| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Owenbrittont
Advanced Member
USA
86 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Jun 2004 : 22:56:02
|
Should we as Christians attempt to post an apostille with the State as a declaration of peaceful intent ???
I stumbled into the apostille recently and it's a paper filed with the Secretary of State to declare peaceful intent, non residency etc. to pass or stay peacefully in the State without harrassment. |
|
|
Werner Maximilian
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 13:01:23
|
As we know, there are many venues all calling themselves "law".
We have common law ,equity law, admiralty law and on and on.
Under what law does a State operate? Who controls it? Which laws are you under? Is that the purpose of the Dept. of Re-venue? To help you through your confusion?
I think a great clue as to how men and women are contemplated by the State, (actually other men and women, as the State is just a legal fiction),is the Dept. of Human Resources. Are men and women just a resource? Is our only value set by what can be extracted from us by taxes,permits,licenses,(fishing hunting,driving,business,etc.),
fees of all sorts and form??? Remind me again the meanings of those much maligned words "Freedom", and "Liberty".
I know,I know. "Get out of my country you commie,pinko, you," sez the state. Mere recognition of the problem can get you branded as a trouble maker or even "enemy of the state".
A publication called "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" said it best.
"Every living thing on earth requires energy. The only question is,who will control this energy?
Energy can be condensed as the unit of exchange,or,"money."
The State can't control you directly, so a little promting gets us to sign on as sureity for a quasi-corporation (corporations are creations of the State) in the form of a business name (ALL CAPS) and a T.I.N. (social security #).
As such an energy unit we provide a very nice life for those that would rather use the coersive powers of the State to assure their existence than face the scary day to day uncertainties God dictates for mankind.
Can we uncontract? I'm certain of it!!! Will soft, immoral, undisiplined men,who have grown accustumed to sucking up your God given portion of energy and are even now seeking exponentialy more,going to give it up without crying, screaming, and blaming you for all the troubles about to befall them?
Hardly.
But it will be fun to watch!
|
 |
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 15:01:05
|
quote:
I think a great clue as to how men and women are contemplated by the State (actually other men and women, as the State is just a legal fiction), is the Dept. of Human Resources.
YES! Well said, Werner!
The fictional legal "fed" has become the father of all non-fiction families (if you allow them to by accepting their benefits) and the abuses of their various "Family & Children Services" they fund in each legal fiction STATE is proof.
There's a new internet site called the Family Agency Abuse Watchdog Organization worth looking at. Here's the link:
www.abusewatchdog.org
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 15:38:59
|
Dear Owenbrittont:
I believe that any apostille you file with the Secretary of State will be worthless. On the other hand you can request one from the same office to verify appropriate behavior of a notary. Inquire as to what kinds of apostilles are available from the Secretary of State. But I doubt you will find any verification that you are outside the forum called State.
The best lesson was the man at the Social Security office who told me to just quit saying and writing my SSN and I have "gotten rid" of it. Same with Date of Birth and Last Name. I got into the law dictionary terms on some other thread but you should know your chosen name (first and middle) takes on a whole new animal when followed by your family name. The new animal is "legal name".
I always say that is where you start. With your identity. If you do not give a legal name, last name or DOB to a police officer, watch out. You will spend time in cold concrete boxes. But then you can abate the case for misnomer if you have confidence in your true identity.
I think by testifying by apostille to the Secretary of State, you are tripping yourself up by looking for some kind of external or worldly recognition that you are "peculiar" and sacrosanct. It is self-defeating.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. It behooves one to take my perspective to understand my words. I am not a Christian. I tried for some time but could no reconcile so many things but through supernatural events. Therefore you as Christians need not read any past Romans 13 to understand your (Paul's) obligation to subjugate yourself to the State.
For years I have viewed the profane State like a bowl. A huge shallow bowl but just the same, once inside it, it is easy to pretend the rim is the true horizon. The sovereignty issue is like that. The sovereign is outside the bowl. You go into the bowl and it is difficult to convince the State worshippers that there is a universe beyond what they perceive the horizon. So it would be nonsense to testify to the Secretary of State with an apostille. A court of competent jurisdiction may however secure testimony. So see what kinds of apostilles are available from the Secretary of State and get that testimony on the record (of human history).
