| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 05:21:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Now I think I see what is happening. Maybe because I do it myself so often building confidence in the bill of exchange. [However nobody argues about the bill.] This tangent about White Race is intentional. I just searched "Batkol white race" and found hits on six Topics. This is an ongoing mission of yours; the White Race theory.
Of course. Because I am a white Anglo-Saxon and it is important to know who the players are in all of this, especially when it comes to the Bible, who wrote it and why. The Anglo-Israel theory is also a White race theory but it does not match with the curses that Israel will be subject to in Exile (amongst other things).quote:
The accuracy of Arthur Kemp's articles is quite questionable.
I suggest, then, you also look into the Anglo-Israel theory. The dates do not match up for their projected theories. Even without Kemp's work one can see that the Northern European DNA was already in Europe well before the projected dates of both the Exodus and the fall of the Northern Kingdom.quote:
You have yet to tell me what this has to do with Paul's religion and my theory it was formulated as a weapon against Rome? [Or please remind me how you linked that with this.]
It is relevant to this thread based on the statements made by Savage, particularly the one I highlighted on my first post on this thread. It fits perfectly with many of the connections I have made concerning who the bad guys are in scripture. Thanks for giving me a huge key in taking this study to another level. Now take some of my points and plug them into Paul's Gospel of the uncircumcision and you might see why this has got my mind working in this direction.quote:
I have perused Kemp's material and it seems spun around genuine archeological finds. The premise is that interracial marriage is bad. And that is just not correct.
Forget that premise and look only to the history. The genuine archeological and DNA finds, minus Kemp's opinions, argue strongly against the Anglo-Israel theory. That is my point.quote:
If he began with a faulty conclusion, it may not have been easy, but he could have managed historical fact into his theory.
Whether or not race mixing is 'wrong' is not the point (and in a Biblical context look at the Israelite bloodline which outlines much mixing anyway). The point is, as linguistics, archeology and the Bible as it is written shows, the White race were never under the curses of Deut 28. In fact, I can show that the White race, if the Bible be taken as the word of the "True God", has benefited from those who are under the curses of the exile. If there is one obvious point one can conclude from known and provable history, is that my ancestors have been the ones enslaving the darker races since they came south from Europe thousands upon thousands of years ago. This is a huge key in the Bible when looking to who is who. The words of Savage throw a huge light on all of this and I was not seeing the matter clearly until I read those words which made 'the hair on the back of my neck stand up'.quote:
I think these are two different Topics Batkol.
You asked me to continue my ponderings on this thread. I have and they are relevant based on the article you posted, the curses of bondage while Israel is in exile, and Paul's mission to the Gaulish non-Israelites. I have no problem dropping the matter although it would be interesting to see Marty's rebuttal to the points I have listed.
Peace to all,
Steve |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 05:24:10
|
Very well. It is not 'my' thread or Topic. It is 'out there'. I am only expressing my opinion that showing the reader books on a table in the federal repository by such recognized historians like Arthur Koestler trump Internet yarn like Arthur Kemp. The readers can form their own opinions, ok?quote:
I suggest, then, you also look into the Anglo-Israel theory. The dates do not match up for their projected theories.
I thought you were spouting Anglo-Israel theory already. That is what I think when I peruse Arthur Kemp's webpage. But at any rate, I will not find 'British Israel' any more palatable than Arthur Kemp. One bad theory cannot be used to prove another bad theory good.
My point was that you have a belief set that you keep bringing up over and over. Many of the readers are as familiar with it as they want to be. True - I invited you because it is relevant who the bad guys in scripture are. Just let the Readers know that my premise is based on reliable historical documentation and it differs from White Races theory and British/Aryan Israel theory. Those theories do not work into another popular Bible symbol; the Harlot and City of Babylon. The macroeconomic landscape of the past few centuries. All the unification of METRO policies globally since 1933. The French and Americans have similar histories since 1776-1789 and still counsel over major banking decisions today. They made the "secret" Jamaica/Rambouillet Accord together in the late '70s and that is primary in SDRs instead of gold backing currency. This is the tontine on human flesh and bone in the METRO article herein:
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg
That above snippet is from the State Department Bulletin just before the Jamaica/Rambouillet Accord. A Preamble, if you will. But that is also reliable history. I was told by a paranoid Patriot that if I ever read that information a hit squad would come kill me. Funny how that made me assume that it would never be found right where you would expect it to be found.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 10 Jan 2005 05:40:12 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 05:27:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
The black Jews of Ethiopia (Hamites) are no more the true Jews than the Hungarian (Japhethite) Jews - the Khazarian/Ashkenazim. I think the term is "by creed".
