| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Admin
Forum Administrator
Saint Kitts and Nevis
114 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Oct 2001 : 16:09:01
|
 A Christian Perspective on Jurisdiction
The subject of this report is "Jurisdiction," and how it is commonly obtained by the various courts.
Although this author does not claim to have exhausted that question, it is my prayer that enough information is contained here to help the student to better understand the issue. The material found here is based on my study of law, and the Holy Scriptures, and is Christian in perspective. My main premise is that we have the duty and the right, to settle our own disputes, and to stay out of the courts of the ungodly.
Jurisdiction has been a subject of study and debate since long before I became involved in law reform, and seems to be most popular among those who are suspicious of establishment courts. Each year brings more numerous reports of judicial misconduct, fraud and theft, on a scale ranging from minor traffic offenses, to multi-million dollar inheritance settlements. Many students of law have seen jurisdiction (or the absence of same) as a possible answer to a seemingly impossible problem: how to avoid personal or financial ruin at the hands of judges and attorneys?
[click the blue floppy disk icon above to view/print the entire article]
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27 |
|
|
godslawissupreme
Regular Member
Canada
30 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 18:10:03
|
Yes Brothers and Sisters we are to care for ourselves as one another should do!
But If somehow you get dragged into the System for whatever reason, please ask for Gods Guidance
and there are groups out there that are looking into all this Stuff Called Corruption.
If you have such a situation, please inform me of such help is needed and Ill point you
in the Correct Direction GOD BLESS |
 |
|
|
godslawissupreme
Regular Member
Canada
30 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2004 : 02:45:45
|
Hello again fellow Christians :)
The prior Information i have left before, it pertaining to the united states and its terrorities, okay :)
Thank you for all who help to make the pieces of the puzzle, abit
more understandable and thank god for revealing the Truth unto us who seek his wisdom and eternal love also :)
God Bless Gods Law Is Supreme |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 03:27:53
|
COMMON LAW
Common law is a category of the jurisprudence of
every legal system that has reached a certain level of
complexity. The term indicates a body of rules which
is contrasted with some other body of rules belonging
to the same legal system but having a special character.
The special character of the other body of rules may
arise because the rules have a particular origin, because
they are applied by a particular court, or because they
apply exclusively to a particular group of people or
within a particular territorial area. The common law
is the body of rules which apply generally, outside the
particular category, and its precise content depends
on the nature of the contrast being made. Common
law is thus a relative notion, with no constant content,
and the various possible specifications of the category
in any legal system can only be explained historically.
In the terminology of Roman law, which has been
more influential than that of any other legal system,
the expression ius commune occurs principally in two
such contrasts. The jurist Gaius (second century A.D.),
as cited in Justinian's Digest (1.1.9), says that “all na-
tions governed by laws and customs use partly law
which is peculiar to themselves and partly law common
to all mankind (ius commune omnium hominum).” He
goes on to explain that the former is called civil law
(ius civile) and the latter, “which natural reason has
laid down for mankind in general,” is called the law
of nations (ius gentium). Thus within the Roman legal
system some institutions and rules, which were consid-
ered to be dictated by common sense and to be shared
by all legal systems, were ascribed to the latter cate-
gory, while others were the special property of the
Romans exclusively.
From another point of view the Roman lawyers
distinguished between those rules of Roman law—
irrespective of whether they belonged to all legal sys-
tems or were peculiar to Roman law—which applied
to citizens generally (rules which they called ius com-
mune), and those which were restricted to a particular
group (rules which they called ius singulare). Examples
of the latter are the rules which allowed soldiers to
make wills in informal ways not open to other citizens
and the rules applicable to heretics as opposed to
orthodox Christians.
The first of these conceptions of ius commune may
be regarded as the parent of the Continental common
law, and the second of the English common law.
CONTINUED AT.....