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jul 2004 17:55:29 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 19:04:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bondservant
[quote]I think a great clue as to how men and women are contemplated by the State (actually other men and women, as the State is just a legal fiction), is the Dept. of Human Resources.
YES! Well said, Werner!
The fictional legal "fed" has become the father of all non-fiction families (if you allow them to by accepting their benefits) and the abuses of their various "Family & Children Services" they fund in each legal fiction STATE is proof.
There's a new internet site called the Family Agency Abuse Watchdog Organization worth looking at. Here's the link:
www.abusewatchdog.org
I third that notice! It is through the separation of the families, within "different unlawful methods" (Wars, man-made plaques, no-fault UN-couragement etc.), that these FICTIONS have diverted and divided.
The FICTION CLASS RULERS have made a mockery of what The Good Law is to present and turned it to a over-heated and burned bowl of pop-corn.
Please get involved. You will not be disappointed!
www.abusewatchdog.org |
|
|
|
Owenbrittont
Advanced Member
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2004 : 12:28:10
|
| From my understanding... an Apostille can be constructed as a declaration of peace. It is not what the State declares it is what you place in the declaration of Apostille. All the State Secretary does is records it as fact. The paper given has the Styate Secretary seal on it, acknowledge that it has been recorded and the time, date and recording number. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2004 : 08:36:41
|
Dear Owenbrittont;
But the context is matters of corporate state. Look at the entities that go there - corporations. The county clerk is much better forum for matters of men and women. Compare the contexts of marriage licenses etc. Even if these legal names are entering into a three-way with the State; we know there was a man or woman at the counter holding court.
That aside one declares a condition of peace and regenerate state much more clearly through the people around you. Not the corporations. Commerce is war. So find your true name and just file a simple way to express yourself through the county clerk.
Habeas Corpus is suspended in any actual theater of war. Mathematics is succinct but you may get the gist through the substitutions and then also at the beginning and end notice that Zionism itself may be leveraged for habeas corpus.
Admin please quicken links:
RLC theory equations (page 1)
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/page1.jpg
RLC theory equations (page 2)
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/page2.jpg
But the real point is the conveyance, the utility or "railroad" is the county clerk. From the perspective of the man, it is much more interesting (gain and profit) to acquire the testimony of the Secretary of State on the record of human history than to testify through the forum for corporations as though one. So I wanted to use you; go find out what kinds of documents and procedures the Secretary of State will apostille (it is better a verb than noun) and get back to us.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Jul 2004 05:04:26 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 12:31:32
|
Hello Owenbrittont,
If you want a declaration of peace, then why don't you just do one. That is what I have done. Make it an Affidavit and Declaration, be sure your declaration has an enabling clause, and have it witnessed by three believing brothers. Then record a copy of it in your County Recorder's office, and send copies to anyone you think might try to treat you as an enemy of peace.
The only uses I have seen for an apostille are as a certification of a notary to notarize documents, and as a certification of the State's recognition of who you claim to be. I have a friend who created identity papers for himself and his wife. He took them to the Sec. of State's office and had them apostilled. They then used these papers in place of passports to travel to Italy, up thru Europe and back home. No problems doing this.
Just a few thoughts for you to consider,
Lewis
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 22:42:10
|
Dear Lewis;
That's pretty cool. Thinking about it, the passport, aside from identification is only declaring which embassy protection you prefer - before you have even gotten into trouble.
So there are two applications of apostille right there, Owenbrittont. I am suggesting you may find a pamphlet to cover the traditional apostille applications at the counter in the office of your Secretary of State.