I agree.
[quote]My failure to understand you were telling us the black races of Africa are the Jews, or is it the synagogue of Satan?, indicates your theory is faulty.
That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that perhaps they were the real Jews seeing as they have no connection with the Talmud (if my memory serves me right). I should have been clearer. Anyway I agree with your statement "by creed".
Peace,
Steve |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 05:47:12
|
[Batkol; To avoid misunderstanding, please correct the typo in your quote of Jan 10 2005 : 05:27:02 AM so as not to misquote me.]
Then I see two premises in your Posts:
1) that British/Aryan Israel is incorrect (as opposed to White Race theory being accurate) and
2) that Jews who read the Talmud are not the true Jews.
I think you need to justify not reading the Talmud better as a criterion. You directed me to the Persian creation of the Jewish religion. This is also collaterally the Persian/Media/Babylonian creation of the Babylonian Talmud. Link here from The Other End of the World; An Alternate Theory Linking Prophecy and History by Roger Rusk: http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeed.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeedReferences.jpg
This is why there is a difference between the Israelites and the Jews. Jews are of the Israelites but Israelites are not the Jews. Now that is simple enough to understand from the Holy Bible. But I am assuring the Reader that is not the distinction of the 'bad guys' in scripture. The "Talmudic" Jew is really all Jews. And a lot of those Jews have assimilated into the Khazarian Creed, meaning by declaration of being Japhetic/Ashkenazim - the Thirteenth Tribe out of Rus.
So geographically the Talmud would not have become popular with the African/black/Hamitic converts to Judaism so far away as Africa. I think it is error to say they are the true Jews because they do not read the Talmud.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 11 Jan 2005 09:21:05 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 14:21:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty said:
Do following Scriptures apply to the question of whether or not it was Roman and Jewish thought that inspired the writing of the Scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 as translated in the Book of Yahweh states...
...And that from a child you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Yahshua Messiah.
All Scripture that is given through inspiration of Yahweh is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of Yahweh may become perfect, throughly furnished for every good work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven wrote:
Well since the NT was not around when this letter was written, the scripture above is speaking about the Tanakh. That would be Judah i.e. - Jewish thought seeing as that tribe compiled the Tanakh.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
We agree that in writing to Timothy about "all Scripture", Paul was most likely referring to the writings that are now referred to as the "Old Testament".
We call them the Old Writings because we believe that the term "Old Testament" is a misnomer relative to those writings.
The thought occurs that he could have also been including books such as 1 Enoch, Jasher, The Secrets of Enoch, The Book of Jubilees and others in the reference to "all Scripture".
Perhaps the only book of the New Writings ("New Testament") that would have been available to Timothy that could even possibly be considered Scripture at that juncture would have been the Epistle of 1 Timothy.
Having said that... we would like to direct you to the main point we were wanting you to address.
We were focusing in on that part of verse 16 of 2 Timothy chapter 3 that indicates that Scripture was given through inspiration of Yahweh.
If Holy Scripture was given through inspiration of Yahweh, it may not be a product of Jewish thought or a product of Judahite thought.
If there are those who do not feel Paul is reliable, we also have Kepha's (Peter's) testimony concerning this fact at:
quote:
2 Kepha(Peter) 1:19-21...
We also have the Prophetic Word made more sure, which you would do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
Knowing this first; that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation-
For the prophecy did not come in former times by the will of man, but holy men of Yahweh spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
We also have the testimony of David:
quote:
recorded at 2 Samuyl 23:1-3:
These are the last words of David-David son of Yishai(Jesse), the man exalted above, the anointed of the Father of Yaaqob/Israyl, the singer of psalms in Israyl-
"The Spirit of Yahweh spoke through me, and His word was on my tongue.
The Father of Israyl spoke, The Rock of Israyl spoke to me, and said:; 'The one who rules over men must rule with righteousness , ruling in the reverence of Yahweh.'"
He who has an ear, let him hear.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration, may Yahweh's will be done.
Marty
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 16:37:05
|
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Meanwhile...back at the original topic....
In our opinion Paul was not espousing propaganda when he preached the message he preached. At least not within the connotation and definition of the word propaganda that we assign to that word.
But even if we acquiesced, for the sake of discussion, to David's assumption that the message Paul was preaching was preached as a strategy of war; would it be possible that the message Paul preached was indeed the eternal truth rather than propaganda.
And if it was the eternal truth, it was the message needed to set Israyl free from the bondage of Roman civil government then...
And it is the message needed to set the people of true Israyl free from that same type of government where it exists on the earth today.
