| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 12:37:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings David:
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
David Merrill wrote:
OneIsraelite;
Can a stranger or foreigner (nakar/nokriy) be Lawfully held responsible for a government's debt, which by definition of the above words, is not their own?
That question deserves a much more thoughtful answer than I gave you this morning...........
quote:
One-Israylite wrote:
We thank you for the more thoughtful answer.
We're not so sure that it's "just" the principles of law found in the Set-Apart Scripture, though all True Law is based on it, or that there is anything "metaphysical" about it, considering Black's Law Dictionary definition of Stranger(s), which we have posted elsewhere on this forum.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
There are 8 different Hebrew words that are interpreted into English as "stranger" or "strangers" by the translators of the King James Version of the Scriptures.
Which of the following coincide with the Black's Law Dictionary definition of Stranger(s)?
a. zuwr
b. ger
c. guwr
d. maguwr/magur
e. neker/noker
f. nekar
g. nokriy
h. towshab/toshab
i. none of the above
j. all of the above
quote:
One-Israylite wrote:
We are also convinced that an Yisra'elite is, like an American for example, not a race issue any longer, and if you mean by "spirit" that it is a mental disposition, we agree.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
We would point out that a Scriptural Law concerning strangers should be correctly interpreted and obeyed by us based on the intent at the time the Law was put into place...if we seek to obey that Law.
If a man's aim is to obey a decree of man that has either evolved from that original Scriptural Law or in some cases perverted that original Scriptural Law...then perhaps it is appropriate to use a different definition of stranger(s) in interpreting and obeying that decree of man.
It is in our opinion, however, inappropriate to use the phrase "not a race issue any longer" in the context of a discussion concerning organic Scriptural Law.
If this could be better discussed under another topic...or if it has been discussed...please direct us there.
1. Our purpose in this post is to try to determine if you have very specifically stated your position.
2. To attempt to allow readers to be aware of what the Scriptural Law actually states on this important area of Yahweh's Law for Israyl.
3. To point out that words are often redefined over time by the users of those words.....but that does not change the intent of the message of the original speaker or writer of those words.
quote:
Case in Point:
Thirty to forty years ago many who monitor this forum would have considered themselves gay-Christians. Now because of a change in word usage or for other reasons...most know they are not gay and as one can determine by the recent quotes herein many are thinking they may not be Christian either.
Defining of terms is very foundational in effective communication.
We thank you, Brother Robert, that you often help many of us in that regard on these pages. We appreciate that...please let us help one another to get the definitions correct in this important area also.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 01 Jan 2005 12:50:44 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 13:22:55
|
Dear Marty;
I have never thoroughly toured the site. I redirect the question about this subject matter to Bondservant.
Otherwise lacking a Topic I say open one on that question about Black's definition. Which scriptural Hebrew word best fits into a law dictionary? Please convey your issues about antique and contemporary meanings.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 13:36:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
How better to defeat a confidence game than to exude confidence?
Like the man in jail charged with counterfeiting. When I explained money and told him he should tell his attorney to ask, "How do you counterfeit counterfeit money?", the man stood up with a confident smile on his face and went directly to the attorney phone. Within two days he was told the district attorney had lost track of his computer equipment and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. I don't think the Treasury charges anyone for 'counterfeiting' since. The charge I hear is Forgery - duplicating the authority of the Federal Reserve seal........
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
This may be off-point...but we found this interesting:
In the summer of 2001 we were observing a trial in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
The accused was charged with matters relating a non-negotiable sight draft. The government was erroneously alledging the accused had tried to negotiate the instrument as a U.S. TREASURY instrument.
Under cross-examination a mid-level secret service agent made a statement to this effect:
quote:
There is no standard to judge this instrument by...therefore it is not considered by us to be counterfeit it is rather considered a ficticious instrument.
The secret service agent stated on the witness stand that he did not know what "Non-negotiable" means.....
We wondered....could it actually be true that a man in his position does not know....or has he been coached to avoid answering that question...because to do so would be conducive to an acquital?
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 13:51:23
|
There is insight that the Secret Service was speaking for the Treasury. The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President and the White House - principal assets to the national debt. Actually Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury was calling the Southern chuch burnings terrorism. Not that he was wrong but what was the Secretary doing commenting on that?
So the Treasury/Secret Service would logically be protecting Cash Cows in general.
To your question; I suppose that arguing a sight draft was ludicrous to begin with. What would the Treasury really argue? Speculating:
"We at the Treasury are getting really, really nervous about people figuring out how we create the illusion of wealth and we would like to create bench legislation against any competition - especially little guys who think they can be private bankers. The Montana Freemen proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that while the little people can manage banking and UCC matters competently, they are simply miserable and rotten people!" ??
