you find it interesting that we have always been taught that it only applies to land or territory?
Let us now put the pieces of this part of the puzzle together: ex-patri-ate is made up of three words:
ex- [blot out]
patri- [father(-’s)]
-ate [dominion]
“Blot out [a] father’s dominion”. [“Blot out” means, “delete” or “cancel”.]
[Note: Father in the Hebrew is ab, and according to Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions at #H1 [last definition], it means, "ruler or chief (specifically)", which is second witnessed by: Easton's Bible Dictionary – Father; A name applied ...(2.) as a title of respect to a chief, ruler...]
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahweh…
But wait, if we expatriate, “blot out [the] father’s dominion”, we are orphans, we are fatherless, we are without a nation, without a ruler!! What does Yahweh say to us, now that we are fatherless?
Asshur [success] shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy. [Note: Ashshur may be the Heb. root of the word "assurance".]
Yahweh, thou hast heard the desire of the humble…
Whew, that’s a relief! But then what?
…Thou wilt prepare their heart [feelings, will & intellect], thou wilt cause thine ear [uncover Your ear] to hear [hearken]...
He’s going to "prepare" our 'feelings, will & intellect" and "hearken" unto us, but now what?
To judge [be the judge, lawgiver & governor of] the fatherless and the oppressed [crushed], that the man [mortal men] of the earth may no more oppress [harass or terrify].
Any second witness to this? Why yes there is! Glad you asked! It is the balance of the verse we started with, Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahweh…
…and I will receive you, And will be a Father [ruler, chief] unto you, and ye shall be my sons [children/citizens] and daughters [inhabitants], saith Yahweh Almighty.
Here for the edification of the body politic is what Thayer’s Greek Definitions has to say about the word Father: 3) God [Yahweh] is called the Father [ruler/chief] …3b) of all rational and intelligent beings, whether angels or men, because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector…
He is their "guardian"...
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
GUARD'IAN, n. 2. In law, one who is chosen or appointed to take charge of the estate and education of an orphan...
Choose you this day whom you will serve...
Hence, if we choose properly we are no longer "orphans"!
Since we now know what patri and –ate mean we have but to discover what re- means to more fully comprehend this final outcome, this re-patri-ation.
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
RE, a prefix or inseparable particle in the composition of words, denotes return…
And hence, to re-patri-ate means, to “Return to [the Original] Father’s [Ruler/Chief's] Dominion”.
Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith Yahweh of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? [In what manner shall we return?]
We now have the answer to that question, asked so long ago, “Wherein shall we return?” We are to ex-patri-ate from the dominion [jurisdiciton] of mortal men and return the Rightful King’s Dominion [Jurisdiction].
He awaits your decision; how will you choose this day?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 05 Nov 2004 10:31:35 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2004 : 04:20:02
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King,
Peace be unto the house.
It would seem that prior to the Expatriation Act of 1868 that expatriation was not, shall we say, popular with the government. This extract comes from the definition of EXPATRIATION in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, forty years prior to the Act.
“The right to expatriate one's self is denied in feudal countries, and much controverted in the U. States.”
[Note: Did ol' Noah put that capital "U" period before States for a reason?]
And following the word trail from the word CONTROVERTED here is what we find that Noah presumably meant by the use of that word.
CONTROVERTED, pp. Disputed; opposed in debate.
DISPUTED, pp. Contested; opposed by words or arguments; litigated.
LIT'IGATED, pp. Contested judicially.
And it would seem that some time after 1868 it went back the other way again.
Another thing that comes to remembrance is that today, though contested, government will allow [Can they truly disallow? Does one ask its permission?] a "PERSON" to ex-patri-ate but then he must  re-patri-ate only to a "recognized" country. Our guess is that a "recognized" country might be one of the 180 or 193 [we've heard both] "countries" that are part of the "SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM".
Child: "Father may I leave your household [nation/jurisdiction] and go live with Adam's daddy? He's a much better Father than you are."
