| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 08:11:30
|
...accuse him or her of missing the point?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 11 Jul 2005 08:14:55 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 12:16:35
|
Your short response from 1827 Webster's inferred that you assert there are two different distinct jurisdictions. I agree.
The reason you assert it is to establish an ecclesiastical forum in the same ecclesiastical jurisdiction. All the power to you. That forum is already within. Bringing it extant is the kingdom of heaven on earth. |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 14:04:27
|
Greetings David,
Yep, my intent is to create the venue whereby they have to accept that I am a living man answerable only to my Creator and his Laws and that I have no legal relation to the fiction which they created bearing a barbarous name similar to my Ecclesiastical appellation and my family name. It is interesting that I am now getting documents from the court in the name that believe me to be, but which is really their creation, and in my true appellation. I think I am gaining on them.
The problem that most readers have, and I have been there too long as well, is that we don't really know who we are. I finally realized this and now know how to stand on it. If I had known it a year ago, I would not have spent 10 months as a quest of the FDC Seatac. (FDC - Federal Detention Center)
In HIS name,
Lewis |
Edited by - Lewish on 11 Jul 2005 14:06:41 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2005 : 06:55:45
|
Greetings brother Lewis:
Peace be unto the house.
"The problem that most readers have, and I have been there too long as well, is that we don't really know who we are. I finally realized this and now know how to stand on it. If I had known it a year ago, I would not have spent 10 months as a quest [sic] of the FDC Seatac. (FDC - Federal Detention Center)" - Lewis
Amen and amen!! Who we are, and Whose we are, i.e. (that is to say) What Law we are under (Jurisdiction). You said a mouthful, my friend! Some of our ancestors knew...the Laws of Nature and Nature's God...
Law, n. [L. lex; from the root of lay. See lay. A law is that which is laid, set or fixed, like statute, constitution, from L. statuo.]
3. Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
And He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
As an old farmer said to the local police chief here, "He works hard, he's honest and he doesn't cause any trouble...what more do you want from a man?"
And he saith unto him, All these things will my master give him, if he will fall down and worship my master.
Then saith brother Robert: unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahuwâh thy 'Elohiym, and him only shalt thou serve. (paraphrased by me)
Serve, v.t. serv. [L. servio. This verb is supposed to be from the noun servus, a servant or slave, and this from servo, to keep.]
15. In Scripture and theology, to obey and worship; to act in conformity to the law of a superior, and treat him with due reverence.
Fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and truth. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Josh 24. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
And what man [or group of men] is your superior if you are a child of God, i.e. if you are a child of the Supreme Suveran of the Universe?
And from Yahushua, the Messiah, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth [That can be us brothers and sisters!]. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests [See?] unto Yahuwâh, even his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
But, as brother Lewis has just said, we must first know who we are.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Jul 2005 08:41:11 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2005 : 18:11:12
|
Greetings,
My knowing who I am, and acting like that image is part of what kept "them" from locking me back up on Aug. 24. They summoned me to answer for 3 charges of violation of supervised release. When I acted like a sovereign MAN and as a prime creditor to their bankrupt nation, they didn't know how to proceed and issued a continuance until Sept. 14th. In the interim I will further fortify my image and stand tall as a MAN on the land and not as a U.S. citizen and slave.
Regards,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 16 Dec 2005 : 19:14:59
|
[quote]Originally posted by oneisraelite
And what man [or group of men] is your superior if you are a child of God, i.e. if you are a child of the Supreme Suveran of the Universe?
Greetings gang!
Peace be unto this humble little house!
After perusing bros Robert and Lewis comments I offer the following extracts on Sovereignty (Political, Legal and Titular; as well as definition of Nation. The following is from ou(Australian STATE) founding fathers!
Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
Garran, Robert, Sir (1867-1957)
REFERENCES to the QUEEN.—The direct references to the Queen in
the Act and Constitution (elsewhere than in the enacting words) are as
follows:—
Preamble (admission of other possessions of the Queen). Clause 3
(Queen may proclaim Commonwealth, &c.). Clause 5 (Queen's ships of
war). Section 1 (Queen in Federal Parliament). Section 2 (Governor-General appointed by the Queen). Section 34 (subject of the Queen).
Section 44 (Queen's Ministers for Commonwealth or State— officers or
members of Queen's navy or army). Sections 57–60 (Queen's assent to
Bills). Section 61 (Executive power vested in Queen). Section 64 (Queen's
Ministers of State). Section 66 (salaries of Ministers). Sections 73–4
(Appeals to Queen-in-Council). Section 117 (subject of the Queen).
Section 122 (territories). Section 126 (Deputy Governor-General). Section
128 (Queen's assent to constitutional amendments). Schedule (oath of
allegiance). Besides references to “the Queen,” there are references to “the
Crown” (e.g., in the Preamble and sec. 44)—a term which in English law is usually used as an impersonal or abstract description of the occupant of the throne—commonly called the sovereign— whether King or Queen.
Sometimes it is used in a wider and more popular sense as representing the majesty and sovereignty of the nation (see note on “Sovereignty,”
¶ 21).
¶ 21. “Sovereignty of the United Kingdom.”