Is that the message that Yashua alluded to here?:
quote:
Yahchanan(John)8:31-32
Then Yahshua said to those Yahdaim who believed on Him: If you continue in My doctrine, then you are truly My disciples;
And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
Best Regards,
Marty
P.S. In our opinion many of the attributes of Roman civil government are very prevalent in America today. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 16:51:56
|
If you look in a good dictionary at Roman Law you will find it adopted into the civil law structure of the United States.
And therefore one could easily assume that Paul's weapon, or eternal truth if you wish, did not defeat Rome at all. But will in some future time (Futurism). By reading my Topics like "'saving to suitors' clause or 1789" and the abatements for misnomer, I am proposing that the right of avoidance and choice about contracts (Refusal for Cause) has never been abrogated. One can avoid or restrict appearance in that civil forum of Roman Law.
But not if you are without the truth. One must supplant that confidence with the truth - confidence in a truthful foundation. It is a mental paradigm shift into truth. According to Daniel's Timeline peppered throughout this Website, the authority of Christianity through a corporate body was sold out as any other asset in the public trust. So that went down the toilet in 1997.
Also you have quoted John I believe, not Paul. Not that it makes a significant difference. But it may.
What I have been saying is that Paul knew the mindset of the pagan Roman/Greco habits and rituals. The rumors of Jesus' survival were stimulating growing rumor about a wonderful Rebirth; the Resurrection. This fit right in with Paul's 'vision' for a way to combat Rome through propaganda.
And I agree with you. "Propaganda" got a bad connotation in the Cold War. I use it in a stricter sense of managing peoples' beliefs toward a specific goal.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 10 Jan 2005 17:26:07 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 18:21:07
|
quote:
...the right of avoidance and choice about contracts (Refusal for Cause) has never been abrogated. One can avoid or restrict appearance in that civil forum of Roman Law.
Therein lies the crux to this entire thread.
The Right of Avoidance and Refusal for Cause are the foundation of how and why a Godly Man, not a corporate man, can stand in his own ecclesiastical court... a venue based on God's Laws and not the laws (Statutes) of corporate "law" (the ungodly "Rule of Law").
P.S. We are getting emails from both "sides" of this thread (and other threads David has originated), such as, "how can you let a Jew post on your site" and "that Christian Identity White Supremist needs to be banned if you want to call your site the Ecclesia".
This site was created to "hash out" opposing views so that the Spirit, Word, and Truth of our Creator God and Lord can show to each reader what is correct. It's neither a site for "Religion" nor the status quo that demands "Christians" support wars based on commerce. If you're looking for either kind of site to follow such a stereotype, go elsewhere.
We will defend David's views as much as those of any other opposing view. But, beware of personal attacks and slander because that isn't tolerated regardless of what your point of view is.
On that note, David, if you blatantly "bait" someone on this site again, you will be locked out. On the same note, if you've been locked out for personally attacking ANYONE on this board, don't bother trying to re-register under another name. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 19:46:33
|
Dear Michael Edward;quote:
I will admit that a backlash from being called Satan and told I was continually attacking a man's faith (by that man) is in play here. Just when I thought we were coming to an agreement, he launched his final attack and was expelled from the forum for it. I would like to say that anything goes here on this Topic but agree that bickering is bad and non-productive reading. And I think...
And on Page 3 when I saw someone getting close to that line, where they were narrowing me in their sights for an attack, I said:quote:
Protectionist words. Another dutiful guardian of the site? I love it. Please describe in detail why in your opinion, those you label "non-believers" are not fit for writing here. Be sure to include how to prevent such writings in the future. [bait]
So if you consider that carefully Michael Edward, labelling the paragraph in red font "bait" is actually an admonishment to be careful not to be reprimanded or even 'locked out'. You might understand that I not only enjoy the insults, to the extent they remain constructive to the Topic and even entertaining, I invite them. But if I were baiting I would not write the express fact at the end of the paragraph. It was flippant I admit. But to paraphrase, I was telling someone to be careful. There are lines. Source was recently expelled for taking on such a mission as to protect you all. Especially taking it upon yourself to assume this Website is only for Christians. And assuming so is actually helpful to my point about the arrogance of thinking that is the only way to be pleasing to God.
This Topic is actually bait in itself. And I have been manipulative in grooming it so that future Readers may glean something of value about Christian arrogance. I have been protecting the flow of conversation in order to express my version of history as clearly as I possibly can. As succinctly as I possibly can too. I have encouraged writers to edit and remove clutter after I have corrected the complaint. I too make an arrogant assumption - that I am writing to adults who can discern what they want to know and read.
