| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Dec 2003 : 11:17:51
|
Some of you may have failed Strawman Redemption or Droit/Droit BOE process threatening your home ownership. Several diligent people have gotten authenticated copies of the judgment and decree, and the memorandum (four pages) from the common law Credit River Decision 1968. The banker's testimony makes clear that the credit on the loan was generated off the "debtors" signature and that no lawful consideration is given to back the loan. Therefore the "debtor" is actually the creditor.
Call (719) 520-6200 and request reception # 203290555 filed December 18, 2003. Or contact the court clerk in Minnesota; Audrey Brown at (952) 496-8209.
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2003 : 15:06:54
|
Hello David,
You, like everyone else who is failing Redemption, do not understand Contract Law. It doesn't matter where the credit or the money for the loan came from. You entered, by your own free choice, into a contract to pay some institution a given amount of money. Unless you can prove that you were incompetent, and did not know what you were signing when you signed the contract, you don't stand much of a chance of having that contract overturned in court.
The Constitution, Public Law 88-243, and the Law of Nations guarantees the right to contract, and the sanctity of the contract. They also guarantee that no court shall overturn your contract without agreement of all parties, or unless the contract was unconscionable. A mortgage contract is not such a beast.
There will always be a few who manage to sneak something by the court. Sounds like what you are trying to do.
So, I will merely ask you, what would Jesus do? If Jesus entered into a contract for a mortgage, do you think he would be running to the court arguing he didn't owe it? That he was really the one who provided the credit for the loan?
I await your answer,
Lewis
P.S., this is in no way an attack on your person or character. It is only meant to be used for thoughtful discussion.
|
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2003 : 18:27:15
|
Dear Lewis;
Do not argue this in any court but your own. Serve the Credit River Decision on the person of the County or State district "judge" who is threatening to sign and pass an FED (Forceable Entry and Detainer) on to the sheriff. Find his or her attorney registration number and use the de jure 13th Amendment in conjunction. Record the proof of service at the county clerk (common law). Since the bank never paid any consideration on your house, the bank has no claim. The attorney in the black robe would be stupid to sign up with a false claim. Do not file it into the case.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2003 : 20:53:45
|
Hi David,
Thanks for the clarification. But, I still raise the question, why don't you just admit the Strawman owes the debt, and then discharge it with your exemption. If they refuse your offer, especially if it is during the hearing for foreclosure, which must preceed a FED, then under UCC 3-603, (but use the equivalent State Statute here), then the debt is discharged.
We had a case last week where the bank actually produced the "Original Note" in court, complete with the deposit stamps on the back. Our good little people whipped out there red pen and wrote "Accepted for Value, Returned for Value, Discharge and Closure. You are authorized to use my exemption." in Red ink. Then signed their names in Blue ink, dated it, and wrote out their exemption number. Then took it over to the clerk and said "Here, the matter is settled!" The Judge and the Bank attorney about had a hissy, but the Judge ruled, "Case settled. Reconvey their deed."
Why are people arguing? Why are they going into dishonor before the court? If you go into dishonor, you will lose every time. Why are they getting to the point where someone is getting a FED against them? I just don't understand.
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2003 : 21:59:10
|
Dear Lewis,
Keep an eye on the 'public trustee' who may reject payment and leave you citing the UCC like it is more than code. Then these folks will want to order up the Credit River Money Decision and the de jure 13th Amendment.
"Some of you may have failed Strawman Redemption or Droit/Droit BOE process threatening your home ownership." Quoted from the new topic opening.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2003 : 13:43:17
|
Lewis wrote: quote:
We had a case last week where the bank actually produced the "Original Note" in court, complete with the deposit stamps on the back. Our good little people whipped out there red pen and wrote "Accepted for Value, Returned for Value, Discharge and Closure. You are authorized to use my exemption." in Red ink. Then signed their names in Blue ink, dated it, and wrote out their exemption number. Then took it over to the clerk and said "Here, the matter is settled!" The Judge and the Bank attorney about had a hissy, but the Judge ruled, "Case settled. Reconvey their deed."