SOVEREIGNTY.—A clear conception of the meaning of “sovereignty”
is the key to all political science. The relation of the Commonwealth to the
Empire, and the relation of the Federal and State Governments of the
Commonwealth to one another, can hardly be appreciated apart from a
sound study of the principle of sovereignty. The speculations of such
philosophers as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, the learning of Blackstone
and Bentham, the critical analysis of Austin, the historical researches of
Maine, and the labours of such modern writers as Holland, Dicey, Leslie
Stephen, Burgess, and many others, have all contributed, from many sides,
to throw light on the central idea which the word sovereignty represents;
and of recent years the interchange of thought between English and
American writers, and a comparative study of their widely different
institutions, has done much to clear away doubts and difficulties. In this
work only a brief note can be devoted to this vast subject.
Before attempting any definition of sovereignty, it is advisable to call
attention to the necessity of avoiding confusion between three distinct uses
of the word:—(1) Legal sovereignty—as when we speak of the sovereignty
of the British Parliament; (2) political sovereignty—as when we speak of
the sovereignty of the people; (3) titular sovereignty—as when we speak of the sovereignty of the Queen. As the primary meaning of the word is the
legal one, it is best to begin from that standpoint.
(1.) LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY.—Sovereignty, then, is an attribute, and
the most essential attribute, of a State—that is, of an independent political community. It is defined by Burgess (Pol. Science, I. 52) as “original,
absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject and over
all associations of subjects.” The legal sovereign is that person, or
determinate body of persons, which possesses, in a State, a power which in
point of law is absolute and unlimited. Such a body is the British
Parliament; such a body are the electors of the United States organized
under the Constitutional provision for the amendment of the Constitution.
Legally speaking, such a body of persons is the State itself; the State is the
sovereign, and the sovereign is the State.Corresponding to this view of legal sovereignty as power, we may define
political sovereignty as the will which lies behind the power. Political
sovereignty is thus also an attribute of the State; it is the corporate will—or
what Rousseau called the “general will”—of the community. And from this
definition of political sovereignty as the “general will” of the community,
we may in turn deduce legal sovereignty as the legal expression, or
embodiment, or manifestation, of that will.
Sovereignty, therefore, resides in the State, but it is principally
manifested through the Government, its creature. Every competent organ
of government, legislative, judicial, or executive—Parliaments, courts,
constitutional assemblies, electorates in their legislative capacity, Kings,
Presidents, Governors, Executive Councils—are organs through which the
sovereign power is exercised. In one sense the aggregate of these bodies
within a State, as exercising the sum-total of sovereign power, may be
considered as depositaries of sovereignty; but in another and a truer sense
sovereignty is located in the ultimate legislative organ—the supreme
organic unity which in the last resort controls all the others.
Can sovereignty be legally limited? The above definitions negative the
possibility; but they are not universally concurred in. The historical school
point to communities in which no sovereign can be discovered; and Dicey
(Law of the Constitution, p. 135) fails to see why it should be
inconceivable that the framers of a Constitution should have deliberately
omitted to provide means of altering it. Most writers, however, agree that
sovereignty cannot be limited even by a direct prohibition in the
fundamental instrument, but that such a prohibition is inconsistent with the
very conception of a State, and must be disregarded. (See Burgess, Pol.
Science, I. pp. 51-2; W. W. Willoughby, The Nature of the State, p. 214.)
True political science seems to point to the conclusion that sovereignty is incapable of legal limitation, either from without or within. A sovereign
body cannot be legally controlled by another body, for then that which
controls would be sovereign. Nor can it be legally controlled by a
prohibition, express or implied, in a written document; for then the written
document would be sovereign—though it can have neither will nor power.Either the organization which framed the Constitution can be legally
convoked again—in which case it is the sovereign; or it cannot—in which
case its prohibition, directed against the State, is without sanction and
without effect.
As sovereignty is incapable of legal limitation from without, so it is
unable to bind itself. With a sovereign there is no such thing as
“irrevocable laws.” The sovereign power which makes a law can alter or
repeal it. It is true that sometimes a sovereign body may pass a law and
declare it to be so sacred and organic that it shall last for ever, such as the
Act for the union of England and Scotland. Such a declaration of intention
or policy would have great weight with, but could not legally bind,
succeeding Parliaments. As a matter of fact that Act of Union has already
been amended in certain particulars, which were originally declared to be
fundamental and unchangeable conditions of the union. So the Act for the
union of Great Britain and Ireland has been amended by the
disestablishment of the Irish Church.
Influences on Sovereignty.—But although there can be no legal control or
limitation of the sovereign authority, there are many practical and effective
influences at work in every well-ordered society, which prevents the
sovereign power from being exercised with unrestricted, reckless, and
irresponsible omnipotence, and which tend to chasten and temper, if not
curtail, the exercise of supreme authority, whether it be vested in an
absolute monarch, or in a king in parliament, or in a complex body such as
a three-fourth majority of the Legislatures of the United States. Among
those influences some are internal, to be found in the character,
organization, and historical antecedents of the sovereign person or body;
but the most powerful are the external surroundings and circumstances
which guide and direct the mode of calling into action the sovereign will,
such as the right of petition for redress of grievances; the right of public
criticism; the right of the public to combine and remonstrate against
oppression and wrong-doing, and above all the knowledge possessed by
sovereign rulers that if they persist, for any protracted period, in attempting
to govern contrary to reason and justice, and contrary to the wishes,
interests, and instincts of the bulk of their people, they will lose popular
support, encounter popular resistance, and run the risk of rebellion and
revolution; as actually happened in England during the reign of James II.