So far as a declaration of peace, the true name seems effective to remove a man or woman from the theater of war. To effectively declare yourself removed from the character of "enemy" would seem to be a simpler way of acquiring the same thing. In other words you are only the legal name when you care to utilize the device. Not when others say you are. Me, I have recorded the birth entry from our family Bible at the clerk and recorder. I keep a Certificate of Search from the district court (United States) for "David Merrill" stating no judgments against me by foreign agents or principals for ID to officers; basically they have to declare me lying about my name [Criminal Impersonation] or admit they have no claim. I have been detained for being uncooperative (no DOB) but always released within the 15 minute deadline I impose. Since I told them my name, it is a little difficult to prove me uncooperative. Since I have no DOB, why would fabricating one be cooperating?
David Merrill is not in the field of battle (against the Great Depression/National Debt/New Deal/Social Security/on-and-on).
This graphic may help. It is an abatement for misnomer but I use the Bill of Rights with the de jure 13th Amendment to discourage the District Attorney from pursuing the matter. This recent abatement is wrapped around a successful abatement with the State Bar (a/k/a State of Colorado Supreme Court; Attorney Regulation Counsel) trying to sue me for "unauthorized practice of law" a couple years back. I filed the 13th Amendment and injunction in my evidence repository just prior to having it served on chief justice Mary J. Mullarkey; active attorney #5430, who was hearing the matter for her subdivision (recusal - conflict of interest), the Attorney Regulation Counsel. You can acquire the documents from my clerk at (719) 520-6200 if you like. The default judgment (I will probably pick up the proof of service tomorrow) is Reception #204116554. Enjoy.
Link to "Affidavit of Service" :
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavit2.jpg
There is some more on this at the bottom of the page at
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=376&whichpage=2
Regards,
David Merrill
P.S. My gist is that if you are truly a peaceable character in your nature, instead of declaring it, be it. The counterclaim comes forth in true name:quote:
Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of God and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to God. Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:27.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306&whichpage=3
and one finds a great quote in Jim's memorandum on his Libel of Review:quote:
8. "According to international law it has long been established that, although a person who claims to be the owner of a ship is bound by the character fastened upon her by the flag, under which he has chosen to let her pass, captors are not affected by the flag, but are entitled to go behind it, and to show the true character of the ship by reference to the substantial interest in it, the effective control over it, and the real proprietorship of it." Prize Law During the World War, James Wilford Garner, MacMillian Co., (1927) § 284 pgs. 378, 379, quote of Sir Samuel in the "Kankakee, Hoching and Genesee," British Prize Court 1918. See 2 Benedict [6th Edition] § 400, pgs. 92 & 93. 254 U.S. 671 @ P. 689 Admiralty Rules of Practice - Claim-How Verified-Rule 25.
from http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306&whichpage=9
So I believe your published declarations are meaningless because that would be a declaration you made yesterday or beyond in the past. It is what you are doing and the flag under which you fly at the moment that defines your character. Nobody would hear your declaration of peaceful intent after you are captured in the theater of battle. The very application (motion) for the benefit of discussion would quash the declaration by curing jurisdiction in courts marshal of the United States (municipal and police powers).
So I am saying also that any declaration of peaceable intent should utilize the district courts of the United States for conduit notifying and informing all agents of a foreign principal you may encounter in this nation above the high tide mark. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Jul 2004 09:28:05 |
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 19:43:35
|
Any of you who would like to discuss the possibilities of an officially recognized Ambassador for Israel Republic to "apostille" a document in manner similar to what AGs and secs do, please feel free to PM me or email me at the email addy kingdom at mail vault dot com for more info. Or just discuss it here on the thread. Why seek to have a defacto corporate official attest the existence of your docs when an Israelite Government Official could do it?
-- Berkano |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2004 : 11:12:00
|
Dear Berkano;
I have been looking at the above Reply for a few days thinking you must be talking about forming:quote:
...an officially recognized Ambassador for Israel Republic...
Then it suddenly dawned on me that you might be saying there is such a thing already and Christians or whoever can apply to this "Israeli Republic" for an apostille on maybe, what? A picture ID or Driver License?