Father: "Only if Adam's daddy has the same "head" that I do."
Child: "But father, if they have the same "head, things could be much worse, or at best only slightly better. I was thinking of re-joining myself to the Creator's household [nation/jurisdiction], and making Him my Head, since His Law is the 'perfect Law of Liberty'. Basically, He will allow me to do anything I wish except that I may not commit treason against Him [adultery against the King] and I may not infringe on the equal liberty that my neighbor has. Here is what His Principal Officer [High Priest] has said:'
Thou shalt love Yahuweh thy 'Elohiym with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
'And it would seem to me, father, that since neither the Supreme Magistrate [God] of this Household [Nation], nor His Principal Officer [High Priest] are apparently around much these days, that His Law probably will not be added to nor changed on a daily basis, like the so-called laws of your 'head' do. Just think of the possiblities, father!! I could probably build a shelter for my family without even applying [praying] for His permission [permits]! And if I remain obedient to His Moral Law He will probably never kick me out of my shelter and off my land for a Kangaroo Rat [endangered species] or because it got too wet [wetlands]! I could apparently work and even move about in the conveyance of the times without having His specific written permission [social security number & driver's licenses]! Providing of course that I do not harm anyone intentionally, or by my intentional carelessness or foolish behaviour [irrational behaviour] and provided that I do not inhibit anyone else's liberty to move about. It's all about mutual RESPECT, father!"
Father: "That's RIDICULOUS child, 'we have no king but [the] caesar' [commander-in-chief]; look around you, virtually no one believes, nor does this "foolish" thing you speak of, except a few kooks! Why can't you just be like everyone else? You might die [caesar may murder you] if you make this choice!"
Child: "My dear father, I will die if I "do not" make this choice...but I would simply rather serve a Moral leader [head] than an Immoral one. It is done!
...choose you this day
whom ye will serve...
fellowcitizen [kook] of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the welfare STATE OF ISRAEL.
P.S. Father: "Child, why do you insist on calling me "father", I'm not the holder of your original birth certificate [Manufacurer's Statement of Origin], [the] caesar is!!" |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 06 Nov 2004 09:23:56 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2004 : 09:55:43
|
Gisting the issues above:
The mechanations occurred in Congress in 1861. Before any coherent corporate development de facto could occur, the destruction of the de jure body politic was executed.
So pose the hypothetical question, if you understand the difference between true name and legal name, "So you think you can just change your name?" [From the legal entity on the contract to the true (first and middle only) name.] The correct response is that you never did change your name. That is why it is called a true name. Someone commented this is all obsolete since the Patriot Act(s). I propose the only application of the Patriot Act is violations that are covered in the section "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction". Otherwise the Patriot Act applies not at all. So it is understanding truth that is key.
We are obviously men and women on the land. Our energy, our livelihood comes from a food chain that is a drama upon the land. We all have a stake and keen interest. This is true.
So there are some points brought up about this being a detrimental process - expatriation. When it is more efficient to look at Paul - who was not a Roman citizen until he proclaimed it. [There is evidence within the scriptures that Paul actually bought the citizenship in Cyprus. Born in Celicia (State) and Tarsus (City of XXXX) therein are identical to today's "City of XXXX/METRO" municipal structure and Paul's birth there made him eligible, not entitled. Thus a guard was confused why Paul's citizenship was free when (supposing the guard from Cilicia) it cost the inquiring man a pretty penny for the same thing.] So the expatriation is likely to subject and then reject the bennies. Once you have declared yourself the daughter-corporation (now expatriated), how can you expect any sovereignty to be recognized?
President Buchanan was prepping Colorado for a war chest. The '59ers were flocking to Central City and Auraria gold finds. However Buchanan lost that election and Abraham Lincoln picked up the prosecution immediately upon getting the Oval Office. Richard McDonald and his California state citizenship is able to find a stable base in law because California is what I call a "de jure" state - it got its statehood processed by a de jure Congress. On February 28, 1861 the Congressional Records show the de jure Congress declared Colorado a Territory. The declaration according to natural law (Daniel 6:7) was to become a territory recognized by the Union on March 29, 1861 but the Congress adjourned sine die on March 28. Lincoln convened the de facto Congress on July 4, 1861 under the 'extraordinary occasions' clause of the Constitution. So here, the territory never cured into even a de jure territory, much less a de jure state in 1876.