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2005 14:02:31 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 16:03:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
There is insight that the Secret Service was speaking for the Treasury. The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President and the White House - principal assets to the national debt. Actually Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury was calling the Southern church burnings terrorism. Not that he was wrong but what was the Secretary doing commenting on that?
So the Treasury/Secret Service would logically be protecting Cash Cows in general.
To your question; I suppose that arguing a sight draft was ludicrous to begin with. What would the Treasury really argue? Speculating:
"We at the Treasury are getting really, really nervous about people figuring out how we create the illusion of wealth and we would like to create bench legislation against any competition - especially little guys who think they can be private bankers. The Montana Freemen proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that while the little people can manage banking and UCC matters competently, they are simply miserable and rotten people!" ??
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
David,
It occurs to us that your speculation of what the esoteric attitude of the Secret Service and/or Treasury Department in the matter under discussion may have been may be quite accurate.
Some exerpts from the November 16, 1998 "Montana Freeman Trial" trial transcript that would support your specualtion are:
quote:
Mr. Peter Robinson attorney from Santa Rosa, California who was supposedly appearing on behalf of "freeman John P. McGuire" said in his final argument:
I want to talk to you about the truth, about what is true, and about the law, what's the law that you have to apply - not the common law -- Coughenour's law, (Coughenour's was a specially appointed "judge" that had been brought in to preside over this case and in our opinion to influence the outcome of the trial on behalf of his principals, i.e. those whom he serves) the instructions that you've been given. And that's what your job is. You seek the truth from the facts, and you apply it to the law.....
.....the government says, they had normal bank accounts, they should have known better. So I asked Mr. Stanton, Ebert Stanton, just because somebody had a bank account once or had a loan once, they would know that because of that Leroy Schweitzer's instruments were not valid? And he would say -- and he said, no I would have to agree with you.
Then they say, well, there were rejections and people were being arrested, and, therefore, because of that they were fraud -- they should have known these things were fraudulent.
And again, Ebert Stanton and other people who were there said, no, Leroy Schweitzer said we figured out their way of banking, and we are going to show that they are resisting but eventually these things are going to be accepted.....
.....something remarkable happened in this courtroom in this trial. The doors of our justice system opened a little bit, just a little bit, and let people who had been shunned by the system in. The Lyle Chamberlins, the Tom Koziols, the Edwin Clarks, and even for a few minutes, Hartford Van Dyke..
You'll be given the keys to the justice system later today, and don't let the government slam that door. Because today, it's the believers in common law courts that the government seeks to silence. Tomorrow it may believers in right to life or certain religions, or the right to bear arms.....
.....Now, why should you care? Because if the federal government extends it tentacles into Montana and plucks out those people that it finds undesirable, puts them in prison, then who knows who among us will be next?.....
....the truth is that the federal government has made a federal case out of this because they don't like the common law courts, the freeman beliefs. They want to squash these people like bugs..And in this trial they want you to do their dirty work.
The testimony of Walker Todd (whom we recall as being a retired financial instrument expert from the Federal Reserve Bank who at the time of testifying was a university professor) was also very revealing and supportive of David's "speculation" above. We have that portion of the transcript.
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 17:58:32
|
Exactly. I was there about three weeks before Leroy Michael and Dan S. PETERSEN were captured. When Leroy was processing my Comptroller Warrant he started laughing when I named "International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service". I think he understood this was going to breakthrough barriers he had been facing.
For a while I had it figured out that the only way to process that Comptroller Warrant would have been to go back to the pre-Civil War monetary structure. I haven't thought about this for a long while.
I processed endorsement without citing the UCC. I just signed it and wrote "Without Recourse" below my signature on the back.
On a Tuesday afternoon (maybe Wednesday) a reporter and I went to the Post Office and I mailed it Registered to Ogden, with the rounddates on the Certificate of Mailing and all. That would have gotten to Utah probably by Friday. Leroy Michael and Dan were picked up Saturday morning when they went to the Post Office. That morning started the Freeman Standoff. I think the reporter was so freaked she declined to write about it anymore.
