| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Apr 2005 : 10:21:37
|
Mark;
I was substantiating my belief that those who believe Jesus arose from the dead believe so because they in some way equate Jesus with being God. Manuel has been around here long enough to know the nasty spats that arise over that. And to have seen some of the underhanded tactics and word-games applied to win debates.
The equating of the Messiah of God with God Himself. That is the foundation of martyrdom. The idea of conquering death. It is also a matter of opinion about what falling is. Between Bondservant and Charles I have attempted to define some parameters about what I think went wrong when endorsement of a properly named Comptroller Warrant arrived in Ogden without the endorser, me citing the UCC. The other signors, Leroy Michael, Schweitzer and Daniel S, Petersen* were both citing the UCC and both were picked up the next morning.
Though I do not necessarily call the UCC "federal" it has been adopted by 49 States^ to govern commerce. It is the common law of nations. The codified Law Merchant. The Law of Nations applying conveyances (trade) through negotiable instruments and contracts. For the sake of international commerce these instruments, these bills of exchange become sacred.quote:
From Cyclopedic Law Dictionary Third Edition; Callagan and Company, 1940
Fides servanda est; simplicitas juris Gentium praevaleat Good faith is to be preserved; the simpliciy of the law of nations should prevail. Story, Bills, §15
This is the tenet by which the bill of exchange, unless properly contested must prevail in law. There is no citing the UCC on the bill.
So you may have your opinion that the slow martyrdom of Leroy Michael is a good thing. Even John and Paul. In Paul's case I will agree. His imprisonment in Rome was used in a big way because the letters Paul was forced to write under house arrest led to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Word of God being transmitted throughout the world through the Christian missions. But the jailing was also a consequence of Paul ignoring the Holy Spirit of God:quote:
Ac 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
Reading against:quote:
Ac 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem
(I emphasize the upper case "S" for the Holy Spirit.) The Lord consoles Paul about his disobedience:quote:
Ac 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
These verses are from the Masonic encryptions of 1611 - King James Version. And if one has the Key it is read that things would have gone much better, maybe for everyone if Paul would have avoided capture in Jerusalem. If Paul would have listened to God and just stayed out of Jerusalem. So think about that before you start speaking good about being imprisoned and killed by the enemy evil empire - the World System. I for one will likely call you paranoid.
That is really my point. It is the first erroneous premise about the supernatural nature of Jesus Christ that leads to the second erroneous premise that "we" (Christians), the Good are to be in a terrible warring against the World.
[For one instance, I find it impossible to reconcile these two verses without the context of Paul forming Christianity as a weapon against Rome:quote:
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues
andquote:
Ro 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Ro 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Ro 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Ro 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Ro 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.]
That global conflict and financial devastation is a possible outcome and if the Christians get their way (presuming that Endtime scenario is upon us now)~, two-thirds of the Jews will be slaughtered at Armageddon. That is the sort of thing that gets me scared about watching George Walker BUSH stir up a religious war with a sixth of the world's population based on his Christian prayers to God. That is what strikes me so insane that the Jews in the State of Israel would allow a Christian President to frame a Road Map to Peace for them.
My main problem with that Doom-and-Gloom scenario is that I see the original estate being conveyed to the heirs apparent intact. [Through carefully orchestrated release-valve mechanisms alleviating the pressure of the highly compressed information infrastructure in central and fractional reserve banking strategem - www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif - http://www.clubdeparis.org/en Proverbs 11:1.] Why must we rebuild the conveniences of technology? So I am hoping that Christianity can come around to understanding the Book of Revelation is basically Jewish doctrine of the time. Messiah ben Joseph fails to bring Israel out of bondage but is followed by Messiah ben David. Messiah ben David prevails and a kingdom is brought upon the earth for 1000 years. The "failure" of Messiah ben Joseph has been upon the shoulder of martyrs for two-thousand years now. Let the Christians suffer the paradigm shift and take up the yoke of Messiah ben David without all the bloodshed.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I have seen this nomenclature to be a Mormon and Freemasonry (Joseph Smith, founder of Mormon was a Freemason and likely shot by a lynching for deviations in doctrine) convention. I spent time interviewing with a Mormon and fellow student at the motel in Jordan after Dan spoke on the bible doctrines of the Freemen. I have concluded that Dan was brought up Mormon and then embellished his otherwise mainstream Bible interpretation later.
^ Inherent in the Common Law of England. Louisiana however has adopted the Common Law of France.
~ Having read The Last Days are Here Again - A History of the End Times by Richard Kyle it is clear that many throughout history have made this same presumption.
P.S. Vern; I think you missed these photos from my link library.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Plates.jpg
Vern's Car - No "Plates" or "Tags"
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Notice.jpg
Vern's Car - Notice on back window" |
Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Apr 2005 12:22:38 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 05 Apr 2005 : 13:13:53
|
Marty;
I think you are starting to freak Charles out by importing your questions here over there. He has based his General Assembly discussion forum on plagiarizing, largely from here anyway. [*link removed by Moderator] Charles and you are both starting to make it seem I have taken over his website without me even writing a word there myself.
But I think I understand what you are doing - comparing the two forums simultaneously for an inductive analysis of the subject matter. Clever.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Apr 2005 13:21:47 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 05 Apr 2005 : 14:48:39
|
| Tailors fit the garments the suitors wish to be clothed in. As so goes history and their LORDS & BENEFACTORS. Jesus/Yashua wore humble clothing too loose which made the control-freaks up-tight. They basically saw their robes slipping off as Yashua/Jesus brought His Light and pierce through the transparentcies of their fine and elegant robes, which The Messiah clearly re-minded them that those things (outward appearances) where all for show. |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2005 : 10:19:17
|
Charles Bruce has commented on our questions at [*link omitted by Moderator]. Charles has also asked some additional questions that may help to clarify the issue being discussed.
