ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 CITIZENSHIP
 Declaration of Citizenship
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Greg
Advanced Member

uSA
76 Posts

Posted - 23 Dec 2006 :  20:46:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings Brethren,
I have several things I wanted to share and was searching for the right thread to place it under and feel it all will kind of fit here, but of course...administrators please feel free to place it else where if more applicable.

I too have been procrastinating writting to Brother Lewis, thanks for the reminder...I'll finish the letter I started.

Citizenship or citizenship; I was just blessed with a baby boy a couple of days ago. As our relationship was not consumated upon the STATE's permision (i.e. marriage license) but upon a recognition by God, then the same was outside of their purview/jurisdiction. Which resulted in some pretty interesting paper work. I would love to post the same for everyones purview but the scanner isn't currently working.
In short it's the application for a "birth certificate" and is titled " Mother's Worksheet for Child's Birth".
Here is the first paragraph verbatim;
" The information you provide below will be used to create your child's birth certificate as well as other public health purposes. The birth certificate will be used for important purposes including proving your child's age, citizenship and parentage."

Just about any paper work from the hospital can prove the child's age as well as who the Mother is, so it would appear the focuse here would be for becoming a "citizen" and insuring one passes right by the chance to be a Citizen. If I am not mistaken there are still numerous Supreme Court rulings in standing stating that Citizenship (or citizenship) is a political question in nature, and the proper venue for the same is not within the courts purview/jurisdiction. We did some checking and there is no code, statute, regulation, ordinance, or similar here in Ohio that requires the completion of an application for a birth certificate and/or for citizenship as a prerequistite for discharge, hence the same is voluntary. Now the presumption exists that if a child's Mother is a "U.S. citizen" then the child is the same. But how it reads in the USC is actually that the child is entitled to citizenship, not that it is automatically a citizen, and if there are still any who doubt as to rather Social Security is voluntary; Question 26a. Do you want a Social Security Number issued for your child?

Armed with the information the vast majority of the members here have you can clearly see that nothing on this form deals with anything but fictions at law. The first question is "What will be your baby's legal name?" The next one is "What is your current legal name?"
They didn't ask for your name (which would denote your Christian apellation) as with everything legal, they are very specific.
The form is six pages with 28 questions. A full 1/3 of the questions pertain solely to discerning if there is any Spanish/Hispanic/Latina lineage there. I know why, I was just wondering if everyone else knew.

This form isn't for you to get a "birth certificate" for the child, it's to create one. You don't actually get the
"birth certificate" what happens is you would use a different form called "MyCity Health Department Application for Birth Certificate" through which you can obtain a "certified copy of birth certificate" for a nominal $20 fee. Catch that? You get a "copy", STATE holds the original (or whoever they send it to does).

I will close for now with one question on the form which creates the certificate that really really threw me off. I can generally see where their coming from, but for this one I got nothing. Here it is;

18. Were you married at the time you concieved this child, at the time of birth, or within the last 300 days prior to the birth of your child?
1. Yes [Please go to question #19]
2. Yes, but I can provide legal documentation (court order, separation agreement, journal entry, divorce decree) stating my husband is not to be listed as the father of my child.
3. Yes, but I refuse to provide my husbands name as the father of my child* [Please go to Question #25]
*Please not that under state of Ohio law, by refusing to complete your husband's information, your child's birth certificate will not be registered as a legal document and your childs birth information will not be electronically transmitted for a Social Security Number to be issued.

Then #25. Furnishing parent(s) Social Security number(s) is required by Federal Law, 42 USC 405(c)(section 205(c) of the Social Security Act). The number(s) will be made available to the (State Social Services Agency) to assist with child support enforcement activities and to the Internal Revenue Service for the purpose of determining Earned Income Tax Credit compliance. The SSN is also collected as authorized by Ohio law to be use for public health purposes.
25a. What is your Social Security Number? If you do not have a Social Security Number, please mark "None".
25b. What is the Father's Social Security Number? If you are not married AND an Acknowledgement of Paternity has not been completed, please leave this item blank. If the father does not have a Social Security Number, please mark "None".