You mean they just approached the banker, took the "Original Note" out of his hands, and the banker just stood there and allowed them write on the back?? That's pretty darn bold of them, don't you think? |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2003 : 18:49:32
|
Dear Livefree;
The de jure 13th Amendment is with the entire pre-Civil War Bill of Rights. It is a useful and interesting read as well as the Credit River Money Decision. Both documents are worth a few bucks whether you know how to protect your property rights with them or not. But then if you do not want them fail to order them. I'm just making the option available.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Dec 2003 23:58:01 |
|
|
|
PopeSquasher
Senior Member
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2003 : 23:31:45
|
This whole idea is disgusting! It's nothing but theft. "Let your yea be yea and your nay, nay"!
I would steer clear of anyone who tells you to practice such things- even if they would stand up in court. People who engage in such schemes deserve the consequences they receive. Even the gentiles do not do such.
"Thy Word is Truth" |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2003 : 23:49:15
|
I asked someone on another forum: How is that you already own the house you to want to purchase? He answered:
"HOW DO YOU ALREADY OWN THE HOME? Simple. You signed the promissory note. The BANK used your promissory note to convert into CASH. They used YOUR cash to then pay the seller off. When you walk into the closing, the cash that came from YOU is sent to the seller and you sign a "mortgage" obligating you to pay the bank for 30 years.
The bank did NOT "give" you or anybody any house. It is YOUR house...always has been since you signed the promissory note. Only, the bank NEVER tells you this, do they?"
If this is true, (that we already own the house), then why can't we simply walk into the bank, sign the Promissory Note and claim our house? Why do we have to first prove the bank defrauded us before we get our house.
It sounds like is there is no other way to get a house fee simple than to be defrauded first. |
Edited by - Livefree on 22 Dec 2003 23:53:41 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 00:10:16
|
Dear Livefree;
As I understand it most of your question is answered around an event called "carpetbaggers" following the Civil War. The removal of the Grand Register. "Real Estate" and title manipulation replaced land claims patents, allodium etc. So ideally, working in theory, your presumption is correct. But then what is the need of the Promissory Note?
Now you are approaching the truth. Those who protect the illusion, the debt wagering scheme will call you a thief.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
PopeSquasher
Senior Member
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 00:49:12
|
Uhhh....
Something is missing from this scenario!
The money you bring to a closing is a down-payment- a small portion of the actual price of the house. What you sign is a promisory note to the bank, which lends you the money with which to pay the seller the full price of the house. At that point you owe the bank for the money that they paid the seller. You at that point do not own the house, because the bank puts a claim against that house- a mortgage, so that it can hold principal interest in that house as collateral until you have satisfied that debt. That is what is called a secured debt- most of us are not prominent enough that the bank will lend us $100,000 on our signature- they require collateral- or in Biblical terms, "a pledge", so that if you default on your obligation, they have the value of the house to redeem, to collect the money they advanced for said house. In return for this loan they make to you, they charge usuary. You contract to pay the usuary. Where is the fraud?
The fraud is on the part of the people who are advancing these larcenous schemes- and their legal prowess is severly lacking also.
I'd have more respect for someone if they were going to steal, if they just robbed the bank- at least they'd have guts. The people who advocate these schemes are robbing covertly.
"Thy Word is Truth" |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 02:26:02
|
Of course, some have no use for the Credit River Money Decision...
Now I get it! You are Comic Relief! You go after the new guy and all watch to see how long it takes to catch on.
You are so off the mark about these honest and patriotic people, and out in the weeds about Mystery Babylon but your ignorance about the history of central banking really tipped your hand. So I was really starting to wonder how the moderators had never caught you slinging such thoughtless and vulgar accusations. Then it hit me.
Very good guys.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 23 Dec 2003 08:29:25 |
|
|
|
PopeSquasher
Senior Member
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 11:44:04
|
"..... but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not."
- Psalm 15:4
"Thy Word is Truth" |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 13:30:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by PopeSquasher
Uhhh....
Something is missing from this scenario!
Here is the missing something:
HOW DO YOU ALREADY OWN THE HOME? Simple. You signed the promissory note. The BANK used your promissory note to convert into CASH. They used YOUR cash to then pay the seller off. When you walk into the closing, the cash that came from YOU is sent to the seller and you sign a "mortgage" obligating you to pay the bank for 30 years.
The bank did NOT "give" you or anybody any house. It is YOUR house...always has been since you signed the promissory note. Only, the bank NEVER tells you this, do they?