These moderating forces, proceeding from the environments of a
sovereign, or of a sovereign body, tend no doubt to reduce the dogma of
unrestricted, uncontrolled sovereignty to a legal fiction. Legally the Sultan
of Turkey could abolish Mohammedanism and introduce Christianity into
his dominions, but he would not and dare not do so. Legally the Czar of
Russia could revoke the edict for the emancipation of the serfs, but he
would not and dare not do so. Legally the Queen in the British Parliament
could tax the Colonies, as was done in the reign of George III., but they
would not dream of such a policy, much less attempt it. Similarly, two-thirds
of Congress could propose, and three-fourths of the legislatures of
the States could ratify, a constitutional law re-establishing slavery in
America. But the moral influences to which legal sovereignty is subject,
emanating from considerations of expediency, justice, and humanity,
would frown down and destroy any such proposals.
Formal Restraints.—Important among the internal restraints upon
sovereignty are those which relate to the legal organization and structure of
the sovereign body. Just as the sovereign body may be restrained by its
moral character and environments, so it may be restrained by its legally
determined structure or procedure. Thus there is a formal restraint on the
sovereignty of the British Parliament in the necessity for the concurrence
of Queen, Lords, and Commons. There is a formal, and most effectual,
restraint on the sovereign amending power of the United States in the
requirement of ratification by three-fourths of the States. There is a formal
restraint on the quasi-sovereignty of the Commonwealth in the requirement
of ratification by a majority of the people and also by a majority of the
States—and also, in some cases, by every State affected. These formal
restraints are, strictly speaking, restraints on the mode of exercise of
sovereignty, not on the sovereignty itself. Nevertheless, they may attain
any degree of stringency, from requiring the concurrence of special
majorities, to requiring the complete unanimity of every member of a
complex body. Thus the formal limitation may amount practically to an
almost absolute prohibition of amendment; and the sovereign power may
be, as the American sovereign is, “a despot hard to rouse,” “a monarch
who slumbers and sleeps.” (Dicey, Law of the Constitution, p. 137; and see
Sidgwick, Elements of Politics, Appendix.)
(2.) POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY.—Political sovereignty has been
incidentally defined in our discussion of legal sovereignty. As a legal
conception, a sovereign is one whose commands, whether just or unjust,
wise or unwise, politic or impolitic, the courts will enforce. With political
sovereignty the courts have nothing to do. They cannot recognize the
“general will” of the political sovereign, but only the manifestation of that will as declared by the legal sovereign.
“That body is ‘politically’ sovereign or supreme in a State the will of
which is ultimately obeyed by the citizens of the State. In this sense of the
word the electors of Great Britain may be said to be, together with the
Crown and the Lords, or perhaps, in strict accuracy, independently of the
King and the Peers, the body in which sovereign power is vested. For, as
things now stand, the will of the electorate, and certainly of the electorate
in combination with the Lords and the Crown, is sure ultimately to prevail
on all subjects to be determined by the British Government. The matter
indeed may be carried a little further, and we may assert that the
arrangements of the Constitution are now such as to ensure that the will of
the electors shall by regular and constitutional means always in the end
assert itself as the predominant influence in the country. But this is a
political, not a legal fact. The electors can in the long run always enforce
their will. But the Courts will take no notice of the will of the
electors.” (Dicey's Law of the Constitution, p. 66.)
“Adopting the language of most of the writers who have treated of the
British Constitution, I commonly suppose that the present parliament, or
the parliament for the time being, is possessed of the sovereignty; or I
commonly suppose that the King and the Lords, with the members of the
Commons' house, form a tripartite body which is sovereign or supreme.
But, speaking accurately, the members of the Commons' house are merely
trustees for the body by which they are elected and appointed; and,
consequently, the sovereignty always resides in the King and the Peers,
with the electoral body of the Commons. That a trust is imposed by the
party delegating, and that the party representing engages to discharge the
trust, seems to be imported by the correlative expressions ‘delegation’ and
‘representation.’ It were absurd to suppose that the delegating empowers
the representative party to defeat or abandon any of the purposes for which
the latter is appointed; to suppose, for example, that the Commons
empower their representatives in Parliament to relinquish their share in the
sovereignty to the King and the Lords.” (Austin's Jurisprudence, vol. I., p.
253.)