The Republic of Texas made an interesting exploration into the same subject matter. I think they had a lot more substance than the Republic of Israel (as opposed to the UN (Palestine Partition - 1947) creation; State of Israel). The letter seems evasive to search engine but I have it from before, on disk. Kuzriel Meir got into some hot water with the Jews for trying to capitalize on the name "Sanhedrin".
www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/62/
Admin please link "letter of acceptance" here
Now I should warn you that I chilled the sale. Twice. The Republic was having some trouble drumming up the $90K filing fee and I sent them a second letter of correction. The hearings never transpired. Kuzriel Meir sent a scalding letter to the "courts" here warning everyone what a troublemaker I am. I included the letter in the Manhattan Judgment the district court clerk in Denver refused to file on September 11, 2001. [At least the judgment was returned, postmarked September 12.]
There are certain qualifications for ambassador. So if the above assumption of embassy is correct, I also presume these people are fabricating their own recognition. The Republic of Israel is not recognized by the United States.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I met Zelig Krymko and listened to him lecture a few years back. Just after the start of Intifada (September 28, 2000) and before September 11. Zelig was capitalizing on the video of the two Israeli policemen, when one was thrown with his throat cut out the second story window, and the Palestinians were mutilating his corpse.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg
RLC theory equations (page 1)
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/page1.jpg
RLC theory equations (page 2)
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/page2.jpg
He promoted that all Christians and other pagan nations were to be under the Seven Noachide laws. But now search engines indicate that Zelig has been "taken off the air" so to speak by other Jews.
www.dailytargum.com/news/2001/09/26/News/
Hillel.Distances.Itself.From.Extreme.Activist-100961.shtml |
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Jul 2004 19:21:40 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2004 : 12:45:45
|
Hello David,
Relative to your comments about vessel and flag, I carry a "manifest" in my vessel when I travel upon the common ways. In it, among other things, is a copy of my recorded Affidavit and Declaration of Citizenship, Dwelling, and Sovereign Status, which also shows the flag I travel under, and a copy of my recorded Declaration and Affidavit of Recision of Driver License, which was acknowledged by the corporate state, and a few other things.
So, if they go behind the flag, then can see who I truly am.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2004 : 13:47:11
|
Dear Lewis;
This goes pretty deep into the metaphysical so take it for what it is worth. However the paper trail is compelled testimony and compelled oath found in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. This was of course adopted in 1933 for Roosevelt's "war" upon the Great Depression and applied to the people at large (U.S. Citizens).
The link is with the term "affiant". Like with your recorded Affidavit. But to see the link we should examine what Yehoshuah H'Natzrith meant in his Sermon on the Mount; Matthew 5:33-5:37 and repeated at Mark 5:12. I believe that Yehoshuah was under the impression the kingdom of heaven on earth was imminent prior to his near death experience* as indicated by his expectation Judas would return to the Last Supper with a sword and execute the Worthless Shepherd prophecy of Zechariah and as Ishmael Aylwin has mentioned the Gospel of Thomas. So he spoke doctrine of the Messianic Age 2000 years early.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg
And that is that men shall no longer swear out oaths but simply speak the truth (in the Messianic Age or TIKKUN [Restoration of Israel]).
Regarding affidavits. I believe this is an appeal for ‘benefit of discussion’ and the “enemy” is all they will find after capture and looking behind the flag. Simply for swearing which meets the appearance requirements according to the Trading with the Enemy Act. I presume the flag you refer to is the Title 4 flag which often carries the misnomer Flag of Peace. [There is no mention of that nomenclature in Title 4 U.S.C.] David Wynn MILLER mostly generated that and he is dyslexic. His “technology” parallels the Hebrew right-to-left principles but other than that holds no substance. For a while he was writing in all upper case letters too. He had a word processor broken that way and the motion or pleading seemed to work so he tried developing a wild theory.
In the alternative to affidavits is acquiring the testimony of the United States or other claimants (the State) upon your property and the roadways. This circumvents you as a property owner and man on the land having to testify at all. Just present a Certificate of Search that no claim has been made in the United States for the (officer) agent of a foreign principal to act. It is an inherent Order to Show Cause.