[*since Charles has his own forum, then let his matters be discussed on his own internet site. He was banned from this site for reasons that will not be discussed here publicly. All further cross-posts originating from Charles' site will be deleted - Moderator]
We are interested in reading the comments of David Merrill and others who would be willing to comment, either at the link above or here in this forum topic.
Thank you for giving this your attention.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!
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.
Charles Bruce wrote:
<The cut and paste dialogue copied from another internet site has been deleted by the Administrator (Admin).> |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 07 Apr 2005 10:30:24 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2005 : 11:49:18
|
quote:
David Merrill wrote:
Christians do not understand him [Leroy] because he is incorrect to be importing the UCC into his formation of private "Christian Common Law"…..
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…… 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.
Bondservant wrote:quote:
Bondservant wrote:
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
David Merrill wrote:quote:
David Merrill wrote:
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.
<The cut and paste dialogue copied from another internet site has been deleted by the site Administrator.> |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 07 Apr 2005 10:44:26 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2005 : 12:58:40
|
Charles Bruce has been properly expelled from this forum. I take exception to your trying to carry on a cohesive dialogue between him and I (or us). Here is a perfect example why:
quote:
David Merrill: In the privatized common law
Charles Bruce: You speak wrongly.
There Is “No Such Thing” as “Privatized Common-Law”.
All “Common-Law” Is “Public-Law”.
I am certain I was talking about (his) Christian Common Law. That is what I would have meant by private common law. It is an oxymoron that has been used to make me look like I do not understand that. But what gets me Marty is that Charles is telling me I spoke wrongly when I was not speaking to him at all. You did that, not me. Furthermore:
quote:
David Merrill: Prefixing 'common law' privatizes it.
Charles Bruce: As in “Christian Common-Law”, Yes?
As we argued before: Adding a Prefix to make: “General Common-Law” does Not “Privatize” it. You Admitted that before…….
I said that but also said that "general" like "general delivery" is about the only prefix to "common law" I can think of that does not privatize it. So that is lost in the methodology of this conversation too.
Since Charles and I are prone to arguing anyway, I will not be reading any more Posts like this. I do not admire the plagiarism of Cut-and-Pasting my words over there onto his site where he can manipulate their meaning. So please quit cluttering up these pages here. Just link Readers who want to go over there, okay? There was a similar "spoof" done on-site a while back and Admin deleted the Topic. This is different but it feels the same. If you want to help build his site by Cut-and-Pasting Posts from here to there, that is one thing. But it makes me look like I am jockeying my mouse over there when I am not. I don't like that.
quote:
David Merrill: Christians are inherently at war with the world
Charles Bruce: The Bible says some-where, “The Earth Belongs to Yhvh”; or something substantially similar.
Blackstone says similarly, in his opening chapters on “Natural-Law”.
We are The “Peace-Makers”. We Follow The Biblically-Prophesied “Prince of Peace”.
We Follow the “Laws of Peace”. Our Common-Law Constables & Sheriffs are the Only Constitutionally-Recognizable “Peace-Officers” in these USA.
That certainly makes my point a lot clearer. However Charles seems to contest the proposition when he actually agrees with it. Christians are inherently at war with the world. Charles has tried to blast me for not professing Christianity (on his site). So understand perspective here Marty. The subject matter of privatizing common law is at the crux of why Charles sees the world as he does. Neither he nor Leroy can effectively 'rip me to shreds' because it is a matter of perspective. Source had the same attitude about Christians having a sovereign power in religion. The name of the Topic was altered according to the truth about that*. From inside the perspective of privatized common law well... it's like being inside a big bowl and thinking that the rim around you is the horizon. You would have to get up on the rim to discover the true horizon is beyond the rim.
So in conclusion I will amplify:
quote:
David Merrill: and the UCC is quite worldly.
Charles Bruce: The UCC is “Private Law”.
That is exactly my point. From within the Christian Common Law, it is improper to consider the UCC common law or a subset of common law. It is "private" law from within the scope and perspective of privatized common law (oxymoron). But the UCC is common law to anyone operating (moving) in the common law. That brings to mind a suggestion sheet from a federal magistrate sent this morning from a new suitor:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Plain_English.JPG
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Paraphrasing from memory; "Their Laws do not Apply to Christians" was changed to "Their Laws do not Apply to Non-Government Employees".
P.S. The UCC is the codified Law Merchant. It is international banking and commerce policies. John Snow is not only the Secretary of the Treasury but within the broader scope used to be commonly called US Governor for the IMF. That would mean there are similar loan liaison officers appointed to each debtor nation. This is why we see the Secret Service of the Treasury taking such a keen interest in profit centers and asset/cash cows - the President, the White House and of course Robert Rubin even spoke against the southern church burnings years back as "terrorism". The Treasury was getting worried about that 501(C)(3) cash cow!
So this kind of respect for a Secret Service agent firing his pistol off a Moscow bridge might not be pure Hollywood after all.
[Chose not to broadcast the snippet from the recent Blockbuster Bourne Supremacy.]
P.P.S. I took a look over there long enough to read Charles calling me a weasel. So look, Marty, quit importing my writing here over there. [He seems to think it is me talking, not you.] Come up with your own stuff if you want to get him all upset like that. For one thing Charles has the incorrect notion that I have attacked Leroy Michael somehow. And I just do not feel that way. I have been broadcasting a snippet about Refusal for Cause and Abatements because I agree with Leroy. It is Christian elitism that I have been attacking if anything.
For another thing, I do not like Charles' method of quoting. The style he uses is annoying because I have to reread a lot to figure out who is actually speaking. [A reader might logically assume Charles is calling you a weasel because it is your Post.] And you will have to copy entire Posts and all of them in order for us to get the full context, including all the nasty names and paranoid delusions. So please just link readers there and quit agitating Charles with what I say here.
For yet another thing. This method of crosstalk compounds upon itself. And there is a lot of repitition and redundancy. You say what I said and then repeat what I said with what Charles said and pretty soon we are reading repititious material. So I dedicated a lot of time here explaining why you should stop. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 07 Apr 2005 06:40:59 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2005 : 10:39:15
|
I doubt you will have any luck putting Anthony Wayne or this forum on trial Marty. If you don't like this fine forum and format, like anyone else - change the channel. If I was Anthony Wayne, I would certainly avoid your process.