It is quite true, as Dicey, in another passage, points out, that no English
judge ever conceded, or under the present Constitution could concede, that
Parliament in any legal sense is a trustee for the electors. Equally, as a
matter of law, some jurists have contended that the Queen is the supreme
administrator and supreme legislator, acting by and with the advice of
ministers in matters of administration, and by and with the advice and
consent of Parliament in matters of legislation. That is true in theory and as
a constitutional form. Legal fictions are useful and potent solvents in the transformation of ideas. The legal sovereignty of Parliament is undoubted;
but the sovereignty of Parliament, a principle of transcendent force and
importance which superseded the sovereignty of royalty, is in reality, if not
in name, rapidly tending to become a fiction, like that of regal sovereignty,
which for a time it supplanted; it is gradually giving way before the idea of
the sovereignty of the electoral body, or the sovereignty of the people
represented by the electors. At present the idea of political sovereignty is
prominent. Men commonly speak to-day in the language of politics, rather
than in the language of jurisprudence. And the tendency to confuse legal
and political sovereignty is increased by the fact that in some countries—
for instance, Switzerland, and even the United States—the two are to a
great extent identical. Wherever the ultimate legal sovereign is not a
representative, but a constituent body—wherever the people themselves
enact the supreme law—the political sovereign and the legal sovereign are the same. For good or for evil, the movement in favour of the
Referendum—which finds a place in this Constitution as a means for the
alteration of the organic law—tends in this direction.
(3.) TITULAR SOVEREIGNTY.—“This term is used to designate the
king, or queen, of the United Kingdom; often also in the phrase ‘Our
Sovereign Lord the King,’ or ‘Our Sovereign Lady the Queen,’ in Acts of
Parliament and proclamations. There is implied in it the theory that the
king is the possessor of sovereignty, or the powers of supreme government,
as a monarch, in the strictest sense of jurists and constitutional writers; and
in that sense it has long ceased to be a correct designation. The king is
neither ‘sovereign’ nor ‘monarch,’ but, this notwithstanding, he hardly is
mentioned oftener by his appropriate title of ‘king’ than by those
inappropriate and affected names.” (Austin's Jurisprudence, Campbell's
ed., Note, p. 242.)
DELEGATED SOVEREIGNTY.—In all the constitutional Acts passed
by the British Parliament conferring the right of self-government on British
colonies, it is expressed or implied that the sovereignty is vested in the
Queen. This form of expression is in accordance with traditional theory
and usage, and it has been continued as a matter of courtesy,
notwithstanding the fact that the form is at variance with the reality and the
substance; as elsewhere pointed out (Note, ¶ 11) the Queen shares with the
Houses of the British Parliament in the sovereignty of the British Empire.
The office of legislation, like the judicial and executive functions of
sovereignty, may be delegated by the sovereign principal to subordinate
persons or bodies, such as colonial governors and colonial parliaments.
Within the limits of their constitutional Acts and charters, such governors
and parliaments may exercise all the ordinary authority of a sovereign, in the same way as the Queen in the British Parliament, subject only to the
same moral checks and restraints which have been already enumerated.
(Dicey, Law of the Constitution, p. 95.)
The constitutional Acts of the colonies of Great Britain are illustrations
of this delegation of sovereign power. Most of these colonies possess
Statutory Constitutions, conferring on their respective legislature, together
with the Queen, represented by a governor, authority to legislate for the
peace, order, and welfare of the people within their respective territories.
The Constitution of the Dominion of Canada is a conspicuous example of
this delegation. The Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth is an
even more notable instance of the same process. But colonies, dominions,
or commonwealths, having such a system of government, substantially free
and practically independent, are still subject to the original sovereign body,
the Queen in the British Parliament. That power, though dormant, is not
extinguished or abandoned by the delegation. There is merely an implied
compact not to interfere with those communities as long as they govern
themselves according to the terms of their respective Constitutions.
(Markby's Elements of Law, pp. 3, 4, 20.)
Proclamation of Commonwealth.3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy
Council 22 , to declare by Proclamation 24 that, on and after a day therein
appointed 25 , not being later than one year after the passing of this Act 23 ,
the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland,
and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of
Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be
united 26 in a Federal Commonwealth 27 under the name of the
Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the
Proclamation, appoint a Governor-General 28 for the Commonwealth.
CANADA.—It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her
Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and
after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of
this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and
be one Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three
Provinces shall form and be one Dominion under that name accordingly.—B.N.A.
Act, sec. 3.
HISTORICAL NOTE.—Clause 3 of the Commonwealth Bill of 1891
was as follows:—
“It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's
Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than six months after the
passing of this Act, the colonies of [here name the Colonies which have
adopted the Constitution] . . . shall be united in one Federal
Commonwealth under the Constitution hereby established, and under the
name of the Commonwealth of Australia; and on and after that day the said
colonies shall be united in one Federal Commonwealth under that
name.” (Conv. Deb., Syd. [1891], p. 557.)
At the Adelaide Session, the clause was introduced in the same form,
except that it was provided that the colonies “shall be united in a Federal
Constitution under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia, and on
and after that day the Commonwealth shall be established under that
name.” On the motion of Mr. Isaacs, the clause was amended to read that
“the people of” the colonies should be united. A further amendment by Mr.
Isaacs that they should be united “by”—not “in”—a Federal Constitution,
was negatived. (Conv. Deb., Adel., pp. 620–1.) At the Sydney session, on
Mr. O'Connor's motion, “one year” was substituted for “six
months.” (Conv. Deb., Syd. [1897], pp. 227–8.)
At the Melbourne session, a proposal by Mr. Symon, to omit “the
Commonwealth of,” was negatived by 21 votes to 19 (Conv. Deb., Melb.,
pp. 1746–50); and after the second report the same amendment, again
moved by Mr. Symon, was negatived by 25 votes to 18. Mr. Reid proposed
to add words enabling the Queen, at any time after the proclamation, to
appoint a Governor-General, who might, before the Commonwealth was
established, summon members of the Federal Executive Council and
appoint other necessary officers; but Mr. Barton thought this went too far,
and suggested the words: —“The Queen may, at any time after the making
of the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.”