Gods Love in abundance upon the members of his ecclesia,
Your Brethren, Greg.

Go to Top of Page

berkano
Advanced Member

uSA
129 Posts

Posted - 23 Dec 2006 :  23:01:48  Show Profile  Visit berkano's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Greg



A full 1/3 of the questions pertain solely to discerning if there is any Spanish/Hispanic/Latina lineage there. I know why, I was just wondering if everyone else knew.




Please explain what you know about this in detail. Perhaps it deals with some treaty or private agreement between elitists on how to parcel up the human cattle and land of the U.S.?

Berkano
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 24 Dec 2006 :  08:17:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations, brother Greg:

Congratulations, to you and your woman! When Yahuwah [IEHOVAH] is the third party [God/Ruler] in your union, she becomes your woman, and not your wife.

There is no word for wife in the ancient Ibriy [Hebrew]; ‘ishshah means woman, and not wife at all, unless we apply the number one meaning for the word wife, as found in our Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1916-1960, page 978 (1960) 1. A woman; an adult female, which, of course, is not the legal meaning of the word. Furthermore, the word husband did not mean what it does today.

As a second witness we find this under the etymology of the word husband in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, "It [the word husband] had no relation primiarily with marriage; but among the common people, a woman calls her consort my man ['ish], and the man calls his wife ['ezer/helpmate] , my woman ['ishshah] as in Hebrew [Ibriy]....by some other means[1], husband came to denote the consort of the female head of the family."[Emphasis and bracketed info added]

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman ('ishshah) he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy man ('ish), and he shall rule over thee.

The only other word that was translated "husband" (KJV) is the Ibriy word ba'al[2], which, as a noun, means lord or master.

2Samu'el 11:26 And when the woman ('ishshah) of Uriah heard that Uriah her man ('ish) was dead, she mourned for her lord/master (ba'al).

Anyway, the "Ohio-plot" thickens!


quote:
The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.” - brother Gregory, http://www.hisholychurch.net/study/gods/mvm.html [Emphasis added]

Don't know if all this directly helps you with question #18, but if you read between the lines this may shed some light on the subject.

Endnotes:

[1]
We perceive that when the STATE is the third party [god/ruler] in the "union" of a "man" and "woman", it becomes, in legalese, a "marriage", and they become, legally speaking, "husband" and "wife", and all the legal definitions would then apply.

[2] Whenever Yahuwah [IEHOVAH] is called our "husband" in the Scripture it is the verb ba'al [H1166], which means to "ruler over" and is technically a mistranslation when it is used as, or understood as, the noun "husband". An example of a proper translation using the verb ba'al, if we are correct in our understanding, would be as follows.

Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 54:5 Because the one who made thee shall rule over thee (ba'al); Yahuwah of hosts is his name; and He will redeem the set apart of Yisra'el; the Ruler ('Elohiym) of the whole earth He shall be called.


brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 24 Dec 2006 08:54:30
Go to Top of Page

berkano
Advanced Member

uSA
129 Posts

Posted - 25 Dec 2006 :  00:19:37  Show Profile  Visit berkano's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite


. . . . .
Furthermore, the word husband did not mean what it does today.
. . . . .
The only other word that was translated "husband" (KJV) is the Ibriy word ba'al[2], which, as a noun, means lord or master.
. . . . .



The English word, *husband* is from the ancient Norse, *hus-bondr*, which is "house" + "bonder", a bonder being the master of thralls, usually the father of the house. He held the house together and was *King* therein of the castle. *King* comes from *Cyn-ing*, making and binding of *kin*. They don't teach you this in the schools of a system that wants only secret kings behind the shadows, not real kings in their own houses.

