| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Dec 2004 : 15:08:04
|
Very thoughtful. Thank you for that comment True North.
And maybe there are some more like me who presume critical mass has already happened in the macroeconomic/politico/socio forums of international banking. Which is really the essence of the symbol "Harlot". Revelation 14:8 and 18:2 say "is fallen, is fallen". Figuring the bill of exchange cured on September 11, 2001 is easy for me.
So the celebration is upon us in the ecclesia who have the confidence to behave like courts of competent jurisdiction no matter what is thought of that externally. It is an internal paradigm shift.
It occurred to me a few minutes ago when I read an email. A suitor is sharing the Treasury's reaction to summoned institutions rejecting IRS summonses for financial records. The intelligence is so fresh. So vital and expresses such a critical statement of the times. The suitor broadcast the document images to about sixty other suitors. Any of which can presume the position of nexus like I always do; I will check if any sanitizing is necessary and if ok with the suitor import links to the documents here. But my point is that by helping people cure remedy I have inadvertently developed a network beyond combinatorial mathematics in scope. I think it may be unique except that maybe in that second story gathering of Acts. And that Crosstalks with this site "ecclesia.org". The real supercomputers are sitting on the other side of the I/O; the keyboard's organic side. Right there between two ears - you. Wonderful!
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Dec 2004 17:58:14 |
 |
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2004 : 20:37:49
|
Source;
What are your impressions about such a startling revelation?
Life changing, my helpmeet spent two weeks in near breakdown when just some of the surface implications hit home. Granted that she and I have a peculiar position in this ecclesia in the "ether", (still we should have been prepared for it after 20 years of seeking the implications of Matthew 6:33), the knowledge that government is of HaShem and the word Law and the one source of all energy are synonymous, nearly caused ship wreck.
Another witness to the one source of all energy is in the intro of the professor at Oxford University, John Wycliffe's, translation of the scriptures (mid 1300's) that goes something like "This is a gospel of government by the people for the people". 'They' dug up his bones and burned them after either drawing and quartering or hanging him somewhat earlier, I forget the story but the fact that others have recognized this government by servants is monumental.
How do you see this wonderful revelation as being useful to followers of the one source of all energy?
My own study of Law at first seemed to lead me to help others caught in the polites of Cain but we are not given a measuring stick for the outer court (Revelation 11:2). Further study has led me to a group of people who are coming together (although spread out). We have several projects underway using the fact that Hashem is the Lawgiver and mans' code honors (I would rather say they have to abide by, but the implications of such ... ) this fact. American social security codes and tax codes all agree to the autonomy of His Church and we, as a group, are slowly but effectively returning our ministers back to their original position of 'ministering an entrance into the Kingdom' for His people.
We are following the original tithing men and hundred men set up of the ecclesia that Moses brought out and further fleshed out by The King and the administrators of that Kingdom in the book of Acts. Standing with the notoriety of Luke 22:29 based on the commands in Matthew 22:37-39.
This is useful in securing property to raise food, clothing and shelter for His people as well as provide for the welfare of the infirm and indigent. Future education of the young is a personal want and need that can and will be met as more eyes are opened to the government of The King.
I'm cryptic because you cannot see my face or hear the inflection in my voice nor can I 'read' your reaction to what it is I think you are receiving from my post. It is too easy to be misunderstood here in the 'ether'. Many of us are saying the same things sometimes but as implied on another thread, ego is often involved and just mentioning the fact that if the posting rings true in spirit and I take it seriously, it may mean I am wrong and have to change as Ruach HaKodesh leads.
As noted in previous posts, those interested in researching what a citizen is and its relation to us today ... http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/cvc.htm and http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/romeus.HTM
Yes David, critical mass has been or is being achieved and all dogma aside I appreciate your input.
TN |
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2004 : 22:12:35
|
Thankyou for your reply Brothert North. All credit to Jah!
I was looking for a simple reflection of what you thought when you read those quite revealing words I posted at the beginning of this thread that I had hoped others would realise the potent signification of and talk about rather than ignure.
If you cannot answer I am somewhat confused but accept your offer of silence on such an important issue. I have noted that by far the majority of those I have shown those words too are left speechless and I feel that is so as it shatters what they have been taught an grown to beleive. It dismisses the old "we must bow as God said in Romans 13" type of bent philo.
I am humble in the realisation that we were also told in God's word that many shall be called few shall follow as is God's wonderous design.
As you may percieve I am alone promoting this truth and am looking for more of a serious accord with God to help in spreading the word that has been revealed . As you amy surmise many need to hear and see such credible evidense of the subservience of mans law to God's to permanently dispense with the false belief that we have to obey the governing authorities no matter what.
Again I thank you for you comment and await one who will stand and shout the truth from the hill tops as is so sorely neede to warn the people living in the darkness of sin..
Blessings upon your taking the time to comment.
Jah be upon us in spirit and form that we may choose to move into his heavenly Kingdom en masse. |
Edited by - source on 26 Dec 2004 22:21:07 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 09:15:25
|
Source is there some sort of disconnect between us?
The Mennonites seem to do just fine and have no relationship to the government. Out here is the Northwest, there are even some who cross the border continuously, going freely back and forth between the U.S. and Canada. They have no passports, no Identification Cards, no nothing. Just their faith, beliefs, and refusal to submit to Caesar. Their church property is not taxed. They pay no income tax, no SSI, no driver's licenses, no car license, no nothing. They are sometimes hassled, but only by a newbie cop. By the time a dozen elder's get thru with the poor guy, he wishes he had stayed home for the day. They travel in groups. Strength in numbers.