This was agreed to. (Conv. Deb., Melb., pp. 1920–2.) Drafting
amendments were made after the fourth report.
In the Imperial Parliament, the names of the federating colonies were
filled in, with the provision for including Western Australia in the
Proclamation if the Queen were satisfied that the people of Western
Australia had agreed to the Constitution. (See Historical Introduction, p.
242, supra.)
NATION.—As an abstract definition, a Nation may be described as a
population of ethnic unity inhabiting a territory of geographic unity. By
ethnic unity is meant a population having a common language, a common
literature, common traditions and history, common customs, and a
common consciousness of rights and wrongs. By geographic unity is meant a territory separated from other territory by natural physical boundaries.
The nation, as thus defined, is the nation in perfect and complete existence, and this is hardly as yet anywhere to be found. (Burgess, Political Science, I., p. 2.) Where geographic and ethnic unities coincide, or very nearly coincide, the nation is almost sure to become a State. The nation must pass through many preliminary stages in its development before it reaches the maturity of a political State. (Id. p. 3.)
“Not all nations, however, are endowed with political capacity or great
political impulse. Frequently the national genius expends itself in the
production of language, art, or religion; frequently it shows itself too feeble to bring even these to any degree of perfection. The highest talent for political organization has been exhibited by the Aryan nations and by these unequally. Those of them remaining in the Asiatic home have created no real States; and the European branches manifest great differences of capacity in this respect. The Celt, for instance, has shown almost none; the Greek but little, while the Teuton really dominates the world by his superior political genius. It is therefore not to be assumed that every nation must become a State. The political subjection or attachment of the unpolitical nations to those possessing political endowment appears, if we may judge from history, to be as truly a part of the course of the world's civilization as is the national organization of States. I do not think that Asia and Africa can ever receive political organization in any other way. Of course, in such a state of things, the dominant nation should spare, as far as possible, the language, literature, art, religion and innocent customs of the subject nation; but in law and politics it is referred wholly to its own consciousness of justice and expedience. Lastly, a nation may be divided into two or more States on account of territorial separation — as for example, the English and the North American, the Spanish-Portuguese and the South American — and one of the results of this division will be the development of new and distinct national traits. From these reflections, I trust that it will be manifest to the mind of every reader how very important it is to distinguish clearly the nation, both in word and idea, from the State; preserving to the former its ethnic signification, and using the latter exclusively as a term of law and politics. (Burgess, Political Sc., I., pp. 3–4.)
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 16 Dec 2005 : 19:50:22
|
Hello Rick,
Beautiful posting. It does a very good job of making clear what standing we are trying to achieve. Sovereign in this world and answerable only the the Sovereign over all, our Creator.
By the way, you missed all the fun of watching George W. Bush spend 5 minutes on live television trying to define sovereignty in answer to a press reporters question of what it is, when he happened to mention the word in his speech that night. What a hoot! He just went around in circles and never made any progress. He has no clue what it really means.
Peace to all,
Lewis-Vincent |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 16 Dec 2005 : 20:20:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Hello Rick,
Beautiful posting. It does a very good job of making clear what standing we are trying to achieve. Sovereign in this world and answerable only the the Sovereign over all, our Creator.
By the way, you missed all the fun of watching George W. Bush spend 5 minutes on live television trying to define sovereignty in answer to a press reporters question of what it is, when he happened to mention the word in his speech that night. What a hoot! He just went around in circles and never made any progress. He has no clue what it really means.
Peace to all,
Lewis-Vincent
Greetings Lewis!
Thanks all due to the authors of the book! (Quick and Garran)
As for George W, maybe daddy hasn't explained to him yet what a sovereign is - maybe daddy is still the sovereign? George W inherited supreme command of your system, there is more good him than evil.
Rick
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 16 Dec 2005 : 23:48:38
|
Hello Rick,
Now, I will have to take exception to your thought that there is more good in him than evil. The death of more than 20,000 American troops, the mutilation of the inhabitants of Iraq, etc., etc. all to keep the Dollar from falling thru the floor and to control the oil supply of the world.
Oh, and don't forget, he considers this the last great Christian Crusade to take over the Middle East.
When you look at the reports of his outbursts of profanity, and then see it on the news, you have to wonder what G-d he believes in. It certainly isn't the one whose laws I do my best to follow.
Peace my brother,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 01:02:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Hello Rick,
Now, I will have to take exception to your thought that there is more good in him than evil. .. you have to wonder what G-d he believes in.
Peace my brother,
Lewis
Dear brother Lewis
Rebuke accepted!
Little Ricky is off to sit in the corner! lol
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Jay Scott
Advanced Member
uSA
181 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2006 : 11:34:17
|
Greets, gentle men and Brothers,
With help, I am working on a personal status declaration. At this point, I bring my first draft to you.
Proverbs 15:22
"Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established."
~~~
1. Whereas God created all things (Genesis 1), I am His creation, a living, breathing Man (Genesis 2:7).
2. Whereas God created me in His image (Genesis 1:27), I have freewill, intelligence, and responsibility.
3. Whereas God commands I shall have no other gods before Him (Exodus 20:3-5, Deuteronomy 13:1-5) and Jesus the Christ teaches I cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24) I choose to serve only Him.
