ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY - Schweitzer Video on Common Law

ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

The Roman World

The Common Law

Schweitzer Video on Common Law

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Previous Page | Next Page

Author

Topic

Page: of 5

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 03 Apr 2005 : 23:18:29

"Since you are not making any sense to me understand that your accusation I do not know what I am talking about is inert."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well you make perfect sense to me. Your responses are NON RESPONSIVE, AS USUAL.

Thanks for all of your NON RESPONSES.

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 00:06:05

You were intent on this conclusion before you opened your mouth.

Bondservant
Forum Administrator

382 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 07:32:54

Livefree, if you had bothered to spend 5 minutes of diligent research just on this site alone, you could have come up with the following easy to understand definitions linked from the front page:

Waiver
A voluntary relinquishment of some right. Stewart v. Crosby, 60 Me. 134 (1863). - A Dictionary of Law 1893.

waiver
The intentional and voluntary giving up of something, such as a right, either by an express statement or by conduct (such as not enforcing a right). The problem which may arise is that a waiver may be interpreted as giving up the right to enforce the same right in the future. Example: the holder of a promissory note who several times allows the debtor to pay many weeks late does not agree to waive the due date on future payments. A waiver of a legal right in court must be expressed on the record. - Law.com Dictionary

Tort
Latin tortus, twisted, bent, wrong. 1. French. Improper, unlawful conduct; wrong. De son tort - of his own wrong; by action not authorized by law. Nui tort - No wrong done: the general issue in a real action. 3 Bl. Com. 305. 2. English. An injury done, to one's person or property, by another. A private wrong, or civil injury. 3 Bl. Com. 117, 2. An unlawful act done in violation of the legal rights of some one. Langford v. United States, 101 U.S. 345 (1879), Miller, J. An invasion of the legal rights of another accompanied by damages. Chesley v. King, 74 Me. 173 (1882), Barows, J. - A Dictionary of Law 1893.

From the above, it is obvious what a "Waiver of Tort" is.

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 08:57:50

I could not make out her original request for an example because she seemed to want me to prove my credibility with an example. That makes no sense and since my credibility is no more of an issue than I allow it to become, I stuck to logic.

The Readers, including Livefree might understand waiver of tort a little better in light of offers made. Once the nisi pruis tribunal issued a warrant in upper and lower case letters for "David Van Pelt" and I was unclear about my identity so I responded. It called for me to spend a week in jail. Everyone was completely confident that I had waived my privilege of 'work release' by not reporting to the jail voluntarily [the deputy sheriff called after I was late and informed me the name on the warrant had been changed to upper and lower case letters]. So I got on the collect phone and tried to reach the courthouse to contact the 'judge' (call refused but they got my newly applied-for and accepted pseudonym/legal name) and within a few minutes was being released for the day. I had already notified the 'judge' in writing that I would be billing him $1000/day for any days he had me spend in jail. So he was now my employer. I filled out the work release accordingly. The booking agents informed me I would have to pay $5/day fee for work release and I drafted an immediate Public Office Money Certificate for the $30 for the entire week. I offered it and left to go get my employer's signature on my work release paper.

By the time I got to the courthouse, a friend of mine who happened to be in that courtroom informed me the judge had gotten a phone call (at bench) about when I was leaving the jail. He went up and down the hallway looking for another 'judge' to take his docket. Upon failing to do that he came back into the courtroom and feigned laryngitis and left for the day sick just before I came into the courthouse. The jail accepted both offers, the unsigned employer reports and the certificate. I spent the entire week showing up late and leaving again at 6:00 am, the first work release out the door. They had me sleep in a cell by the door in the booking area. One agent "private contractor jail" decided to get all tough and strip-searched me one night in a demeaning way. He was fired over it (and his general attitude I suppose).

One helpful young lady changed the name in the computer from "DAVID VAN PELT" to "David Van Pelt" like on the warrant I showed her. The computer offered an alarm, "CHANGING PRISONER'S NAME!!" She got fired too.

There is a point I am getting to. That is about identity and colorable persona. And how these artifices are required to create the illusion of enslavement into a colorable money system. There are two great books about this. Legal Identity by Joseph Vining and Debt Virus by Jacques S. JAIKARAN. If one is questioning identity, if one is not secure in true name - about who they really are, then one cannot make out the scope, the landscape from where I am speaking. And the logic I use is wasted.