Either you have failed to read the slur Topics against Bondservant on Charles' site or you do not read that Charles is ranting fighting words against the Admin here. Maybe you should check with Charles because it may have been him removing Posts. Possibly Admin locked him out from doing so because it leaves a Topic choppy and nonsensical for subsequent readers? Otherwise I am sympathetic after being accused of being Satan's spawn that Admin would remove Charles' hostile or at least arrogant ramblings. I checked and there are still some of Charles' Posts on other Topics here.
I do not speak for anyone else Marty. My observation shows the mission of this forum to be a thought-provoking journal. Men of faith such as yourself can examine various views and if possible undergird your faith by integrating what truth you may find. There is a trend I call Christian elitism (I have heard the term "Christian Identity" a couple times but am not sure how coherent that is with what I am describing). Christian elitism seems to take the perspective that this forum must be for the edification of the Christian ecclesia by only allowing Christians to speak the simple charity and edifying lines agreeable with that interpretation of the Holy Bible. These folks become argumentative and amazed when I am allowed to speak about my views, and even defend my views.
I believe that those who have been expelled in this manner persistently argued until they had crossed some clear lines of proper conduct. Mainly in PMs where they ventilated upon Admin. I believe the slur sight conversation over on Charles' site with the conversation between Charles and Bondservant was intended to be private. Charles feeling justified in airing that private conversation is a wonderful example of Christian elitism. Charles feels it is for everyones' benefit enough to override the need to keep private in privacy. Now that Bondservant is on Charles' list of terrible agents of the evil-empire, Bondservant is in Charles' mind fair game for vicious slander. Charles will dig up any dirt and other testimony he can shape into mudslinging.
So I repeat that you will not find many who are willing to answer your questions above. That would be foolish to answer to Charles' agent (you) after he has been himself expelled for obviously good reasons.
I see that the crosstalk has been edited out to some extent by Admin. So like I suggested yesterday Marty, you should link the Readers here over there. We should not be expected to read through such repitition as your crosstalk constructs. You just seem adamant to keep me in a conversation with Charles even though we do not seem to want to talk to one-another. By dragging my quotes over there, he is obviously responding to them like I was saying it to him or his forum audience. One more reason not to do that anymore Marty is that the Readers here did not know Charles called me a weasel (that I recall from your Posts here). I think that an important part of context that was edited out in your rather innovative style of keeping Charles and I in a very convoluted conversation.
I am not Admin. I do not speak for Admin. My opinion that Admin would be foolish to walk into your process and complaint publicly may effect whether or not Admin answers you. Maybe not. The quality of this forum speaks for itself in my opinion.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. About Cornforth's book:
Richard Cornforth states in his book….
quote:
We have a common law court system.
There are two basic forms of law in the world – code law and common law.
Code law means that the law as written is the law.
Unfortunately, code has to be continually expanded by legislative authority.
I would tend to argue with Cornforth using the opening lines in Leroy's video - that the common law is written into the codes, you just have to be smart enough to decrypt the codes in proper context. That is what Leroy was doing in a nutshell. Decrypting the proper infrastructure from the codes but according to Christian elitism (which justified hanging a puppy).
A two-year law student was helpful. We were having a conversation and she said, "All common law is is case law; stare decisis." Quite simply and matter-of-factly like she had just aced an exam with that question on it. She was right. I think it morelike stare decisis (citing decisions from the past to pursuade a jury in your favor) is a fundamental tool for guiding the common law.
But I used to think like the author of that book and now I think it is faulty. I agree with Leroy. The common law can be found within the codes. And where they are too obvious the General Assembly may enact a "deleted by amendment" clause like with the Division of Enforcement, Department of Revenue enactment legislature at 24-1-117 C.R.S. I started citing that to point out the police were just IMFIRS agents. So delegation of authority to police as IMF agents has not been annulled, repealed or cancelled - just removed from the page in recent code books so people cannot read it for themselves. They have to inquire into what "deleted by amendment" means.
[I am inquiring with Universal Studios for consent about using that short snippet from the Bourne Supremacy in this context. That may take some time. At the 1:25 minute mark of the film a Secret Service agent shoots from a Moscow bridge in front of approaching Moscow police. Upon the agent's declarations "I am Secret Service!" and uncovering his ID card proving so, he is released like he is a superior officer in the chain of command.]
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 07 Apr 2005 15:27:07 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2005 : 14:56:54
|
Speaking for both myself, Admin, and the forum Moderator, apparently people think it's fair game to come to our internet site and try different methods to force their version of RELIGION on those who don't conform to their specific thinking. They also feel it's somehow "normal" to berate and attack anyone they perceive to be outside of their narrow-mindedness and questionable motives. When that happens, they've crossed the line... and that's why they become locked out from this site. We pay the bills and we volunteer our time to keep this site freely available for those who wish to learn. If you don't agree with our rule prohibiting personal attacks against the messenger - rather than attacking the message - then go elsewhere.
If anyone else plans on personally attacking us or another member on our forum via public posts, e-mails, or Private Messages, they will also be locked out. If you don't like our demand that personal attacks against others are not allowed here, then find another forum to post your anger and sarcastic "Christianity" on. Such RELIGIOUS based "Christianity" is far from the example set by the Messiah. This is not your kind of forum if you plan on shoving your version of man-made RELIGION down people's throats. The haughty and puffed-up RELIGIOUS "Christians" need not to bother applying for posting membership. |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2005 : 01:45:00
|
Bondservant wrote: "From the above, it is obvious what a "Waiver of Tort" is."
Obvious? To who? Again I asked for an example (an instance) of a Waiver of Tort, not definitions. The words, taken separately, do not fit the definition: "An invasion of the legal rights of another accompanied by damages." (Chesley v. King)
Waiver does not mean invasion, although tort does mean damage. Waiver of Tort appears to mean that you agree to be invaded.