Thing is that officers see themselves as American as Apple Pie. So the paper of course makes no sense.
Vern's Car - No "Plates" or "Tags"
Vern's Car - Notice on back window"
When Vern got pulled over he was able to protect his identity enough that Refusal for Cause on the papers was effective avoidance. However the manager at the impound lot presumed it a valid forfeiture of the property like he has grown so accustomed to. There is a process within the system for acquiring a property return that is lengthy and almost impossible. I saw a great example on JAG where Commander Chegwidden in full dress is being dressed down by the greasy-coverall impound manager, “You car was taken under forfeiture. Welcome to my court. You better get a good attorney.”
Vern cured remedy with the standard counterclaim wrapped around timely R4C. But he must now make the confrontation in common law that since they are not arresting him for Failure To Appear, they (the District Attorney) admits no crime was committed. Thus follows the presumption of forfeiture is faulty and they should return his car. But that is a risky proposition. There is a chance they will execute the traditional character assassination and now with Vern on a way-cool electric bike and summer upon us here in Colorado, he does not seem motivated to follow my advisement to push the issue.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I believe that carrying a "manifest" on board will further exacerbate the seizure and forfeiture of your enemy (commercial) vessel for being found on navigable waters (rivers of tar).
P.P.S. Lewis; I will easily grant that on any busy day, a police officer will see the papers and wish he had not stopped you. Maybe just leave you alone. But if there is a supervisory call and you get put in the shredder you will likely find "silent judicial notice" being taken of the above points of law and if you are not careful about international law, never see why they were able to "legally" rip your papers in the shredder when they contracted you into a trial and convicted you, selling your car at the next police auction. In other words, jury or not, the attorney-in-the-black-robe will declare your papers inadmissible for evidence and just review whether or not you had the driver license, proof of insurance and registration. The trial court was held nisi pruis on the side of the road.
* As opposed to the Road to Emmaus account. This I believe deviates from two men on the road to Emmaus (seven miles away) who encountered Yehoshuah recovering. Yehoshuah would not have walked seven miles on his injured feet. This theory is supported by the remaining eleven Apostles gathering together. This was certainly in Jerusalem. There is no mention of the Apostles being summoned seven miles and that was quite a walk without purpose, especially for eleven people to get together. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Aug 2004 05:14:26 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2004 : 05:04:42
|
Dear David Merrill,
I believe your right brain has tripped you up here. You've typed 'immanent', which is exactly what I was talking about, and then later in the sentence you act as if it's synomnymous with 'imminent', which it is not. The Gospel of Thomas is definitely referring to the immanence of the Kingdom, (Malkuta,) while you are postulating that Yehoshua believed the coming of Malkuta was 'threateningly close', but had not yet taken place. A simple typo, but a mistake that I thought should be made clear.quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
I believe that Yehoshuah was under the impression the kingdom of heaven on earth was immanent prior to his near death experience ...
Take Care & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2004 : 05:23:04
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
Yes, a typo worth bringing up. Immanent being "present throughout the universe" like Malkut - Kingdom. While "upon us, or dangerously close (in time)" being imminent. So that gives food for thought.
I clicked on the first of the two spellings with my spell checker. Then I wanted to bring them both up again to choose more thoughtfully. But my computer had already corrected it so far as it was concerned. Thanks for bringing it up.quote:
im-mi-nentadj.
imminens, prp. of imminere, to project over, threaten in, on minere, to project: see MENACE likely to happen without delay; impending; threatening: said of danger, evil, misfortune
imminently
adv.
quote:
im-ma-nent
adj.
immanens, prp. of immanere, to remain in or near in, in manere, to remain: see MANOR
1 living, remaining, or operating within; inherent
2 Theol. present throughout the universe: said of God: distinguished from TRANSCENDENT
immanence
n.
or immanency
immanently
adv.