I always attributed properly naming the principal and not resorting to code that applied such pressure. But for sure, the feds were aching to raid the 'compound' about then anyway.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I had a photo for a while, maybe still do. There was a skull section of a Tyranosaurus Rex hanging above the door in the garage/classroom of the farmhouse. They found it on top of the hill near the house. I hear that would be worth a few million dollars right there properly excavated. Also I looked in a streambed a few miles from there and found dinosaur eggs. Gave them away. I still have one of those.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jan 2005 10:08:26 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 15:18:02
|
I attended a drumming yesterday that was somewhat perplexing and so this rant. If you are not interested in viewing this muse which will directly or indirectly involve the subject matter of this thread then skip it.
Acts 2:34 "For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ".
Yeshua on the throne, a real time, present reality. This is fact (Law) which cannot be debated, effectively or maybe not at all, without discounting (some of) the writings in the book of Acts.
The next thought is subjective but notorious and with two or more witnesses, ... there have only been two in which the fullness of Yah indwelled ... 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit ... The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."
Colossians 1:19 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power."
Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
That is the lead in for discussion of my perplexity both of the drumming and the comments contained in this thread.
The drumming was an invite to unity and to provide an atmosphere to address problems. I was invited as an "outsider" to attend. I ordinarily avoid events that have a tendency to 'charis - mania' (from 5483 charizoma) but I see no way to remove my rationalizations of the metaphysical except to challenge them with events that are intended to do just that while promoting love.
My problem (and alignment to this thread) is the lack of the willingness to address the problems. The problem of addressing assumed authority (and resulting coercion by the same) by the available solution to that problem and IMHO posts to this thread that lead in an opposite direction to that solution.quote:
"To name Voltaire," said Victor Hugo, "is to characterize the entire 18th century." 'Centenary address on Voltaire'.
Voltaire, (1694-1778), under the article on "Prophecy" in the Philosophic Dictionary quotes Rabbin Isaac's Bulwark of Faith against the application of Hebrew prophecies to Jesus, and then goes on ironically: "Thus these blind interpreters of their own religion and their own language, combated with the Church, and obstinately maintained that this prophecy cannot in any manner regard Jesus Christ."
Voltaire likes to trace Christian dogmas and rites to Greece, Egypt and India, and thinks that these adaptations were not the least cause of the success of Christianity in the ancient world. Under the article on "Religion" he asks, slyly, "After our own holy religion, which doubtless is the only good one, what religion would be the least objectionable?"
Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953, 2nd editition, 9th printing, (original copyright 1926) intellectual property used for educational purposes only.
Quotes from page two;quote:
However there is no mention of a supernatural rebirth, virgin birth etc. That all came from editing and from syncrotizing pagan beliefs.
quote:
I wish more folks would digest this key statement. The earliest pre-Nicea Church claims their beliefs are thousands of years old and not much different from the pagans they were debating with. This is what grew out of the Gospel of the uncircumcision and, in my opinion, Paul has done quite a job connectiong the two (or at least somebody writing in his name).
quote:
To assume that ... (because) the books of the law (Torah) were not written down until the first millennium C.E. the law was not extant previous to the laws of Hammarabbi, Marduk or Annu is ignorance of the Semitic culture. It is also ignorance of the Semitic culture to decide that the fables of resurrection and virgin births extant in writings preceding the Christian era were used by Christians to explain the historicity of Yeshua HaNazarit.
Ignorance and deception designed and sold as logic foment the ideology of a Creator as the Source of Life and then at same time hold an ideology that the fables of resurrection and hero myths come from a history removed from that Source. Yes, there was the resurrection story of Egyptian antiquity and of the virgin Isis giving birth after being impregnated by the Sun god. The late Joseph Campbell correctly pointed out that almost all cultures have a three day death, burial and resurrection story.
It is perplexing to me, how great minds on these boards (from whom the ecclesia has greatly benefited) can quote almost word for word from a philosophy born in the 18th century and yet ignore the simplicity of the system of government resurrected in the first century C.E. This is illogical and downright disturbing to me.
This is not a personal attack nor is it a defense of any King or a defense of myths and fables. This rant is simply using the tactics that Voltaire resorted to when he could no longer sit back and watch religious men, (made in the image and likeness of HaShem), destroy others, (made in the same image and likeness), over ideology.
Don't believe me, check it out for yourself, ... Hisholychurch.net ... and then come back and challenge me on whether or not there is a notorious system of government resurrected on this earth.
TN |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 20:45:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by True North
It is perplexing to me, how great minds on these boards (from whom the ecclesia has greatly benefited) can quote almost word for word from a philosophy born in the 18th century and yet ignore the simplicity of the system of government resurrected in the first century C.E. This is illogical and downright disturbing to me.
I agree. Worldly philosophophical sound bites have no better credibilty than a fictional novel. Fantasy and unsound philosophy are of the same source. As Clara Peller said in the infamous TV commercial, "Where's the Beef?".