Romans 13 is talking to community exampled in the Mennonites from your quote above. Romans 13 is not written to just anyone but is written to those who choose no other government but the government of Him. Some of the people Paul is writing to are Gentiles slaves and he does not tell these Gentile slaves to blow off their masters and go to jail for it but instead to be free if possible, if not possible, its no big deal. 1 Corinthians 7:21 ... "Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather" ...
My righteousness must exceed that of the religious. If others want to trust in social security to take care of them in their old age, instead of family and community of the Kingdom, then my only mission is to present those same people with an entrance to the Kingdom. If they will not accept that entrance but rather choose to have men as their god(s), I cannot force it upon them. It is their choice and my duty is to be able to minister that entrance when someone is moved by Ruach HaKodesh to see that entrance. If I cannot give them entrance to that Kingdom I need to learn how and He will be the judge of who will be allowed to feast in His own time. Matthew 22:12 ... "And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?" ...
Maybe you think I am not shouting the government of Hashem because I did not react to the message that Law is from Him. That Law and HaShem are synonyomous is not a new message to me. The application of that message is my interest in this forum. Communities coming together under the perfect Law of liberty. James 1:25 ... "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed" ...
I really do not understand how you read me as silent on the issue. The codes and statutes of men have always been subservient to Law. Him, Hashem, Law or however you want to name that Source that surpasses all understanding/naming. Romans 11:33 ... "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out" ...
The fact that others have obscured and hidden the Kingdom is revealed in the message of Yeshua HaNazarit. The gospel is ... Luke 22:29 ... "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me" ... That Kingdom is available to any and all who choose to 'move' into it under the perfect Law of liberty stated in Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, and Matthew 22:37-40 ... "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
A Kingdom denotes a King, a first-fruit servant King of a Kingdom of priests. Exodus 19:6 ... "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" ... Revelation 5:10 ... "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" ... Revelation 1:6 ... "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" ...
What part of the message do you 'see' me being silent about and not shouting?
TN |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 10:20:33
|
The premise of this “proof” in the title of this Topic is simple misdirection.
For one thing it was presumed we knew the Preamble:
quote:
"Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Albeit that might be lip service, like “IN GOD WE TRUST” on FRNs, I will presume it is part of the Charter’s preamble for now.
Granted,
quote:
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
This is found in the Charter. That is the same with the Constitution. Preambles are not part of the Statute. The Creator of the trust is always sanctified from the terms of the trust. There are some unique features about the federalist and constitutional republican form here but for all intents and purposes “Charter” and “Constitution” are synonymous and both dictate the foundational structure of government; not the subsequent legislature that will eventually effect the people who granted creation of government.
The crux of the misdirection is within the etymology of “notwithstanding”*:
quote:
This section is sometimes referred to as the “notwithstanding clause”.
The true origins of the word notwithstanding mean literally – not to withstand. Simple as that. I once entered this into a memorandum of law on a counterclaim for a suitor. It is at the heart of magistrates currently depriving men and women of being able to execute arrest under Rule (C)(3)(a)(ii)(B). Excerpt from the counterclaim:
quote:
"Form. The form and content of the notice referred to in subsection (a) shall be prescribed by the Secretary. Such notice shall be valid notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding the form or content of a notice of lien." Title 26 U.S.C. §6323(F)(3). emphasis added
Now if the true etymology of the word is used, that means the Secretary’s notices will fall null and void in view of “any other provision of law”. That is of course the intent of the clause. Look in most dictionaries and you will find the word to mean “in spite of” which can be easily read to mean the opposite of notwithstanding. The word ‘notwithstanding’ is a word of art. That means once in the legal forum it can be read either way, whichever suits the current obligations to perform under fiduciary responsibility to the Bank and Fund. A magistrate is by definition a municipal officer administering METRO policy (public policy). So we find the word ‘notwithstanding’ may be used to appoint a magistrate over dispository actions in spite of the explicit refusal of a magistrate to handle the case in any way, shape or form by the petitioner at filing in the counterclaim:
http://www.supremelaw.org/uscode/28/usdc/636.html
quote:
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary -
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine
any pretrial matter pending before the court…
I asked anyone reading the link to develop the notion in the theme^ – that this Charter provision somehow excludes Christians from the laws of man. Nobody spoke up. Sure there is authority among men in relationship with God/law/truth but there is nothing to be derived from the Canadian Charter. The assertions so are solely from Source. I did not see the thesis Source presents because it is not there but since Source seems (with aspersions like “Merrill” and “Mr. Merrill”) to keep referring to me as ignorant I will assure you that it is experience that points out there is no special treatment given in the Canadian legislature to Christians or any other group:
quote:
As mentioned earlier, section 32(2) was necessary in order to give governments a chance to amend their laws to bring them into line with the right to equality.
Quite the contrary. The Section is in alignment with Romans 13 if you want to press Scripture into the matter. And likewise, one will adamantly protect belief sets especially if one finds the justification of narcotic addictions there.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Read the link twice. Once with one definition and then substitute the other. The word notwithstanding is quite magical.
^ Notice and grace. If nobody comes forth with convincing argument that the charter link [http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm ] is proof the law does not apply to Christians then I will be convinced otherwise. Judgment by default.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Dec 2004 11:10:42 |
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 12:19:11
|
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
It is clear in the minds of those who can read what the above says and speaks to the minidset of
Mr. Merril.
The not withstanding applies to section 33 that has nothing to do with the above.
The treasury Board of Canada agreed with me when I put this to them so you can all see either the error or motive of Mr. Merril in this thread is clear.
Ther oofer of God's law is in the preamble the rest is mans offer which will you choose. Are you government? |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 12:26:47
|
See?
Source continues casting the aspersions of misnomer.
quote:
It is clear in the minds of those who can read what the above says and speaks to the minidset of Mr. Merril.
The not withstanding applies to section 33 that has nothing to do with the above.