So one has to examine the land claims from a de jure period of history and walk (literally) on that truth. Just like Erie doctrine. All Zionist Brandeis was saying was the true common law was faulty between the period of Swift v. Tyson 1842 and Erie Railroad v. Thompkins in 1938. Thus the stare decisis could not be depended on prior to 1938 but also not mentioned was that faulty case law began in 1842. So the common law, the stare decisis or case law is sound prior to 1842. For instance 1789 First Judiciary Act and its 'saving to suitors' clause.
Maybe it all comes back to looking at yourself. Examine yourself in the image of God standing on the land. You are sovereign. The Qabbalists consider it the image of God that kept Daniel sovereign over the animals, the lions in Daniel 6 cited above. So do not go running around filing papers and what I call 'externalizing' (looking for approval) to acquire something you already have. You will lose it before you acquire it because you already have it. It will be elusive.
So the Expatriation Act of 1868 should be examined in the international context as well as examining the author - a de facto Congress. On June 13, 1967 this conclusion was reached on the floor of Congress:
quote:
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constiution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:…
And also remember that Clinton’s impeachment hearings were conducted in a room unused since 1859, prior to the break-up of de jure Congress. The decorum was ineffective because Clinton just went back to work the next day like “impeachment” was just a slur on his record, not termination from office. But remember for one or another reason, nine of nine justices failed to be present at the subsequent State of the Union address given by Clinton?
Back in 1995 I signed the Declaration of Independence. The Continental Congress paved the way for this by allowing Matthew Thornton to sign "in effect" in late 1776 after he returned to Philadelphia wanting to sign it.
Admin please post a link to the ‘approbation’ document (three pages) here.
As always you may call (719) 520-6200 and order up certified copies of these documents. I sanitize my family name because there are a lot of family members who are listed in phone books and they really know nothing about the things I speak of. They might find inquiries a little disturbing. Thing is that I have walked in on the clerk here dispensing both the BOE and also found the first page of the de jure 13th Amendment document there taped on the cubicle wall. So there are a lot of people generating work for the county clerk here. I find that encouraging.
Admin please post the two clerk office photos here.
However it should be noted that in about 2000, I went to get a copy of the approbation and the clerk tried to tell me it did not exist; that it could no longer be found. I suggested I return with a deputy sheriff to launch an investigation and to find the document. While they were mulling this over and pretending to be searching I remembered the parking meter needed more magic tokens to ward off the ticket witch. When I came back into the building there was my approbation (for free by way of apology) on the counter. I suppose in hindsight, they thought I was on my way across the street to get the deputy sheriff.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 06 Nov 2004 14:41:07 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2004 : 21:03:18
|
A few days ago I saw how some court house was on fire on Maryland. It reminds me a little of how on the war of 1812 the CAPITOL BUILDING was set on fire by those powers that be, which I believe had something to do or even much to do about those titles of nobility denied by the original 13th amendment.
Peace be unto the house,
I am,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2004 : 07:47:20
|
Excellent post David. We have received a response from someone who read both posts and we are currently seeking his permission to post both his letter and our response here. Suffice to say our agreement with your position was in the form of two questions on the second post above: [Can they truly disallow? Does one ask its permission?], the gist of it being that they can only "disallow" if "permission" is sought. If we seek "their" permission to ex-patri-ate then we are admitting that "they" are our father and all they have to do at that point is deny the request and we would be the author of our own demise. Thank You.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Nov 2004 08:03:04 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2004 : 17:00:59
|
Greetings,
ah, back in the saddle again! To regress into PERSONality's is not of Truth.
oneisraelites previous post included the dictionary defination...'goombah'. Anyone besides myself know who uses this word today, and for what purposes?