Do we throw out the baby because the once warm bath water is now cold?
David, True North is not ranting.... he is simply opposing your statements and ideals. A "rant" is to speak or write in a angry or violent manner, yet True North has done no such thing.
Let's keep this all in perspective and call things for what they are... not what they are not.
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 21:40:39
|
I am sorry. I transposed "muse" for "rant". To me, a rant is more like ventilating.
You are right.
Not only that. I did not read True North as opposing my statements and ideals. I used the wrong word and have removed the Post....
Now I see where the word popped into my mind:
quote:
It is perplexing to me, how great minds on these boards (from whom the ecclesia has greatly benefited) can quote almost word for word from a philosophy born in the 18th century and yet ignore the simplicity of the system of government resurrected in the first century C.E. This is illogical and downright disturbing to me.
This is not a personal attack nor is it a defense of any King or a defense of myths and fables. This rant is simply using the tactics that Voltaire resorted to when he could no longer sit back and watch religious men, (made in the image and likeness of HaShem), destroy others, (made in the same image and likeness), over ideology.
The meaning, or maybe just the perspective of these paragraphs escape me. I thought True North was referring to his Post as a "rant". I am not familiar with the philosophy of Voltaire. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jan 2005 22:03:58 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2005 : 00:28:55
|
It's quite all right and my fault for misleading. Thanks to both bondservant and David for the clarifications. I sometimes miss the nuances I project without someone else's perspective as critic.
Voltaire could not stand the hypocrisy of the church's persecution and intolerance in light of new testament writings and used pen and paper to criticize the same.
TN |
Edited by - True North on 03 Jan 2005 00:35:27 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2005 : 07:43:15
|
I will read the Post again in proper context. Michael Edward (Bondservant) said:
Do we throw out the baby because the once warm bath water is now cold?
And hopefully I apply correctly the 'baby' to be the common comforting belief set that the God of Abraham brought forth the Messiah to be a spectacular demonstration of His supreme power. Restoring death with new life.
And so I opened "Original War by Propaganda" with what I believe to be the cold, hard faith-defying facts of history as though I know what I am talking about. To query and maybe even dispose of that very question?
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 00:55:59
|
VINDICIAE CONTRA TYRANNOS
From:
http://www.constitution.org/vct/vind.htm
Herod, fearing Christ, whose reign he should rather have desired, sought to put Him to death, as if He had affected a kingdom in this world, did himself miserably perish, and lost his kingdom. Julian the apostate, did cast off Christ Jesus to cleave unto the impiety and idolatry of the pagans: but within a small time after he fell to his confusion through the force of the arm of Christ, whom in mockery he called the Galilean. Ancient histories are replete with such examples, neither is there any want in those of these times. Of late years divers kings, drunk with the liquor which the whore of Babylon has presented unto them, have taken arms, and for the love of the wolf, and of Antichrist, have made war against the Lamb of God, who is Christ Jesus; and yet at this day some amongst them do continue in the same course. We have seen some of them ruined in the deed, and in the midst of their wickedness; others also carried from their triumphs to their graves. Those who survive and follow them in their courses have little reason to expect a better issue of their wicked practices: this sentence remains always most certain, "That though all the kings of the earth do conjure and conspire against Christ and endeavour to cut in pieces our Lamb, yet in the end they shall yield the place, and maugre their hearts, confess that this Lamb is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords."
|
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2005 : 08:34:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cornerstone Foundation
What are the implications of Exodus 30:30-33 in regard to who may partake of the substance Lawfully (i.e. according to Yahweh's Law)?
The term "LAWFUL AUTHORITY" was discussed in the following case in Australia in 1994. Note how the Judge avoids stating which LAW is referred to in his judgment! common law and statute law are both applicable.
HENRY JOHN TASMAN ROOK v LUCAS RICHARD MAYNARD (No 2) No. LCA 52/1994 Judgment No. A64/1994 Number of pages - 4 Evidence (1994) 123 ALR 677
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
ZEEMAN J
HRNG
HOBART, 28 July 1994
#DATE 10:8:1994
Section 76B(1) is concerned with data stored in Commonwealth omputers and data stored on behalf of the Commonwealth in other computers…….., person does not have authority to obtain access to computer data except With the permission of the Commonwealth. In Adelaide Corporation v Australasian Performing Rights Association Ltd (1928) 40 CLR 481 the High Court appears to have treated the words "authorise" and "permit" as synonymous. As Napier J pointed out, at 243, (Crafter v Kelly 1941 in England) the meaning of the word "lawful" must depend on the context in which the word is used.