From a Post on another Topic Livefree might understand my response better in "offers". Trebilcock v. Wilson describes an offer in the simple terms later described by HJR-192. If I was to offer a man with a clear and sound conscious about right and wrong $5 federal reserve notes for groceries the man would refuse the offer because I was trying to pay off the debt with more debt. But I would walk with the groceries because I offered to include the man in "my"+ (the world's/our) confidence game and he could take the FRNs and con the next obligation by the same offer. If an offer for a "negotiable" instrument is refused, the debt is waived~.

The substance of FRNs is tort. It is peonage and involuntary servitude based in a Tontine on human flesh and bone. [Against the nakar, the foreigner and stranger only! From my recent Post last Page, Leroy knew all about these concepts:]

quote:
Leroy Michael articulates the concept well in the snippet [1:30, 3:48 and 2:10 minute marks. Also see "foreigner" and "stranger" in the Bible at Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and 23:10].

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leroy_on_bills.wmv

In other words, I had to work for nothing to secure that $5 and now must play a con on whoever I am making the offer to. HJR-192 legalizes the confidence game. By walking with the groceries and the refused $5, I have collected the energy/wealth/groceries waiver of tort.

Now I have proposed a background conundrum. There are two different perspectives to view waivers of tort. One is from strictly within the scope of counterfeit (colorable) estate and one from the true name - original estate. The original bill of exchange went to Richard Grasso, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. The remainder got certified copies.

Livefree seems adamant that I do not know what I am talking about. Fair enough. But it is becoming clear that readers see she is feigning the ignorance to support that conclusion, even before she inquired for an example. Especially if she is even contemplating an HJR-192 claim against Arnold Shwartzenegger*.

Regards,

David Merrill.

+ It has been years since I have been endorsing any checks. I use cash in the confidence that the person receiving it will be able to con the next person and so on... But there is no paper trail back to me for being a confidence man.

~ A man (unsubstantiated rumor) was in an IRS audit and showed his paychecks endorsed under stipulation, "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE" All but the three paychecks where he was in a hurry and did not prefix the conditions were determined non-taxable events. Within the scope of the counterfeit estate, FRNs are negotiable. But the man removed the FRNs from there into the original estate by declaring them non-negotiable (lack of substance). If one gets no substance in return, that defines the exchange or conveyance fraudulent.

Footnote P.S. A member inquired PM about substantiating the rumor and I replied.

quote:
No. You might try searching key words. I can fish with the suitors for who mentioned that a few weeks ago.

Since I understand it I am confident it would work. I also have doubts the IRS agents would come back from a meeting and tell the man his paychecks were non-taxable events. My experience is they would just get him out of the building and he would figure that all out for himself as time went on in silence.

Edited by - David Merrill on 04 Apr 2005 10:54:03

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 10:05:48

quote:
David Merrill wrote ....

If an offer for a "negotiable" instrument is refused, the debt is waived.

Cornerstone Foundation wrote:

David,

Did you intend to state the following rather than what you wrote?:

If an offer made to discharge a debt with a "negotiable" instrument is refused, the one to whom the debt was owed has waived his or her right to collect on the debt and therefore the debt is waived.

We have heard that the signs reading "No $50.00 and $100.00 Bills Accepted After 10:00 P.M." which are typically seen in convenience stores and gasoline filling stations are not "legally" binding on a man or woman who knows their rights.

The logic here, if we understood it properly, is portrayed by the following example:

Fred stops at midnight at the Qwik Stop Self-Service and puts $28.77 of gasoline in his automobile.

There is a sign on the gasoline pumps that reads: "No $50.00 and $100.00 bills after 10:00 P.M.

Fred tenders an offer of a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note to Sally at the cash register inside to discharge the debt for the $28.77 of gasoline.

Sally says "I can't take that, didn't you read the sign on the pump?"

We were told that the "law" technically says that Fred can then "legally" get in his automobile and leave the gasoline station.

We were told that Fred cannot be prosecuted for leaving the gasoline station because:

1. Fred tendered an offer of a negotiable instrument.

2. The negotiable instrument says upon the face of it "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"

3. Sally, as agent for the Quik Stop Self-Service, rejected the offer tendered.

4. Therefore the $28.77 debt for the gasoline is discharged and Fred has no further legal obligation concerning that debt.