You went to the bank to get a loan. You did NOT get a loan! The bank converted your promissory note (which is legal money) into cash at the Federal Reserve. They gave that same cash (that came from you) to the seller. The bank NEVER owned the house to be in a position to "give" it to you in the first place. The money used to buy the house was YOURS! Not one dime of the bank's money (from depositors or investors) is ever used in mortgage transactions!
Banks are scamming consumers. Consumers go to banks to get loans. Instead, they get scammed. No legitimate loan ever exists because the bank never uses ANY of its own money...they use YOURS! Thus, the bank's money is NEVER at risk. No risk = no "loan"! That is the law. Since banks have NO risk in the transaction, it canNOT be a LEGAL loan. An exchange was made, but the banks never inform the consumer of this. They lie and say it is a "loan", when it isn't. That is FRAUD!
There is a legitimate remedy for this fraud that does NOT involve court action. It is purely administrative and the homeowner is NEVER at any risk of losing their home. The debt is completely, legally, morally and ethically discharged and the deed is reconveyed back to the rightful owner.....YOU. You have ZERO debt against the property when the discharge is complete. You get NO negative entries on your credit report, either. You receive a letter from the bank informing you that the debt has been satisfied and paid in full early.
If I'm lyin' I'm dyin'.....and I ain't!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, David, I want to know why the promissory note too..i.e., if the house is already ours, why the promissory note.
It looks like no one on this forum has the answers. So I guess take my questions elsewhere.
Merry Christmas everyone,
Alisa |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 13:56:28
|
OK Folks,
Let me take a crack at this.
First the promissory note has nothing to do with you owning the house. The house became yours the second you put your signature on the sales contract. At that moment you created the currency with which the rest of the events work off of. The only MONEY in circulation is creditors signatures. If you and the seller actually understood how this works, you and the seller would take the contract to a bank and deposit it in an asset account. From that account everything that is done at closing would be drawn.
And for anyone interested, I am about to try and obtain a house this way. I expect to attempt it in the next month or so.
But Babylon must try to keep you from learning and knowing this. Therefore, they present you with a promissory note to sign, so that they can continue the charade. When you sign the promissory note, you create more currency. Didn't you just given them your signature again? Now the bank takes that currency and trades it for debt, called Federal Reserve Notes, and they get you to agree to pay that debt back with like debt. Thus, the whole "loan" thing that the banks do.
If we ever wake up to how this is supposed to work, then the banks will no longer have control over our lives.
To Livefree: No, the good little people were in court in a foreclosure hearing. They had demanded that the bank produce the note. The bank complied. They did their thing, and voila', it was all over, and they have their house free and clear.
To Popequasher: The problem for you is, that you still do not understand that there is no MONEY! No offense intended here, but that is the bottom line. As long as you continue to believe Babylon's lies that there is money, then you will continue to think that people are being dishonest. Please read my post in another thread explaining exactly what the words on a Federal Reserve Note mean. Then maybe you will see that FRNs are not money, but only a pretense of money.
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
PopeSquasher
Senior Member
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 14:56:58
|
Hello, everybody,
Again, this whole discussion is flawed because of an inaccurate stating of the facts.
1. The bank does not "convert your promissory note into cash".
FACT: It does give you cash (with which to pay the seller)in exchange for that promissory note, which is your promise to repay the bank.
2. Even if the bank does trade your note to the FED, or anyone else for cash, so what? You still owe that debt, regardless of what anyone does with it. The FED or the other institution that the bank trades that note to has essentially paid the bank for you, so now your debt is transferred to the new holder of the note. This is not fraud- to NOT pay the note is fraud!
FACT: A promissory note is not the same as cash. It may be used in the same manner as cash, but it is not the actual item, but rather a promise of paying the ammount in legal tender at a future date.
The promisory notes value is in the repayment- not in the actual note itself.
If I gave you a promissory note for $10, and you traded that promissory note for a few gallons of gasoline, you are not spending "my" money, because the debt (promise of me pating) of $10 is owed to you. If you choose to spend that ten dollars, by spending the promissory note, I still owe the $10 to the holder of that note. If I just give you $10 instead of a promissory note, and you take that $10 and buy gasoline, have you spent "my" money? Of course not! When I pay you the money, it becomes your money, and you can do with it as you please. Same thing with the note- you can "spend" the $10 promissory note any way you choose- or just hold it until I repay it and then spend the money- either way it's the same thing.