9. Relying on those cases, counsel for the respondent adopted as part of his argument, the views as to the meaning of "lawful authority" expressed by Card, Authority and Excuse as Defences to Crime (1969) Crim LR 359. At 362 the learned author said:
"From the slender evidence provided by Dickens v Gill
and Crafter v Kelly it would appear that 'lawful
authority' means some authority from a public source
which is supported by law. This, it is submitted, is
the correct interpretation. Generally, the statutes
under discussion do not contain an interpretation of
'lawful authority' but their context would seem to
require an interpretation such as that advanced above.
The reason is that they are dealing with acts and
states of affairs which may be carried out lawfully
under the terms of the order of a court, an official
licence or administrative decision which has been
given pursuant to some statutory power or a power
afforded by delegated legislation. It is, presumably,
to such acts executed under statutory authorisation
that 'lawful authority' impliedly refers."
10. I do not accept that "lawful authority" is to be given such a restricted meaning. Such a restricted meaning is not supported by either of the cases relied upon. It may well be that in some cases the only form of lawful authority capable of existing is of the type referred to by Card but that does not mean that in all circumstances lawful authority is to be limited to authority of that type. The difficulties created by adopting such a construction become apparent when consideration is given to statutes which proscribe the doing of an act without lawful authority when such authority as might be capable of existing is incapable of being found in any public source.
An example of such a statute is that considered in R v Jura (1954) 1 QB 503. Whether lawful authority for the doing of an act is to be found in a public source depends upon the nature of the act and the nature of the authority which is capable of being provided for the doing of that act.
11. The learned magistrate took the view that Satterley v Palmer (1947) SASR 346 (which appears to be the only reported dealing with s15D) is authority for the proposition that lawful authority means something more than mere authority. It is important to note that the question which arises in the present case did not arise in that case because it concerned a breach of the Act, s30, an ingredient of which is that there has been a taking "without lawful authority". Contrary to the view which the learned magistrate appears to have taken and which was urged upon me by counsel for the respondent, in that case Mayo J did not seek to distinguish between "lawful authority" and "mere authority" but rather, at 350-351, sought to distinguish the general
authority of a driver of a Commonwealth vehicle to deliver Commonwealth goods with the specific authority to deliver particular goods to a particular place.
I have not found that case to be of any assistance.
The ingredient of the offence that the access is obtained "without authority" means that it is obtained without permission and, if it is obtained without permission, it is obtained without lawful authority.
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2005 : 11:16:29
|
Hello Uncle Buck;
I may be astray in my associating your Post to Government Statutes don't apply. But I think I see the link. Common law is what it is... that is to say it is what is. When posive law jural society comes together in agreement (general assembly) then we find lawful authority. But under the penumbra of bankruptcy and presumed forfeiture, we should discover the inherent right of avoidance. One does not have to be in that METRO/City of XXXX club - regardless of what the municipal home rule policeman thinks.
You said:
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
I appreciate the genius in tying this passage to that statement. I would like to say it to a policeman sometime, just after he or she has decided (judgment) that I am in the City of Colorado Springs, regardless of my testimony otherwise.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 15 May 2005 11:20:30 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2005 : 18:53:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Hello Uncle Buck;
I may be astray in my associating your Post to Government Statutes don't apply. But I think I see the link. Common law is what it is... that is to say it is what is. When posive law jural society comes together in agreement (general assembly) then we find lawful authority. But under the penumbra of bankruptcy and presumed forfeiture, we should discover the inherent right of avoidance. One does not have to be in that METRO/City of XXXX club - regardless of what the municipal home rule policeman thinks.
You said:
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
I appreciate the genius in tying this passage to that statement. I would like to say it to a policeman sometime, just after he or she has decided (judgment) that I am in the City of Colorado Springs, regardless of my testimony otherwise.
Regards,
David Merrill.
G'day David,
Your inference is correct. I can either pretend to be a Fiction of Law as a 'PERSON' voluntarily subject to STATUTES (or a STATE SLAVE and political society jurisdiction); or I choose to remain a flesh and blood man retaining all authority and power delegated from the Creator ie. common law jurisdiction for external matters and Divine Law for internal matters that hopefully bear the fruit externally. That freedom to choose is the one thing no man or government can steal from me.
A government statute does not apply unless I have broken a PUBLIC law against one of the political society PERSONS. I believe I could even then challenge in personam and venue jurisdiction and elect to be prosecuted by trial by jury (determining fact and law as opposed to trial by judge alone or trail by judge and jury.) at common law as there would be an injured party to prosecute me rather than a fiction, like Harvey the Invisible Rabbit, as the alleged injured party.