If you do, consider this: it is He who has Made us, and not we ourselves".
{are you a "made" man]
Robert,
|
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 08 Nov 2004 : 10:00:26
|
Greetings all
Considering Acts 21:39 we see the word "asemos" translated mean. Asemos is actually deined, "unmarked or unstamped".
Paul was not marked by Rome and at that time the city/state government Paul was from was unmarked by Rome. It was a free city.
Consider the verse "let you conversation be as it becomes the gospel of Christ ..." and know that your citizenship is the essence of the gospel. Conversation is the word "politeuomai" which means "to be a citizen, to administer civil affairs, manage the state, to make or create a citizen".
TN |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 08 Nov 2004 : 10:05:01
|
Considering Acts 21:39 we see the word "asemos" translated mean. Asemos is actually deined, "unmarked or unstamped".
Paul was not marked by Rome and at that time the city/state government Paul was from was unmarked by Rome. It was a free city.
Consider the verse "let you conversation be as it becomes the gospel of Christ ..." and know that your citizenship is the essence of the gospel. Conversation is the word "politeuomai" which means "to be a citizen, to administer civil affairs, manage the state, to make or create a citizen".
TN |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 08 Nov 2004 : 10:27:56
|
| I have read a comprehensive history book about the apostle Paul and it says that Rome was definitely sovereign over Cilicia. This agrees with all maps of the Roman Empire at the time. Additionally the only reason as a captured colony of Rome Paul had eligibility for buying Roman citizenship was a recent aliance Cilicia played with mother Rome in a recent civil war in the region now known as southern Turkey. So I argue that neither the province Cilicia or the city Tarsus would in any way have been considered 'free' or 'unmarked' by Rome. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2004 : 07:57:29
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
Here is the letter we received from brother Jim.
Peace be unto you, brother Robert,
We know that a man is not a person.
I have a multi-part question to pose.....
Does the PERSON belong to its' creator and sovereign, UNITED STATES, or to the man?
I believe that critter, the PERSON, belongs to and is the property of UNITED STATES.
then..... How can a man of flesh and blood ever be in, in order to expatriate from, a fictional place?
I do not believe that the man can go there, has never been there, and consequently, does not have to leave there!
Why buy into their fiction? All statutes are for PERSONS, INDIVIDUAL, CITIZEN, RESIDENT and do not apply to the man, never have and never will apply...UNLESS the man volunteers to be in the fiction.
I need no permission from UNITED STATES to leave, because I 'ain't never been there". They have no power over me, except for that which I give them.
I might as well believe that I have to "expatriate" McDonald's every time I walk out their door, or the door of any other corporate entity.
On the other hand, if I go into McDonald's, put on their uniform [give them jurisdiction via expatriation documents] and then try to leave, they might see the uniform and we are into an argument.
Agree quickly with thine adversary while you are in the way..... end with the judge getting every last farthing in some translations.
Go to Peace with the adversary, in all of his forms.......
Go to Peace within yourself.
What one needs is evidence of the distinction between the man that belongs to his King, Who was, Who is and Who is to come, and their fictional PERSON.
Documentation.
Recognition.
Those are the keys, in my opinion.
Should a man ever be in court defending that which is not him? Definitely not!
Should UNITED STATES offer to provide an attorney to protect THEIR property/PERSON? Definitely!
Set the record straight. There is a civil person [with an idem sonans, a name that sounds like mine],
and it is not me, a man of nature.
[natural man is defined as a bastard in some dictionaries, I am certainly not that.]
We are not, nor have we ever been the fictions. We cannot live there and therefore we have no need to expatriate from that fiction.
We have absolutely NO STANDING to interfer with UNITED STATES property, even if it has a similar sounding name and a birth certificate. We would appear to be 'of this world' when we act that way...in my opinion.