Question: Do you agree that what we have been told is "legally" correct?

Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 04 Apr 2005 10:28:27

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 10:30:33

Nope! Not if the notice was conspicuous before the gasoline was pumped. That is common law; notice and grace.

Maybe it is better to understand in terms of 'stranger' v. 'son'. By birthright. One can simply walk out of a restaurant and win on the argument that there is nothing but debt behind the FRNs demanded for money. I have been tempted and consider when the officer hears the argument it might fly and you would get a warning and know you are no longer welcome in that restaurant. That would be upon consultation by radio with a 'judge' (county or city attorney). But that just leaves a trail of victims of the con-game when it fails to maintain the illusions it is designed upon. Ignorant slaves bruised by their own ignorance.

I consider encouraging people to come through the doorway into their inheritance a much better ministry than to hurt them into animosity. They will just retreat further into the desperation and fear. They will become the enemy whereas bank policy is not an enemy at all, if you understand it in the proper context of the two estates described above. Leroy certainly understood.

Edited by - David Merrill on 04 Apr 2005 10:39:24

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 10:59:26

quote:
David Merrill answered the above question...

Nope!

Not if the notice was conspicuous before the gasoline was pumped.

That is common law; notice and grace.

Cornerstone Foundation wrote:

Could it be that if the hypothetical scenerio at the Quik Stop Self-Sevice is closely examined that:

Fred has "legally" discharged the debt and therefore cannot and will not be "legally" prosecuted because the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) allows him to "legally" leave the premises....

but

Fred has not "lawfully" and morally paid the debt because the common law; notice and grace which is based on Yahweh's Law does not allow Fred to leave without making other arrangements to compensate the former owners of the gasoline?

Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 04 Apr 2005 11:02:02

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 11:09:45

We would be interested in having David Merrill and others who would be willing to comment, to do so here in this forum topic.

Thank you for giving this your attention.

quote:
David Merrill wrote:

�.many Christians can actually fall under the illusion there is authority in the idolatry of equating Jesus with God.

The problem is that one will fall like Leroy Michael going down that road.

Like I have said several times, the Comptroller Warrant* likely arrived in Ogden the day before SCHWEITZER and PETERSEN were taken into custody.

I breached the close of the international bankers.

That is why Leroy was so entertained when I properly (IMFIRS not IRS) named the parties on the Comptroller Warrant.

What he did not expect is that I would deviate from the instructions to cite the UCC upon my endorsement.

Question A: Has Leroy Michael [fallen, by] going down that road?

Question B: In what way are the teachings and actions of Leroy Michael analogous to the illusion there is authority in the idolatry of equating Jesus with God?

Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 04 Apr 2005 11:11:52

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 12:53:49

Addressing both Posts.

In the gas station scenario, we have to stay realistic. If the cashier waives payment, then the man is free to leave. But she conspicuously stated certain stipulations on what kind of payment was allowed for security purposes at that particular station. So she could keep the entire $100, accepting payment on terms that the man return during safer daylight hours the next day for his change. Therefore she did not waive payment. She accepted his offer conditionally and in accordance with the Notice (by intent anyway). She has the ability to poke the bill into a slot/safe.

quote:
Question A: Has Leroy Michael [fallen, by] going down that road?

Question B: In what way are the teachings and actions of Leroy Michael analogous to the illusion there is authority in the idolatry of equating Jesus with God?

Answer to Question A;

You will likely get a much different response from Charles. Being that he is a zealous proponent of Christian Common Law which in my opinion is where Leroy faltered with the law. [Identity being crucial notice that Charles Bruce will only call me some deviation for "David Merrill". He is such a hypocrite. He calls Leroy Michael properly in the Topic title you link but calls himself Charles Stewart in his squabbles with Bondservant. The man is nakar, foreigner/stranger and trying to apply the laws of release and usury!] He thought that privatized law was common law. Not true. I am through encouraging people to visit Charles' site and hope you see the sense in that too*. But if you read the private conversation between Bondservant and Charles improperly posted over there to libel Bondservant, you will see this is the volatile concept that set Charles off. Charles was trying to use a Post by Bondservant and twist it into confronting my observation. Whatever Bondservant meant in whatever context, he did not want Charles using it for ammunition to overturn my premise; Prefixing 'common law' privatizes it. Private law is not common law.