'Lawful authority' is not only statutory law that provides the authority. It is also common law or Divine Law that provides authority. A delegated authority is mere permission.
As for your kind comments re 'genius' - let's keep it in perspective my friend, perhaps I was simply twisting Joan Rivers quote/joke [blue]"why can't you be like cousin Johnny, why can't you be like cousin Johnny?"[/blue] Cousin Johnny died at birth!!! boom boom.
When I was a policeman I would have laughed at Joan Rivers but missed the deeper spiritual-political-jurisdictional meaning!
1 Cor 8:9
(Literal Translation of the Bible by Jay P. Green) But be careful lest this authority of yours become a cause of stumbling to the weak ones.
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 17 May 2005 23:12:43 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2005 : 19:43:23
|
I think there is a lot of misdirection and misconception about common law. It is simply what is... regardless of de facto or de jure. My cousin's wife was about two years into law school. At a family gathering we were talking about common law and she said point blank, "All common law is is case law." Then it hit me. Within a certain scope, a two-year law student would accurately perceive things that way. The common law is argued by stare decisis. That is how it comes into existence, by arguing it and the winning party effects and builds the common law with a new case cite for subsequent litigators to utilize.
This is a much better and stronger model. Common law is what is. The only question begged is how competent is the body of cases? Then we can start viewing jurisdiction in terms of War Powers (1933) and Erie Doctrine (1938).
For example, this Verified Statement of Right got the funds restored with letters of apology:
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 2
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 16 May 2005 19:46:20 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2005 : 23:04:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
I think there is a lot of misdirection and misconception about common law. It is simply what is... regardless of de facto or de jure. My cousin's wife was about two years into law school. At a family gathering we were talking about common law and she said point blank, "All common law is is case law." Then it hit me. Within a certain scope, a two-year law student would accurately perceive things that way. The common law is argued by stare decisis. That is how it comes into existence, by arguing it and the winning party effects and builds the common law with a new case cite for subsequent litigators to utilize.
This is a much better and stronger model. Common law is what is. The only question begged is how competent is the body of cases? Then we can start viewing jurisdiction in terms of War Powers (1933) and Erie Doctrine (1938).
For example, this Verified Statement of Right got the funds restored with letters of apology:
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 2
Regards,
David Merrill.
Bless this house and all who enter!
G'day David,
In response to ALL COMMON LAW IS CASE LAW - that is logically incorrect. Certainly Case Law is judge made law. Common Law also includes custom and Canon Law. However,
What jurisdiction are we in? Common to whom? Church, ecclesia, State, community....?
Law must be based on legitimate authority then power. Authority is determined by freedom of choice. Retain it or delegate it away.
Does one volunteer into a political society? Is it a big country club? Are the rules the constitution, the directors the legislative government, the employees the administrative/executive branch, the Disciplinary board the judiciary? Are the people the members of the club - voluntary joined or coerced into that club? Whats so special about that country club? If I don't want to join it maybe I can join another one in a different territory? Hey, Why can't I start my own one in the same geographical territory! Then we shall have two country clubs from which to choose! Its all in the mind - a state of mind. I reckon you Americans almost got it right - there is a true separation between church and state in terms of body politic, body corporate, state. In Australia the churches have also sold their souls to the STATE by incorporating into a statutory legal system. What if they had remained free and exercised their God-given authority not to join the country club!
The word country is usually defined as: “The portion of earth’s surface occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory.” In Bouvier’s: “By country is meant the state of which one is a member.”
STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.
STATE, condition of persons. This word has various acceptations. If we inquire into its origin, it will be found to come from the Latin status, which is derived from the verb stare, sto, whence has been made statio, which signifies the place where a person is located, stat, to fulfil the obligations which are imposed upon him.
2. State is that quality which belongs to a person in society, and which secures to, and imposes upon him different rights and duties in consequence of the difference of that quality.
3. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality, yet there are among them marked differences. It is from nature that come the distinctions of the sexes, fathers and children, of age and youth, &c.
4. The civil or municipal laws of each people, have added to these natural qualities, distinctions which are purely civil and arbitrary, founded on the manners of the people, or in the will of the legislature. Such are the differences, which these laws have established between citizens and aliens, between magistrates and subjects, and between freemen and slaves; and those which exist in some countries between nobles and plebeians, which differences are either unknown or contrary to natural law.