I knew this Topic would ruffle people up. I was transparent about that. You may delete this Post or the entire Topic. You may save me an unbelievable amount of time by locking me out. I have notified you all of my approval of your censorship Bondservant. This is an extraordinary Website. I have 'commandeered' it in some ways by my willingness to exert superior communications skills supplemented with graphics and links to original sources like the FED, BIS and so on.
To me the problem is that people are writing their complaints to you. That must really get annoying. So everyone please do not take my perspective on life as a personal slight upon you; just your religion (presuming I am talking to Christians). I know, and knew that is a little too much to be expected. But please try. Otherwise there are plenty of entertaining and edifying Topics other than this one. So just move on.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. The only disturbing thing I find in your Post Michael Edward is the insinuation that I would try to come back online under a pseudonym. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 10 Jan 2005 19:51:47 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 20:08:14
|
David, there is no way I will delete this thread. Some have emailed me and called you names I will not repeat, but none of us are defending just YOU... we are defending the reason this site began as a homepage on AOL in 1993. And YES, the complaints from so many different sides of many different fences becomes "annoying", but that is why we have had this site online for nearly 15 years.
Just so all readers understand, none of us at Living Light Ministries (who pay for this site) support "Religion" for "religious" sake. We are hard working people who love our Lord, Creator, and God. We have learned much over our many lifetimes combined. Yes, someone like David is challenging and makes the average Man think... and think hard. NO, we are not "David" supporters and we disagree with many things he has posted on our site...
BUT, he challenges Godly Men who come to Ecclesia.org to THINK... in their Spirit Being, at the very least. Agree or Disagree is not the crossroad to face... DISCERMENT is the key. Take it all in... disregard the trash... and discern the TRUTH. That is the reason this site exists.
If any reader doesn't like a viewpoint that disagrees with their "religion", then they are stuck in a worldly valley and have no conception of how to climb the mountain.
NOT ONE of us agrees with what David has said accross the board... or with any other posting member, either.
David, keep your being "flippant" at bay... a warning to ALL other posting members as well. As for insinuating that David was trying to re-join under another name, that was not directed to David... it was to warn a recently banned poster that we are not fools who can't recognize IP addresses of those who have been banned. Enough said... |
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 01:01:54
|
I would like to feel important by posting something here to feed the fire. But what to say? (snerk, snerk).
Amen bless you all. Congregate. Gather. Take care of each other. Learn to trust. All the legalese will not bring you one iota of joy. Only love and affection will do that. The purpose of thinking it to eventually realize that God gave each of us instincts far superior to the intellect which intellect prevents one from direct communion with Him.
Congregate. Gather. Take Care of Each Other. Congregate. Gather. Take Care of Each Other. Congregate. Gather. Take Care of Each Other. Congregate. Gather. Take Care of Each Other. Congregate. Gather. Take Care of Each Other. Congregate. Gather. Take Care of Each Other.
.Berkano |
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 03:00:06
|
I just opened the "printer-friendly view" of this thread. Print preview showed 143 pages. And what have we learned?
Congregate. Gather. Take care of each other. Feed each other. Bless each other. Give praise to Him who gave us Life.
.Berkano |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 04:07:43
|
quote:
David Merrill wrote:
I am proposing that the right of avoidance and choice about contracts (Refusal for Cause) has never been abrogated. One can avoid or restrict appearance in that civil forum of Roman Law.
But not if you are without the truth. One must supplant that confidence with the truth - confidence in a truthful foundation. It is a mental paradigm shift into truth.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
We perceive that you, David, are correct on that point. The following Scriptures may support what you have stated in the quote above.quote:
Romans 6:16
Do you not know that to whom you yield yourself as servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey-whether of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience , which leads to righteousness?
The Book of Yahweh's translation of the words Yahshua spoke which are recorded at Yahchanan(John) 14:30...
After this I will not talk much with you, for the evil beastly governmental system-that world order that was from the beginning-is coming. It has nothing to do with Me.
Hosheyah 8:3-4a
But Israyl has cast off righteousness; the enemy will pursue him.
They have set up kings, but not from Me; they have made princes, whom I did not know.
Yechetzqyah(Ezek.) 20:23-25
I lifted up My hand, vowing to them in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries,
Because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised my statutes, had polluted My Sabbaths, and their eyes were after the gods (elohim) of their fathers.
So they were allowed to have statutes that were not right, and their own judgments, by which they should not live.
Yahshua(Joshua) 24:15
Now, therefore, reverence Yahweh and serve Him in complete honesty and in truth-and put away the gods (elohim) your fathers served on the other side of the Euphrates River, and also in Egypt-and serve Yahweh!