David Merrill wrote:
"But it is becoming clear that readers see she is feigning the ignorance to support that conclusion, even before she inquired for an example."
I gave you an opportunity to prove my conclusion wrong. I asked for an example, you gave a definition. I asked for an example, you gave a definition. I asked for an example, you gave me links. You did not prove me wrong.
David Merrill wrote:
"Especially if she is even contemplating an HJR-192 claim against Arnold Shwartzenegger*.
I never really gave it much thought. A few seconds maybe. You are contemplating more than I ever did. |
Edited by - Livefree on 08 Apr 2005 01:46:54 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2005 : 06:30:16
|
I gave you three examples.
You are right; from your Post http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=398&whichpage=2 on Apr 03 2005 : 5:13:03 PM you admit not knowing how to make your HJR-192 claim. Not that you were seriously contemplating it. I inferred you had been giving it serious research.
One has to understand the mechanics of METRO probably to comprehend the simplicity of this example I gave:
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_novation_ER.jpg
I read The Metrocrats by Jo Hindman recently. That may be an extremely rare find. It was borrowed from a former State senator who apparently read it and has had it for decades.
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Sheriff_METRO.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leadership_Headquarters.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leadership_Center.jpg
http://www.ccl.org/CCLCommerce/capabilities/coloradoSprings/campusDetails.aspx?CatalogID=Capabilities&CategoryID
"Grooming Governors One Actor at a Time." [I made that up for grins.]
Notice the extensive "open space" surrounding this posh United Nations enclave called the Center for Creative Leadership. If you ask around people would think you are crazy to call it a UN enclave. But if you go through the State of Colorado constitution understanding the machinations of METRO then you see at Article VI - Judicial Department that no judicial power can supersede any municipal and police powers established by Article XX - Home rule cities and towns. Then examining the construction of a home rule city or town one should be able to discern the same combinatorial mathematics in United Nations charter law. Positive law jural societies.
This kind of combinatorial behavior demonstrated by UN charter mission has frustrated many investors by designating "Open Spaces". These are huge tracts of land within [the common misperception of] City/METRO limits where the landowners are forbidden to build. Not even secured by emminent domain of purchasing the land. Just basically stealing the land because the landowner still owns the land, but is forbidden to do anything with it. But there sits the Center for Creative Leadership, with its own token falcons nesting somewhere on the property, right smack in the middle of the "Open Spaces" - in the middle of developed land all around.
That is really what got Charles hot with me originally was when we had our phone conversation I pointed out how futile it is to compete with METRO organization. Many people, Readers here have been through failed jural society structures. No matter how hard you try, they fail.
Interesting. The new Sheriff here has been having communications intercepted from an intrepid suitor who just will not be pushed around. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf But recently he just called and got through. The new Sheriff is completely oblivious to the infrastructure and is going to bat for the suitor. Even doing background checks on officers and a neighbor who keeps complaining to the Sheriff.
Up until very recently, it would seem the County attorneys have been able to keep the Sheriff in the dark about METRO by intercepting papers. So the new Sheriff is running around like a lawman with an oath to uphold, he will probably get sat down and spoken to pretty quick.
P.S. I was invited in private to move my explanations of waiver of tort to another forum. Glancing over the changes made by Admin above I think that Admin agrees with me that when Charles got expelled that does not mean he may speak here by agency. Even links I Posted have been removed. Fine with me. I Posted my explanation objecting to the technique over there on the Leroy Michael and David Merrill Topic and have not noticed any response from Charles. But that will be my last writing there.
In answer to the invitation. Leroy Michael may specify a few things about waiver of tort in the video. I have the entire .wmv file so if nobody can find it maybe we will get it linked if someone is willing to donate the 240M or so. But the Comptroller Warrants are obviously executed by waiver of tort. So this Topic, where I have been speaking anyway is the most edifying in my opinion.
Marty, I think your experiment, presuming you were not discussing it with Charles (who wanted to continue Posting here through you) was an interesting one indeed. But it was cluttering things with redundancy. Once I told the mailman to quit giving me the junk. He said he had to - the Postal Service is getting paid to do it. I had a mailbox right out front so I started dropping all the junk mail into the box and in two days would see it again. In about a week the postman caught me lounging out front. He delivered the huge amount of junk with my letters and simply said, "Cut it out." The way he said it though. I cut it out.
Livefree is either using the word "example" incorrectly or like I surmise, already had the conviction I do not know what I am talking about before she began Posting her request for an example here. That sort of nonsense burns a lot of space.
But Marty and anyone. I do not think the editing by Admin is in any way to dissuade any of you from forming questions to clarify. It looks to me like Admin is just quite serious about expelling Charles Bruce and his website and doctrine are in no way welcome here anymore.
P.P.S. Marty wrote what sounded like a goodbye letter and gave me permission to Post it.
quote:
As far as we are aware there have never been any complaints concerning our posts until we began to ask specific questions about what has come to be known as "The Merrill Process."
May Yahweh bless your efforts to the extent that you are participating in His Plan to bring in the full manifestation of His Kingdom.
I think you are overreacting Marty. The Admin objection is clearly to your importing Charles Bruce and his doctrine here. Not your inquiring mind.
Also, I take exception to anything being coined "The David Merrill Process". The law is not mine to sell you. I am not fashioning anything new and to call waiver of tort anything new or attributing to me somehow creating what can be found in law dictionaries already is misleading and will curtail general understanding of the concept.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 08 Apr 2005 15:43:40 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2005 : 11:49:06
|
quote:
But Marty and anyone. I do not think the editing by Admin is in any way to dissuade any of you from forming questions to clarify. It looks to me like Admin is just quite serious about expelling Charles Bruce and his website and doctrine are in no way welcome here anymore.