What the proponents of these crazy fraud schemes are saying, basically, that if you take my promissory note for the $10 (which is a promise to pay ten dollars to you or the holder of the note) and spend it on gas, that you are spending my money, and have thus "defrauded" me. But as shown above, that is not true- you have spent your own money, as the $10 debt is owed to you- you are just transferring your right to collect that debt when you pass the note, but the debt is still owed.
Can everyone see this clearly?
The proponents of these schemes are just using samantics and rhetoric and "junk law" to fool people into believing that they are somehow victims of fraud, when in actualityy, such schemes turn them into perpetrators of fraud.
Lets simplify it yet further: Cut the bank out of the picture altogether. Just go to a closing, and give the seller a promisorry note for the ammount of the house. If you do not repay that promissory note, have you not defrauded the seller of the price of the house? Of course you have. So, if we are honest people we will repay the promissory note, right?
Now, lets suppose that the seller will not accept our promissory note- he wants cash. So we go to a bank, and they give the seller cash for the house, in return for our promissory note. Now, if we fail to repay that promissory note, have we not gyped the bank out of the price of the house that they advanced to the seller on our behalf? Of course we have! Now, if the bank takes that promissory note, and buys gasoline with it- does that relieve us of the obligation to repay it? Of course not! The promissory note becomes the banks cash, just like my $10 note to you can act like your cash- but if that note is not repaid, it is just a worthless slip of paper.
The bank is not "lending us our own money" by taking our promissory- note. It is lending us their/someone elses money, for our promise to repay that money, because a private person would not accept our note.
I would like to know where the quotes about this scheme have come from- as the originator of those quotes is either extremely dishonest, or extremely stupid.
One more scenario: This time, YOU'RE selling a house. Someone gives you a promissory note, and you agree to take monthly payments on that note. Now, if the issuer of that note turns around and says "that note is the same as cash, therefore, by paying you, you are lending me my own money, and that is fraud, and I am not going to pay you!" what would you do? Obviously, such a person would be deluded, and would be stealing your house. But somehow, these people seem to think they can do this where a bank is involved, and that it is legal and just!
The only way we will get banks/creditors/financial institutions(private and gov't) out of our lives, is if we STOP engaging in contracts with them for credit. If we engage in these contracts, and then fail to pay our debt, WE are the bad guys! If we need credit, and apply for it, it is theft and fraud to not repay what we have agreed to.
"Thy Word is Truth" |
|
|
|
PopeSquasher
Senior Member
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 15:08:12
|
Dear Lewis,
It appears that they have gotten to you, too!quote:
At that moment you created the currency with which the rest of the events work off of.
That is a prime example of the fallacy. You have not created "currency" by issuing that note- but rather, you have created something that can be used as currency- but its' only value is in your promise to pay actual legal tender at some point.
quote:
The only MONEY in circulation is creditors signatures. If you and the seller actually understood how this works, you and the seller would take the contract to a bank and deposit it in an asset account. From that account everything that is done at closing would be drawn.
O-K, Lewis, my friend, would you sell me a house or a car or anything that you own outright by this method? We'll contract, and deposit that contract in an account(escrow), but I will never pay the debt promised in that contract, (because, according to the proponents of these schemes, to do so would be defrauding myself, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to defraud me!) so all you'll have in exchange for your item is a peice of paper with my worthless signature on it. Sound fair?
"Thy Word is Truth" |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 22:25:05
|
Dear PopeSquasher,
You seem to not know the actual meaning of "legal tender". You cannot pay in legal tender.
Yes, I did create currency with my signature. I can give you about 2 dozen references in the United States Code to back that position if you need them.
If you believe your signature is worthless, then it is. Who am I to argue with such a belief.
From your previous message:
The bank is not "lending us our own money" by taking our promissory- note. It is lending us their/someone elses money, for our promise to repay that money, because a private person would not accept our note.
I would like to know where the quotes about this scheme have come from- as the originator of those quotes is either extremely dishonest, or extremely stupid.
How about taking a look at the United States Code. Reproduced here for your convenience.
"TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 83.