But if it seems evil to you to serve Yahweh, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve-whether the gods (elohim) your fathers served on the other side of the Euphrates River or the gods (elohim) of the Amorites, in whose land you now live; BUT AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE; WE WILL SERVE YAHWEH!
It is our understanding that the UNITED NATIONS god, the FEDERAL gods, the STATE gods, the COUNTY gods, the CITY gods, the SCHOOL DISTRICT gods, and the 501(c)(3) CHURCH ASSEMBLY gods have set forth decrees pursuant to Roman Civil Law that derogate Yahweh's Law.
To the extent that they are in opposition to Yahweh's Law they are elohim (gods) in opposition to Yahweh and we must not serve them. By the definition of "serve" provided by Paul in Romans 6:16 that means we must not "yield ourselves to obey them".
The Scripture given through Moses, Yahshua(Joshua), Yahshua Messiah, Matthew, Yahchanan Mark, Luke, Yahchanan(John) and Paul direct us away from serving the aforementioned elohim and encourage and command us to serve Yahweh the Everliving Father of our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Israyl.
The Holy Scriptures contain the truthful foundation you refer to above... and in that sense the message Paul preached was a "strategy of war".
We ask Yahweh's Set Apart Spirit to guide us in building our lives on the truthful foundation outlined in Scripture.
Marty
P.S. Thank you, David for pointing out that you did not intend the more modern connotation of the word propaganda to apply in what you have written in your posts to this topic. |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 11 Jan 2005 04:44:16 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 04:55:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by berkano
I just opened the "printer-friendly view" of this thread. Print preview showed 143 pages. And what have we learned?
Congregate. Gather. Take care of each other. Feed each other. Bless each other. Give praise to Him who gave us Life.
.Berkano
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Berkano,
It is our prayer that what we are learning is to "come out her my people, lest we share in her plagues".
And when we have "come out of her" and as we "come out of her" we can quote:
Congregate. Gather. Take care of each other. Feed each other. Bless each other. Give praise to Him who gave us Life.
If David can help us to learn to "come out of Babylon (her)" we are supportive of him in that regard.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marty |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 09:42:48
|
Bondservant wrote:quote:
quote:
[Quoting me] ...the right of avoidance and choice about contracts (Refusal for Cause) has never been abrogated. One can avoid or restrict appearance in that civil forum of Roman Law.
Therein lies the crux to this entire thread.
That is so correct that I do not believe I realized it! After the Topic about "Proof the laws of man do not apply to Christians" (Changed to substitute "Non-governmental" and then "Ecclesia") I began writing here. So both subjects are really the same. I was looking for a better way to articulate that same argument. That the Christian religion, at least since resolution of the national debt in 1997 (95-D-3136 began on the same day as Restructure - the 31 Day Government Shutdown), cannot be considered an authority.
There is no authority in religious ecclesia. I do however believe in the sovereignty found in relationship with the Almighty. I only attended the first suitors' meeting recently because of a "bill of lading" approach to keep matters in admiralty. I may not be back. There are benefits to 'gathering' for sure but I have consistently experienced a tendency for people to see authority in the group instead of themselves. The following cover was on four orders for five arrests and will be served on the Denver clerk today or tomorrow. I would show the entire document but it has addresses the suitors would probably rather not have broadcast Internet*. If you want the ten page document you may order a certified copy (719) 520-6200 by Reception # 205004683 filed 1/10/05:quote:
Notice
To: Gregory Langham in his capacity as court clerk, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.
You, Gregory Langham, are to abide by Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) and issue arrest warrants as described in the attached Certificates of Exigent Circumstances. Construing the Certificates in light of Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(A) is nonsense because subsection (B) is clearly conveying the responsibility for the arrest to the ‘plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney’ for certifying that ‘judicial review is impracticable’. Do not turn these certificates over to anyone for review.
Showing the Certificates to anyone before issuing the warrants for arrest is out of order according to the Rule and the spirit behind it. Conveying the Certificates to anyone will be breach of contract and malfeasance of your office and through principles of law like Piercing the Corporate Veil and Instrumentality Rule will expose you liable.
Bill of Lading
These certificates are directed into admiralty. The Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims will prevail. This express bill of lading designates the destination of these Certificates is to remain in admiralty, just as all the Counterclaims and Libels of Review that have been filed in the US Courthouse there in Denver over the years have designated “Admiralty” expressly in the captions.