5. Although these latter distinctions are more particularly subject to the civil or municipal law, because to it they owe their origin, it nevertheless extends its authority over the natural qualities, not to destroy or to weaken them, but to confirm them and to render them more inviolable by positive rules and by certain maxims. This union of the civil or municipal and natural law, form among men a third species of differences which may be called mixed, because they participate of both, and derive their principles from nature and the perfection of the law; for example, infancy or the privileges which belong to it, have their foundation in natural law; but the age and the term of these prerogatives are determined by the civil or municipal law.
6. Three sorts of different qualities which form the state or condition of men may then be distinguished: those which are purely natural, those purely civil, and those which are composed of the natural and civil or municipal law. Vide 3 Bl. Com. 396; 1 Toull. n. 170, 171; Civil State.
PAIS, or PAYS. A French word signifying country. In law, matter in pais is matter of fact in opposition to matter of record: a trial per pais, is a trial by the country, that is, by a jury.
POLITICAL. Pertaining to policy, or the administration of the government. Political rights are those which may be exercised in the formation or administration of the government they are distinguished from civil, rights, which are the rights which a man enjoys, as regards other individuals, and not in relation to the government. A political corporation is one which has principally for its object the administration of the government, or to which the powers of government, or a part of such powers, have been delegated. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 182, 197, 198.
BODY. A person.
2. In practice, when the sheriff returns cepi corpus to a capias, the plaintiff may obtain a rule, before special bail has been entered, to bring in the body and this must be done either by committing the defendant or entering special bail.
BODY POLITIC, government, corporations. When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.
2. As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually they are citizens, when considered in relation to their political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of the state.
3. When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person.
David, you certainly know how to stimulate debate! You are a chanmpion!
Regards
Rick
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 17 May 2005 23:15:52 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2005 : 00:07:23
|
Nope. She was right.
quote:
In response to ALL COMMON LAW IS CASE LAW - that is logically incorrect. Certainly Case Law is judge made law. Common Law also includes custom and Canon Law.
Judges are not legislators.
Instead of an enacting clause, every bill since 1933 has a trailer, a statement of necessity by the general assembly. Therefore none of these bills ever get passed into law. So there is no legislature there either. So you have a good point there.
For example: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2005a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/C6D3343F14EC755A87256F5D007858C1?
quote:
27 SECTION 7. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
-5- HB05-1014
1 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
2 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.
Here's my point. This is the way it is. Therefore it is common law. The way it is. Common law is what is.
Therefore a court of competent jurisdiction, a judge in the common law must prove it with a judgment. That is the definition of suitor. I think I understand what you are saying and it is a dysfunctional model of common law.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Here is an example. James Harlan AYERS, now deceased was in traffic court at about the age of 90 and tendered a motion to the court fashioned from The Authority of Law by Charles Weisman. The motion pointed out the lack of any enacting clause on the charge of speeding. The magistrate "judge" came back after a 20 minute recess and said quite plainly, "This court has no subject matter jurisdiction." After a moment he added, "Did you understand what I just said?" Jim got confused and started arguing some backup Plan B about the Constitution and was subsequently convicted. Common law. Jim should have just left the courthouse. Why hang around to get convicted in a courtroom without jurisdiction? People do it all the time. It is what is; common law.
In hindsight Jim appealed but the transcript had a squealing sound on the audiotape at that particular point in the proceeding. So if you want a court of record (common law), hire your own reporter. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 18 May 2005 00:33:08 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2005 : 00:45:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Nope. She was right.
quote:
In response to ALL COMMON LAW IS CASE LAW - that is logically incorrect. Certainly Case Law is judge made law. Common Law also includes custom and Canon Law.
Judges are not legislators.
Instead of an enacting clause, every bill since 1933 has a trailer, a statement of necessity by the general assembly. Therefore none of these bills ever get passed into law. So there is no legislature there either. So you have a good point there.
Here's my point. This is the way it is. Therefore it is common law. The way it is. Common law is what is.
Therefore a court of competent jurisdiction, a judge in the common law must prove it with a judgment. That is the definition of suitor. I think I understand what you are saying and it is a dysfunctional model of common law.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Here is an example. James Harlan AYERS, now deceased was in traffic court at about the age of 90 and tendered a motion to the court fashioned from The Authority of Law by Charles Weisman.
The motion pointed out the lack of any enacting clause on the charge of speeding. The magistrate "judge" came back after a 20 minute recess and said quite plainly, "This court has no subject matter jurisdiction." After a moment he added, "Did you understand what I just said?" Jim got confused and started arguing some backup Plan B about the Constitution and was subsequently convicted. Common law. Jim should have just left the courthouse. Why hang around to get convicted in a courtroom without jurisdiction? People do it all the time. It is what is; common law.