Sec. 83. - Loans by bank on its own stock
(a) General prohibition
No national bank shall make any loan or discount on the security of
the shares of its own capital stock. "
Capital stock in this Code cite includes depositors FRNs deposited with the bank. Expounded upon in USCA TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 83.
PopeSquasher, have you ever gotten the Promissory Note back from a paid off mortgage? I suspect not from your posts. I have one. On the back are deposit stamps, where the Promissory Note was deposited with the Federal Reserve Bank for the funds to loan to me. The curious thing about the one I have is, that they deposited the Note agains 2 years later. Who got those funds? Who is responsibile for paying back the funds gotten from the second deposit of MY Promissory Note? I sure wasn't. Both deposit stamps have a wet ink signature with them, validating the deposit.
BTW, just so that you will know that I am totally nuts, or a liar, or any other label you choose to apply to me, you might be interested to know that I took a piece of paper with my signature (and a few other things on the back of an invoice - no, it was not a promissory note) to the bank about 3 weeks ago and deposited it into the bank's asset account. They then transferred the funds to the party whose debt I wanted discharged. But, you probably won't believe me, so it doesn't bear explaining.
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
PopeSquasher
Senior Member
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2003 : 23:59:52
|
Hello, Lewis,
No, I do not think that you are a nut or a liar- just perhaps that you are either not properly informed- or perhaps that you are trying to use Babylons unjust laws and codes to do to them what they do to others.
I believe you about the piece of paper that you deposited. That peice of paper no doubt represented some value- whether it represented money that exists in a checking account, or a promise to pay money. Either way, if that paper is not good for the value that it represents, theft is being committed.
You didn't reply to my offer, so I will sweeten it. I will purchase any house or property which you own free and clear (and hold unencumbered title to) at TWICE its' market value, by the process you described above, dealing privately, with no bank. Sound good?
That will prove once and for all the validity of what you advocate. If your practice is honest and practical, then surely, you shouldn't have any objections, right?
Rich
"Thy Word is Truth" |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2003 : 06:25:38
|
It does not have to be so complex.
importing the initial response:
"You, ... do not understand Contract Law. It doesn't matter where the credit or the money for the loan came from. You entered, by your own free choice, into a contract to pay some institution a given amount of money. Unless you can prove that you were incompetent, and did not know what you were signing when you signed the contract, you don't stand much of a chance of having that contract overturned in court.
"The Constitution, Public Law 88-243, and the Law of Nations guarantees the right to contract, and the sanctity of the contract. They also guarantee that no court shall overturn your contract without agreement of all parties, or unless the contract was unconscionable. A mortgage contract is not such a beast."
This is standard knowledge right up to and including: "unless the contract was unconscionable." Then Lewis was making my point for me. "A mortgage contract is not such a beast." This would make no sense without Lewis' context. Of course, an unconscionable mortgage is null and void! Since you learned people are the collateral of the national debt (Banker's Holiday; War and Emergency Powers; Bretton Woods etc.) if you falter to try and argue this point in front of an equity attorney in a black robe [ATTORN: to transfer homage and tribute from one lord to another... Websters 1827], you will definitely lose. So I saw the point Lewis was stating. Make no appearance. "Why are people arguing? Why are they going into dishonor before the court? If you go into dishonor, you will lose every time."
You lose every time not just by arguing but by appearing before an officer of the bankruptcy proceedings. See (Google) "FRCP Rule E8". Restricted Appearance. Now we limit all assumptions to the ink on the paper, to only the contract which notice has been served. Diversity of Citizenship takes care of the rest. Agents of a foreign principal are required to win a judgment in the district courts of the United States before they can exercise it. This is common law and the fact the Constitution is Admiralty (gold fringes=law of the flag).
Slavery is an abomination. However work contracts are really the context of most usages of "slavery" in the Bible. So Lewis points these things out above. The sanctity of contracts is protected by the Law of Nations. [Conversely, Man is created in the image of God. How could this image be lienable? It is unalienable.] "... upon alienation of the estate." ATTORN again.
Here I am throwing in the fact the bank gives no consideration and this is a vital part of any contract. Sort of sidebar but a way to get your portion.