In the privatized common law there can be no cohesion with the UCC. Christians are inherently at war with the world and the UCC is quite worldly. One glance at Charles' doctrine proves him extremely paranoid. So please quit sending people over there.

The fall Leroy Michael took was quite obvious. You showed me a hand-written habeas I believe genuine, written by Leroy while in Leavenworth prison. OUCH! It fell on deaf ears because he was depending on some sort of Christian rescue after the Montana Freeman Standoff had completely quashed his territorial claim to any asylum state. No embassy. The Christians do not understand him because he is incorrect to be importing the UCC into his formation of private "Christian Common Law".

That nearly answers the second question in itself. I suppose the easiest way to understand my statement that equating Jesus with God is idolatrous is for a moment at least, to permit youself to believe that Jesus survived the cross. Now go through the Old Covenant and find all the supporting prophecies about the Messiah and show us any that say, even indirectly that the Messiah will be God-like or supernatural in stature.

Then you might understand why the Jews truly resent the new faction of Jewry (Christianity) for importing the Roman/Greco paganism of Asia Minor (Paul's campaigning and epistle fields) into Judaism. Equating Jesus as God, supposing the Resurrection in error, is truly idolatrous. If true, any subsequent presumption in Christian authority, to form a body of recognized law, Christian Common Law would be a terrible mistake and a stench to God's nostrils.

Regards,

David Merrill.

* Charles is building the site so far talking to himself and plagiarizing from this site. Notice that 90% of the material is taken Cut-and-Paste from here. He publishes correspondence and private messages, making the impression that the author of the email Posted it. Until you look and see it was "Charles" who Posted it.

Edited by - David Merrill on 04 Apr 2005 14:40:57

Werner Maximilian
Senior Member

USA
55 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 14:37:54

Maybe one of the better ways to help out our fellow man is to deprive him of the opportunity to do evil on account of us.

As David said above, maybe the better way to proceed is to view everything in the context of offers. Here you go Loyal and Valued Customer, your new 30 year loan at only 8% interest. Oh, thats very nice but I couldn't let you commit such a sin on my acount. Sin!What sin? How are you ever going to buy anything without our fat juicy loans? Well, I guess I'll just have to wait until I can afford to buy it, sorry.

Or, Hey buddy, want some drugs? Sorry. Porn? Sorry. $5 a gallon gas? Sorry.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ebiking.wmv

Listen man, I have a world of stuff to move ,so I'm just gonna let you have this 0% loan on this here Hummer. Sorry.

Hmmm, You can't build this dwelling. You don't have a license.You didn't give us any money.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_off_the_grid.jpg

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I've been left alone for years.

Dave has shown me how to say No,thank you. I am a "Suitor". I'm an example. There are alternatives to so many problems we all face. I hope I don't sound like I have it all figured out, because I don't. I'm just going along in life trying not to let some bretheren get themselves in trouble by my consent.

Did also get my car back after a year in impound. It had a Certificate of Search in the back window. Cars there are usually sold after 60 days. They offered it back for $50. I didn't say sorry. Seems something out of the ordinary happened. David put that case together for me also.

I wish it were easy to get along out there. I feel for you all.

Bondservant
Forum Administrator

382 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 15:03:37

quote:
In the privatized common law there can be no cohesion with the UCC. Christians are inherently at war with the world and the UCC is quite worldly.

In other words, "Christian" common law can have no basis or connection of any kind with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or any other "Law". Because of this, the Montana Freemen (LeRoy, et al) had no vicinage standing in the common law of "Christians" while citing the Federal Law known as the UCC at the same time. Randy Lee and the other King's Men (at the time) stressed just this point over and over again, yet few listened. The combination of both venues was the nexus that caused the complete and thorough downfall of Justus Township, as well as the Federal incarceration of LeRoy.

There is a vast difference between "Christian common law" - the law common to all Christians - as compared to "Christian Common Law", which is a privatized and man-made Law based on Roman Law and the corporate Common Law of England. There is a reason some words are Capitalized and others aren't. Capitalization makes "Common Law" a proper noun and a specific Law that is not generic to all, only to those under its rule. To understand this better, you might want to read the following:

Is the Common Law really based upon God's Law?
http://ecclesia.org/truth/common_law.html

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 15:35:57

At this juncture we are proposing that we focus on David Merrill�s answer to Question A:

We have tried to exerpt those phrases of David�s response that appear to us to be directly responsive to the question asked.