Come out of here my people does not mean [to me] go in there and expatriate. I am already out of her in my mind, as are most of the people posting on the Ecclesia website. Now simply DOCUMENT that position.
An unrebutted affirmation overcomes assumption, presumption and stand as fact until overcome with a superior fact.
Agree quickly that they own the person, their laws apply only to civil entities, and therefore does not include the soujouner, bondsman from a foreign place [reality] and in the ministerial service to his Messiah, the King of Kings.
Those are my opinions, and I am sticking to them.... right up until I learn the rest of the story.
...I have much studying to do.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Nov 2004 07:58:48 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2004 : 08:17:35
|
brother Jim made reference to a natural man being, in some dictionaries, defined as a bastard. Here are two more to add to that.
Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
*NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced] 11. Illegitimate; born out of wedlock; as a natural son.
*NATURAL, n. 1. An idiot; one born without the usual powers of reason or understanding.
The latter is probably the one that Shaul/Paul was referring to in 1Corinthians 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit [Rationale] of Yahowah: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned [idiots].
ID'IOT, n. 1. A natural fool or fool from his birth; a human being in form, but destitute of reason, or the ordinary intellectual powers of man. 2. A foolish person; one unwise.[Ibid.]
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Nov 2004 08:22:15 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2004 : 08:43:01
|
Some references this brings to mind:
Metaphysical Man. I think that can be found in Black's of all places. This is the spiritual man capable of regenerate state.
I think it was 1938 Baldwin's Law Dictionary: HUMAN BEING: see MONSTER. That is to say a "human being" [as opposed to a man or woman] is a natural man/idiot according to the definitions you have cited above. A monster is deformed or retarded and due to the lack of genetic knowledge at the formation of the definition, not allowed the right of procreation. Thus the lineage and heritage would end with a mentally retarded or deformed son.
This really gets interesting with Greek in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance; see "MAN" and "MEN". Check out the usage of Neoteros instead of Anthropos. Men are spoken of widely in the New Covenant to be "Anthropos", which I suppose would include pre-Adamic 'cavemen' - all anthropoids.
Find the few references to the number for "neoteros" and seek the common thread that would entitle these men to the "New Creature" reference.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 10 Nov 2004 08:47:15 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2004 : 08:46:49
|
Thank you, David.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2004 : 10:36:52
|
Just at a glance, David… [and we do realize that we are taking this in a direction other than what you were indicating, though we perceive that you are right in what you were pointing out and do not mean to detract from that.]
G3501
neos neoteros
neh'-os, neh-o'-ter-os
A primary word, including the comparative (second form); “new”, that is, (of persons) youthful, or (of things) fresh; figuratively regenerate
REGEN'ERATE, v.t. [L. regenero; re and genero. See Generate.] 1. To generate or produce anew... - Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
REGEN'ERATE, a. [L. regeneratus.] 2. Born anew; renovated in heart; changed from a natural [idiotic] to a spiritual [pneuma - …the rational soul…mental disposition] state. [Ibid.]
We have perceived for quite some time now that being “spiritual” most times refers to the “mental disposition of the rational soul”. One must love Yahowah in spirit and in truth, would be one such example. We are to obey His Moral Law in spirit, rationally, is another instance.
However, with the advent of psychology “they” have managed to turn, “being a rational soul” into a negative, rather than positive trait.
Rationalize 5 Psychol. To devise superficially rational, or plausible, explanations or excuses for (one’s acts, beliefs, desires, etc.), usually without being aware that these are not the real motives. – Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition
[Evidence indicates that this word did not exist in 1828, but look at the negative aspects of this definition, i.e. devise superficially, excuses, usually without awareness, etc.]
Today, if one is being “rational”, i.e. 2. Agreeable to reason; opposed to absurd…” all that has to be said of that one is that he or she is “rationalizing”. It has become a catch phrase to discredit all rational beings who go against the “norm”; with the accepted norm of course being, whatever mind-set “the controllers” wish us to have at that moment in time.