Now Popesquasher might say: "You are using a sophisticated technicality to steal!" Popesquasher infers I am an advocate of the Strawman Redemption. Take another look; I have been adamantly against that process since it was conceived. I could see the flaws and most people latch on to a success story or two and run with it.
Process is the point. Truth and justice are inherent in process. [Justice: "... an irresistible Divine force..." Jewish comment on Deut. 16:20.]] One fellow (a former Navy Seal) got a speeding ticket just before we met and drafted his remedy in the Denver US Courthouse. Even while his remedy was curing he went to the courthouse and while the attorney in the black robe was arguing about names, the clerk presented a notice that Seal was to come back on the 22nd. Seal wrote on it, "Refused for cause." and walked it to the bench saying, "The record shows your presentment refused for cause and returned to you in a timely manner." He left the courthouse with the attorney a little miffed, "What am I supposed to do with this???"
Another suitor started with Meredith's "Vultures in Eagle's Clothing" doctrine. The postman had a certified letter from the Treasury. She did not know what to do and was obviously nervous. As she signed the postman said, "Just write "Refusal for cause" on it and mail it back to them. It will go away." [She did not understand the postman's counsel if you are wondering.]
Seal stumped the proceedings. And Lewis, he did not need a codification of the common law (Uniform Commercial Code) to do it. Common law is competent in plain English. We are to speak in the light "Yea be Yea.." If you cite code you are always hiring that attorney in the black robe to provide the key and decrypt (in equity). If you understand the symbols, you are entering pagan Roman style courts = METRO 1313 combinatorial mathematics of United Nations charter law. The IMF and the IBRD are organs of the UN. Global municipality = city of Babylon. You have the absolute right of avoidance; unalienable. Your ability to avoid unwanted contracts is as important to your property rights as your ability to contract at all. Without the abilities we are reduced to violent animal behavior.
So don't get bent out of shape about who deserves a home and who gets to speed. If we are priests and kings then act like it. Just look at the process. There is no conspiracy! See Genesis 49:10 and understand Shiloh is a Messianic symbol. A trustee disrupts the trust the moment a claim is made on Schedule A assets. The police, bankers and IRS are not claiming ownership of anything! These things are held in trust or there is no trust and the hiers apparent get their (our) portion. [Assets on Schedule A are released to the beneficiaries.] In you're waiting (Futurism) for the return of the Messiah, you fail to see that we are already in the full dawn light of the seventh day. The new Jerusalem state. The King has returned within. And the kingdom of heaven "on earth as in heaven" is extant. But if you are still waiting, then wait you will. You might be right about Rapture.
Regards,
David Merrill |
|
|
|
PopeSquasher
Senior Member
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2003 : 13:21:08
|
Hello, David!
I do not mean to put words in your mouth- or lump your ideas in with such things as the abominable Strawman Redemption, etc. I do see some similarities among all these various ideologies- but, truly, it is not fair for me to just make assumptions about what you may be advocating.
So...please, explain to me what you advocate. Lets say that you are going to purchase a house- and you do not possess sufficient wealth to pay the owner the agreed upon value of the house- what would you do?
Just to make it clear where I am coming from, though. I seek to uphold the Biblical injunction to deal in just weights and measures- and exchange fair value for fair value; and honor whatever proceeds out of ones mouth (or what one signs)and not to willingly and knowingly participate in that which one considers to be unjust, and then using that unjustness as an excuse not to be bound by the terms of the unjust contract that one willingly entered into. If one considers a certain contract or manner of exchange unjust, then one shouldn't sign a contract to participate in such a thing. (I'm not saying that you do this, David )
I see a constant pattern in many of these ideologies: They rightly point out the immorality and illegality of the Babylonian banking/finance/legal system- but then, they turn around, and use the unjust laws of Babylon to justify their doing of the very same things that they spoke against when others were doing it to them. i.e., I do not necessarily care what some legal code of Babylon may permit- there may be laws and definitions which permit theft and unfair practices- that does not mean that I am going to participate in such things and use their laws to justify that participation, for it is not their law which I am concerned with, but rather, I am concerned with fullfilling the just requirements of Gods laws- and isn't the whole purpose behind the preaching of these schemes supposed to be predicated on the idea of freeing ones self from the jurisdiction and obligations and participation in Babylons laws and ideals?
"Thy Word is Truth" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Credit River Money Decision