This is exactly what a husband was among the ancient Hebrews, a house-bonder and a kin-maker, as the Vikings and Norsemen descended from the Hebrews and preserved their system of Law, gave it to the Anglos, which is why the united states of America ever came to exist in the first place. The foundation of the legal system is The Family, not a man-made government, not even what is called common law, as common law is a system of usages and customs derived from the association of free families.

It is all so simple as to defy description. It is self-evident, cannont and need not be described or elucidated. It is man's desire to judge good and evil that prevents him from seeing the plain truth programmed into the creation of God. True Government is an outgrowth of God's creation, The Family, not a device of theologians and politicians.

Berkano
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 25 Dec 2006 :  06:18:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations, brother berkano:

Peace be unto the house.

You wrote: True Government is an outgrowth of God's creation, The Family, not a device of theologians and politicians.

We respond: "True" being the qualifying word, we couldn't agree with you more, brother!!

By the way, O.N. husbondi "master of the house" matches up perfectly with the Ibriy [Hebrew] ba'al, which means master.

You wrote: It is self-evident, cannot and need not be described or elucidated.

We respond: Do you honestly believe that this is "self-evident" to the average man or woman who has been programmed by the STATE since his or her nativity?

Yasha'yahu 41:28 For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word.


brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 25 Dec 2006 07:53:58
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 25 Dec 2006 :  07:50:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations, brother berkano:

Peace be unto the house.

You wrote: It is man's desire to judge good and evil that prevents him from seeing the plain truth programmed into the creation of God.

We respond: With all due respect, we do not agree with your judgement.

We were given the Ten Commandments, the eternal moral law, so that we could judge good and evil. How else could we know to refuse the evil, and choose the good? How else could we follow the mandate from Yahuwah to put evil from among us?

Deuteronomy 13:5So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Deuteronomy 17:7So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 19:19so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 21:21so shalt thou put evil away from among you…

Deuteronomy 22:21so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:24so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 24:7and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

Yahu’shua himself said, at Yahu’hanan [John] 7:24, Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

A part of the misunderstanding we all have of judge [krino] not lest ye be judged [krino] is that this Greek word, krino, can also mean "go to law", which means "sue at the law".

Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law [krino], and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

To further exacerbate the problem, in the set apart Scripture "...the governing leaders..." of the Yisra'elites[1]" were called judges. And, to judge (verb) meant, a good many times, "to govern[1]".

Reference:
[1]
Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 731



brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 25 Dec 2006 08:30:53
Go to Top of Page

berkano
Advanced Member

uSA
129 Posts

Posted - 25 Dec 2006 :  17:11:51  Show Profile  Visit berkano's Homepage  Reply with Quote
oneisraelite,

I appreciate your comments.

It seems you may be misinterpreting what I stated, or perhaps I did not state it cogently enough. I was in no way suggesting that we are not to judge, for I myself am appointed as a judge in my house, and some in my family even consider me qualified to render judgement and give advice and counsel. I stated that, "It is man's desire to judge good and evil that prevents him from seeing the plain truth programmed into the creation of God."

The scriptural history clearly supports this: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Man's desire to judge what is good and evil is his downfall, his separation from the Almighty. The Almighty already has determined what is good and what is evil, this is not man's domain. Man's only domain is to apply what God has already made abundantly clear. We do not define good and evil, which is what men purport to do, judging what they desire to be good, and whatever impedes their desires to be evil.

We were *not* given the Ten Commandments so we could judge between good and evil. God gives each man a conscience, moved by his Spirit to already know the difference. If we don't already know that murder, adultery, sabbath-breaking, hating parents, coveting, idolatry, theft, etc. are evil, it's not because we did not read the ten commandments, it is because we do not listen to the Spirit that authored the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were given to a group of stiff-necked idolaters who refused to see what was already written on the face of creation, so they had to see it written in stone. Good is good, evil is evil, and it is not up to man to make this determination. That gives rise to the secular state and "legal" things.