4. Whereas God appointed me a steward over His creation (Genesis 1:28), and Jesus the Christ advises me to yield property to its owner (Matthew 22:21) I intend to nuture and protect what He puts in my care, and divorce and divest what is not His creation.
5. Whereas Jesus the Christ sent me into the fields to harvest (John 4:35), and has gone on to prepare a place for me (John 14:2), I am sojourning on the land, awaiting His kingdom.
6. Whereas on January 29, 1861 the people of Kansas formed a sovereign state, a nation in the international community, under the principles of liberty and God-given rights, and
7. Whereas I am housekeeping at <street location>, <community>, <county>, on Kansas a foreign jurisdiction to the United States, I am a Citizen on Kansas and I intend to abide by, uphold, and defend the Godly principles the 1861 Kansas republic stands for.
~~~
Brothers, please advise.
Jay |
|
|
|
RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2006 : 20:46:22
|
Greetings and blessings brother Jay!
I've a question; do You, not you, like transacting business through a Court of Piepowder or Quarter-Session?
quote:
1. Whereas God created all things (Genesis 1), I am His creation, a living, breathing Man (Genesis 2:7).
Wattever can't be proven to be created by God, it is then stipulated to be another/neighboring creation (animal), or can be proven to be a creature of incomplete assemblage to a body as though a part or parcel. I hold Mundt as a monster; in some languages, it means mouth or a pile of dirt; so it is obviously a levitating body-part exercised by a demon (check the text on Jesus removing demons from the caste system, dividing the dispute appropriatly). How would you like the Court transcript to read "JAYSCOTTDOUGHBURGER: God created JAYSCOTTDOUGHBURGER as an image of God" or "JAYSCOTTDOUGHBURGER: This dispute has been settled in a prior forum; we are not amused, and have no interest in this matter"? Wattever contract you enter into, create the True Name as a ward of I Am's court to reserve the creditor before restrictively entering into a foreign court. Be careful none confuse the I:am with that I Am of IAMS dog-food corporation. This includes affidavits to feed their eyes, mixing jurisdictions among commerce, etc. I like Piepowder; it's a non-hillarity fit for a king's stomach.
quote:
2. Whereas God created me in His image (Genesis 1:27), I have freewill, intelligence, and responsibility.
God didn't create "me", he created "man" in his image; either male or female. (notice that only sailors can qualify to be as human, and women can be qualified as male or female for the time a thought can be gestated into fruition.)
quote:
3. Whereas God commands I shall have no other gods before Him (Exodus 20:3-5, Deuteronomy 13:1-5) and Jesus the Christ teaches I cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24) I choose to serve only Him.
alure more of the fish-god, to be captured and hoist onto the deck;
http://www.bible-history.com/past/dagon.html
http://bupc.montana.com/whores/symbols.html
http://www.seedofabraham.net/fish.html
quote:
4. Whereas God appointed me a steward over His creation (Genesis 1:28), and Jesus the Christ advises me to yield property to its owner (Matthew 22:21) I intend to nuture and protect what He puts in my care, and divorce and divest what is not His creation.
"JAYSCOTTDOUGHBURGER: yields to the shareholders."
quote:
5. Whereas Jesus the Christ sent me into the fields to harvest (John 4:35), and has gone on to prepare a place for me (John 14:2), I am sojourning on the land, awaiting His kingdom.
"JAYSCOTTDOUGHBURGER: is burried alive in a filing cabinette, a wicked forest among dead trees, and await for a Holder to put words in my mouth."
quote:
6. Whereas on January 29, 1861 the people of Kansas formed a sovereign state, a nation in the international community, under the principles of liberty and God-given rights, and
Just thinking on the history of Kansas; was Kansas begun as a division by people or was it begin as did Kentucky? Before Kentucky was expanse claimed to "Kentucky Co"
quote:
7. Whereas I am housekeeping at <street location>, <community>, <county>, on Kansas a foreign jurisdiction to the United States, I am a Citizen on Kansas and I intend to abide by, uphold, and defend the Godly principles the 1861 Kansas republic stands for.
Streets are naughtical. "United States" creates commonwealths and communities and claims territory. It is better to just reserve the Court, hold the post for your bench, and visit a foreign post on diplomacy to collect any mis-placed cross-country mail matter that happened to mix. That's quite an honorable postman.
Brother Jay, that looks great on paper. Over here near the corporate WEST JUSTICE CENTER, I stray away from the theatrical overlays concealed by the quiet Glory of Dogan, as though behind the flush of every toilette carrying the deposit on its way to the Federal Reserve System. The amicus curiae is to "Gregory-Thomas", the guilded True Name of ship/SURNAME is to the instrumentality Mundt thence to speak in society on behalf of "Gregory Thomas Mundt." It's verry effective. Not as a scene to rehearse, but prepare your tounge to know why the foreigners have their attorneys to limit liability by vesting the strawman and seeding your ears with their articulate role-playing and batting eyes to their helmsman at arms.
"JAYSCOTTDOUGHBURGER: is rolled-up, set into a tube, and sent to the processing facility through a vaccuum chamber at forty miles per hour. We, the shareholders, are not amused."