You are hereby notified that if you fail to execute these arrests by tendering warrants to the US Marshal Service, you will be reported (acting under 1933 War and Emergency Powers) to the Provost Marshal for riotous depredation outside the actual theater, for diverting these Certificates (cargo) from the intended destination. People are beginning to lose property due to your malfeasance which is in collusion to coloring authority into administrative liens while you, posing as clerk, divert the actions out of admiralty where the remedy and judicial review reside. If that course of action should fail to acquire your arrest, then stated above, you will be considered by the suitors certifying their exigent circumstances exposed personally for civil suit being that you are malfeasant of your clerical duties by breaking Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) and you will be sued for breach of contract for compensation at least what your malfeasance is costing the suitors, severally or by class action. Be forewarned that the Rule says “immediately”. You will not find any time beyond that to process these Certificates before action against you ensues.
You are forewarned also that these suitors certifying exigent circumstances herein and many others have plenty of statutory backing to prove this cause is properly in admiralty and that destination is quite unlawful to change; past, present and future. These suitors also have proof from case 03-0403, the arrest warrant signed by Joe O’Hare, that the United States has access to and can maintain admiralty causes under the revenue penumbra; causes that have nothing to do with ships and high-tide marks.
To date the clerk has been diverting these causes into the civil forum of Roman Law. Where there is no firm Constitutional stipulation about Article III - true Judiciary. Administrative Notice of Lien or Levy, however unsubstantial, has been abided by employers and bankers; sweeping accounts and garnishing wages. These four suitors are fully ready to proceed against the clerk for even showing the Certificates to anybody else before executing the arrests of IMF agents (of course only if it causes any degradation to remedy, immediate arrest of these IMF agents).
Ronald Dean and the other suitors who had the United States open federal court actions in admiralty have all had wonderful success.
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif
Even if the suitors think ganging up is helpful (I think it economical), we agree on one thing for sure. Something has got to give soon.
Regards,
David Merrill
* Someone PM is curious about the Certificates. Watch syntax like "respectively" because this was originally written for two warrants:
quote:
United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
Order for Arrest Warrants in personam
Pursuant to Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) the recent holding of funds after proper remedial action and default judgment in the district court is ample evidence the district court process is impracticable. Therefore:
quote:
“If the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.” Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) – Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims.
And it is clear that legal name Respondent and titles JOB TITLE respectively are subject to the stipulation that in rem property seizure may easily extend to arrests in personam:
quote:
“Except as otherwise provided by law a party who may proceed in rem may also, or in the alternative, proceed in personam against any person who may be liable.” Same Rule C.
Respondent is agent of the International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service and therefore no exemptions or immunities exist preventing immediate arrest by U.S. Marshal. The United Nations and its organ IMF have never been approved to operate in this land pursuant to Title 22 of the United States Codes but these agents enforce false claims of the IMF. The stipulation quoted below cannot apply (by substituting in personam for in rem) to an agent of a foreign principal:
quote:
“Statutory provisions exempting vessels or other property owned or possessed by or operated by or for the United States from arrest or seizure are not affected by this rule.” Same Rule C.
Therefore the clerk of the district court, Gregory Langham must issue arrest warrant for Respondent; Address respectively and tender said warrant to the U.S. Marshal for immediate execution. Regular business hours are the best time for execution of arrest because the above physical address is a workplace.
Petitioner
address
Colorado Springs, Colorado. [zip]
************************************************************
United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
Petitioner civil action in admiralty No.
v.
Respondent
Arrest Warrant in personam
To: United States Marshals Service or its representatives – Greetings:
Pursuant to the Order for Arrest Warrant in personam issued by this Court, you are hereby commanded to arrest and seize Respondent from place of work (during business hours), found at Address respectively and make your return that this person of the defendant is in vinculus and federal custody as provided by law;
To promptly make your return of this Arrest Warrant with the Court; and
To give due written and oral notice to Respondent about right to a post arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims during which Petitioner will be required to show burden why the district court failed to properly protect his property and unalienable rights from false claims, according to law.
Done at Denver, Colorado, this _____ day of _______________, 2005.
Gregory Langham
Clerk of the United States District Court
By: ____________________________
Deputy Clerk
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 12 Jan 2005 19:17:00 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 10:28:02
|
The following does not and is not an attempt to refute the above. I have used some of David's methods on avoidance of contract with some success. The following is to clarify "my" position on government systems and notoriety. Submitted for evaluation and critique.
The "system" that exists (fiat, 'guvment benefits', etc.) is not set up for me. It does not exist for me, nor was it set up to 'provide' for me. It (the "system") has not been 'protected' for me until the time of restoration. The "system" that exists is notorious as is the government of HaShem notorious.