It is intrinsic to the Spirit to follow the mandate of the Almighty to put evil from us because all of us already know the law, and those who seem not to know this have blinded their own conscience through sin. Thus ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have seen and I know that no man sins but through his own agency, his own judgement that what he desires is good, and his desire to adjudicate it as good (legal), and his desire to adjudicate even just opposition as evil (illegal)...(legal vs. illegal).

Perhaps my previous post may have come off as the nilly-willy, penny-annie, sissified sentiment of, "Who are you to judge, judge not man, dude, whatever...." I assure you, I am very judgemental about a great many things, most especially those who would caution me against calling evil, evil. But I am not to judge what is good, or what is evil, as that is not open to my interpretation, or the interpretation of any man. Good and its lack are already set down, as if in stone (pun intended).

-Berkano

quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite

[font=Book Antiqua] . . . . .

You wrote: It is man's desire to judge good and evil that prevents him from seeing the plain truth programmed into the creation of God.

We respond: With all due respect, we do not agree with your judgement.

We were given the Ten Commandments, the eternal moral law, so that we could judge good and evil. How else could we know to refuse the evil, and choose the good? How else could we follow the mandate from Yahuwah to put evil from among us?
. . . . .



Edited by - berkano on 25 Dec 2006 17:17:38
Go to Top of Page

berkano
Advanced Member

uSA
129 Posts

Posted - 25 Dec 2006 :  17:30:31  Show Profile  Visit berkano's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite


We respond: Do you honestly believe that this is "self-evident" to the average man or woman who has been programmed by the STATE since his or her nativity?



Absolutely I believe this. In all my days when I have witnessed men sin, I have witnessed them invent justification for it. Now if they don't already know in their hearts that their acts are wrong why do they seek justification, legitimacy, and means of rationalizing? Example: the homosexualization of America movement is a militant attempt to legitimize and force acceptance of behavior that is immediately repugnant to all. If these homosexual activists believe they are not doing evil, then why do they attempt to use legal force to legitimize their ideology and behavior? Oh, they claim to want rights, but honest examination shows that the really want legitimacy because they are not legitimate in their own consciences. So what is the impetus of that movement?

Because they already know in their hearts the nature of their "preference." They have adjudicated their own practice and desire as good, in a confidence trick against their own consciences.

If we did not know the difference between good and evil from the start, then we would not be guilty of sin, and talking of a redeemer would be wasted breath. Sin is out of willfulness, not incompetence.

-Berkano
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 25 Dec 2006 :  21:13:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations, brother berkano:

Peace be unto the house.

We are feeling confused, dear brother.

This, we believe, was the subject of our discussion

quote:
When Yahuwah [IEHOVAH] is the third party [God/Ruler] in your union, she becomes your woman, and not your wife.

There is no word for wife in the ancient Ibriy [Hebrew]; ‘ishshah means woman, and not wife at all, unless we apply the number one meaning for the word wife, as found in our Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1916-1960, page 978 (1960) 1. A woman; an adult female, which, of course, is not the legal meaning of the word. Furthermore, the word husband did not mean what it does today.

As a second witness we find this under the etymology of the word husband in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, "It [the word husband] had no relation primiarily with marriage; but among the common people, a woman calls her consort my man ['ish], and the man calls his wife ['ezer/helpmate] , my woman ['ishshah] as in Hebrew [Ibriy]....by some other means[1], husband came to denote the consort of the female head of the family."[Emphasis and bracketed info added]

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman ('ishshah) he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy man ('ish), and he shall rule over thee.

The only other word that was translated "husband" (KJV) is the Ibriy word ba'al[2], which, as a noun, means lord or master.

2Samu'el 11:26 And when the woman ('ishshah) of Uriah heard that Uriah her man ('ish) was dead, she mourned for her lord/master (ba'al).

Anyway, the "Ohio-plot" thickens!

quote:
The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.” - brother Gregory, http://www.hisholychurch.net/study/gods/mvm.html [Emphasis added]

Don't know if all this directly helps you with question #18, but if you read between the lines this may shed some light on the subject.