That correctly sums it up. As soon as Marty agrees to stop his cut & paste "games" taken directly from Charles' forum, he will be allowed to post here again. Until then, Marty will remain locked out simply because he ignored our posted warning earlier in this topic forum. When something gets out of hand, there is one and only one warning given. This is not baseball where you have 3 strikes.
This has nothing to do with the Schweitzer videos or any of the posts here regarding it, which we still encourage all of you to continue legitimately discussing.
If Marty or anyone else wants to have a dialogue with Charles Bruce, then you will need to do so on Charles' forum, not here. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2005 : 08:33:12
|
cut & paste "games"
Plagiarism. The thing is that Justus Township did not misspell that name. They knew how to spell "Justice Township" if that is what they wanted. But they meant Just-us. Who was that? Who were "we" in Just-us Township?
That was why they were very careful to 'indoctrinate' the students and weed out the dissidents who believed in a different Bible interpretation. That was important. Anyone who was there knows that.
The clever twist from Jim Jones and David Karesh was the allure of money. Leroy Michael certainly knew his stuff there. And sometimes I wonder if he only fell in with that religious doctrine because it provided the infrastructure for him to get that truth out there to the other 'people'. That in my opinion was his mistake really. Some say it was to view the UCC as a subset of the (privatized Christian) common law. I agree but much more easily see it as privatizing common law so that the UCC no longer provided foundation.
I see it happening in the flopped revival plans with Charles' website. Most of the members have made themselves non-gratus, unwelcome around here to one extent or another. There is a definite "Just-us" flavor there on that site, so much so that Marty (Cornerstone Foundation) is becoming quite an agitant by emails (at least unlike Charles he asked first before broadcasting), questioning the elitist and isolationist doctrines of Charles and Peter.
Dr. Fill aside, since it never really existed. The author of that fiction, likely in Sioux Falls is not about to endorse its existence, we find Oneisraelite there. Hardly ever is he here anymore although allowed to Post still. Last words I had with him were about misquoting the Holy Bible.
Robert James is there much more than here anymore too. Robert James spouts White Israel supremacist doctrine. That certainly agrees with Dan Petersen and Dale Jacobi of the Montana Freemen.
John DeShiro also sets that stage. He tried a Just-Us campaign on a city council member a few years back, prompting a thought-provoking newspaper article. (I am assuming this is the same John DeShiro.) http://www.bakercityherald.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=1028 [Confirmed - same John DiShiro mentioned in the article.]
For a moment I was alarmed to see Peter waltz onto that stage and announce to everyone he was making himself site Admin and expelling Dr. Fill. But he turns out to be Charles Bruce's stepson. He basically parrots his father's word so I kind of view them as the same person.
Other than that, there is Flamekeeper who is Oneisraelite's wife. She seems exclusively involved in health and it seems she is not politically active except under her husband's coverture.
Any of the other eleven members over at "Just-Them" have not written anything lately enough to get my mouse clicks and I am supposing never came back for a second reading visit as well.
There you have it. Just-Them Website.
Of course the slur campaign Charles has launched against me by Cut-and-Pasting my quotes here into his rediculous discussion slander-mill has me biased. But I am honestly not disturbed by him enough to attack him back; risking expulsion from this forum. I am warning you of some facts so that you need not go over there and increment the "Views" column just to eyeball "Just-Them" as a curiosity, like a zoo exhibit. I am trying to track serious reading and membership there. So if you visit there, please only click onto a discussion if you are really serious about reading it.
Charles Bruce and his son are both convinced that I am an MK-ULTRA agent. Also, simply because as Charles admits, there is "circumstantial evidence" I registered on his site as "Dr. Fill. phd", he remains convinced that was me. Furthermore Charles and Peter are completely convinced that if I am not Admin on this website, Admin is nothing but a puppet of mine. All bias aside, here is the warning - not what I have written above - but about endorsement.
I am fairly convinced I triggered the Freeman Standoff with my Comptroller Warrant because I avoided using the UCC in endorsement. That is mostly because both Leroy and I understood the repurcussions of the parties named. However Leroy at the time of issuing the Warrant did not know (as I did not suspect) that I would be deviating from the standard instructions and following a different endorsement procedure. The reasons I think it was my endorsement that triggered the Standoff were the timing and the effect. I can logically understand the pickle my special endorsement put the international banking cartels in. Without the UCC and its inference to HJR-192, the bankers could not honor my Comptroller Warrant in Federal Reserve Notes. FRNs became non-negotiable instruments and that pretty much dishonored the entire world's fiat monetary systems.
John DeShiro has broadcast some proceedings about a Comptroller Warrant that worked, saying that is the warrant that triggered the Standoff. I say no. There were a lot of warrants that worked and the broadcast warrant is just one of them. There was nothing irregular about those warrants so they were all building pressure toward the Standoff and that is why I say mine triggered the Standoff, not caused it.
This myopia about endorsement is a very insideous problem. Listen carefully and ponder this. Charles and "Just-Them" think they can Cut-and-Paste this Post over onto that site and still claim I am the author of these words. I disagree. Over there in that context I will not in the least endorse these words*. They become empty of authorship. They have no forum for asserting these are my words without the "David Merrill" authorship as a member or guest in the left-hand column like you see here.
That is something you will need to consider carefully to grasp. Hearsay. Charles Bruce can swear up and down before whatever gods he wishes to honor, even the one true God, that he has not changed one word from here and his Cut-and-Paste jobs are nothing more than hearsay. Failing to understand endorsement has cost Leroy Michael dearly. Anyone who will try reviving Montana Freeman doctrine about private banking will encounter this pernicious problem.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* You must wake up to my admonishment that these are only Internet yarn. I am allowed to lie to you by internet. There are absolutely no repurcussions about me just logging on and spouting lies. Your actions on my words are completely your responsibility. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 18 Apr 2005 12:34:53 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2005 : 13:13:01
|
Testimony of vice-chairman Roger Ferguson reminded me about the demonstrations and examples of bills of exchange in use today. And it also brings out an important point about replacing the gold and silver backing of currency with SDRs (Special Drawing Rights).