I use the adjective 'notorious' just as it came from the Latin word 'notorious'. Etymologically the adjective comes from the ... "low or late Latin 'notus' meaning 'well known' from the past participle of the Latin 'noscere' meaning 'to know'. What is publicly known; manifest to the world; evident, usually known to disadvantage, almost always used in an ill sense". Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary
I don't use the word in an ill sense though and if you do not view the bible as notoriety, ("NOTORIETY, evidence." Bovier's Law dictionary), of anything except what can be perceived with your senses real time (as in creation and sustaining the world), then the word 'notorious' will not or cannot apply to the government of HaShem. This is unacceptable as scientific method because of the magnitude of notoriety (evidence) that exists both in the bible and extant writings other than the bible.
Defining miracles as super-natural is using semantics to help purport, or support, doctrine. The miracles of Yeshua, (and all the other people that held HaShem as One, the disciples included with the 'old testament' workers of miracles, as well as the miracle workers that existed in HaEretz contemporary with Yeshua), exist because of the laws of the spiritual plane of existence. Science is beginning to understand this 'spiritual' plane and explore it somewhat with 'string theory'. Different theories like, the theory that healing can be performed with a zapper and sound for instance, homeopathy attempts to 'tap' into the same spiritual law(s) with common sense diet and cure.
quote:
Because we have fallen into the delusion that the physical is reality we think and believe we will die when this physical body dies. We think to make 5000 loaves out of nothing is a miracle, that some how it goes against the law of nature. But the fact is there is no miracle only a wider universe and its laws
The laws of this spiritual plane are not conclusive in our minds, with some proofs and exception(s) provided by example and science, but these laws become more evident as we explore the spiritual law of echad (one). The teachings of Yeshua drew upon these spiritual laws that exist contemporary with statutes and ordinances. The restoration or becoming echad (John 17:11 .. "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are" ... see also Genesis 3:22) is a spiritual law that will eventually become evident to all.
I don't get my identity through the resurrection of anyone nor do I get my identity through Christ. I get my identity through my actions based on Hashem (the name - ... "through thine own name" ... John 17:11) Yeshua was the first-fruit among many, displaying the 'action' (faith) that there is another system of government that exists based on the spiritual law of existence, for my example to follow.
Follow whatever government you wish based on the spiritual law denoted in Genesis 4:7 as choice ..."If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" ... There are some brothers "working out" their debt in the fiat money system through debt refusal. There are some working out debt money confiscation through refusal of contract for cause. There are some using a 'bond' as assurance of performance. All of these methods have some merit but you cannot base your action on some imaginary doctrine ignoring notoriety. And some of the methods may be trying to take something that belongs to "them" which does nothing to promote righteousness that exceeds the scribe and the Pharisee of the first century C.E.
Base your action on the 'notorious' system that has been set up from old or you risk taking the rights of that fiat system away from those who created it and breaking the spiritual law of 'loving thy neighbor as yourself'.
I have been an example of judge, I apologize to David Merrill and thank Bondservant for indirectly pointing it out, (that's twice now).
TN |
Edited by - True North on 11 Jan 2005 10:29:47 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 10:44:44
|
David,
I'll just respond to these statements. It would be a good way to close this thread within the thread until we have ample time to do the subject justice.
You said: Then I see two premises in your Posts:
1) that British/Aryan Israel is incorrect (as opposed to White Race theory being accurate) and
Yes to the first part and to the second part I am saying forget the theories and look at the archaeological, DNA and the historic evidence. Anglo-Israelism does not hold water (aside from the Anglo-Saxons not being identified with the curses of exiled Israel).
2) that Jews who read the Talmud are not the true Jews.
Not necessarily. I was speculating on maybe and perhaps. The Jews who read the talmud today are most likely descended from the Jews who sat on Moses' seat and followed the tradition of the elders back in the time of Christ. I would even venture to say their use of the Talmud is in their favor concering Judah seeing as many connect this with the tradition of the elders. If one excepts the NT, then one should recognize that when Christ says "the scribes and the pharisees sit on Moses' seat, therefore do all they command, yeah do it" he obviously connects them as having proper authority, even though corrupted. Another comment that links these temple Jews to Judah is when Christ says to them, "don't ye know that ye are Elohim?". This is a direct reference to YHWH's words concerning the corrupt Israelite political body in Psalms 82. It is plain that Christ recognized these scribes and pharisees as Israelite Judahites, Jews. Now is it possible some Ethiopians can also be considered Jews? It is possible, if the measure is as you say, "by creed" and not race. Karaites as well. As for race and the Bible, the Torah even has instructions for 'non-Israelites' joining the peoplehood. So I would agree the racial argument is weak if we are speaking of post-Exodus Israel written from 6 BCE Babylonian perspective.. Especially given the detailed lists of the peoples that married into the Israelites nation in Canaan. However, that is not to say that those who belonged to this nation did not have ‘nationalistic attitude’ towards their peoplehood. The Bible shows they did.. Once the Torah stipulations were met, a convert and their family would be accepted as an Israelites with full rights of the covenant after three generations. All of this plays into the genetics of the Israelite people if we are going to take things literally.