In hindsight Jim appealed but the transcript had a squealing sound on the audiotape at that particular point in the proceeding. So if you want a court of record (common law), hire your own reporter.
Gd'ay David,
Judges find the law they do not make it - therefore they are not legislators. I agree. My exception was to your use of the word ALL in your statement.
Your example is very interesting. Firstly, you are 100% correct in relation to the traffic matter having to be pleaded - I believe it is PRIVATE LAW not PUBLIC LAW and has to be pleaded in a civil jurisdiction. Just like a private complaint for injury or damages between individuals or for breach of contract etc...
Simply stated:-
(1) a complaint made to a justice of the peace is generally not sworn on oath, however, if it is it had better be by the person who can swear to a material particular for the summons to be issued. the summons was issued commanding his attendance. he came he saw but he forgot to KONKA.
(2) the defendant turned up and gave the court jurisdiction by arguing anything but 'no jurisdiction'. The court may have been advised that he defendant was objecting to the presumption of the validity of the sworn complaint which in fact was inadmissible?? It would be a false statement which would mislead the court and the court was put on notice to that effect?
(3) the defendant then entered a plea of not guilty I presume instead of requesting the matter be dismissed as there was no sworn evidence before the court by the prosecution ie: material fact for the court to obtain jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause of action - where was the sworn complaint conferring jurisdiction on the Judge/Magistrate to enable him to have subject matter or in personam jurisdicton?
(4) the defendant then tried to argue no jurisdiction which unfortunately is covered by the doctrine of estoppel of matter in pais.
Meaning of Estoppel. Estoppel is a substantive rule of law. there is said to be an estoppel where a party is not allowed to say that a certain statement of fact is untrue, whether in reality it is true or not.
Estoppel by matter in pais.
Where one has either by words or conduct made to another a representation of fact, either with knowledge of its falsehood or with the intention tht it should be acted upon, or has so conducted himself that another would, as a reasonable man, understand that a certain representation of fact was intended to be acted upon, and that the other has acted on the representation and thereby altered his postion to his prejudice, an estoppel arises against the party who made the representation, and he is not allowed to aver that the fact is otherwise than he represented it to be.
Conduct includes negligence. This, also, can only give rise to an estoppel where there is a duty to the person complaining to use due care; and it is further necessary that the neglect should be in the transaction itself which is in dispute, calculated to lead, and in fact leading, as its real cause to the belief created.
The common law principle which puts a man to his election between alternative inconsistent courses of conduct has no connexion with the equitable doctrine of election and relates mainly, though not exclusively, to alternative remedies in a court of justice. [Young v . Bristol Aeroplane Co., Ltd., 1946 - An election if it is to be binding, must be clearly and unequivocally made.]
Does that doctrine of estoppel include waltzing into court on the invitation of an unsworn complaint and summons an failing to object to the magistrates jurisdiction? I think so, in spite of the failure to make a binding election that must be clearly and unequivocally made. Always uninformed consent or conduct is used to trick men into jurisdiction of the local administrative courts. The other trick is using a servant of the court also known as a solicitor or lawyer!
Regards
Rick
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 18 May 2005 01:00:22 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2005 : 08:10:19
|
Then I think I understand you correctly. But so often I debate misconstructions and misconceptions I have myself had in the past. Naturally I catagorize what you say, accurately as I can into them.
The misdirection I believe you to have fallen into is that there are subcatagories of law; one of which is called "common law". Your above retort reinforces my belief about how you believe but it also shows a stepping stone that you may get my point - which I believe is correct.
Simply put, common law is "what is". Jim plead argument into an non-existent jurisdiction and cured it in doing so. Therefore he was convicted by a "judge" who had already admitted he had no subject matter jurisdiction because Jim had broken no law. How could that happen in any other realm than common law? Jim's perception and our perceptions cause common law through stare decisis. Common law is what we perceive exists.
Likewise if I convince attorneys pretending to be judges about history and fact without pleading or even appearing (Rule E(8)) then fine. The abatement sticks and I enter judgment in common law. Completely separate from that other incompetent court and jurisdiction. I do it in common law, with the county clerk typically but often using the US Courthouse for conduit informing and notifying foreign agents in admiralty:
quote:
"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741. (emphasis added)
Compartmentalizing out the common law and proceeding to argue it is privatizing it. Like "Christian Common Law" or "Justus" instead of "Justice" Township. That conversely become imposing the ways of your jural society upon another.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia