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050420/default.htm
Remember the checking system behind the bill of exchange is that there is a central bank that is equipped to handle the obligations claimed by either location doing business with each other. This avoids having to carry gold coins back and forth as well as the import/export materials.
Now with this in mind consider vice-chairman Ferguson's definitions of account balance:
quote:
Perhaps most commonly, the current account balance is portrayed as the difference between a nation's exports, broadly defined, and its imports. From this perspective, the determinants of the current account balance are roughly the same as the determinants of the trade balance: exchange rates, prices, and incomes at home and abroad. Accordingly, the widening of the U.S. current account deficit is frequently attributed to the strengthening of the dollar since the mid-1990s, which led U.S. imports to be cheaper measured in dollars and U.S. exports to be more expensive in foreign currency.
According to a second perspective, the current account balance is defined as the difference between a nation's saving and its investment. This definition highlights the decline in the ratio of national saving to GDP over the past ten years, even as investment rates have moved up a bit on balance, as the central cause of the widening of the U.S. current account deficit.
Finally, because any excess of national spending over income must be financed by foreigners, the current account deficit is equivalent to the net inflow of capital from abroad. This approach points to the surge of capital inflows into our economy as the key development underlying the emergence of the large external deficit.
By giving three definitions we get a broader perspective about bills of exchange when used to honor obligations. I direct you to the concept of capital in definition three. And blend it into definition one. So consider the account deficit has been climbing and that actually 'strengthens' the dollar - definition one. The ratio between incoming goods (imports) and outgoing goods (exports) has been climbing quickly lately. Some 6% in 1996 to 25% currently.
This means there are foreign investors. They are holding claim to a bunch of Federal Reserve Notes. In other words the materials they are placing in the USA are not equalling the materials coming out of the USA. So they (foreigners) basically have accounts to be settled, or morelike the USA is running a 'tab' with the rest of the world.
Then why would a doctor in economics suggest this 'strengthens' the dollar. Well maybe for some time between 1996 and now it has been. Meaning if foreigners are willing to invest, that they may collect in the future, that is a vote of confidence in the almighty dollar. Understand? But now the 'tab' has grown, maybe more investor/creditors are a bit more aware that there is nothing backing the FRN but their confidence.
This might be a point that Dr. Ferguson is careful to rephrase in his testimony. There is little chance David Merrill can cause a panic but Dr. Ferguson might do just that if he is not careful about how to phrase his diagnosis of account deficit.
In fact, since I am nobody, I can even relate the border problems to this NAFTA/GATT World Bank scenario. Recently there was an incident where police arrested a Mexican illegal immigrant for trespassing on a street corner - mostly just to see what happens. There is a lot of complaining because federal government really does nothing about illegal immigrants. [I hope this link works better for you. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=10994CF0C76CFE81&p_docnum=3 , I got it from the author of the article. Maybe I need a subscription with NewsBank? Try a cut-and-paste of the article http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-1900.html ] But suppose the reason for such complacency about illegal aliens by the federal government is nothing more than obligations to perform to foreign investors?
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I pointed out illegal Chinese campaign contributions to get Clinton reelected on a radio talk show and within hours the western ports were closed to all Chinese ships. When it all settled over the weekend (calls between Clinton and Chirac) a new stock market was formed and crashed - the Eastern Market. America and France managed the restructure on Monday so they called it Turnaround Tuesday. The Chinese lost the investment. So Clinton managed to secure the Iridium System of contracts to launch the Global satellite system. Prior to that China had nuclear technology but was shaky about deployment - no rocket technology.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Apr 2005 14:17:51 |
|
|
|
Werner Maximilian
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2005 : 14:00:52
|
Gold is and always has been the governor for the engine that is commerce.
Engine speed is restricted to some tolerable limit by the physics of the system in which we exist or else the limit becomes the phyisical strength of the materials that make up the engine.
The governor has been removed. Pressure is building, strengths exceeded.
I wonder what will let loose first? |
|
|
|
RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2005 : 14:37:17
|
Greetings in the name of Our Lord and King Jesus the Christ!
I've studied this forum no less than 2.5 years, gist this userID some time ago, and thought I need to jump into this forum because it is beginning to fester with censors. This House is divided in such short time.
<b>Psalm [127:1-5]</b>;
"[1]Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
[2]It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.
[3]Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
[4]As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
[5]Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.</i>"
Over the course of this division, I was able to study the verry thoughts that caused Our Lord's cattle to jump fence, yet the censoring happening here has now caused all such evidence to be destroyed. I had long ago struck a quick portion in private with Our Brother Robert-James, and now find it unfathomable for their not feeling welcome to post their thoughts. Brother David Merrill, do you need to strike each one for being limited to schollarly biblical pursuits to apply them as today? You are quick to perfect your process, and are verry cunning to divide the meat of the Word; I know a man searching for truth amongst what He thinks is the religious fat surrounding and near disguising the text that needs applied, yet is all that cruft merely what binds the verry law of God to the verry journal of those blessed people that experienced it thousands of years ago? And considering the most constringent of your posts, whereas by my comprehension you criticize Our Thereby Departed as being a "White Supremacist" doctrine, did it not occur to you that admonishment through the Holy Scriptures think the better way to reprove the truth being pilfered from Our master's Light Supremacist doctrine? I've mediated a number of forums, trolling the Holy Sea with a worm on the Christ hook, and am awaiting a Beast to catch hold that it not stamp the little Ones; even those little Ones whose verry existence is but a small thread pulled taught to Our Father and could snap any moment, and could be quick to anger and slow to love.
Building confidence is often built by example; consider the life of one tax collector pulled from an exortion ring in likeness of the "IRS" trademark; did not Our master teach us to raise the dead, breath some life into them, and send them on their way under Our captain? Is this not why Yeshuah brought so much meat and hid it in so much parable; that the children may digest it one peice at a time? As well, I am looking for a diplomat of an mirrored and separated Christ assembly willing to congregate their authority in the mail matter postal routes; that I hope to build confidence as a Denizen of this Westminster general-post, the California Republic to move mail matter for the Christ assembley. Can not a shephard above all His sheep in separate pastures allow a few fence jumpers greet their friendly neighbor in Buena Park, California or elsewhere every now and then? I have no thoughts where to send this request, and so here it sits in one post.