The treasury Board of Canada agreed with me when I put this to them so you can all see either the error or motive of Mr. Merril in this thread is clear.
Have you been victimized by misnomer lately? Have you been falsely branded? Watch out for this guy!
I will state my motive with transparency. I was attracted to the title because Source offered proof. So if you see his treatise and link as proof of anything, please explain. Not you Source. I am tired of you testifying for others.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. We again see Source telling you readers what you understand instead of you readers explaining support for Source's "proof". http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm Read for yourself. The word is one word "notwithstanding" regardless of what section you find it in.
There were a few rather paranoid folks on the Solari page who played around with misnomer tactics (one or more even Posted messages in my name). I think I may have attracted Source here from there. But that aside, there is the other side of paranoia - delusions of grandeur rather than belief in complex persecution and conspiracy theory. Vacillating back and forth is Manic-Depressive. Albeit a mild occurance; that is all I am saying. Source sees proof of something in the verbiage that is not there. Proof that the Parliament and Treasury are giving special sanctions to Christians, even allowing marijuana usage as a sacramental ritual, and that it is written in the Charter they must.
It seems somebody at the Canadian Treasury confirmed his delusion over the phone.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Dec 2004 14:20:44 |
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 15:01:41
|
The purpose of this section(32)is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations. ( those are the words of Heritage Canada as approved by their legal department in Canada Justice)
It is clear in the minds of those who can read what the above says, and that speaks to the mindset and intent of David Merril in attempting to dissuade you from beleiveing what you can read for yourself in plain easy to grasp English.
The not withstanding clause that David digresses with applies to section 33 and again government that has nothing to do with the above. Once you read the preamble which tells us God is supreme with his rule of law, being the subject matter of the Charter as a preamble is to provide as the main thrust, and then read section 32, it is evident the rest of mans law does not apply to those who are not government! The Bible is in all of mans commonwealth European and North American courts as the primary offer.
The treasury Board of Canada agreed with God as supreme and whose rule of law is supreme when I put this to them.
So you can all see either the error or motive of David Merril in this thread is clear. It is to muddle or mislead you as to the duty bound intent of parliament in drafting this legislation. If he is to repent and offer his awarenes of his error and blasphemy then forgiveness is due.
The Queen in oath bound duty could not allow them to rule over men but rather offered the Bible first as the rule of law so we all could choose!
Consent is always an essential and crucial aspect in the courts of man. If you show up you consent and it is assumed you are a part of government in bondage of debt to the world bank.
If you are asked if you understand, the offer actually is "Will you submit to the jurisdiction of this court?" You do not have to say you under stand. It is am offer you can decline, as if you say you do understand you are saying yes I submit to the laws of men and that you are saying you the man are government and the court is therfore allowed to assume you are in submission to it and consent freely to reject God's offer..
This is very basic law of contract that unfortunately most do not grasp as being the basis of power that the false governments of men utilise to gain authority over the men and women.
I have brought this particular position before many great and repected lawyers amd law professors here in Canada and they were speechless and amazed. Many reluctantly agreed after reading it a few more times and I brought the first offer of God''s law contained in the preamble to their attention and not one said I was wrong but stayed silent on the issue.
David fits into the category of what is called "denial" as it this evidense unpuffs the pride of men who would have power and dominance over fellow brothers and sisters contrary to what God has decreed.. When men and women pass laws in excess of or in derogation to the laws of God they act as false god's and if we bow and submit to their satanic tune we commit sin in violating God''s first and greatest command. Exodus 20:3-5
David seems to promote that violation. You will note the insults being hurled at me in a degrading tone, even bringing my fleshly father into it, for the fact I use one of the gifts of God, marijauna. Romans 11:29 is clear I am not to repent for such use.
I did provide authoritive proof of the herb being part of the original recipe in God''s holy anointing oil but David has revealed he has no inclination to read what he has requested be provided.
He is obviously quite intelligent but, as he told me before he edited it and took it out, is not Christian, to say not a beleiver in our savior.
"Ye shall not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers"
Promoting mans law over God''s is blasphemy and where do I find this? Within the ecclesia!....Why others are allowing this desecration is a pure puzzle to me. Can others comment on why the inflection of darkness or dispute as to the supremacy of God's law is allowed within the ecclesia? Have others noticed this aside from the three who have emailed me?
I only respond with tactful observations of what I perceive as the darkness attempting to cover the light and I must of duty warn my brethren of diguised snakes in their midst.
I leave it to the reader to decide who is the fireman and who is lighting the fire.
The offer of God''s law is in the preamble the rest in deceptive verbage is mans offer. Which will you choose?. Are you part of mans government? Do you want to be mans government? Will you accept the offer of mans law or will you decline in favor of God's?
The choice as always is yours as of Gods word Deuteronomy 30:10-20 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 15:53:44
|
May I thank you all for displaying your hearts "in the ether".
I did notice David Merrill called marijuana use ILLEGAL. For according to The Law Book, things of this nature are not unlawful. The Kingdom is not meat and drink. Only someone still thinking within the MATRIX could call hemp ILLEGAL.
Was not the Constitution written on hemp paper? George Washington grew it, and in his diary, wrote order's to the plantation worker's to; not seperate the males from the females till I get there. {Wonder why} Grass became ILLEGAL, when 1938? Definately a MAN made legalese, which clogs up prisons.
A Canadian is a north American,
of the Commonwealth of Israel.
Keep in mind, more simply read these posts than add too them. And, hopefully, do their own re-search.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 16:28:48
|
Robert-James said;quote:
Only someone still thinking within the MATRIX could call hemp ILLEGAL.