Try speaking with the Court transcript in mind, to complete its openning clause in testimony yielded to your direction ":" for quoting copyright commercial speach into the forum as though continuing from an incomplete sentence. "JAYSCOTTDOUGHBURGER: is 1/10 millimetre thicke, not to be confused with Jay Scott or the master surfing upon him."
Check on the etymology for "jail" as somewhere near an enclosed "cavete" or "cavity"; whereas a Word made flesh today it seems that a jail is actually a parcel processing facility for a person or fluently the creature that wouldn't unhand the person; to be filed into a cabinette among similar-standing persons/lumber, and are stored in a cell to forment or mature to some pre-arraingned manner. A cell has historic significance among clergy; for monks where they prey. If you hold onto the strawman too long, a creature/animal/lamb of God gets filed too (as an a.k.a. to displace the d.b.a). I wonder how BANKONE likes its God to be filed; alphabetically or phonetically?
quote:
Brothers, please advise. Jay
"JAYSCOTTDOUGHBURGER: is clenched between a vise resident on his royal work-bench."
The strawman is the necessary mirror to redirect the various images/idolatry of neighboring creatures, intently to overly and often compound law to isolate the pleasure principle from the quest. See "ID", do you have it, and is it their lawful(civil) or good(criminal).
With love,
Gregory-Thomas |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2006 : 16:05:28
|
From Rick's extracts on Sovereignty:
quote:
That a trust is imposed by the party delegating, and that the party representing engages to discharge the trust, seems to be imported by the correlative expressions ‘delegation’ and ‘representation.’
This was describing how we, the "political" sovereigns are represented by the "legal" sovereign. However, it is just as true when a lawyer "re-presents" you in court. Even admitting to re-presenting "yourself" creates a trust relationship which then gives the judge jurisdiction in equity. Equity is a burden upon the common law. It involves two parties whose duties and responsibilities must be balanced in a fair manner by the judge. He has wide lattitude to do so, unlike at common law.
I have had a judge start railroading me from the point where I misunderstood the meaning behind his question, "Are you representing yourself?"
The problem which comes from placing our political sovereignty in trust, and doing so one-by-one when we allow a lawyer to represent us in court, is hinted at a few lines later:
quote:
...the Queen is the supreme administrator and supreme legislator, acting by and with the advice of ministers in matters of administration, ...
So what are the Queen and ministers really up to? Bouvier's tells us:
ADMINISTRATION, trusts. The management of the estate of an intestate, a minor, a lunatic, an habitual drunkard, or other person who is incapable of managing his own affairs, entrusted to an administrator or other trustee by authority of law.
Compare this with the only other definition of the word in Bouvier's:
ADMINISTRATION, government. The management of the affairs of the government; this word is also applied to the persons entrusted with the management of the public affairs.
The first definition is quite lengthy and detailed, with only the first sentence extracted above. The second definition is quoted above in its entirety. Does the second definition mean anything on its own, or are we really dealing with the first when we are brought before "Courts of Administration" for rulings on "Administrative Law"?
So keep in mind that any time you hear anyone use the term "trust", your rights are being limited by someone else's and you are being burdened with responsibilities you were unaware of, all because you have been presumed to be "incapable of managing {your} own affairs".
Stop allowing others to re-present you, and you have taken the first step towards proving your competency to manage your own affairs.
Finally, do a bit of study on Trust Law so that you can recognize trust terminology when it comes up. Many times harmless sounding words are the only clue you will get that you are being burdened by a presumed trust relationship.
Benefit, protector, own, use, equittable, possession and represent are just some of those words which immediately come to mind.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2006 : 16:39:02
|
Brother Caleb,
One of the real sticking point during the trial where they kept pretending that I was the defendant was they kept referring to me as 'pro se' and I kept correcting the record that no one was re-presenting me, that I was perfectly capable of speaking for myself, and would ask a question anytime I didn't understand what they were saying.
They could not allow this, as doing so would break all their presumptions of fiction to fiction.
But, I stuck it in every chance I got.
Lewis |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2006 : 18:40:35
|
Greetings gang
Peace be unto the house!
Question: "What is the test of membership of a political community?"
Answer: "Allegiance and subjection"
Brother Caleb sent me the following in a private email and I don't think he will mind sharing with the group!
Equity is essentially Trust law, where you have the title to property split between the Trustee, who holds legal title, and one or more Beneficiaries who hold equitable title. The beneficiaries get to use the property, but cannot make changes to it without the Trustee's permission. The Trustee holds the property in his name, but does not get the benefit or use of it.
Equity becomes a burden upon the common law, as there is no longer a single undisputed owner recognized at law. Almost all property today is presumed to be equitably owned, with the State as the holder of legal title. This is what happens when you register your car, for example. Thus you get to "use" your land, as in the court case you sent me, until the holder of legal title comes along and says that you may not disturb his trees. Sure you still get to "use" the land, but only in a way that does not disurb the trees in any way, which becomes incredibly restrictive, especially to someone who thought they held full or exclusive title to the property.
Equity arose because the common law recognized only one title. Thus if a "trust" relationship was created, such as a widow being given "use" of the house although the son became the legal owner, the widow had no remedy at common law if the son kicked her out. This was clearly an injustice, so the King was asked for a remedy and "equity" was born. Without a trust relationship, there is no jurisdiction in equity.