Best,
Steve |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 12:44:59
|
True North;
Your apology is accepted. I brought up such a controversial Topic knowing there would be some acute comment so I braced myself first. But I thank you warmly for the apology just the same. In addition I want you to know how much I appreciate you articulating an argument for the supernatural Resurrection that makes wonderful sense independent of Paul's doctrine he wrote to his early ministry in the New Covenant letters. Thank you.
You also said:quote:
Base your action on the 'notorious' system that has been set up from old or you risk taking the rights of that fiat system away from those who created it and breaking the spiritual law of 'loving thy neighbor as yourself'.
And saying so captures the essence of common law in my usage. Thank you for defining the etymology of your usage (notoriety/notorious).
You said:quote:
Science is beginning to understand this 'spiritual' plane and explore it somewhat with 'string theory'.
And that is somewhat how I calculate advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics. It is this interplay between mind, spirit and physical reality we all find to some degree fascinating. However, to me, the healing miracles of Jesus Christ have been duplicated many times since in the realm of hypnotic and psychosomatic remedies.
Batkol. I recall a NOVA-like special about the Ethiopian Jews having distinctive DNA similarities with the "Cohen" line of Levite priests. The Bible mentions Sena which is agreed the same name on the tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The ocean currents supported seasonal migrations into Africa.
But as I was finishing my argument last Page, I grew uncomfortable that we are back in the same rut even the Jews cannot break free. Defining "Jew". Is it a race? Is it a religion? Is it a creed?
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 12 Jan 2005 14:08:42 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 14:36:11
|
David,
Would you like to discuss the questions you have posed in the quote below?quote:
David Merrill wrote:
But as I was finishing my argument last Page, I grew uncomfortable that we are back in the same rut even the Jews cannot break free. Defining "Jew". Is it a race? Is it a religion? Is it a creed?
We have looked into this some and have some input on that topic.
If so should it be addressed on the "Original War By Propaganda Topic"?
Best Regards,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 11 Jan 2005 14:38:15 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 16:48:39
|
It is important.
I have become convinced that nobody can definitely answer the questions. It seems settled who Paul was at that time. A Jew raised in a Jewish settlement in Asia Minor. That is to say he came out of Babylon; the Media/Persian captivity, at least in his practices of Judaism and Law. However, his parents did not live in the eretz where "Jews" belonged; so even that is perplexing. Also, a Jew purchasing a Roman Citizenship claim was quite controversial. Paul was likely in quite a bit of pain (flogged) before he resorted to it on Israeli soil, I am sure.
Within the scope of my presentation here* the next impact Judaism would have is at the half-Week; 1260 years after Darius disbursed the remaining Israelites northward in his conquest of the Scythians. The identity of the Jews in the Caucusus Mountains. They were there living in peace with the pagan Khazars. The Khazars had been avoiding the militant conversion efforts of both Christianity and Mohammedism because they were a sturdy people in a protected geographical environment - between the Black and Caspian seas. But they saw the sense in adopting a state religion by 740 AD. Arthur Koestler coined the Khazar converts The Thirteenth Tribe. But were they Jews? The caption in Koestler's book indicates these pagans who adopted Judaism for political expedition were the 'armpit' of Jewry, if Jews at all.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielBooks.jpg
Daniel's Books
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Scythian.jpg
Darius conquers Scythians
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Khazar.jpg
The Khazars convert
Then of course the inflammatory notions of Rosenthal and the non-Christian historical take by Ravage. Were these men Jews? It is important to discuss this to acquire perspective.
Thus I believe the definition cannot be concluded for "Jew". But let's hear what you have. Your research and comments are welcome Marty.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Of course Daniel was an Israelite at the brink of formation of the "Jew". But it may be that upon release from the Babylonian captivity, the 'good figs' formed the earliest true definition of the Jew.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeed.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeedReferences.jpg
Excerpt from endnotes The Other End of the World by Roger Rusk
The Israelites who chose to remain in Babylon were probably not considered Jews at that time, but like the Babylonian Talmud, became Jews as time went on.
P.S. I am not a Jew. I just finished a salad and enjoyed the bacon immensely.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 14 Jan 2005 09:55:46 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Original War by Propaganda