This general post must accept any THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE, including interference that may cause undesired results in the affects and effects of propoganda.
begin THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE...
"I Conditionally Agree to Accept For Face Value Your Offer; but upon Proof of Claim:
/s/ Without Prejudice"
...end THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2005 : 17:09:40
|
Processing...
Looks better for "Psychoanalyzing David Merrill" but one thing for sure, you got me curious. Do we know each other?
Also, I think you import some commercial stipulations that cannot bear any significance in cyberspace.
quote:
I have no thoughts where to send this request, and so here it sits in one post.
So I suggest you cut-and-paste this over onto "Psychoanalyzing David Merrill" since I see not inference to Leroy Michael. Maybe an indirect tie through White Supremacist doctrine.
To that I feel by a little evidence (Charles Bruce broadcast some intended private communications on another site) that there are often quarrels with Admin that really seal an expulsion. The act of expulsion might start with debates and conflicting ideas here. I wrote a fairly factual but emotional plea against the Freeman "Justus" mentality and used that site for a "Just-Them Website" example. And to my relief nobody is registering into that mess. White Supremacy was part of Justus Township's philosophy and I used some comments of one of the registered members there to make my point. Yes, for ammunition to shoot down a docrine that got such a wonderful intellect as Leroy Michael locked in Leavenworth for nearly a decade now. One thing is that since that comment I was quoted and told that I do not know who I am.
So if you would like to pick this up on "Psychoanalyzing David Merrill" please do.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2005 : 17:39:45
|
Greetings brother!
I've no intention to prod your psyche invasively in another forum. Your privacy I respect. I've much a due to the redemption of the Freemen of Montana. Being a slated schollar under a successful UCC Redemptionist and his restraining orders against the County of Orange as well as the State of California, I hold no ammount of misplaced comments as their qualified for removal. Surely, my emphasis stands that no matter the mounting atmosphere for censoring thoughts, they will always be written in time and it is a deception to conceal any such. Is it not an honest record to show all? Are you not also molested by the removal of documents at a clerk and the county record? Surely, you can learn the virtues of freedom by not acting as They. That I cheer you with some wit a Krishnan friend said to me; "If only someone would invent They-Burgers, and we'll have a solution to They that once bothered us as They are now the meat on another table."
My apologies for your projecting that we have a relationship. Perhaps this forum is tugging on all of us, that we see words and associate a image with the brisk sentience common to these parts. We've never met, yet as I began my inductive post to let others know of my entering into a more casual transpondance, let me say that David Merrill is quite the blessing here and in good cheer I hope to bring the same submitted to even your chastisement. I've not any abilities that could compare with your induced flows of knowledge as you grace in every draw of your hand. It's been quite slow in my own ventures, competing with these many militant private notaries. I wanted to merely emphasize a conclusion I've found when I slither behind the "White Supremacist" lines. When did it move from a Light burden to a White burden is where I resolve all these quests.
This general post must accept any THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE, including interference that may cause undesired results in the affects and effects of propoganda.
begin THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE...
"I Conditionally Agree to Accept For Face Value Your Offer; but upon Proof of Claim:
/s/ Without Prejudice"
...end THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2005 : 18:16:13
|
One thing catches my eye...
quote:
Are you not also molested by the removal of documents at a clerk and the county record?
This approbation to the Declaration of Independence came in handy, I forget why. But the clerk was saying they did not have it. I started encouraging a Sheriff investigation and they started milling about like we will look again. After a moment I had to feed the meter and when I came back, there was the document on the counter for free. I think they thought I was going to cross the street to the Sheriff's office. But I sympathize with a lot of what I call "common law phobia" mostly on the west coast. But here in Colorado the clerks take the filing of papers pretty seriously. Some antics with the Denver clerks in the US Courthouse now and again.
quote:
Surely, my emphasis stands that no matter the mounting atmosphere for censoring thoughts, they will always be written in time and it is a deception to conceal any such.
My point was that when somebody gets in a squabble with me, if they do not have control about keeping on subject matter then Admin steps in and reminds them. There is evidence that expulsion come from them getting really nasty with Admin in private. Well one can be smarter than that. I made a comment that I get these people kicked off this site. That was mostly in a spoof of how much I write here. I do not seriously think I am some kind of owner; I just have the most Posts. That is not even an objective. I just talk a lot.
quote:
We've never met, yet as I began my inductive post to let others know of my entering into a more casual transpondance, let me say that David Merrill is...
I find your wording quite charming. I like the mathematical and electronic/harmonic cadence.
quote:
This general post must accept any THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE, including interference that may cause undesired results in the affects and effects of propoganda.
begin THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE...
"I Conditionally Agree to Accept For Face Value Your Offer; but upon Proof of Claim:
/s/ Without Prejudice"
...end THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE.
However this last part seems totally dysfunctional in this forum and context. If it serves a purpose, could you explain? I think only you the registered user and Admin may alter and delete Posts. So maybe I have started speaking into general posts?
quote:
I wanted to merely emphasize a conclusion I've found when I slither behind the "White Supremacist" lines. When did it move from a Light burden to a White burden is where I resolve all these quests.
Again there is something alluring and poetic in the syntax. But the second sentence is faulty. Is it supposed to be a question? I am really a bit shaky on the whole White Israel concept. I have studied history but only from credible authors. None were using the term and I have never compared the doctrine to the history books.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2005 : 20:21:48
|
quote:
This approbation to the Declaration of Independence came in handy, I forget why. But the clerk was saying they did not have it. I started encouraging a Sheriff investigation and they started milling about like we will look again. After a moment I had to feed the meter and when I came back, there was the document on the counter for free. I think they thought I was going to cross the street to the Sheriff's office. But I sympathize with a lot of what I call "common law phobia" mostly on the west coast. But here in Colorado the clerks take the filing of papers pretty seriously. Some antics with the Denver clerks in the US Courthouse now and again.