Yes. The essence of non-statutory abatement. There is no law broken. Thus I chose "illegal" instead of "unlawful". Possession of marijuana is illegal, not unlawful. I suppose by 'within the Matrix' you mean SSN, bank account, driver license etc. or at least thinking from that perspective. So say what you will, it does not make it so.
Source said:quote:
It is clear in the minds of those who can read what the above says, and that speaks to the mindset and intent of David Merril in attempting to dissuade you from beleiveing what you can read for yourself in plain easy to grasp English.
It is interesting to me, the consistency in the metaphysics of true name. He just cannot seem to get it right. And I also note the both of you have altered your true names by adding hyphens. At least I severely doubt your parents spelled your names with hyphens.
If Source continues to testify for you, the reader, I suggest you ignore him. Listening fails Rules of Evidence in any traditional setting. Who would listen to hearsay about what you, first-person think?
In my humble opinion, he has described nothing that is not in the nature of Charter inherently. And that does not exempt Christians. Refer to the title he created expressly saying he has proof and then he elaborated by abating a marijuana possession charge. In his mind the avoidance was due to his Christian faith or religion. I do not believe that.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Dec 2004 16:58:57 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 17:44:52
|
Greetings,
Bless El-Elyon for your timely response. Me thinks you did indeed try Edward regarding pot usage. I marveled {SIC} that a man of your intellect would call an ILLEGAL statue...GOOD.
May the record state that: a David Merrill {Van Pelt} does indeed agree that mariajuana grown and used...for whatever... is Lawful whith-in the Kingdom of YHWH?
Least We all forget, the word cretin is the root word for Christian. I pray Edward and all would re...search the Word YHWH would call his Own.
Surely it is not Christian.
David, sir gentleman, I have never told you My True name. That New Name.
Suffice to say, if a friend calls me Bob, I may answer. Robert-James has meaning, hyphen rules suffice. Sorry for you that it bugs you. Go pick on BATKOL or oneisraelite? Or ADMINISATRATOR?
We are here in this ether...together.
I know of a few sons of man, oneisraelite back me, who believe smoking grass is head knowledge. They walk in boldness. {Maybe not travel in auto's}. I have my own shoe's to walk in, as do you. Bet ya, we don't wear the same type shoe's.
The point being: has Messiah washed your feet? Ask me-ask-you-ask-us.
Bug off Edward of north America. Let him speak his Peace.
As a matter of fact...Daniel was NOT a great math major, in discerning Yeremiah's seventy years. He simply read it. Daniel NEVER gave proof to his eloquence in smarts, he was a very humble man, who spent much time in prayer. (9:00-12:00-3:00} Simply a time to humble one-self. I do this daily, and am humbled in my inability, though I do try.
Question, why do we capitalize I when we don't...my?
El-Elyon...Abraham paid tithes to him, who re-presents YHWH to man.
Woops, I used hyphens!!!
a Brother e-mailed me today asking me to read psalm 25.
I knew psalm 22-23-24 should be read together, but 25, I had forgot about.
5x5=25.
5=grace
Washington Monument is 555.1/8th inch.
Sons of American's.
your needed.
|
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 18:37:38
|
"If Source continues to testify for you, the reader, I suggest you ignore him."
What does God have to say about such arrogance?
The words I write are more ministerial than testifying.
I can testify I believe in the Son of God dying and being raised from the dead but the rest of the posts are just me ministering the truth which you have all read. How many of you decree you do not have mind enough to see that the Canadian government has published documentation that says you are not bound by it's Charter, but that they are?
I went to school as a child to learn, and english reading and writing were among the first things I learned . The words in the governments words do not need a legal education to grasp and as you can see one of the supposed most prominant minds in this forum cannot seem to read nor understand them.
Two choices are derived from that observation. One he has a hidden agenda or that he is complete denial as of his own pride.
I leave it to you the Ecclesia to decypher his intent as It is appearing to me he is deliberately trying to hide the truth that I have posted. It is as if he truly does have a hidden agenda of swaying those of light based energy back to the Dark where he resides. You can see by his posts he is not light based in grasping the elaborate ruse and subtle admission of that ruse offered in my website posting.
I am new to this forum and am observing a cautious reluctance to comment in graspable terms as to the irrefutable english the government of Canada has posted for all to see. This sublime offer is tremendously significant for those who wish to leave the Kingdom of man and I am sure the darkness and his shadow do not want others to see that as David is visibly upset that I posted it and is exerting a lot of energy to turn the Ecclesia away from it's factual offer.
YHWH's Blessings on those who have the courage to Stand up to the darkness and to say...Get thee behind me Satan!
|
Edited by - source on 28 Dec 2004 19:58:55 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 19:38:35
|
Greetings and salutations brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
The first thing we noticed on that Canadian Charter was the apparent dissimilarity of the three entities that this charter does not apply to:
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
Notice that two of the three are not living breathing beings, i.e. “businesses” and “other organizations”, so did this charter not apply to two “things”, and one “sentient, moral being”? Not likely! More likely we may find that “individual” is also a thing, i.e. it may be merely another word for “person”, since businesses and organizations are “persons”.
Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent to the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See also Person. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 533
Note that at the end of that definition, it says “See also Person”; that ought to be a clue. Also, it says that this word “may...include artificial persons". Here is what we find under the word “may” in that same law dictionary on page 676: “Regardless of the instrument, however, whether constitution, statute, deed, contract or whatever, courts not infrequently construe “may” as “shall” or “must” to the end that justice may not be the slave of grammar.”
“Not infrequently” is double-speak for “frequently”, i.e. courts frequently construe “may” as “shall” or “must”…
This term “private individual” is probably akin to “private person”, which is simply defined as “Term sometimes used to refer to person other than those holding public office or in military service”. We wonder aloud, what it refers to the majority of the time. Be that as it may, the key here we perceive is that this charter did not say that it does not apply to “natural something or other”, since Natural is defined as: “…the opposite of the word “artificial”.