I am pondering the resonant fluctuations caused by changing vowel sounds in Hebrew. ["Mathematics worth pondering"
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=309&whichpage=5
Aleph (aw-laf) v. Eleph, the first letter (eh-lef) and the distinctions.] So your correction is relevent and possibly brings forth some boiling over from the Mother Language into subsequent English. Only a small vowel in the mix and I said something completely different than what I meant. When I get some thoughts together I will probably write into the "advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics" Topic.
Regards,
David Merrill
P.S. The one outstanding notion that keeps brinking;
The differences between "immanent" (omnipresent) and "imminent" (about to become present or prominent) can survive the typographical error, in almost any context but above. When speaking about the perspectives of the Messiah Yehoshuah H'Natzrith on the kingdom of heaven, the distinction becomes critical. I am having a difficult time thinking of many other contexts where it would be important. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Aug 2004 10:12:36 |
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2004 : 21:03:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Dear Berkano;
I have been looking at the above Reply for a few days thinking you must be talking about forming:quote:
...an officially recognized Ambassador for Israel Republic...
Then it suddenly dawned on me that you might be saying there is such a thing already and Christians or whoever can apply to this "Israeli Republic" for an apostille on maybe, what? A picture ID or Driver License?
No, not ever on a picture ID or Driver License. Both are commercial benefits that convert right to privilege and have not place in Israel. I did not suggest such a thing and I rebut the surmise and I want it clear that certifying the existence of something does not imply certifying a permission slip to do something unlawful.
I am not talking about forming anything. Israel Republic has been around for a few thousand years. It existed before that but was re-named to Israel.quote:
The Republic of Texas made an interesting exploration into the same subject matter. I think they had a lot more substance than the Republic of Israel (as opposed to the UN (Palestine Partition - 1947) creation; State of Israel). The letter seems evasive to search engine but I have it from before, on disk. Kuzriel Meir got into some hot water with the Jews for trying to capitalize on the name "Sanhedrin".
Israel Republic is not involved with any of the above named groups or persons. It is a real, ancient republic to which Rome and its child corporations owe a perpetual blood debt. The dead corpse killed our King in violation of Our Law and the dead body's own law. Your reply post takes that which is simple (allegiance, citizenship, jurisdiction) and makes it far more complicated than it really is.quote:
www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/62/
Admin please link "letter of acceptance" here
Now I should warn you that I chilled the sale. Twice. The Republic was having some trouble drumming up the $90K filing fee and I sent them a second letter of correction. The hearings never transpired. Kuzriel Meir sent a scalding letter to the "courts" here warning everyone what a troublemaker I am. I included the letter in the Manhattan Judgment the district court clerk in Denver refused to file on September 11, 2001. [At least the judgment was returned, postmarked September 12.]
There are certain qualifications for ambassador. So if the above assumption of embassy is correct, I also presume these people are fabricating their own recognition. The Republic of Israel is not recognized by the United States.
Or is it possibly, "The United States is not recognized by Israel Republic?"
I did not write, "republic of israel," you did. I wrote Israel Republic.
Whether or not the United States recognizes the Israel Republic is not the issue here. The issue here is to discuss having a representative of the Republic attest the existence of a document. That is what I said and that is what I am discussing despite the tangential assertions.
If the United States does not recognize Israel Republic, why did a U.S. admiralty state court recently send me a letter (notice of ex parte communication) addressed to
Ambassador Berkano
I was not a party to the action but an agent with an interest in the case, for which the court courteously informed me of the communication. The court did not get my Name or mail-matter location from me, yet they found it and sent the letter to *Ambassador* Berkano.
Why would they do that? |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2004 : 15:39:16
|
Dear Ambassador Berkano;
It is delightful to hear from somebody as steeped in the pure theory and lofty ideals as I am. Please forgive me for demanding practicality right off the bat.
See if you can show us the envelope. Point being authentication and publication are the next step toward making embassy practicable.
Now I am presuming your claim is not limited to the Fertile Crescent on the Mediterranean Sea. But you speak of Yehoshuah's claim:quote:
Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
When a suitor receives a letter from the district courts of the United States to the true name I encourage publication too. Usually at the county clerk. This is recognition of the court; true name. I think it is much more efficient than to try walking an attorney through the Holy Bible but like I say, I find confidence in the truth refreshing regardless if the world is busting a stitch over it.