It's isn't the original. I've seen the original. Colorado is the last territory to have its records purged to a more convenient standard. Consider the fallen stripes under the blue states field of the canton. If any framers had a weakness, it would be to not engrave the "checksums" on their Declaration text into a tidemarker and send it down to the deapest canyon in the ocean to be sealed by the crustaceans that grow thereonto. Are you still counting fallen stars in the sea? Did you not see whether someone realy did replace two eyes with a blindfold, and put it on the top of a pyramid scheme; Remove the blindfold, and the deception will be known that it was Lucifer's eye that was thought to be one of Justice. Did someone say Liberty is dead and depart from the people onto a lonely island, or was it a lie and the false liberty approaches from the sea to guid the people with false light?
quote:
My point was that when somebody gets in a squabble with me, if they do not have control about keeping on subject matter then Admin steps in and reminds them. There is evidence that expulsion come from them getting really nasty with Admin in private. Well one can be smarter than that. I made a comment that I get these people kicked off this site. That was mostly in a spoof of how much I write here. I do not seriously think I am some kind of owner; I just have the most Posts. That is not even an objective. I just talk a lot.
First principle to redemtion is to Agree with your adversary, as exposed by the master; forgiveness is only the appraisal to a greater court; get out of the civil courts, same principle used to skirt "ancient" Rome, as I'm always starting in the dungeon and need forgive everyone for fettering me so far from the original-estate landing party (posterity). Until then, prayers only move the concience of the overlord sitting in the cheap-bench box office seat conducting the many-stringed instruments in the performance. Is "Admin" truly an admin, or merely a personage that attained characteristical preeminance in a equal role no less than any fellow forum entertainer; and the brute git in our carp is whether it has any controlling interests in the post matter. Social engineering at its finest; whence only one man standing on soil said this World will pass away but His Word will never pass away; I believe it the truth that He knowingly mined from people that which can never pass away because it is universal. A true admin may never be registered, and that'll be a trust I could not revoke at the moment because its venue is unknown and unseen when within but by observing the fabric thrown over my eyes.
quote:
This general post must accept any THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE, including interference that may cause undesired results in the affects and effects of propoganda.
However this last part seems totally dysfunctional in this forum and context. If it serves a purpose, could you explain? I think only you the registered user and Admin may alter and delete Posts. So maybe I have started speaking into general posts?
I believe we had abated the matter; forum continuum is unstable until marked "chmod a-w" on a unix substrate or "attrib +r *.*" respectively to this Microsoft-assembled substrate. Didn't Moses try to have an engraver put the law into stone that none can change, yet through time there was only one man that could sum all the law into two commandments that were evermore precise and compliant even to the beginning? Until this forum calcifies, it's as fluid as a mountain of hot asphault in Utah. In general, I believe there is a quantum mechanism that is changing the forum. As I write this, I feel as though I can't perform any redundancy checks because the logic to perform the test can't compare with an original. Where is the original post?
quote:
I wanted to merely emphasize a conclusion I've found when I slither behind the "White Supremacist" lines. When did it move from a Light burden to a White burden is where I resolve all these quests.
Again there is something alluring and poetic in the syntax. But the second sentence is faulty. Is it supposed to be a question? I am really a bit shaky on the whole White Israel concept. I have studied history but only from credible authors. None were using the term and I have never compared the doctrine to the history books.
White Israel is the secret of mana, and it is not the pigment or follicle on ones flesh. I discovered the secret from a Hebrew man I met; verry roady fellow, took from me a stutter with a small food that helps momentarily crucify one's wicked horn long enough to encourage unhindered thoughts in any dedication, wheras I chose spiritual inclinations; to take from man that which is similar to animal behavior, and unhinder the often pressed parts of the brain credited to godly insight. Many people would want the same, verily to think clearly and unhindered; to be blessed that not even a pen could capture the blessing to paper in any effort. Beware of Washington's White Israel, concisting of food-stuffs primarily White flour, White sugar, and White salt; all three ingredients are the nucleus of torturing a man's flesh. The secret of mana is what of your master brought you to tears, and to prolong the moment to seek your penetance in your fast and prayer.
And lesson for Our dearest Brother David Merrill; tie a cowhide string around your promise-finger, with a double knott. Let the ends point to the sky, and standing among the English you have yet to ascertain your standing in your birth-right or no? What quest is it, but the inquisition of the false White that question others' birth rights, when others without the schollarly accord partake in such as though it writ on their Heart and not know the source. It's testament of Alchemy, that anyone holding the birth-right would question to see what animals could memorize the scrolls to the nation that is last recorded to keep it to paper. That's all you proved with the division put between Charles into another pasture. What alchemical symbol did you put on your finger, that you could judge the animals that scratch the trees. Was it not on your Heart, and unraveled with every leaf turned through the book meant to teach you? The master defined "religion", yet who would go so far as presume fatherless; that is the secret to the court dispute with parens patriae that even Charles may not realize. Have I and others not thought each of us brothers and (re)sisters?
As for me, I need conclude this interlude; I am waiting for a receipt from SOCIAL SERVICES that I may affix a value onto; and depose the agent for traficking in the remains of children presumed fatherless.
Peace unto you and it is great to have met you. Perhaps one day, we'll meet to overload any nearby Circuit between us, and rebuild it to the original glory.
Sincerily,
Gregory-Thomas |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2005 : 21:23:20
|
Gregory-Thomas, permit me to intervene on this most serious conversation. But what is it you mean when you write:
"I am waiting for a receipt from SOCIAL SERVICES that I may affix a value onto; and depose the agent for traficking in the remains of children presumed fatherless."
I am,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Schweitzer Video on Common Law