So, before getting too excited about who, or what, this charter does or does not apply to we would like to see if there is a definitions page, which accompanies this document. If there is not one, then it is up for grabs as to how the COURTS would define “private individual”.
Call me paranoid schizophrenic if you will, but my Law Book says that with "feigned words" they make merchandise of us, and I for one, believe it is so.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 27 Dec 2004 19:53:52 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 19:39:59
|
Daniel used mathematics to discern the time. Maybe it wasn't the calculus but he used math. And he was the chieftain of the Babylonian Magi. So that tells you something.
I did not call the statute against possessing marijuana good. What I said was that I believe marijuana addiction would cause Source to read the Preamble §32 to be the cause his abatement worked and then write here he had proof. At least that is how I feel and hope that is what I said.
You cure the question:
quote:
May the record state that: a David Merrill {Van Pelt} does indeed agree that mariajuana grown and used...for whatever... is Lawful whith-in the Kingdom of YHWH?
I suppose so. However I do not use my family's name in conjunction with mine [brackets, colon, whatever] unless there is a specific benefit for doing so. The record should read more like, since there is no law against marijuana, it cannot be a crime to possess it.
But you may be glad that I have quit arguing with him. It is a waste of all our time. If his libel becomes an ongoing nuisance to the readers then Admin will take care of it.
Sorry for the jab about the hyphen. I presume Robert James is the name you were given.
OneIsraelite is wise to group the three entities in the Charter by catagory. Lacking a specific definition, we should assume all three are dead things. That is the source of authority behind the subject or any successful abatement - being alive - not being Christian.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I cannot help but get curious enough to read Source's comments when I find time:
quote:
I leave it to you the Ecclesia to decypher his [David Merrill's] intent as It is appearing to me he is deliberately trying to hide the truth that I have posted. It is as if he truly does have a hidden agenda of swaying those of light based energy back to the Dark where he resides. You can see by his posts he is not light based in grasping the elaborate ruse and subtle admission of that ruse offered in my website posting.
I am new to this forum and am observing a cautious reluctance to comment... and I am sure the darkness and his shadow do not want others to see that as David is visibly upset that I posted it and is exerting a lot of energy to turn the Ecclesia away from it's factual offer.
YHWH's Blessings on those who have the courage to Stand up to the darkness and to say...Get thee behind me Satan!
Please forgive me for not seeing this as amusing until after I had a good night's sleep. Key is that Source commits himself, "I leave it to you the Ecclesia to decypher..."
However since the man is convinced I am Satan and have already established a foothold to lead you all down the merry path to Hell, I think that in the name of Jah, we will find this religious zealot tagging me with his slanderous Posts until Admin says otherwise. I have noticed the same thing about Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe you have noticed it too. They persist until rejection is positively expressed. They consider that the next best victory - to be rejected.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Dec 2004 11:04:14 |
|
|
|
Werner Maximilian
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2004 : 13:51:40
|
It generally takes a lot of something controversial to bring me out, as I'm always here in the background enjoying all of your posts. I do like your's , oneisrealite, as they read very professionaly , and seem well researched.
I have experienced fourty nine trips around the sun and have known David Merrill and some others here for a number of those trips.
None of these men and women walk on the dark side of their spiritual adventure that I've ever seen and are very much to the contrary tireless researcers and walkers of their talk.
They, David Merrill, Linda June, leagalbear, and I'm sure many of you contributers to this and other sites, are known by me to have suffered persecutions at the hands of men that include jail time, and other subtle forms of torture while in the "care" of these men.
I personally salute these people (flesh and blood type) and have great respect for the amount of work that they have done on your behalf in this field of personal freedom and liberty.
While Yahoshua paid the ultimate price, these men and women go far in reminding the worldly powers and other little tin tyrants that we are redeemed and are not property to trade in or use as they see fit.
All I've seen David do is tell the truth. Truth annilates fiction.Be aware before you criticize that many of these men and women have stories and experiences that would shame your words if only you knew them.
Werner Maximilian |
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2004 : 13:53:09
|
As you will read in this post the corporation is what you are assumed to be unless you abate the issue before you get there which is exactly what Christ told us to do in Matthew 18:15-20.
With regards to the word "individual" I congratualte oneisrealite for his astute recognition of the the definition of that word but make notation of his explanation exposes a fatal flaw in the so called law of man as it, by his perceptive acknowledgement, says that the law does not even apply to persons! This said, by grasping and assuming by his words, that he is stating the the word individual and person are one in the same. You will note it says the charter does not apply to those classified as individuals.
The below will revert to US law to demonstrate the same although in different words. The reason I am commenting on Davids behavior is by reading what he has said it is clear he wishes to persuade others to not listen to me or examine the words that are so compelling.. I hope you all will reflect upon what one isrealite said as it even further states beyond assumption that that particular section of the supreme law of Canada says that all of mans law is inapplicable even against persons. This said is in consideration of what oneisrealite has provided us in his perception of what individual means.
I will tell you that he is correct that there is no specific definition in Canadian law that clearly states that word to mean man. The only law in Canada that uses the word man in plural is section 176 of the Canadian crimnal code stating that Clergymen are exempt from civil law being the law of parliaments legislatures and municipalities.
I hope you find the words below useful. Thankyou oneisrealite for exposing the weakspot of their own attempts at feigning the words. My attempts are in original purpose of this thread not to condemn any man nor squabble endlessly as is the historical intent of deceit but to defend the laws of God lest any assume otherwise. We are all imperfect and my perceptions of David Merrill are from what I have read and had others on this forum tell me in private. I have never met him nor talked to him and freely admitt the keyboard can leave out the common nuiances that are times necessary to grasp the full intent of the communication. That said the cooments from others in private emails seem to support my contentions. Note I said seem. I may be wrong about David Merrill but I woud ask you if I am right what will befall you if you listen to him??