So I hope you will publish and authenticate the context of that envelope. Maybe they thought your first name was Ambassador? Just the same we would love to see it I am sure. Sanitize your embassy address and Admin might help you or ask Manuel how he got that "tortoise, not tortuous" photo on the Mathematics thread.
Competing with that United Nations' State of Isreal currently occupying the Eretz... that sounds a little uphill.quote:
Or is it possibly, "The United States is not recognized by Israel Republic?"
I have a feeling you are the Israel Republic, or the Republic of Israel - the semantics is pretty irrelevant without a tangible territorial claim. But if you do not recognize the United States extant I have a deep respect for that. I do not recognize George Walker BUSH to be President because in this nation, the President is elected not adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. As to the "issue". I think a document's existence attests to itself. File it in a proper court and you can acquire proper certified copies as needed on request. I think this strays from "apostille" as I understand it anyway.
P.P.S. We are looking at the 'saving to suitors' clause on Page 77 in Chapter 20 of the First Judiciary Act. But you may find the bottom footnote as fascinating as I have.
Saving to Suitors clause |
Edited by - David Merrill on 04 Aug 2004 19:58:07 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2004 : 20:25:47
|
The Ambassador "forgot" to quote the rest of the scripture. Guess the next verse would get in the way of the agenda.
Joshua 1:14 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. 15 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2004 : 20:34:44
|
Dear Batkol;
Thank you for the added definition and context; I am not the Ambassador - I am David Merrill. Berkano is the Ambassador. So I am probably making no sense of your Reply, Batkol.
Like I said:quote:
- the semantics is pretty irrelevant without a tangible territorial claim.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Aug 2004 07:48:15 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2004 : 07:43:06
|
David,
That was directed to 'Ambassador' Berkano. In your post to Berkano you quoted the one verse and it comes across as something Berkano wrote. If the Joshua verse was not a quote from Berkano, then I apologise to you both.. I thought both sentences would be fitting in context. I was agreeing with you because I often see this verse quoted with just the one sentence but never both in these situations.
Cheers,
Steve
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
Edited by - BatKol on 05 Aug 2004 07:49:47 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2004 : 07:51:21
|
Dear Steve;
I spoke on the presumption that there are too many of God's people in the world to fit into the territorial claim of Yehoshuah (Joshua). Therefore it is fairly common to accept Joshua as an archtype for Jesus Christ. To accept that the inheritance of the Abrahamic Covenant extends both beyond Jews and beyond the tiny State of Israel.
The same concept, improperly considered out, leads the Jews into a fantasy that in the Messianic Age all the Gentile nations of the world, in pleasing God, will pilgrimmage once or twice a year to visit the Temple. So, in making this fantasy feasible, Messiah ben Joseph (Christian "First Advent") in defeat and death (or near death) will be accompanied by a huge reduction in human population. Ergo the assistance of Christian Road Map(s) in accomplishing the task like incubating Radical Islam in Iraq/Iran. The Christians work from the same Orthodox Judaism only under the impression the Divine Revelation given John; The Book of Revelation was novel. It is simply a version of Orthodox Jewry fashioned around Yehoshuah (Jesus) the Messiah of God.
http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Pre-Messianic_Era.aspquote:
Here again, we are taught that there are two basic ways in which the Messianic Era can commence. If Israel is worthy, it will indeed by accompanied by heavenly miracles. If not, the Messianic Era will arrive through an apparently natural unfolding of historical events. In either case, God Himself will guide the forces of history to eventually bring about the Messianic Era.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. No problem. I thought your inference to "agenda" was a jab directed at me but it seemed you were confusing authors. I get extremely passionate about certain topics [like the Christian "agenda" to have 2/3 of the Jews killed for their interpretation of Revelation as the prerequisite of the Second Advent mentioned above] but the vagueness of your remark kept me from getting upset. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Aug 2004 09:17:27 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Apostille