Endnotes:

[1]
We perceive that when the STATE is the third party [god/ruler] in the "union" of a "man" and "woman", it becomes, in legalese, a "marriage", and they become, legally speaking, "husband" and "wife", and all the legal definitions would then apply.

[2] Whenever Yahuwah [IEHOVAH] is called our "husband" in the Scripture it is the verb ba'al [H1166], which means to "ruler over" and is technically a mistranslation when it is used as, or understood as, the noun "husband". An example of a proper translation using the verb ba'al, if we are correct in our understanding, would be as follows.

Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 54:5 Because the one who made thee shall rule over thee (ba'al); Yahuwah of hosts is his name; and He will redeem the set apart of Yisra'el; the Ruler ('Elohiym) of the whole earth He shall be called.


This is what you apparently said pertaining to that which we wrote

quote:
It is all so simple as to defy description. It is self-evident, cannot and need not be described or elucidated.

And that is what prompted this question

quote:
Do you honestly believe that this is "self-evident" to the average man or woman who has been programmed by the STATE since his or her nativity?

We fail to see what the subject of sin has to do with the feigned words, "wife" and "husband" and etc., which we were trying to lend clarity to. And, we do not believe that knowledge of that nature is "self-evident" to the average man or woman who has been programmed by the STATE since his or her nativity.

brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 25 Dec 2006 21:56:32
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 26 Dec 2006 :  08:11:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations, brother berkano:

Peace be unto the house.

quote:
We were *not* given the Ten Commandments so we could judge between good and evil. God gives each man a conscience, moved by his Spirit to already know the difference. If we don't already know that murder, adultery, sabbath-breaking, hating parents, coveting, idolatry, theft, etc. are evil, it's not because we did not read the ten commandments, it is because we do not listen to the Spirit that authored the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were given to a group of stiff-necked idolaters who refused to see what was already written on the face of creation, so they had to see it written in stone. Good is good, evil is evil, and it is not up to man to make this determination. That gives rise to the secular state and "legal" things.

Yirm'yahu [Jeremiah] 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Yisra'el; After those days, saith Yahuwah, I will put my Law [H8451] in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their 'Elohiym [Ruler, Judge[1]], and they shall be my people [nation[2]].

H8451
torah torah
to-raw', to-raw'
From H3384; a precept or statute, especially the Decalogue or Pentateuch: - law.


Was James Strong correct in saying "...especially the Decalogue..."? If we are to believe Yahushua [IESUS], "on these...hang all the Law and the Prophets", we would say that brother James was correct in his assessment.

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Yisra'el after those days, saith Yahuwah; I will put my Law into their mind, and write it in their hearts: and I will be to them an 'Elohiym [Ruler, Judge[1]], and they shall be to me a people [nation[3]] .

And what Laws does Yahuwah's Anointed One reiterate in the New Covenant, the Constitution of our government?

The Ten Commandments of Yahuwah!

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, Yahuwah: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Yahushua said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Those are powerful words, brother, if thou wilt enter into life [the jurisdiction of the living], keep the Commandments!

Then to make it even simpler for us to understand, he condenses them into two...

Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? Yahushua said unto him, Thou shalt love Yahuwah thy 'Elohiym with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (Deu 6:5)
This is the first and great commandment. [the first five]
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [the second five]
On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Then as icing on the cake, they are spoken of again in the book we call Revelations, not just once, but three times!

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the Commandments of Yahuwah, and have the testimony of Yahushua, the Anointed One.

Here is the patience of the set apart ones: here are they that keep the Commandments of Yahuwah, and the fidelity of Yahushua.

Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


We obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but as for me and my house, we would be extremely[4] hesitant, to put it mildly, to say that the Ten Commandments were not for us.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Yahuwah: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Yahuwah.

Endnotes:

[1]
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon

[2] Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon

[3] Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

[4] EXTRE'MELY, adv. In the utmost degree... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language


brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 26 Dec 2006 17:56:03
Go to Top of Page

berkano
Advanced Member

uSA
129 Posts

Posted - 29 Dec 2006 :  02:36:24  Show Profile  Visit berkano's Homepage  Reply with Quote
There are those who keep the Ten Commandments and there are those who enshrine them as a deity in themselves.

There are those who have the law written in their hearts, and there are those who go beyond the rubric to elevate the written word above the spirit that gave it, and subtly attack men who refuse to deify writings or give any power to paper idols.

There never was and never will be a time that the Ten Commandments, so-called, will not be of full force and effect. They existed before they were written on paper, and they will be of full force when every book on earth is dust.

Some of us realize that the truth is in the One who called attention to those Commandments, not the profane languages and symbols they are rendered in. Some people worship a book and what they think it means. Some people worship the Creator and do His Will.

Citizens of Heaven know that truth is of the Spirit and not of men's interpolated and imperfect literary works. Words are merely signs of ideas and words can never carry the full import of the Spirit of God.

Murder, theft, adultery, sabbath-breaking, etc. are evil because they are evil, not because someone decided to express this on paper or parchment. The Ten Commandments are written and resounded in the hearts of men and derive none of their force from leaves of paper or tablets of stone.

As for me and my house we will keep the Law as the Spirit leads for no number of books could contain all the Words or Law of God.

Berkano
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 29 Dec 2006 :  07:15:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We're probably saying the same thing,
just in different words.

And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children,
and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house,
and when thou walkest by the way,
and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand,
and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house,
and on thy gates.

-Yahuwah, 'Elohiym-

...if thou wilt enter into life [the jurisdiction of the living], keep the Commandments!
-Yahushua, the Messiah-

brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 29 Dec 2006 07:22:08
Go to Top of Page

Mary
Regular Member

uSA
48 Posts

Posted - 16 Nov 2007 :  05:58:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good. – Thomas Paine

Edited by - Mary on 16 Nov 2007 06:00:07
Go to Top of Page

stefree
Regular Member

USA
45 Posts

Posted - 17 Nov 2007 :  01:37:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A woman I am acquainted with recently attempted to have her name removed from a mediated settlement which she was tricked into signing. She wrote the petition in her sovereign name as a citizen protected by contitutional law...interestingly her attorney told her the petition was not "worth the paper it was written on"..anyone recall G.W.B. making that very statement about the constitition last summer? The trickle down has now reached the lower courts where the attorneys can now "legally" not represent or preserve the rights of their clients (not that they ever did anyway) and have immunity ((while getting paid) for it...
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 17 Nov 2007 :  13:18:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A well dressed BAR ATTORNER went into a BAR for a martini and found himself beside a scroungy-looking BAR REFEREE who kept mumbling and studying something in his hand. The BAR ATTORNER leaned closer while the drunk BAR REFEREE held the tiny object up to the light, slurring, "Well, it looks like plastic." Then he rolled it between his fingers, adding, "But it feels like rubber." Curious, the BAR ATTORNER asked, "What do you have there BAR REFEREE?" The drunk BAR REFEREE stammered, "Damn if I know, but it looks like plastic and feels like rubber." The BAR ATTORNER said, "Let me take a look." And the drunk BAR REFEREE handed it over. The BAR ATTORNER rolled it between his thumb and fingers, then examined it closely. "Yeah, it does look like plastic and feel like rubber, but I don't know what it is. Where did you get it anyway?" The drunk BAR REFEREE replied, "Outta my nose."
Go to Top of Page

stefree
Regular Member

USA
45 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2007 :  03:05:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
SNOT FUNNY MANUEL
Go to Top of Page

Greg
Advanced Member

uSA
76 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2007 :  10:23:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hahahahahahaha :) Thanks for the laugh!
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 22 Nov 2007 :  15:05:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Writting of "bouncing," have you seen this articulate device which could be used, even on BAR ATORNEY parking en-trances:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJZZzM6MgW4
Go to Top of Page

greatfull
Occasional Poster

USA
11 Posts

Posted - 10 Aug 2013 :  22:17:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote





david hi, if you are out there

have you

had any issues with way you have done these things, fillings etc since then?
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill

Sometimes I am reminded about an approbation I made to the Declaration of Independence and filed public notice with the county clerk.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_approbation1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_approbation2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_approbation3.jpg

Some of you may have noticed my occasional usage of the Great Seal of Authority for the State of Colorado corporation. I have never been challenged on this... well once when I made up a picture ID for myself and sent that to the Department of Revenue I got a letter back saying they were forwarding it to the Attorney General. I wrote a letter back thanking the Department of Revenue. It had not occurred to me to notify the Attorney General too.

Over the years I have probably written pretty much the same thing as your declaration 1234jagal. In much the same way and into non-statutory abatements. The abatements work because they incorporate a proper refusal for cause and default on the uncorrected misnomer.

Do not worry all. I am not going to persist and get into another argument about it. But once the approbation, my signature on the Declaration of Independence came to mind so I went to the county clerk for a fresh copy. They could not find it. So I suggested they call a deputy sheriff and start an investigation. This caused some more mulling about with furled brows. So I went to discharge more time with federal reserve tokens to ward off the ticket witch. When I came back it was on the counter, the approbation. For free. They must have thought I was headed across the street to the Sheriff.

My point is that there must be some kind of territorial or recognizable embassy in such declarations. I suppose there may be merits to the theory you score points with God and therefore He will clear paths for you to live free and own property. Well... I know a lot of people who seem to have good relationships with God and through belief Jesus is the Only Begotten Son and they are in the same boat with the IRS, traffic laws etc. with the rest of you. [Not having a SSN* or DOB keeps me excluded.] Debt action in assumpsit.


Regards,

David Merrill.



* The Social Security Administration explained exactly how to get rid of it. It involved no declarations. Quite the opposite. You get rid of your SSN by not saying it or writing it down. The moment you say it or write it down, you have just revived it.



Edited by - greatfull on 10 Aug 2013 22:20:58
Go to Top of Page

greatfull
Occasional Poster

USA
11 Posts

Posted - 10 Aug 2013 :  22:35:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote



hi george, is he still there do you know? ty
quote:
Originally posted by doer

To All --

If you have not heard, Lewis is back in prison. It is an interesting speculation as how he got there, in light of all his knowledge. But perhaps he forgot, for a fraction of a second, his TRUE IDENTITY, and was tricked into accepting surety for the Vessel. In any case, you can write to him. Here are the details --

Lewis Vincent Hughes 34098-086
FDC Seatac
Federal Detention Center
P.O. BOX 13900,
Seattle, WA 98198
USA

Phone - 206-870-5700

When writing to prisoners, remember:
-Keep it simple... white paper, blue or black ball point ink.
-Include your full name in the return address or your mail will be rejected.
Also write your return address on the letter itself, as prisoners are not given the envelope.
-Do not include blank paper, stamps or envelopes.
The prisoner will not receive them and your letter will be rejected.
It is, however, nice to write a page-and-a-half letter so they can reuse the blank portion of the paper.

Remember!
DO NOT USE NICKNAMES!
DO NOT DISCUSS THEIR CASES!
Keep it safe and smart. Don't send cards with glitter, glue, or any other fancy stuff...keep it simple.

Remember that this is a facility of the UNITED STATES. Therefore, Lewis is considered to be within Federal District Property. So obviously his Sovereignty is not in effect here. Or else he would not be imprisoned. I am not certain how that plays out with his case. Maybe it does not matter at this point. He is obviously PRESUMED to b a “citizen” (read: slave). And until that PRESUMPTION can be effectively rebutted, Then his situation will not change.

Blessings,
George


Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.19 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000