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-77
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 13:36:54
|
It is a shame that if it ever existed on such glorious ways, it does not exist that way now. For that understanding of what is common now, I uphold the true Book of Life.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2005 : 02:01:37
|
ESTOPPEL (from O. Fr. eslopper, to stop, bar; estoupe, mod. etoupe, a plug of tow; Lat. stuppa), a rule in the law of evidence by which a party in litigation is prohibited from asserting or denying something, when such assertion or denial would be inconsistent with his own previous statements or conduct. Estoppel is said to arise in three ways(i) by record or judgment, (2) by deed, and (3) by matter in pais or conduct, (i) Where a cause of action has been tried and final judgment has been pronounced, the judgment is conclusiveeither party attempting to renew the litigation by a new action would be estopped by the judgment. " Every judgment is conclusive proof as against parties and privies, of facts directly in issue in the case, actually decided by the court, and appearing from the judgment itself to be the ground on which it was based." Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence, Art. 41. (2) It is one of the privileges of deeds as distinguished from simple contracts that they operate by way of estoppel. " A man shall always be estopped by his own deed, or not permitted to aver or prove anything in contradiction to what he has once so solemnly and deliberately avowed" (Blackstone, 2 Com. 295); e.g. where a bond recited that the defendants were authorized by acts of parliament to borrow money, and that under such authority they had borrowed money from a certain person, they were estopped from setting up as a defence that they did not in fact so borrow money, as stated by their deed. (3) Estoppel by conduct, or, as it is still sometimes called, estoppel by matter in pais, is the most important head. The rule practically comes to this that, when a person in his dealings with others has acted so as to induce them to believe a thing to be true and to act on such belief, he may not in any proceeding between himself and them deny the thing to be true: e.g. a partner retiring from a firm without giving notice to the customers, cannot, as against a customer having no knowledge of his retirement, deny that he is a partner.
As between landlord and tenant the principle operates to prevent the denial by the tenant of the landlords title. So if a person comes upon land by the licence of the person in possession, he cannot deny that the licenser had a title to the possession at the time the licence was given. Again, if a man accepts a bill of exchange he may not deny the signature or the capacity of the drawer. So a person receiving goods as baillee from another cannot deny the title of that other to the goods at the time they were entrusted to him.
Estoppel of whatever kind is subject to one general rule, that it cannot override the law of the land; for example, a corporation would not be estopped as to acts which are ultra vires.
See L. F. Everest and E. Strode, The Law of Estoppel; M. Cababb, Principles of Estoppel.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2005 : 02:13:25
|
Understand
Language Date Source Proverbs 20, Verse 24
Greek (transliterated) 250 BC Septuagint Para kuriou euqunetai ta diabhmata andri qnhtoV de pwV an nohsai taV odouV autou
Latin 405 Vulgate A Domino diriguntur gressus viri quis autem hominum intellegere potest viam suam
Middle English 1395 Wyclif Of the Lord ben riyt reulid the goingis of a man; who forsothe of men mai vnderstonde his wei?
Jacobean English 1611 King James Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?
Victorian English 1833 Webster Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?
Prov 19:25
Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge. KJV
Basic English 1964 Ogden A man's steps are of the Lord; how then may a man have knowledge of his way?
Prov 8:5
Become expert in reason, O you simple ones; you foolish ones, take training to heart. BBE
Prov 20:24
The steps of a man are from Jehovah; and how can a man understand his own way? DBY
Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way? KJV
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2005 : 07:53:36
|
quote:
(3) Estoppel by conduct, or, as it is still sometimes called, estoppel by matter in pais, is the most important head. The rule practically comes to this that, when a person in his dealings with others has acted so as to induce them to believe a thing to be true and to act on such belief, he may not in any proceeding between himself and them deny the thing to be true: e.g. a partner retiring from a firm without giving notice to the customers, cannot, as against a customer having no knowledge of his retirement, deny that he is a partner.
As between landlord and tenant the principle operates to prevent the denial by the tenant of the landlords title. So if a person comes upon land by the licence of the person in possession, he cannot deny that the licenser had a title to the possession at the time the licence was given. Again, if a man accepts a bill of exchange he may not deny the signature or the capacity of the drawer.
Years ago I wrote out the Laws of Moses in Sumarian Ostraca then translated the letters back into English with Strong's and Young's concordances.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif
I had noticed, pardon the pun, the simple rule of notice and grace. Such an elemental component of common law. Estoppel.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=001212
In the Circuit opinion above, the man was unable to properly prove notice. At least in the justices' opinion. But the concept of legislating the common law through notice and grace is woven into their words. Otherwise they would not address it at all. They would just dismiss gibberish if the common law were constrained to statute.
A sign is proper notice being red, big bold letters, "STOP". Therefore it is only a matter of jurisdiction being granted after a traversal/denial. It is impracticable to just keep driving after the policeman's lights go on but by stopping when you yourself are having no emergency, you grant the prima facie evidence of that jurisdiction.