We have (for the moment) swept aside the portions of David�s post that appear to us to deal with other issues so that we can focus fully on Question A and the answer to that question.

If we have not exerpted properly, please let us know and we will make the appropriate changes to this post.

quote:
David Merrill wrote:

�.many Christians can actually fall under the illusion there is authority in the idolatry of equating Jesus with God.

The problem is that one will fall like Leroy Michael going down that road.

Cornerstone Foundation asked: Question A: Has Leroy Michael [fallen, by] going down that road?

quote:
David Merrill responded �.

The fall Leroy Michael took was quite obvious.

You showed me a hand-written habeas I believe genuine, written by Leroy while in Leavenworth prison. OUCH!

It fell on deaf ears because he was depending on some sort of Christian rescue after the Montana Freeman Standoff had completely quashed his territorial claim to any asylum state.

No embassy.

The Christians do not understand him because he is incorrect to be importing the UCC into his formation of private "Christian Common Law"�..

�.. proponent of Christian Common Law which in my opinion is where Leroy faltered with the law.

He thought that privatized law was common law. Not true.

Prefixing 'common law' privatizes it. Private law is not common law.

In the privatized common law there can be no cohesion with the UCC. Christians are inherently at war with the world and the UCC is quite worldly.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Cornerstone Foundation wrote:

If the exerpts above represent your response, we would next like to ask some followup questions so that we may understand your position more clearly.

Respectfully Submitted,

Marty

quote:
David Merrill replied....

Yes you have highlighted my testimony nicely.

Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 04 Apr 2005 19:50:43

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 16:06:29

from bondservant:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, "Christian" common law can have no basis or connection of any kind with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or any other "Law". Because of this, the Montana Freemen (LeRoy, et al) had no vicinage standing in the common law of "Christians" while citing the Federal Law known as the UCC at the same time. Randy Lee and the other King's Men (at the time) stressed just this point over and over again, yet few listened. The combination of both venues was the nexus that caused the complete and thorough downfall of Justus Township, as well as the Federal incarceration of LeRoy."

There is a vast difference between "Christian common law" - the law common to all Christians - as compared to "Christian Common Law", which is a privatized and man-made Law based on Roman Law and the corporate Common Law of England. There is a reason some words are Capitalized and others aren't. Capitalization makes "Common Law" a proper noun and a specific Law that is not generic to all, only to those under its rule. To understand this better, you might want to read the following:

Is the Common Law really based upon God's Law?
http://ecclesia.org/truth/common_law.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly! How many times do you all remember in citing the case law (COMMERCIAL): "The Common Law is the law of the land?"
That case law, among many, is COMMERCIAL in menu/venue.

David Merrills conclusions are offending though. He too paints all "Christians" COMMON with a broad brush. Jesus, Yashua, Jesu... never used the COMMON LAW, for He Is the nail In a sure place.

This about being common reminds me of a little poem I once knew, and therefore will quote a little of that poem which I remember:

"I am not a common man,
it is my right to be uncommon if I can.

I will never trade my freedom for beneficense,
nor my dignity for a handout,

I will never cower before any master,
nor bend to any threat...."

I am,
Manuel

Edited by - Manuel on 04 Apr 2005 16:21:19

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 17:09:38

Dear Readers;

I will respond in order of the above three Posts.

Bondservant;

You have summarized my posture eloquently. Thank you. I should clarify a little by describing the thought processes that led me to my statement. On Charles� site there is an introduction by Charles about the Montana Freemen. He quotes or cites in principle somebody saying that the problem the Freemen had was thinking the UCC a subset of the common law. I processed this in my own experience and agreed, within the same scope of Christian Common Law you have summarized.

Thank you for reminding me about Randy Lee�s et al stance to support. Albeit his stance was to surround, �Therefore your papers are returned to you timely refused for cause and without recourse to me�, (paraphrased from memory) with a lot of religious gibberish and historical record about War and Emergency Powers etc. I know this might be construed non-responsive but I was involved with some chatter on the suitors� email today and this reflects today�s revelations in Crosstalk:

quote:
Dear David Merrill,

Thank you so much for your concern and timely reply. Unfortunately, this appears to be a brand new unrelated summons. That is why I was so exasperated as I am tired of the Sheriff's department being dragged into this as they are unknowingly supporting an entity falsifying my identity.

Gregory David

David Merrill wrote:

Time will tell Gregory.

What stands out is that they are trying to serve a summons (notice). That would mean your Refusals for Cause stand as is. Otherwise it would be a warrant for arrest and charges for FTA Failure to Appear. The deputies would kick the door down if they knew you to be inside.

You still bring a lot of this conflict upon yourself then. That is where you are being foolish in my opinion. You are the suitor who Refused for Cause the citation (presentment) on the officer's clipboard and ended up in jail all day; out $800 in forfeited bond FRNs. Now you are refusing service in common law of a summons. Just accept the summons in a mature manner and Refuse it for Cause using Registered Mail. The way I have taught you. That part works fine. The problems I see with R4C is bankers, employers and brokers feigning ignorance as de facto IRS agents and the lack of clerk support in our right of arrest.

I think you are full participant in the martial and psychological warfare you are bringing into your home. Your entire family is being subject to your warring against the world folie a deux http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Folie-a-Deux.jpg . If you are basing your war in Christianity you should fully ponder why that is probably a Christian judge and jury, sheriff and deputies, dog-catcher etc. "persecuting" you. You are likely construing Romans 13 incorrectly according to PAYtriot doctrine.

If you visit the sheriff, expect that you will be staying quite some time. When a pushy vacuum salesman comes to your door you have the full 72 hours for a proper R4C. When you go into his shop looking to purchase a vacuum cleaner, it is much harder to change your mind if you want a refund.

My honest opinion is that you should quit cluttering up your family front door with paper (before you quit receiving important presentments like the utility bill and such). Find the safety of the non-colorable identity Gregory David in your heart and utilize that sense of identity for the right of avoidance. But quit being so quick about it. You are confronting ignorance and causing fear. If you handle these matters timely Registered Mail there is a much better chance trained attorneys will make the decision about whether the district attorney has a viable cause for court.

I know that before you spent the day in jail I encouraged you. I admire your tenacious drive and aspiration to fight for what is right. But now I see you are just beating yourself up and bringing paranoid confirmations into your household and family, I have to change my stance on your situation. I will leave it to you to forward my response to the suitors if you wish to share.

Regards,

David Merrill.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory David" [Some 70+ suitors true names and addresses sanitized. Note: there is nobody named Gregory David that I know of.]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:17 AM
Subject: New attack

Dear Suitors,

My family and I had to endure another attack from the Humane Society yesterday. The same employee who insists on falsifying my identity attempted to serve another summons. When I reiterated that I was not Mr. Johnson she called the Sheriff's department and a deputy showed up. I would not answer the door again as I told the animal control officer I would not contract with their corporation.

While the deputy was at the door for a long time, he could not avoid the following notice (as well as the notice lis pendens) on the door: " Be it known to the world that , Gregory Johnson, GREGORY JOHNSON, Gregory A. Johnson, GREGORY A. JOHNSON, Gregory David Johnson, or GREGORY DAVID JOHNSON does not reside here. No living being by any of these names is on the premises known as 5452 Grassy Terrace, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Therefore, if you have come to serve a claim, summons or warrant containing any of the above names after notification, a certificate of exigent circumstances will be issued for your arrest with the United States District Court in Denver, Colorado."

The notice has been posted since August 4, 2004 (and recorded) and this animal control officer has seen it at least 5 times. I am getting very sick of my family and I being terrorized by both parties. There have been times where the animal control officer and the Sheriff's deputy have waited outside my home for over an hour. Therefore, I am considering visiting Sheriff Maketa today to report this and request that action be taken. Am I wise, or foolish?

Gregory David

�Gregory David� is fictional but you would please focus on my direction for him to work off the true identity of himself in his heart. That is the useful tool. The gut is hard to fool. Gregory is an avid Christian in a home church (non-501(C)(3)) atmosphere. So I am trying to wean him of the warring with the world scenario created by the end-times scenarios of the Book of Revelation. If you think about it, coming out of the Harlot is in direct conflict with Paul�s Romans 13 doctrine. Well I feel that in light of the �offensive� mention of Jesus not being God, that puts Paul�s weapon against Rome in proper perspective.

Cornerstone Foundation/ Marty;

Yes you have highlighted my testimony nicely.

Manuel;

I am not saying you are wrong. Only that I disagree. Marty went on the record in �Original War by Propaganda� testifying that he believes Jesus Christ arose from the dead by a supernatural Resurrection that in many ways proves that God-in-the-flesh has died for our sins and we are forgiven in Jesus Christ�s death, burial and rebirth. I presume by your offense that you agree with Marty on that.

Thank you for interjecting and defending the concepts of faith.

I suppose the main precept I would take exception to with your faith is the damage it has done to Jewry. By (rightly) rejecting the idolatry of accepting Jesus as God, they have really gotten screwed up bad. I say that because I believe Jesus is the Messiah. The Jews reject that truth because of backlash to the idolatry that the Messiah of God is God.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 04 Apr 2005 19:06:15

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 20:14:20

Greetings to all,
I will plant my words with the following:

When I was a graphic and industrial arts consultant, there was a certain way to check the color interpretation from transparentcies to be reproduced, from continuous tone, to half/quadra tones.
The measure used to get the closest color interpretation was by using 5000 Kelvin light.

Now... His Light has a deeper interpretation In His color In Law, which the blind can see, and the
crippled can walk. His Light does not discriminate, for His Light is the guiding Light.

I am,
Manuel

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 21:32:40

And you speak of Jesus. Or do you speak of God? Or do you equate the two?

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 22:45:23

Jesus being the extension/reflection from/of God.

In the military there was always a warning given when out of The Light:
"Stay off the trails"
I was trained as a booby-trap expert, and now I use that "old training" to stay away from the many "bouncing betty's." :)

Mark
Senior Member

USA
55 Posts

Posted - 05 Apr 2005 : 00:26:40

quote:
Originally posted by Manuel

Jesus being the extension/reflection from/of God.

I think if Jesus was the Messiah, as David fully agrees with, then surely he would reflect God�s true character to some degree.

quote:
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Manuel, I fail to see the disagreement between you and David on this matter.

Peace,
Mark

Edited by - Mark on 05 Apr 2005 00:30:01

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 05 Apr 2005 : 01:06:45

quote:
Originally posted by Mark

quote:
Originally posted by Manuel

Jesus being the extension/reflection from/of God.

I think if Jesus was the Messiah, as David fully agrees with, then surely he would reflect God�s true character to some degree.

quote:

And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Manuel, I fail to see the disagreement between you and David on this mater.

Peace,
Mark

Mark,
Jesus in that instant, if transliterated correctly, said that He is not good within Himself.
As far as disagreements, maybe there have been too many misleading comments and questions on all parts. The fear-factor comes on when one is reminded of getting inside the belly of the beast for fear of not being able to get out. In other words, coming out of The Light and entering the Dark. I tell you, there has not been a time when I walk on to a dark place with a flashlight and the place does not light up. Have you ever had a darkener light up a dark room? Darkness is the absense of Light.

Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member

uSA
254 Posts

Posted - 05 Apr 2005 : 09:29:50

quote:
David Merrill wrote:

The fall Leroy Michael took was quite obvious.

You showed me a hand-written habeas I believe genuine, written by Leroy while in Leavenworth prison. OUCH!

Cornerstone Foundation wrote:

Does the fact that a man has been incarcerated in prison by his adversaries necessarily mean that he has fallen?

Is incarceration evidence that the methods a man was using are wrong?

John the Baptist was in prison. Did John the Baptist �fall�? Was the message of John the Baptist false?

Paul was in prison. Did Paul "fall"? Was the message of Paul false?

Yahshua Messiah was taken into custody and then executed. Did Yahshua Messiah "fall"? Were the message and methods of Yahshua Messiah proven to be false as a result of what He suffered?

Throughout history there have been many leaders who have been incarcerated as political prisoners by their adversaries. Many of these leaders were later released and led their people from outside of prison.

Some leaders have been put to death while in custody. Does that mean that their cause was wrong? Does that mean their methods and beliefs were wrong? William Wallace,(Braveheart), of Scotland is an example of this. His death inspired Robert the Bruce to carry on the cause with great fervor.

May Yahweh�s will be done in this regard.

As for Leroy Michael, he wrote to someone in a recent letter these words: �It�s not over until the fat lady sings.�

Page: of 5

Topic

Previous Page | Next Page

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY

This page was generated in 0.09 seconds.

Snitz Forums 2000