Have a good read below as I feel you may see my purpose more clearly if you read what one from your side of the fence, so to speak, has to say in similar fashion.
I will also repeat that the original comment by David Merril, which he erased for obvious reasons of being a direct assault on what I had posted and asked me to do the same with regards to my original post, was that he is not Christian and implied I was deceived and misled.
If one cannot defend the truth of God's law what is this forum for??
Blessing of Jah upon our sentient ability to see through the historically divisive smoke of war!
Piercing the Corporate Veil
(Ray Earnest)
The term "Piercing the Corporate Veil" is a legal one which identifies the process where a court removes the protection provided individual members of a corporation for criminal activity, and makes these members responsible for their own actions.
In reality, according to the original meaning of corporations, is that these corporate groups were established exactly for that reason; for unlawful purposes, primarily to escape punishment for their crimes by placing the blame on a fictional organization responsible to no one. The "United States" government jumped on the corporate bandwagon the first part of the 1870's by declaring themselves a separate entity from Constitutional government. This, of course, followed the war between the states and the supposed Fourteenth Amendment (which lawfully never was, but was accepted by the newly formed corporation called the "United States.") The fact that the Constitution had already established a United States was inconsequential to those traitors in Congress because it was the Constitution itself they wanted destroyed and the war, instigated by the Jewish factions of Europe, was fought for this purpose. All the flowery fictions blamed for the war is pure fantasy.
Corporations, themselves, are natural processes of society, that is, when a group of people gather for a particular purpose, such as for forming a community, they are a corporation and there can be no criminal intent attached thereto, but it is when corporations are established with the power to declare themselves "bankrupt" that makes them criminal. This is the situation of our government today; the richest, most powerful nation on earth is "bankrupt." Just the thought is ridiculous.
Corporations are legal fictions; that is, they do not exist except in the minds of men. Anyone can create a fantasy in their own mind and make it do for them what they please, but these fantasies cannot nor do they extend to areas outside the realm of personal capacity. Corporations are made of living, breathing men, all with the same ideas and purposes. We can look upon them with the same limitations as the individual, and that is their jurisdiction is confined to the lawful area of their creation. A corporation, being a legal fiction, cannot think, it cannot act in any manner, it cannot even communicate with natural man, and for this reason it must have somebody, or bodies to speak and act for it, and the lawyers have set themselves up for this task. The enormity of corporate enterprises is limited only by imagination and they are gold mines for the bar associations, which are corporations themselves.
Even thieves must leave an out for themselves, as they never know when the worm will turn; and "dumb" burrowing rodents will have at least two exits from their dens. After years of research, a few people have found what we believe to be that "out" from corporate jurisdiction (which has been milking the citizens of this nation for well over a century). We have had great success with this "out" and the shocked looks and frenzies of Judges presented with this procedure show us that we are on the right track. As all other sure things, however, we can't rest on our laurels and be smug with our assumptions that it is fool proof. We have to remember that it took the lawyer profession many years to come up with their gimmicks and they aren't going to fall over and play dead as we proceed to break up their play houses and we know from experience that they know how to play rough. The idea is to hit hard, fast, and as widespread as possible before they can see what is happening and that is why we need as much diversity and geographical application as we can muster.
There is nothing complicated about the procedure of disclaiming corporation existence, which is what all this is about. The difficulty lies in overcoming a lifetime of corporate propaganda and we have had great difficulty in this area. We, who work with this procedure, went through the same agonizing process before we realized that it really works. We were looking for the complicated when the answer to our problems was right under our noses all of the time.
I don't mean to write a book and omit the meat of my subject, but you will find that some prosecutors and judges just haven't got the picture yet and will ask your source of information when you go before them and you need a little background to keep from being embarrassed. Again, try not to read difficulty into a perfectly simple procedure which is outlined below. Not having access to laws of other States, I can only quote from those to which I have access, and those are of Louisiana. We have tried this system in Alabama and Florida and know it works there (we didn't even research the law books in those states before acting) and we have to assume it will work nationally as the corporation veil encompasses every nook and cranny of the nation. For this very reason, we can't see where a general withdrawal from their jurisdiction is possible. Every case must be decided on its own until there are enough of us, and locations, to make the corporate masters accept the fact that they can't fight it. Please read the two sections from the Louisiana Civil Codes, and the Louisiana Revised Statutes below carefully; dissect them word by word and the message will come out loud and clear.
Civil Codes of Louisiana - Art. 445. The statutes and regulations which corporations enact for their police and discipline, are obligatory upon all their respective members who are bound to obey them, provided such statutes contain nothing contrary to the laws, to public liberty, or to the interest of others.
Louisiana Revised Statutes - Art. 429. Corporate existence presumed unless affidavit of denial filed before trial.
On trial of any criminal case it shall not be necessary to prove the incorporation of any corporation mentioned in the indictment, unless the defendant, before entering upon such trial, shall have filed his affidavit specifically denying the existence of such corporation.
These two simple paragraphs say it all. If one is a member of a corporation he is bound by corporate rules and regulations, and those outside those corporations are not subject to their jurisdiction.
The corporate status of an individual entering the court is automatically assumed by the court unless they have notice to counter such assumptions, and this is the purpose of the affidavit, an example of which I will provide below.
All of the socialistic programs, integration of the races, the grab of power at all echelons of government, and all the other ills of this nation are corporate "enterprises." One cannot escape the thumb of corporate authority until such time as he has removed himself from the jurisdiction.