Thus, today almost everything is "registered" into a trust relationship giving the State legal title and jurisdiction over the property in equity. This does not ignore the common law, but makes it very hard to access.
Hope this brief run-down helps. I learned this from a NZ law book titled "Equity and Trusts in New Zealand". The introductory chapters were real eye-openers.
Rick
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2006 : 20:23:26
|
quote:
Without a trust relationship, there is no jurisdiction in equity.
When the trust dissolves and/or disappears, then jurisdiction is lost. This is the bottom line on how I broke the court's back in my case. I dissolved the trust, and all legal relations between the Man and the trust.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2006 : 07:23:38
|
Once when dealing with police with handcuffs I constantly went on the record saying, "I do not trust you." I even got the police to admit they are trained to lie.
It worked. |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2006 : 11:58:48
|
quote:
I dissolved the trust, and all legal relations between the Man and the trust.
So then, how did you accomplish dissolving their legalistic "Trust"? Enquiring readers want to know how to do this. |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2006 : 12:56:47
|
Dear Bondservant,
I covered what I did in previous posts, but will repeat it here for clarity.
If you take the time to read "The Law of Trusts" by Austin Wakeman Scott, or the shorter version "Scott's on Trusts", you will find that whenever the beneficiary of a trust and the trustee/fiduciary become one and the same, the trust dissolves and disappears. It is a condition that cannot exist.
When the trust is created, and I am only speaking of the one trust that was created shortly after you were born, and which is evidenced by the all capital letter name on the Birth Certificate, you become the trustee/fiduciary by holding onto the Birth Certificate and using it as if it was documentation of you the living Man. At the age of 18 you have the choice of revoking the contract or continuing as the fiduciary. Everyone continues as the fiduciary because they don't know any other way.
Now the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT is a fiction, as are all other courts whose name is written in all capital letters. I got a magistrate judge to admit on the record that she was conducting business for a corporation, when I was appearing before her. Now, being that the court is a corporation/fiction, it can only deal with other fictions. Therefore, it cannot charge a living Man and hold him. However, it can charge and hold a fiduciary/trustee, whose vessel has run afoul of the maritime laws that it is required to obey. Just as a captain of a ship can be charged and jailed for damages done by a ship under his control. So, the court always brings charges against a vessel, and not a living Man. Witness the all capital letter name in the heading. But, the living Man is seized and held for the damages of the vessel.
Now, people are always challenging the jurisdiction of the court and getting nowhere. On ocsasion the court will dismiss a court based on a jurisdiction challenge, but this is only for the purpose of keeping the smokescreen in place. I know one fellow who challenged jurisdiction 18 separate times during his pre-trial, trial, and post-trial, all on the record, and the court never answered in any way other than "The Court has Jurisdiction in this Matter". Well, how can that be? Simple. Quote: - "In a maritime in rem action, jurisdiction over the person of the "defendant", the vessel, is premised upon the presence of the vessel within the district in which the court sits." And what vessel are we talking about here? Why, the only vessel they have jurisdiction over, namely the trust that is evidenced by the Birth Certificate. Now, the Birth Certificate that you received is only a certificate of title, just like what you got when you bought a car. So, where is the Title to the trust held? In Washington, D.C., of course. And where does the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT sit? (Regardless of where the building is located.) Why, Washington, D.C., of course. So, now you see how they have jurisdiction and can hold you the living Man.
So, what do you do about it? You start by properly declaring your citizenship as a Man on the Land on the State where you are Domiciled. (See discussion of this in other parts of this and other threads). Then you revoke your fiduciary/trustee relationship to the trust. You cannot revoke the fiduciary duties until you have established your proper standing as a Man on the Land, and given proper notice to all the necessary agencies. And how do you revoke your fiduciary liabilities once you are a Man on the Land? Well, there are two things involved here. First, you do it by recording an Affidavit of such in the public record. Second, you take an original copy of your Birth Certificate and put an accepted for value contract on its face. On the back side of the Birth Certificate is a place for corrections. There you Notice the appointment of a new fiduciary for the trust and have that Notice notarized by a Notary Public. You will want to re-appoint the original fiduciary, who is the STATE REGISTRAR who created the Birth Certificate. You put a certified copy of the Affidavit together with the original copy of the Birth Certificate and send them back to the STATE. You send a certified copy of the Affidavit and a copy front and back of the Birth Certificate to all the appropriate federal agencies. If you receive no response to the contrary, after 35 days you record an Affidavit of Non-response and serve it on all the federal agencies. Now you are done!
The above does not include all the details and small inbetween steps that have to be done. That is for the reader to determine and execute.
Peace to you all,
Lewis-Vincent |
Edited by - Lewish on 04 Feb 2006 21:59:25 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2006 : 21:58:36
|
Dear Readers,
The administrator has kindly added a file to the download library for me. The file is a document from the desk of Senator Tom Harkins, and is entitled "IRS Knowledge". It reveals the hidden trusts that "they" use to operate against us.
I strongly recommend you read a couple of times thru, as you will get a little more out of it each time.
More comments later.
Peace,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Declaration of Citizenship