One can retain the right of avoidance for pushy presentments. Write Refusal for Cause on the citation and keep your (blue) copy off the clipboard. One court of competent jurisdiction tried this and the sheriff deputy insisted he give back the 'defendant's' copy. Then wrote out another citation and stuffed it through the van window. That proves the process is sound. The deputy did not need a signature, only to prove notice of future hearings was given. [And of course to collect the first evidence of avoidance on the first presentment.] Estoppel on estoppel.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf
court of record
However a couple weeks later after several hearings were avoided on this abatement a couple plain-clothes deputies came to the man's door. They said nothing about names; only wanted him to talk and he would not. Then they proceeded to the man's neighbors and interviewed them about the man. They left the neighbors with the impression they were only doing a favor. To pick him up at a traffic stop would result in vehicle impound for his wife to deal with.
The man is a Christian and believes he must act on what he believes true. And that is the real heart of the matter. There are many of the man's fellow Christians running the prosecution machine like it has subject matter, territorial and in personam jurisdiction of the matter - all because he was wise (or foolish?) enough to stop his van when the lights came on flashing.
The man is ready to take the truth into the belly of that machine. http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Integration.jpg The pentagram was long known the ancient symbol of Jerusalem. www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Pentahexsymbol1.jpg
quote:
What we do know with all certainty is that [the Pentagram] played an important role as a sign on the official seal of the city of Jerusalem during the period of 300-150 BC.
You say? "Well that was the period after the return of the "Jews" from Babylon." Of course. That is my point. Daniel was the Chieftain of the Sorcerers and Astrologers. Hammurabi was this world's first and most successful king, his code survives in The Louvre (Paris). All because he coined the natural law accurately in a monolith of dolomite. You say? "I am a Christian. That Babylonian Jewry does not apply to me." Of course not. You are privatizing Christian common law [and divorcing the roots of your modern sect of Judaism]. Common law can have no prefix like "Christian". That only works among Christians and I know for a fact the clerk of (one of) the combined courts (who retired shortly into this debate) is a Christian man. So much for Christian Common Law - you say? "Well that guy is not a good Christian." Of course not. You yourself set the standards in your part of your Christian positive law jural society. Dichotomize Christainity into "good" Christians and "bad" Christians. See how far that gets you.
[Please note in particular: 1) Abram came from "Ur", not Babylon. 2) Paul came from "Tarsus", not Cilicia. 3) METRO citizenship is municipal, not national. 4) citizens of the United States are federal (district) not national (united States of America). 5) the pentagram is a symbol for the "city of Jerusalem", not Israel/Canaan. 6) the Bible speaks of the city of Babylon, a global municipality. 7. It is the district courts that are courts of record by the State of Colorado constitution, not the home rule of cities, counties and towns.]
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hammenu.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hammenu.htm
What Christians do not remember from the Bible story itself is that the true law of Israel is not found in the Ten Commandments and Exodus 20 - 24:7. The 613 Mitzvoth are only corrective measures for the Israelites because of the Golden Calf imagery. Abraham brought the common law to Canaan/Israel from Ur, Babylon. That fact is typically intolerable.
In that context however, it becomes plain why the generic reference to simple competency:
quote:
"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.
Regards,
David Merrill.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Pentagramsig.jpg
Laser Through Gemstone
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 May 2005 09:50:33 |
|
|
|
devekut
Regular Member
uSA
25 Posts |
Posted - 06 Mar 2006 : 13:46:38
|
Greetings and peace to you all.
In seeking to understand the nature of contracts and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the idea came to me that the life of the contract is in the blood.
If we are under blood covenant with Yeshua, what other contract can supercede it without expressly providing for such?
This is the beginning of the court notice I'm drafting:
"I am a living man whose Ecclesiastical Appellation is __________________. I have been redeemed under contract by the blood of the Holy One of Israel, Yeshua the Mashiach, popularly known as Jesus Christ. I am joined under blood covenant with Him and His Kingdom.
If you claim to speak my law and enforce contract with me or any entity which you presume to be me, I demand to know by what blood or through what sacrifice you have entered contract with me or the entity which you presume to be me. I have no evidence that any blood has been shed to enforce contract between us. Yeshua shed His blood for me and I am bound by covenant only with Him who is my Creator and Almighty King. Both me and my blood belong to Him and Him ALONE."
This would seem to be a critical issue in establishing the nature of one's jurisdiction.
Shalom,
devekut
"To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; it is at most an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?"
-Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract |
Edited by - devekut on 06 Mar 2006 15:59:58 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2006 : 07:21:55
|
Greetings and salutations, devekut:
Peace be unto the house.
[quote]Originally posted by devekut
"I am a living man whose Ecclesiastical Appellation is __________________. I have been redeemed under contract by the blood of the Holy One of Israel, Yeshua the Mashiach, *popularly known as Jesus Christ. I am joined under blood covenant with Him and His Kingdom.” * misnomered JESUS CHRIST
Random House, Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, copyrighted 1997, pg. 1027:
Je·sus…[1200 – 1250; ME < LL Iesus < Gk Iesous < Heb Yeshua’, syncopated variation of Yehoshua…Jesus finally supplanted the older form in both nom. and obl.]
Webster’s (1988) New World Dictionary of the English Language – Third College Edition, page 725:
Je-sus [[LL(Ec) Iesus < Gr(Ec) Iesous < Heb yeshua, contracted of Yehoshua…]]
We suggest that perhaps you may want to use some form of the original five or six-letter name evidently given to the Anointed One by his Father, i.e. yod hey waw shin ayin or yod hey waw shin waw ayin, both of which, as well as we have been able to determine, are pronounced yah-oo-shoo'-ah, rather than using the Jewish “syncopated variation” of it.
SYN'COPATE, v.t. [See Syncope.] To contract, as a word, by taking one or more letters or syllables from the middle. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
[quote]Originally posted by devekut
“Yeshua shed His blood for me and I am bound by covenant only with Him who is my Creator and Almighty King. Both me and my blood belong to Him and Him ALONE."
Exodus 20:11 (LITV) For in six days Jehovah [H3068] made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them…
If you are stating that Yahushua is your Creator, you may want to double-check your Foundation. Start with this premise, if Yahushua has been anointed/appointed *President of Yahuwah’s [JEHOVAH’S] Kingdom, who anointed/appointed him to this prestigious position? Did he appoint the Kingdom unto himself?
*PRIEST, n. [L. proestes, a chief, one that presides…] – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
1Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Or, worded more intelligibly…
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is the Anointed One; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of the Anointed One is the Creator [JEHOVAH].
[quote]Originally posted by devekut
"To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; it is at most an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?" -Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
Fabulous quote, devekut!!! It enhances this Maxim of Law, Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 08 Mar 2006 08:09:28 |
|
|
|
devekut
Regular Member
uSA
25 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 13:49:51
|
Greetings and peace be with you, oneisraelite,
Thank you for your reply and comments which pointed me to the issue of delegation of authority and grant of rulership. I've added to the wording a more clear line of authority from Almighty YHVH to Yeshua here:
"If you claim to speak my law and enforce contract with me or any entity which you claim or presume to be me, I demand to know by what blood or through what sacrifice you have entered contract with me or the entity which you presume to be me or to which you presume I am bound as surety. I have no documents or material in my possession to provide evidence that any blood has been shed to enforce contract between us. Yeshua shed His blood for me and I am bound by covenant only with Him who is my Creator.
"Yeshua completed the work of Creation in six days, as it is written from the beginning, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is…” He is declared to be the Creator for it is written, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father)…” Yeshua, the Son of God, created all that exists and redeemed me from my fallen state through my faith in His sacrifice, for “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.” In Him I have been justified, “being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” YHVH, The Sovereign Father appointed Yeshua to rule over all, for “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.”
"It was prophesied through the prophet Isaiah that Yeshua would reign over all, for the Word came forth: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder : and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.” Yeshua answered the High Priest and proclaimed Himself to be the Messiah, Son of the Blessed as He said, “I am : and ye shall se the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
"I look to Yeshua for my covering, the One who now sits in rulership at the right hand of the Father, “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” The Almighty Father has established Yeshua as the Almighty King, for “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” And He is the head, as the apostle Paul declared, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Yeshua has received His headship from the head of all, the Almighty Sovereign of the Universe.
"The forgiveness of sins was purchased through Yeshua’s allowing His blood to be shed, and as the writer of Hebrews notes, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God! And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means of death…” for He has become the mediator of a new covenant of which I have become a participant. “…for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” My inheritance and covenant are in and with the One who mediated covenant with me. Both me and my blood belong to Him and Him ALONE by execution of covenant with the One who lives forever."
If no one else cuts a blood covenant with me, how can they have any joinder with me without my consent? The adversary counterfeits the process with the covenants signed in blood, requiring humans to sacrifice in order to be in covenant, which is administered by the secret orders which attain worldly positions which are the governments of the world. They announce it through their symbols, images, seals, and cornerstones.
My thoughts on the use of the pronunciation of the name are perhaps best addressed in another forum. I want to stay focused on the issue of declaration of jurisdiction.
My goal here is to inform the hirelings that I'm not one of theirs, that I'm not accepting their offer, for I've already accepted a better one, and creating a way to inform them of my status through proper process of notification.
May the Peace of Our Messiah Yeshua guard your hearts and minds,
devekut
"To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; it is at most an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?"
-Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
What of Christian Jurisdiction?