We can view government today as a corporate reality, where the Constitution is merely a by word, or ruse of fiction, where the Congress is the board of governors, the President is the corporate CEO, and the "courts" are mere corporate arbitration boards, including the U.S. Supreme Court. When we pierce the corporate veil and remove ourselves from that corrupt venture we become men again and carry with us our natural laws and sovereignty, from whence the corporations received their powers originally.
The corporations of which we are primarily concerned are these:
UNITED STATES;
ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF EVERY STATE OF THE UNION;
EVERY COUNTY, BOROUGH, AND PARISH OF EVERY STATE OF THE UNION;
EVERY CITY, TOWN, BURG, OR OTHER CORPORATE SUB-DIVISION;
EVERY MEMBER OF CORPORATIONS, INCLUDING YOURSELF UNTIL DENIAL OF THOSE CORPORATIONS ARE COMPLETE BY AFFIDAVIT;
EVERY DEPARTMENT OF FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY, ETC., INCLUDING SHERIFF DEPARTMENTS, CITY TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENTS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, AND ALL OTHER MUNICIPAL OFFICERS AND PERSONS;
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, INCLUDING STATE TAX DIVISIONS, AND CITY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTS WHERE THEY EXIST.
I will provide here a scenario and a sample of affidavit to control the final disposition of the case involved:
John Preston Hickman has just been stopped by a Tarrant City, Alabama cop by the name of William C. Henly, for doing 45 in a 35 MPH zone. After the normal procedures of checking drivers license, insurance, etc., Henly gives Hickman a ticket with an appearance date of June 15, 2000 in city court. John does it right by not arguing with the cop and doing as he has been told by the officer, accepting the ticket and even signing it as ordered by the cop. Then John goes home and prepares himself an affidavit which reads something like this:
Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence
I, John Preston: Hickman, a living, breathing man, declare in my own handwriting that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I hereby deny that the following corporations exist: UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, THE TARRANT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM C. HENLY, ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS, THE TARRANT CITY COURT, JOHN PRESTON HICKMAN, of 3102 WILLOW DRIVE, TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, and ALL OTHER CORPORATE MEMBERS WHO ARE, OR WHO MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY COMPLAINTS AGAINST MY NATURAL BODY.
If any man or woman desiring to answer this affidavit, please answer in the manner of this affidavit, with notarized affidavit, using your Christian or family name for signature, and mail to the below named notary, address provided, within five (5) days or default will be obtained.
John Preston: Hickman
On the 25th day of May, 2000 a.d., a man who identified himself as John Preston Hickman appeared before me, a notary, and attested to the truth of this affidavit with his signature.
Wilson R. Nimbly, Notary Public
1423 Fairmont Drive
Tarrant City, Alabama 35217
Four copies of this affidavit should be (preferably) handwritten; one copy forwarded to the Tarrant City Police Department in time to give them five days to respond. Thirty minutes before you enter the court, take the remaining three copies, filing one in their court and having the clerk stamp the other two and giving one to the prosecutor. Keep the remaining copy with you in court in case the prosecutor and judge have not received their copies.
The way it has gone for us in like situations here, when the "defendant's" name is called, he stands and answers and the judge will look to the prosecutor and ask him the anticipated action of the charges. The prosecutor (speaking in low tones) replies that the evidence is lacking for prosecution, or something in that manner, and the judge dismisses the case.
This system has worked in many such cases, including a state tax case, where the state was required to return the money taken from the bank accounts of a husband and wife with the tax "debt" being cleared from the records. I have used it, personally, to place a $150,000.00 lien against a lawyer in Birmingham, Alabama which has been there for several years. He brought suit in HIS court to have the lien removed, to no avail. Of course I never answered his frivolous suit because I had already identified myself as a living man and not one of his fictions. I used the affidavit to stop my phone company from adding AT&T charges for their social engineering and a couple of other minor purposes; all were stopped cold. The amount of wins in this area with no losses convinces us that this procedure set up in 1925 by the State Legislature of Louisiana is a very valid process and should be effective for any and all reasons against any corporation, public or private, within the United States.
"Tax Liens" are official legal charges against an individual and the affidavit works there also. Remember that the IRS is a corporation unto itself and even though it is not directly connected to the U.S. Government, the fact that it operates within this nation makes it liable to the affidavit. If a bank, for any reason, gives your money to those whose signatures are not on the bank card, they are committing a crime and the person giving that money to the IRS, the State, or anyone else is personally responsible to the depositor and an affidavit to that bank should result in the immediate redeposit of those funds.
Your deposit in a bank is a "bailment" and while no fiduciary relationship is created by this bailment (because it is of the bank in general and not an individual) your signature card reflects the only authority for the disposition of your "money." As was shown recently, an affidavit, notifying the bank that the depositor was not a part of their or any other corporation, and that the one signing a check to the State Tax Division was responsible for the depositor's money and not the depositors themselves, since their signatures appeared on no part of the transaction, and the bank had to recall the checks, the tax "debt" was cleared, and all money was re-deposited into the accounts of the husband and wife, who had separate banks and accounts. Powerful stuff, these affidavits, and those writing the laws back in 1925 knew what they were doing.
One man was hesitant to use this system because "judges just walk all over those who challenge their jurisdiction." Well, with the affidavit we most certainly are challenging their jurisdiction, but not in general. Any rebuttal at all is a challenging their jurisdiction, and that is what it is all about. What we need to get straight right off is the fact that they DO have jurisdiction in their corporate capacities, but that doesn't mean they can bring non-corporate citizens into that jurisdiction (which is exactly what they have done through fraud).
All we are doing with the affidavit is merely showing them that their assumptions that all men are a part of their scheme are very wrong, and that we have the law on our side that shows them to be wrong.