Hence, if today we were taught to believe that the world is flat and someone stated facts to the contrary, all they would have to say is that PERSON was “rationalizing” [devising superficially rational, or plausible, explanations…for your beliefs] and the proles would nod their collective heads in agreement, and as they did so, they would be thinking(?), “poor misguided soul”, or worse.
Or, if it appears that the masses accept homosexuality as “normal” behaviour and one believes that it is an indicator of societal decay, then that one is labeled a homophobe, or some such thing, even though his proof may be completely rational.
We have, on occasions, seen this kind of thinking(?) even here in this ecclesia, though the word “rationalize” may never have been spoken [written] aloud.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Nov 2004 11:27:07 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2004 : 12:45:23
|
Appreciating the research and researchers seeking the truth has me reluctant to discuss doctrine that formulates certain positions. But ignorance overcomes reluctance in search of truth.
Doctor William Smith produced a bible dictionary in the 1860's from which we find under the heading ...
TARSUS. Chief town of CILICIA; the birthplace of Paul the Apostle (Acts ix.11, xxi.39). It was an important city in the time of the Greek kings. Alexander conquered it; and it was under the rule of Antioch, and also that of the Ptolemies. Caesar changed its name to Juliopolis. Augustus made it a free city ...
Doctor William Smith does not give his reference to ... Augustus made it a free city ... as you (David) did not give your reference to ... a comprehensive history book about the apostle Paul and it says that Rome was definitely sovereign over Cilicia ... I am not after argument nor am I wanting to convince anyone.
Paul was a student of ... GAMLIEL. 2. A Pharisee, and a celebrated doctor (Acts v.34; ssii.3); a Rabbi teacher of Paul ... ibid. during the time of ... AUGUSTUS (Venerable). Title of the Roman Emporers. First assumed by Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus ( nephew of the great Julius Caesar) when at the battle of Actium he became sole ruler of the empire, B.C. 29. Born B.C. 63, died A.D. 14, aged 76 ... ibid.
It is your own confession to messiah ben Joseph, David. It is mine to being a citizen of the Kingdom that is notorious from before the time of messiah ben Joseph. The same Kingdom later returned to its "right side up" implementation by Yeshua haNazarit in his correction of that government of that same Kingdom.
The scepter residing in those appointed by The King (and later appointees of yeomen to tithingmen and hundredmen) points to an echad (unity) of those serving the King and a sect(a) supporting. The inherent doctrine in the different sect(a) regarding the name of the King "might" seem to separate/differentiate between "SUITORS IN COMMERCE" and those who bear the scepter as well as the idea of expatriation for those "outside" the Kingdom.
I'm not defending any naming convention and sophistry aside, I find "SUITOR" leads to pleading to a god (magistrate) and/or "SUITOR" is a part of the "SECTA".
SUITOR. One who is a party to a suit or action in court. One who is a party to an action. In its ancient sense, suitor meant one who was bound to attend the county court, also, one who formed part of the "SECTA".
SECTA pleading. In ancient times the plaintiff was required to establish the truth of his declaration in the first instance, and before it was called in question, upon the pleading, by the simultaneous production of his secta, that is, a number of persons prepared to confirm his allegations. 'Bovier's 6th' 1856
While in the ancient sense of tithingmen and hundredmen there is no problem with "SUITOR", I find only sophistry in trying to formulate the opinion that Paul of Tarsus was preaching any other Kingdom than the one that held notoriety previous to Roman history and that same Kingdom given proclamation by Rome of its King ... " written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS ..." Luke 23:38
Shema Y'Israel Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad
... "I am a man ... a citizen <4177- polites; TDNT-6:516) of (no mean) city <4172 - polis; TDNT-6:516) and my ... "conversation (4175 - politeuma, citizenship) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" Philippians 3:20, here and now, real time (my add).
A gospel of government "by the people, for the people" John Wycliffe, professor at Oxford University, in his intro to his translation of the bible, mid 1300's.
TN |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Expatriation: The remedy?