Corporations, even though they are "legal" fictions, are still businesses; businesses are commercial enterprises, and commercial enterprises are controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Judges will tell you differently and they will be wrong. Corporations are established by the State, whether Federal or otherwise, (government is State) and all States of the Union have accepted the UCC (which originally was established for the District of Columbia, if my information is correct). The UCC is a complicated mass of business jargon to the casual reader, but in reality our rights are contained in the pages of those documents. Our right to contract, fair play in contracts, business, and all other aspects of human commerce activities are covered in the UCC.
While man, especially the Christian man, is born with the common law in his heart, the English common law was derived from commerce and commercial law itself. In the middle ages, open "fairs," or trading centers were set up in England (and most likely in all other countries of Europe) where people could bring their produce and goods to sell.
People would come from all areas of Europe to attend these fairs, or trading centers, and of course squabbling was rampant and constant, so Courts of Arbitration were established to settle these arguments, and render the exact law on any subject. These courts were called "Pied Powder Courts" because, it is said, that the courts settled arguments before the dust of the well trampled ground could settle on their feet. If I remember correctly, admiralty and maritime law was derived from this court, and separation was made between law of the sea and law of the land which was included in our Constitution. For a judge to say that he isn't affected by commercial law, or the UCC, is hogwash. I ask them if they aren't under commercial law - then why does it cost $150.00 to file a case with their courts while we are paying taxes to support them. Of course, the answer is evaded, and this is another story.
The bottom line of the affidavit denying the existence of corporations is that it pierces the corporate veil by an individual, and for the same purposes; the criminal activities of the courts themselves. We, as individual sovereigns, have the right and the duty to questions our servants and if they refuse to be questioned then this only proves our contention that they are crooks. It also makes them aliens to our way of life because they are upholding the policies of the Bar Associations, which are alien corporations, instead of the law of this land. No lawyer, no judge, or other "judicial" agent of this nation is licensed by the State (aka, we the people) to do business anywhere in the country. Yet, they treat us as aliens in our own venues. This has to stop, and we need to do everything within our power to help it along.
|
|
|
|
Werner Maximilian
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2004 : 14:08:12
|
| Sources' post can be seen on Feedom Forum of Orange County under Understanding Denial of Corporate Existence. Not to disparage but some information is quite dated. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2004 : 15:11:36
|
Vern; Thanks for clarifying where Source found the material.
Source said above:
quote:
I may be wrong about David Merrill but I would ask you if I am right what will befall you if you listen to him??
And I say that in final warning, beware that you do not start attributing success in abating nuisances and avoiding contract offers to illusory ecclesiastical powers. You will develop lofty models that are faulty, sound like a fool and wonder why the Lord failed you or is putting you through yet another tribulation.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 30 Dec 2004 08:21:25 |
|
|
|
source
Senior Member
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2004 : 16:08:03
|
Avoiding?? Romans 16:17-20 You dispute the words of Paul??
What you fail to note David is I have already been successful with this abatement approach and believe me the Canadian treasury Board and the privy council of Canada do not consider me a fool. "illusory ecclesiastical powers."
What do you mean by that David? All power is from God and I am commanded to not bow to any other authority! Exodus 20:3-5
Blessings and YHWH's immeasurable power upon the removal of condemnation of the truth and so called dated knowledge as the Bible is most certainly, and is used repeatedly on this forum.
truth does not alter with time . No matter how old or dusty it is still the truth. Love is truth! |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2004 : 16:51:50
|
Source asks:
quote:
What do you mean by that David?
The same thing I have been saying all along. You have fallen into the illusion they are respecting your "Christian authority"*.
The only effective clause of Randy Lee style abatements reads, "Therefore your papers are returned to you timely Refused for Cause without any recourse to me." Terms to correct the record are served and when the lesser court refuses to correct the record it goes into default. Period. The Order to Show Cause is inherent in the abatement.
There is fault in the "proof" you offer here that it is Christians who are exempt from the laws of man. Morelike men and women are exempt from the laws of corporations if and when they understand their identity and common law. That is why the three entities are grouped in §32 of the Charter.
This is like Dr. Hulda Reutger CLARK who got laughed all the way to Mexico with her practice curing cancer. She was trying to convince everyone that the cause of cancer was a specific intenstinal fluke. Well as soon as somebody pointed out that fluke is indigineous only to central South America the redicule about the "Flukey Dr. Hulda CLARK" began to fly. The electrical properties (signets) of the fluke are identical to the characteristics of cancer. Thus get rid of cancer as though you are ridding the body of the fluke. But she painted herself into a corner by publishing books on a faulty premise.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/circuits.gif
See the lower circuit in the link. It is just a comparator of natural frequencies. When the two are similar you hear noise from the speaker. This biofeedback trains the solar plexus to generate the frequencies that are detrimental to the cancer (and certain flukes for that matter).
The verbiage in the Charter on this Topic does not prove ecclesiastic authority. You believe it does so and that is an illusion caused by using proper process to abate and avoid prosecution for marijuana possession.
Sure the authority comes from God. Where else? But you attribute it to recognition of ecclesia. Attorneys use the same process.
A suitor in Oregon recently acquired a default judgment in small claims court. That is a common law forum and you must beg special permission to get attorney representation. When it came time for judgment the clerk asked if he had also sent the summons by regular First Class mail. Then he looked in the rules and found it there. It makes sure there are two witnesses; the two summonses. Now think about it. For every Certified letter you have gotten from the Treasury has not there been a regular First Class duplicate? - the same process? Attorneys know this stuff! They just consider the process outlined in Matthew 18 private intellectual property. That is why your abatement worked, you Forest Gumped your way into international and common law and saved all that tuition and Bar Exam fees. Praise God!
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I am not Christian and my abatements work fine without the religious clutter.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Dec 2004 17:12:23 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia
